Author Archive


Jan

8

Better Late Than Never, I Suppose


Posted by at 1:42 pm on January 8, 2008
Category: DDTC

Trilogy Circuit BoardFrom our unfortunate press release department:

Richardson, TX – Trilogy Circuits announced the completion of registration under the US Department of State’s International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR).

Administered by the Office of the Defense Trade Controls Compliance (DDTC), under authority established by the Arms Export Control Act (AECA), ITAR regulates the manufacture, export, import and transfer of defense related articles and services.

“As a provider of mission critical military electronics design and manufacturing services, we felt it was necessary to take additional steps to safeguard defense related data for our customers as well as our nation. Receiving the ITAR registration represents our commitment to providing a more secure business environment for our customers.” said Trilogy Circuits President Charles Capers.

I suppose the company couldn’t have said this instead:

Receiving the ITAR registration represents our belated commitment to complying with a regulatory requirement even though we’ve been providing mission critical military electronics design and manufacturing services for some time.

Even so, I’m still scratching my head to figure out how registration with DDTC has anything to do with safeguarding defense data and “providing a more secure business environment.”

Permalink Comments (5)

Bookmark and Share


Copyright © 2008 Clif Burns. All Rights Reserved.
(No republication, syndication or use permitted without my consent.)

Jan

3

GAO Slams Delays in Arms Export Licensing Process


Posted by at 8:09 pm on January 3, 2008
Category: DDTC

GAOThe Government Accounting Office released today a report analyzing arms export licensing delays at the Department of State’s Directorate of Defense Trade Controls (“DDTC”). Not surprisingly, particularly to exporters experienced in DDTC’s licensing process, the report concludes that DDTC’s licensing procedures are plagued with inefficiencies and unnecessary delays and recommends that DDTC undertake a systemic review of licensing data to identify and eliminate these inefficiencies.

Some of the more interesting individual conclusions of the Report were the following:

  • While DDTC’s caseload increased 20 percent, from about 55,000 to 65,000 between fiscal years 2003 and 2006, median processing times almost doubled in the same time period, from 14 days to 26 days.
  • Although the electronic filing system D-Trade was supposed to increase efficiency of DDTC’s licensing procedures, it has not done so. The GAO’s analysis of processing times shows no significant difference between like types of cases submitted electronically versus paper submissions. For example, in fiscal year 2006, median processing time for permanent export cases submitted through D-Trade was 23 days versus 25 for paper submissions.
  • In fiscal year 2006, technical assistance agreements took a median of 94 days to process. (The Report does not mention the significantly greater delays in processing amendments to approved technical assistance agreements.)
  • The Report was critical of DDTC’s “winter offensive” of 2007. As part of the “winter offensive,” licensing officers stopped answering their phones and attending training classes in order to focus on processing license applications. Although the offensive did reduce the number of open cases, the Report noted that this was not a sustainable long-term solution and that the offensive had the “unanticipated effect of shifting the focus from the mission of protecting U.S. national security … to simply closing cases to reduce the queue of open cases.”
  • Although Congress in 2004 required that license applications for the United Kingdom and Australia be expedited, the processing times for export licenses to those destinations were not different from the times required to process licenses for exports to other allies.
Permalink Comments (3)

Bookmark and Share


Copyright © 2008 Clif Burns. All Rights Reserved.
(No republication, syndication or use permitted without my consent.)

Jan

2

DDTC Adds Sri Lanka to the Embargoed List


Posted by at 7:42 pm on January 2, 2008
Category: DDTC

sri_lanka.jpgPursuant to a provision of the recently passed Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008, DDTC announced that it is now its policy to deny export licenses for defense articles and services to Sri Lanka. A last minute amendment to the embargo provision in the Appropriations Act exempted “technology or equipment made available for the limited purposes of maritime and air surveillance and communications.”

The legislation provides that the embargo will continue until the State Department certifies to the Appropriations Committee that three conditions have been met: (1) members of the Sri Lankan military alleged to have engaged in human rights violations are suspended and brought to justice; (2) journalists and humanitarian organizations are given access to all parts of the country consistent with international humanitarian law; and (3) the Sri Lankan government has consented to a field office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights with sufficient access to monitor and to report on allegations of human rights abuses in Sri Lanka.

Since the resumption of fighting between the Sri Lankan government and the separatist Tamil Tigers group in 2006, various organizations, such as Human Rights Watch, have documented a number of human rights violations by the Sri Lankan government and by its military forces in particular. These violations have included attacks on displaced civilians, extrajudicial executions, “disappearances” and abductions, and failure to take action against the allied Karuna group’s forced enlistment of child soldiers. Full details of these abuses can be found in this report released by Human Rights Watch last August.

