Mar

12

Another Overachiever


Posted by at 7:22 pm on March 12, 2009
Category: DDTC

ITARThis must be the season for press releases from companies reporting that they have “achieved” ITAR “certification.” I reported on one of those just a few days ago and along comes another one, this time from California-based SigmaQuest. And I would have let this newest one slide by without comment if there wasn’t something particularly unusual about it.

The ITAR certification specifically demonstrates that SigmaQuest has met requirements pertaining to organization structure, documentation, corporate policy, training and procedures to permit it to handle, use and transfer information controlled by ITAR and the U.S. Munitions List. Moreover, this demonstrates that SigmaQuest has the knowledge and understanding to fully comply with the Arms Export Control Act (AECA) and International Traffic in Arms Regulations as well as having corporate procedures and controls in place to ensure compliance.

Regular readers will by now know that not a single word of that paragraph is even remotely true (and that includes “and” and “the”). But something else might sound, oh, strangely familiar about this paragraph. You might even say it’s “dejà vu all over again,” particularly if you remember a press release from another company I blogged about back in 2007

Meeting ITAR Certification certifies that CIMTEK has met requirements pertaining to organization structure, documentation, corporate policy, training and procedures to permit it to handle, use and transfer information controlled by ITAR and the U.S. Munitions list.

Companies receiving this certification demonstrate that they have knowledge and understanding to fully comply with the Arms Export Control Act (AECA) and International Traffic in Arms Regulations as well as having corporate procedures and controls in place to ensure compliance.

Now those similarities can’t be entirely coincidental, can they? I mean the paragraphs are almost word-for-word identical. It just goes to show that one of the dangers of copying some other company’s press release is that what you copy just might not be accurate.

Maybe SigmaQuest even copied it from my earlier blog entry quoting the press release. In that case, I am going to perform the public service of providing, absolutely free of charge and for unrestricted use, language that can be used in all future press releases by companies that have just received their ITAR Part 122 registration numbers:

Company A has just been notified by the Directorate of Defense Trade Controls (“DDTC”) that it is now registered with that agency as required by Part 122 of the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (“ITAR”) for all companies in the United States that manufacture or export defense articles or services. Registration also means that Company A can now legally export defense articles listed on the United States Munitions List. Although Company A prides itself on its rigorous compliance program and knowledge of the ITAR, registration is available to any company that fills out a form and pays a fee and should not be taken as an independent certification of the Company by the DDTC or any other government agency.

I’m not holding my breath that we will see this new version of the registration press release any time soon.

Permalink

Bookmark and Share

Copyright © 2009 Clif Burns. All Rights Reserved.
(No republication, syndication or use permitted without my consent.)


7 Comments:


Not to worry Cliff. The flamboyant press release will have an (*) and at the bottom of the page you could barely read your suggested Itar registration clarification, on size 0.5 ultra narrow Arial style, similar to the one used by the Viagra advertising.

Comment by Jleon on March 13th, 2009 @ 5:21 am

How about brokering? Now they can do that, too.

Comment by Robin on March 13th, 2009 @ 8:36 am

Actually, they’d have to comply with the additional requirements of § 129.4(b), including payment of an additional fee, before they could start brokering.

Comment by Clif Burns on March 13th, 2009 @ 8:49 am

Thanks for the Friday chuckle, Clif!

Comment by Chris W. on March 13th, 2009 @ 10:33 am

Aren’t these kind of false statements in press releases violations of Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act ( 15 USC 1125(a) )?

Comment by Hillbilly on March 13th, 2009 @ 1:04 pm

Even if they are violations of section 43(a), I can’t see what the provable damages would be.

Comment by Clif Burns on March 13th, 2009 @ 1:06 pm

I’ve often thought that pre-registration qualification might help raise regulatory performance, but we’re not there yet.

Comment by John Liebman on March 15th, 2009 @ 4:00 pm