Archive for the ‘DDTC’ Category


Oct

25

If You Wish Upon ITAR


Posted by at 8:10 pm on October 25, 2012
Category: DDTCPart 122

Itar SealIt has been a while since we’ve highlighted the ever popular press releases of companies touting their ITAR registrations as the best thing since ShamWows and Chia Pets. Today’s companies that will do the Part 122 walk of shame are Professional Aviation Associates and American Industrial Systems.

Take it away, Professional Aviation Associates:

Professional Aviation Associates, a Greenwich AeroGroup company announced it recently became International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) certified.

According to the Directorate of Defense Trade Controls (DDTC), the U.S. Government requires all manufacturers, exporters, and brokers of defense articles, defense services or related technical data to be ITAR compliant.

The ITAR certification allows Professional Aviation Associates to supply rotables to military aviation operators of both fixed wing and rotorcraft models, as well as parts and tooling to foreign militaries

Of course, the only thing that DDTC has “certified” for PAA is that PAA could figure out the names of its officers and directors, put them on a piece of paper and send them to DDTC with a check that didn’t bounce. All certifications should be this easy. I do hope that during this intensive certification process, PAA learned that it needs more than just its certification to supply “parts and tooling to foreign militaries.”

But today’s winner is American Industrial Systems:

American Industrial Systems Inc. (AIS), an ISO 9001:2008 certified supplier and manufacturer of rugged computer and display has announced completion of the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) registration with the Directorate of Defense Trade Controls (DDTC). ITAR is a set of United States government regulations that control [sic] the export and import of defense-related articles and services on the United States Munitions List (USML). This registration, and with [sic] our commitment to ISO 9001 standards, documents AIS’s dedication to adhering to the strict regulations that control the export and import of defense-related services. AIS has proven their knowledge, understanding, and compliance to [sic] the US Department of States [sic] regulations in addition to the inclusion of defined corporate procedures and controls.

Well, I can tell you at least one subject that isn’t on the ITAR certification exam.

Permalink Comments Off on If You Wish Upon ITAR

Bookmark and Share


Copyright © 2012 Clif Burns. All Rights Reserved.
(No republication, syndication or use permitted without my consent.)

Sep

5

What an Uncool Thing To Do!


Posted by at 6:58 pm on September 5, 2012
Category: BISCCLDDTCUSML

Sonel Uncooled Thermal ImagerAccording to an article last week in Bloomberg Businessweek, the Pentagon is seeking to add uncooled thermal imaging devices to the United States Munitions List. Putting that technology on the USML, as opposed to the Commerce Control List administered by the Bureau of Industry and Security (“BIS”), would require licenses for all exports of such technology and would prohibit exports to countries, such as China, subject to U.S. arms embargos.

Thermal imaging devices typically have to be cooled to prevent them from being “blinded” by their own internal circuitry. This results in more expensive devices as well as devices that need to warm up (or more accurately cool down) before they can function. Uncooled thermal imaging, while offering lower resolution under current technology than cooled thermal sensors, are less expensive and easier to operate. Uncooled thermal imaging has a number of non-military applications, such as collision-avoidance cameras used in new automobiles and investigation of heat leaks in homes. A contractor investigating leaks from exterior walls into my house used one. (Useless application: the camera viewfinder showed thermal paw prints left by my dog several minutes earlier!)

As the Bloomberg article points out, uncooled thermal imaging devices are produced by companies outside the United States, including Ulis in France; SemiConductor Devices in Israel; NEC Avio Infrared Technologies Co. in Japan; and Zhejiang Dali Technology Co. in China. The uncooled thermal imaging camera used by my contractor was made by Sonel in Poland (a similar model of which is pictured at right.)

The proposal to add uncooled thermal imaging to the USML is currently undergoing interagency review. A revised USML including that technology could appear as early as this month according to an anonymous DOD source cited by the Bloomberg Businessweek report.