Permalink Comments Off on DDTC Adds Sri Lanka to the Embargoed List

Bookmark and Share


Copyright © 2008 Clif Burns. All Rights Reserved.
(No republication, syndication or use permitted without my consent.)

Dec

22

How the OFAC Stole Christmas


Posted by at 1:02 pm on December 22, 2007
Category: Cuba SanctionsOFAC

Santa Flanked by F-16

A spokesman for the Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (“OFAC”) told Export Law Blog this morning that discussions between OFAC and the North Pole over Santa Claus’s Christmas Eve itinerary had broken down and were not expected to be resumed before Santa’s scheduled departure on December 24 at 10 pm EST.

The dispute arose from a dilemma that the U.S. sanctions against Cuba posed for Santa’s planned delivery of toys to children in Cuba. If Santa delivers toys for U.S. children first, there will be toys destined for Cuba in the sleigh in violation of 31 C.F.R. § 515.207(b). That rule prohibits Santa’s sleigh from entering the United States with “goods in which Cuba or a Cuban national has an interest.” On the other hand, if Santa delivers the toys to Cuban children first, then 31 C.F.R. § 515.207(a) prohibits the sleigh from entering the United States and “unloading freight for a period of 180 days from the date the vessel departed from a port or place in Cuba.”

A press release from the North Pole announced that the OFAC rules left Santa no choice but to bypass the children of the United States this Christmas. A spokesman from OFAC warned that if Santa attempted to overfly the United States, his sleigh would be forced to land and his cargo seized. He continued:

We know that the outcome is harsh, but we cannot allow Fidel Castro’s regime to continue to be propped up by Santa’s annual delivery of valuable Christmas toys to Cuban children.

Congressional leaders had left for the holiday recess and could not be contacted for comment.

Permalink Comments (10)

Bookmark and Share


Copyright © 2007 Clif Burns. All Rights Reserved.
(No republication, syndication or use permitted without my consent.)

Dec

20

Toothbrushes and Diamonds


Posted by at 9:39 pm on December 20, 2007
Category: BISDeemed Exports

Norman Augustine
Norman Augustine
Chair, Deemed Export
Advisory Committee


The Deemed Export Advisory Committee released today its report to BIS on BIS’s deemed export rules. The deemed export rules, among other things, require licenses prior to release of technology on a dual-use item to a national of a country if an a license would be required for the export of the particular dual-use item to the country in question.

The report is lengthy and I haven’t had time to review it fully, but an idea of the report’s contents can be gleaned from its epigraph:

If you guard your toothbrushes and diamonds with equal zeal, you’ll probably lose fewer toothbrushes and more diamonds.

— McGeorge Bundy

The diamonds apparently represent dual-use items and the toothbrushes represent the technical data regarding those items. So, not surprisingly, the report recommends loosening the deemed export rules in certain respects. Principally, the report recommends the creation of a “Trusted Entity” category. Trusted Entities would be companies and universities that meet certain criteria and that would therefore not be required to obtain individual export licenses to transfer dual use technologies to foreign nationals. Such foreign nationals would be required, however, to sign non-disclosure agreements.

But in another respect, the report recommends tightening deemed export rules when it wades into the tricky territory of permanent residents, dual nationals and individuals who have resided in multiple countries. Under current rules, the BIS looks at an individual’s current citizenship and/or legal permanent residence. The report recommends expanding the inquiry:

[We recommend] expanding the determination of the national affiliation of potential licensees to include consideration of country of birth, prior countries of residence, and current citizenship, as well as the character of a person’s prior and present activities, to provide a more comprehensive assessment of probable loyalties.

The report’s explication of this recommendation contains this example:

It would seem that inadequate distinction is made between an individual who, say, was born and raised in Iran but only recently became a citizen of the UK and an individual who was born in Iran but moved to the UK and became a citizen of the latter nation shortly after birth. Additionally, it would seem to be important to consider where that individual resided during his or her entire lifetime – not just where he or she was born or where his or her current citizenship has been granted. It is noteworthy that the current BIS interpretation is that the Deemed Export rule does not apply to persons lawfully admitted for permanent residence (i.e., green card holders), wherever their prior residences may have been.

(emphasis in original)

This analysis is sensible, but it also carefully finesses a significant problem. It is not clear whether the report is recommending that a foreign national admitted to lawful permanent residence in the U.S. should continue to be treated as a U.S. citizen for purposes of deemed exports or whether the rules should be revised to treat a U.S. permanent resident like any other foreign national and potentially subject to disqualification from deemed exports based on country of birth or country of former residence.

Permalink Comments (1)

Bookmark and Share


Copyright © 2007 Clif Burns. All Rights Reserved.
(No republication, syndication or use permitted without my consent.)