Archive for the ‘Export Reform’ Category


Jul

1

Export Reform: A Return to Original Intent?


Posted by at 9:50 pm on July 1, 2010
Category: Arms ExportExport Reform

Richard Bistrong
ABOVE: Gen. James Jones

Yesterday’s post mentioned a speech given by National Security Advisor General James Jones to the Senate Aerospace Caucus. I’ve now had a chance to look at a text of his speech as prepared and noticed at least one part that may be of considerable interest to exporters.

General Jones begins his speech with, and mentions throughout, some significant changes that have occurred since our current export control regime was initially instituted. Most striking was his observation that when we first started controlling exports troops were moved around on trains and that, notwithstanding that military trains have gone the way of camels, horses and elephants as a mode of troop transport, “military railway trains” are still mentioned in USML Category VII.

More significantly, General Jones mentions this difference:

“Specifically designed for military use” – a term still used in our munitions controls today – meant what it says: items were intended only for military use having little or no civilian use.

My frisson of delight at that phrase — “‘specifically designed for military use’ meant what it says” — was probably counterbalanced by the grinch-like scowls it would have provoked at the Defense Technology Security Administration (“DTSA”).

The folks at DTSA have been the chief proponents at the Department of Defense for the notion that the phrase doesn’t mean what it says, that it instead means that an item, regardless of why it was designed, could be used for military purposes. DTSA has continued to champion that interpretation of “specifically designed” during the classification process even though it is so broad that virtually everything — from the flat panel TV in your living room to the toilet plunger in your bathroom — could be used for military purposes and therefore are properly classified as USML items.

Supplications to the deity of your choice that “specifically designed” is returned to its original meaning as part of the current export reform efforts would not be out of place.

Permalink Comments (3)

Bookmark and Share


Copyright © 2010 Clif Burns. All Rights Reserved.
(No republication, syndication or use permitted without my consent.)

Jun

30

Congress May Nix Single Export Agency


Posted by at 8:37 pm on June 30, 2010
Category: Export Reform

US CapitolOnline journal DOD Buzz has some buzz that you might want to hear. Or maybe not.

Reporting on a speech by Jim Jones, Obama’s national security advisor, to the newly-formed Senate Aerospace Caucus, the journal quoted an unnamed “congressional source” throwing water on the idea of a single export licensing agency

A congressional source who knows arms export issues reacted this way when asked about the prospects for legislation that would be needed to get things moving: “Not good. It’s a massive change for a single agency, and rationale has not yet been provided.”

The main reason for congressional caution are memories of what many people believe was the disastrous result of the creation of the Department of Homeland Security, this source said

Although I have no doubt that Congress is not likely to support export control reform — at least the parts that must be approved by Congress — I think the source’s citation of the “disastrous results” of creating DHS is an effort to put another face on the real reason why Congress won’t get on board. While DHS may not have accomplished everything that was hoped for it, calling it a disaster is an overstatement.

The problems that export reform will face in Congress are based more on politics than on policy. Many GOP congress members can be counted to vote against anything that comes from the White House. And the Dems, facing the uphill battle of midterm elections, don’t see any political upside with constituents in supporting a proposal that the constituents don’t understand. Worse they fear that their opponents can hurl an accusation that they are weak on national security for supporting a plan that, so the accusation would go, allowed companies to export uranium enrichment centrifuges and suitcase nukes to the Taliban.

Much of the proposed export reform, particularly to the extent that it involves rewriting existing regulations, can be accomplished without having to get a permission slip from the Hill. But the single licensing agency requires Congressional approval that looks, increasingly, like it might not be obtainable.

Permalink Comments (2)

Bookmark and Share


Copyright © 2010 Clif Burns. All Rights Reserved.
(No republication, syndication or use permitted without my consent.)

Jun

7

Export Reform Boulder Moves Further Up Mountain


Posted by at 3:56 pm on June 7, 2010
Category: BISDDTCExport ReformOFAC

Export ReformAn article (subscription required) in the latest issue of Inside U.S. Trade describes an interview the publication held with a “senior administration official” on the White House’s proposed export control reforms. According to the official, an interagency agreement should occur shortly that will allow the agencies to move forward in implementing one export license application form for BIS, OFAC and DDTC and to paring down the various export control lists to one list of critical items and technologies.

