News & Noteworthy

Compliance is a constant challenge. Once you have invested the time and money to develop or update an Export Compliance Program (ECP)—complete with commodity classification, comprehensive policies, effective procedures, and tailored training—you must persistently guard your system against the potential damage of external and internal transitions. To understand these risks, let’s look at the differences.

The goal of all good systems is incremental improvement. This is as true in export control compliance as it is in other corporate activities. Improvement doesn’t happen accidentally but rather as a result of specific steps, regularly and studiously performed. You need to periodically examine the system, identify the weaknesses, design and deploy the remedies, and then test again at regular intervals. This rigor promotes continuous evolution and it enables the system to recover from the inevitable internal and external changes that might otherwise compromise its function.

Of all these steps, the Compliance Assessment is the first and most important. You need to regularly measure your system against its baseline performance indicators, regulatory requirements, and industry best practices. Doing this enables you to determine the effectiveness of the compliance system and, most importantly, identify the gaps that need to be addressed.

As technical specialists, we often get asked about Commodity Jurisdiction. The questions are simple but important and the answers are invaluable for newcomers to export control.

What is a Commodity Jurisdiction (CJ) determination? The first and most basic step in export control is determining if your item (be it a physical product, software, technology, or service) requires an export license. To ascertain this, you must first verify which set of regulations pertain to that item. It may be the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) or it may be the Export Administration Regulations (EAR).  Since the ITAR is administered by the State Department and the EAR is overseen by the Department of Commerce, you are trying to determine which jurisdiction your product belongs to, based on its technical characteristics or capabilities.

We're back with Part III of our blog series in understanding “technology” controlled under the EAR. In Part I, we explored the concept of controlled technology. Then, in Part II, we examined the three different types of technology (“development,” “production,” and “use”) and how they are applied in practice. Now, in this Part III post, we’re examining what it means when an ECCN controls technology that is “required” for the development, production, or use of an item on the CCL (and also what it means when a control entry doesn’t include the defined term “required”).

This week the Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) published an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) seeking comments from the public on criteria for identifying “emerging technologies” essential to U.S. national security. As part of the John S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019 (NDAA), the Export Control Reform Act of 2018 (ECRA) authorized the Department of Commerce to establish appropriate controls for exports of “emerging and foundational technologies.” However, at the time, what was covered under this phrase was not clear. BIS took a step forward this week by identifying several technology sectors of concern.