ITAR Definitions Changes for 2020

ITAR definitions

Changes in ITAR Definitions

The U.S. State Department has made changes in important definitions of what constitutes an export under the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR).  These changes are due to take effect on March 25, 2020 and will effect the manner in which companies with ITAR classification must conduct business.  These definitions concern what activities are deemed exports, reexports, retransfers, or temporary imports.  Additionally a new definition has been created concerning “Access Information”.

ITAR definitions

Five Key Changes

Under § 120.54, five new provisions have been made for activities that do not require authorization from the Department of State.  These provisions are as follows:

  1. Items launched into space are now not deemed a controlled event.  A controlled event is defined as an export, reexport, retransfer, or temporary import.
  2. It is not deemed a controlled event to transfer technical data to a U.S. Person within the United States from a person in the United States.
  3. The third provision was added as a result of public comments to proposed rule changes in 2015.  It states that transmissions or other transfers of technical data between and among only U.S. Persons in the same foreign country will not be deemed a reexport provided they do not provide that information to a Foreign Person or a person otherwise prohibited from receipt of such information.
  4. It is now not a controlled event to move a defense article between states, possessions, or territories of the United States.
  5. It is now not deemed a controlled event to send, take, or store technical data when it is appropriately end to end encrypted.  Encryption must be executed in a manner that is certified by The U.S. National Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST), or must exceed a 128-bit security strength.

Definition of Access Information

The Department of Stated has added § 120.55 to define “access information.”  Access Information is defined as methods of unlocking data security parameters.  These would include decryption keys, network access codes, and passwords.  It is important to note that an authorization for release of technical data is required through access information to the same extent as other provisions of data transfer under ITAR,

Definition of Release

Clarifications as to what constitutes a release of technical data have been provided as well.  These controlled events which require authorization include the aforementioned access information.  The definition of release include:

  • The release of access information to cause or enable a foreign person to have access to controlled data.
  • To use access information in a foreign country in a manner that would cause technical data to be in an unencrypted form, including when these actions are performed by a U.S Person abroad.  There is an exemption however, in ITAR § 125.4(b)(9) that allows most U.S. Persons abroad to release technical data to themselves or over their employer’s virtual private network.

CVG Strategy

Our ITAR experts can guide you through the changing requirements of ITAR to keep your company compliant.  We offer a wide array of services to help you keep on track with this important legislation.

%MCEPASTEBIN%

US Space Industry Deep Dive Assessment

US Space Industry
US Space Industry
Photo by SpaceX

US Space Industry ‘Deep Dive’ Final Dataset Findings prepared by the U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) and its Industrial Base Surveys and Assessments.

In June 2012, the Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS), Office of Technology Evaluation, in coordination with the U.S. Air Force, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration and the National Reconnaissance Office began a survey and assessment of the U.S. space industrial base supply chain network. The principal purpose of this project is to gain an understanding of the complicated network supporting the development, production and sustainment of products and services across the defense, intelligence community, civil and commercial space sectors. Historically, the U.S. Government has had limited visibility into the issues and challenges facing the lower tiers of the space industrial base.

Latest Update: February 28, 2014

BIS has completed its analysis of the Space Deep Dive data (see presentation below). BIS has begun publishing publically available reports that detail findings and recommendations on various topics, including:

Report on the Impact of Export Controls on the Space Industrial Base Now Available;

  • Small businesses in the space industrial base;
  • Financial health of the space industrial base;
  • Employment in the space industrial base; and
  • Challenges to the space industrial base.

Final Dataset Overview

Outreach and Assistance to US Space Industry

In the Space Deep Dive survey, survey respondents were asked if they were interested in information on existing federal and state government programs and services designed to assist their organization better compete in the global marketplace. Working with interagency partners, BIS developed information packages for these areas and distributed them to over 1,300 respondents. The packages are included below:

  1. Business Development
  2. Country Commercial Guides
  3. Energy and Environmentally Conscious Manufacturing
  4. Export Licensing
  5. Financing
  6. Global Export Opportunities
  7. Government Procurement Guidelines and E-Commerce
  8. Manufacturing Technology Development
  9. Marketing Assessment Skills
  10. Patents and Trademarks
  11. Product/Service Development
  12. R & D Programs
  13. Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) and Small Business Technology Transfer (STTR) contracts
  14. Training Opportunities

For More Information…

For a copy of the U.S. Space Industry Deep Dive survey, go to Space Deep Dive.