Probably the most significant of the contemplated reforms is the paring down of the United States Munitions List to a “positive list” of items. Currently, the list has both positive listings of items that are controlled (e.g., firearms or the specific chemical agents listed in Category XIV) and indirect (dare I say “negative”?) listings which cover unspecified items with certain attributes, such as electronics “designed, modified or configured for military application.” This latter category of listings creates conflicting interpretations, confusion and uncertainty about which items require export licenses and which do not.

Other highlights of the interview included the following:

  • The single IT system will be the Department of Defense’s IT system
  • The Nuclear Regulatory Commission, which licenses nuclear exports, will not be part of the single export agency.
  • There will be common definitions of terms, including “U.S. Person” and “export.”
  • The single list will be the United States Munitions List. Dual use items will be added to the list and the Commerce Control List will disappear
Permalink Comments (4)

Bookmark and Share


Copyright © 2010 Clif Burns. All Rights Reserved.
(No republication, syndication or use permitted without my consent.)

Apr

20

One List to Rule Them All, One Agency to Find Them (UPDATED)


Posted by at 5:10 pm on April 20, 2010
Category: BISDDTCExport Reform

Secretary GatesThe speech given this morning by Secretary of Defense Robert Gates to a business group detailing the administration’s plan for export reform is now posted on the Department of Defense website and can be found here. It is an ambitious and laudable proposal and one that, unfortunately, will likely die a slow and painful death on the floor of the dead-locked Senate.

Significantly, Gates proposed that the United States treat exports in the way that almost all of our allies do — with one unified list administered by one agency. The only real downside here would be the possibility that the employees of the two rival agencies — the Directorate of Defense Trade Controls (“DDTC”) at State and the Bureau of Industry and Security (“BIS”) at Commerce — would still not be able to play nicely with each other even when under the same roof. Gates alluded to the inability of the two agencies to get along when he mentioned an inter-agency struggle between BIS and DDTC with respect to jurisdiction over millimeter wave scanning machines. This squabble delayed the placement of these high-tech passenger screening machines in foreign airports and needlessly endangered U.S. citizens and others flying through those airports while the issue was being resolved. (BIS ultimately won that battle.)

Repeating the maxim often credited to Frederick the Great — “He who defends everything, defends nothing” — Gates also proposed that the unified list be tiered, with the “crown jewels” requiring the most stringent controls at the top and less sensitive technologies requiring fewer controls be placed in lower tiers. The unification push would also apply to the various lists of prohibited end users, which Gates proposed be consolidated into a single list.

Finally, Secretary Gates touched on an area near and dear to most exporters’ hearts — the impossibly narrow exemptions and license exceptions relating to exports of parts and components for items that have already been legally exported:

[M]any parts and components of a major piece of defense equipment – such as a combat vehicle or aircraft – require their own export licenses. It makes little sense to use the same lengthy process to control the export of every latch, wire, and lug nut for a piece of equipment like the F-16, when we have already approved the export of the whole aircraft.

Under DDTC rules an exemption — found in section 123.16(b)(2) of the ITAR — is only available for shipments worth less than $500 (and only 24 shipments per year are permitted.) BIS provides a license exception for parts and components, but only for one-to-one replacement. Parts being shipped to inventory require a license. A unified exemption with a higher shipment value limit and without the one-to-one replacement requirement would be a reform welcomed by most, if not all, exporters.

Rounding out in Gates speech what Defense Department officials referred to in a prior briefing as the “four singles” were the last two: one enforcement agency to bring them all and in one IT system bind them. Of course, Gates refrained from the Tolkien paraphrase that I couldn’t resist.

Regarding a unified IT system, here’s a question for Export Law Blog readers. As between DDTC’s D-Trade electronic licensing system and BIS’s SNAP-R electronic licensing system, which would you like to see survive and why? Or should they both be trashed and replaced with an entirely new system? Please share your thoughts on these questions in the comment section.

UPDATE: This White House fact sheet explains that the proposed reform will be implemented in three phases, with only the last phase requiring action by Congress. The second phase is set to be completed by the end of this year and will include the initial restructuring of the USML and CCL into tiered lists.

Permalink Comments (9)

Bookmark and Share


Copyright © 2010 Clif Burns. All Rights Reserved.
(No republication, syndication or use permitted without my consent.)