Permalink Comments (2)

Bookmark and Share


Copyright © 2012 Clif Burns. All Rights Reserved.
(No republication, syndication or use permitted without my consent.)

Aug

21

We Apologize for the Inconvenience


Posted by at 5:56 pm on August 21, 2012
Category: DDTCDeemed Exports

DDTC HQ
ABOVE: DDTC offices in DC

The Directorate of Defense Trade Controls (“DDTC”) has just revised its guidance on licensing foreign persons employed by U.S. persons. Foreign persons that will have access to ITAR-controlled technical data need to be licensed by DDTC prior to obtaining access to that technical data, and the guidelines describe how to use licensing application form DSP-5 to obtain the requisite license.

The revised guidelines contain only one change, and it is a footnote inserted at the beginning of the document relating to the enforcement of anti-discrimination provisions by the Office of Special Counsel in the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice. The oddly vague footnotes reads in its entirety as follows:

The ITAR imposes a license requirement for the export of U.S. defense articles and defense services to foreign persons. The ITAR does not, however, impose requirements on U.S. companies concerning the recruitment, selection, employment, promotion or retention of a foreign person. Federal law prohibits discrimination in hiring, firing, or recruitment/referral for a fee based on an individual’s citizenship status or national origin. See Section 274B of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. § 1324b. Unless otherwise required to comply with law, regulation, executive order, government contract, or determination by the Attorney General of the United States, discrimination based on an individual’s citizenship status is unlawful. The Office of Special Counsel for Immigration-Related Unfair Employment Practices (Office of Special Counsel) in the Civil Rights Division of the United States Department of Justice enforces Section 274B of the INA. The Office of Special Counsel, located in Washington, D.C., has issued public guidance relating to non-discriminatory practices when complying with ITAR. For additional guidance, please contact the Office of Special Counsel at [email protected], its employer hotline at 1-800-255-8155, or visit its website at www.justice.gov/crt/about/osc.

You would not be alone if your first reaction to this elliptical mish-mash of bureaucratese and CYA-speak does not seem to make any sense. It seems to be saying that the ITAR requires you to discriminate against non-citizens and that the Immigration and Nationality Act makes it illegal to discriminate against non-citizens and it is entirely up to you to figure out how to comply with both requirements at once. So long, poor exporter, and thanks for all the fish.

This problem is complicated by the footnote referencing “public guidance” by the OSC without, of course, bothering to provide, you know, something helpful like a link to that guidance. In fact, the OSC hasn’t issued anything that might fairly be called public guidance on how to navigate the Scylla of the ITAR and the Charybdis of the INA. Instead, I was able to locate two “Technical Assistance Letters” issued by the OSC in response to narrow questions posed by members of the public.

The first said that it was illegal for employers to use documents gathered in the I-9 process to determine whether the employee was eligible to receive ITAR-controlled technical data. It said, somewhat confusingly, that the employer must gather documents establishing ITAR eligibility in a “separate and distinct verification procedure,” whatever that means.

The second technical assistance letter advises that employers may inquire whether applicants are citizens of embargoed countries for purposes of complying with export obligations “as long as such inquiries were made uniformly and without the intent to discriminate on the basis of national origin or citizenship status.” Just to keep things confusing, the letter says that the OSC reserves the right to examine the “totality of the circumstances” to determine whether an inquiry related to citizenship in an embargoed country was nevertheless discriminatory notwithstanding the export issue.

Reading between the lines of these two OSC letters, there is one thing that can be said with certainty about simultaneous compliance with the INA and the ITAR. Because permanent residents, refugees and asylees are entitled to receive ITAR-controlled technical data and employer may not, in an effort to comply with the ITAR, limit employment to U.S. citizens or even to U.S. citizens and permanent residents. Beyond that, you are pretty much on your own in reconciling the two regulatory schemes, with each agency helpfully pointing its fingers at the other for guidance.

Permalink Comments (6)

Bookmark and Share


Copyright © 2012 Clif Burns. All Rights Reserved.
(No republication, syndication or use permitted without my consent.)

Jul

24

Double Jeopardy?


Posted by at 11:48 pm on July 24, 2012
Category: BISDDTC

Scylla and CharybdisA colleague brought back an interesting tidbit from the BIS Update Conference last week relating to one of the unresolved conundrums of the current export reform efforts. Under the currently proposed reforms, certain items on the United States Munitions List will be transferred to the Commodity Control List, which will transfer licensing jurisdiction over those items from the Department of State’s Directorate of Defense Trade Controls (“DDTC”) to the Department of Commerce’s Bureau of Industry and Security (“BIS”). That process is summarized in some detail in this BIS fact sheet.

In a presentation at Update by Kevin Kurland, in BIS’s Office of Enforcement Analysis, there was confirmation that even after the transfer of items to the CCL, previously issued DDTC licenses will remain effective for two years.

Now here’s the issue: suppose you are exporting a 600 series item under a grandfathered DDTC license and some irregularity occurs in the export. If the exporter decides to report this issue, to whom is the report made. Is it in a voluntary disclosure to DDTC or a voluntary self disclosure to BIS? (One thing that we can hope about export reform, but which appears to be a futile hope, is that we could forever stamp out this silly terminological distinction. Please, guys, agree to include or omit “self’ and move on!)

It seems that there is no current resolution to this issue. So what does the exporter do? File a disclosure with each agency? Or avoid the issue by not shipping under grandfathered DDTC licenses and getting new license from BIS? Of course, most exporters would prefer to file a disclosure with DDTC which does not appear to consider the disclosure process as a revenue collecting enterprise and is often thought to be fairer in dealing with parties that make a voluntary disclosure. But that option may not be available.

Permalink Comments (1)

Bookmark and Share


Copyright © 2012 Clif Burns. All Rights Reserved.
(No republication, syndication or use permitted without my consent.)

Jul

9

Everything You Always Wanted To Know About MNNA Status*


Posted by at 6:59 pm on July 9, 2012
Category: Arms ExportDDTC

Afghan ChieftainsOn July 6, the White House signed a memorandum designating “the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan as a major Non-NATO Ally.” This is the first MNNA designation since 2004 when Kuwait, Morocco and Pakistan were designated.

More interestingly, Afghanistan now holds the honor of being the only country that is both a Major Non-NATO Ally and the subject of a total arms embargo under section 126.1 of the International Traffic in Arms Regulations. So, you ask, what does this mean?

First, let’s summarize the major statutory benefits of MNNA status. Countries given that status are eligible under the Overseas Workload Program to bid on contracts to overhaul, maintain and repair Department of Defense equipment located abroad. Section 21(g) of the Arms Export Control Act permits cooperative training agreements with countries designated as an MNNA. Section 65 of the AECA permits the Department of Defense to load equipment to an MNNA as part of a cooperative research program. Section 620G of the Foreign Assistance Act permits sale of depleted uranium ammunition to countries designated as an MNNA. Under various Foreign Operations Appropriations Acts, countries designated as MNNAs can use foreign military financing provided by the U.S. to lease defense articles from commercial suppliers. (See, e.g., section 589 of Public Law 106-429.)

None of these, or any other, provisions mean that MNNA designation would operate, by force of law or otherwise, to lift an arms embargo already in existence. Even so, there is not much point to any of these statutory advantages if the designated country is also subject to an arms embargo. Not surprisingly, the word on the street is that DDTC is preparing a federal register notice to modify the embargo as to the government of Afghanistan but leave it in place for non-governmental parties in the country.


*But Were Afraid To Ask. (Click here if you don’t get this reference)

Permalink Comments Off on Everything You Always Wanted To Know About MNNA Status*

Bookmark and Share


Copyright © 2012 Clif Burns. All Rights Reserved.
(No republication, syndication or use permitted without my consent.)