To discuss the U.S. Space Industry Deep Dive study with a member of BIS staff, please contact

Brad Botwin
Director, Industrial Base Studies
(202) 482-4060

*All data made available from this survey collection is provided in aggregated form to protect Business Confidential and proprietary information. All information submitted to BIS is protected as Business Confidential under provisions of the Defense Production Act (DPA) of 1950, as amended. Survey responses are also exempt from Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests.

ECR-III, BIS Implements Changes to EAR

ECR III

Commerce/BIS Amends EAR, 15 CFR Parts 740 and 774 to Implement ECR-III Changes (Effective July 1, 2014)

79 FR 263-295: 15 CFR Parts 740 and 774; RIN 0694-AF58; Control of Military Training Equipment, Energetic Materials, Personal Protective Equipment, Shelters, Articles Related to Launch Vehicles, Missiles, Rockets, Military Explosives, and Related Items

AGENCY: Bureau of Industry and Security, Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY:

This rule implements four previously proposed rules, and adds to the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) ECR-III controls on energetic materials, personal protective equipment, shelters, military training equipment, articles related to launch vehicles, missiles, rockets, military explosives, and related items that the President has determined no longer warrant control on the United States Munitions List (USML). This rule also adds to the EAR controls on items within the scope of the Munitions List (WAML) of the Wassenaar Arrangement on Export Controls for Conventional Arms and Dual-Use Goods and Technologies (Wassenaar Arrangement) that are not specifically identified on the USML or the Commerce Control List (CCL), but that were subject to USML jurisdiction. Finally, this rule moves certain items that were already subject to the EAR to the new Export Control Classification Numbers (ECCNs) created by this rule. This rule is being published in conjunction with the publication of a Department of State, Directorate of Defense Trade Controls rule revising USML Categories IV, V, IX, X, and XVI to control those articles the President has determined warrant control in those categories of the USML. Both rules are part of the President’s Export Control Reform Initiative. The revisions in this final rule are also part of Commerce’s retrospective regulatory review plan under Executive Order (EO) 13563.

DATES: This rule is effective July 1, 2014

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions regarding energetic materials and related items controlled under ECCNs 1B608, 1C608, or 1D608 and personal protective equipment, shelters and related items controlled under ECCNs 1A613, 1B613, 1D613 or 1E613, contact Michael Rithmire, Office of National Security and Technology Transfer Controls, at (202) 482-6105 or michael.rithmire@bis.doc.gov. For questions regarding military training equipment and related items controlled under ECCNs 0A614, 0B614, 0D614 or 0E614, contact Daniel Squire, Office of National Security and Technology Transfer Controls, at (202) 482-3710 or daniel.squire@bis.doc.gov. For questions regarding items related to launch vehicles, missiles, rockets, and military explosive device controlled under ECCNs 0A604, 0B604, 0D604 or 0E604 and ECCNs 9A604, 9B604, 9D604 or 9E604, contact Dennis Krepp, Office of National Security and Technology Transfer Controls, at (202) 482-1309 or dennis.krepp@bis.doc.gov.

ADDRESSES: Commerce’s full retrospective regulatory review plan can be accessed at: http://open.commerce.gov/news/2011/08/23/commerce-plan-retrospective-analysis-existingrules.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

This final rule is part of the Administration’s Export Control Reform (ECR-III) Initiative. In August 2009, President Obama directed the Administration to conduct a broad-based review of the US export control system to identify additional ways to enhance national security. In April 2010, then-Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates, describing the initial results of that effort, explained that fundamental reform of the US export control system is necessary to enhance our national security. Implementing ECR-III includes amending the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) and its US Munitions List (USML), so that they control only those items that provide the United States with a critical military or intelligence advantage or otherwise warrant such controls, and amending the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) to control military items that do not warrant USML controls. This series of amendments to the ITAR and the EAR will reform the US export control system to enhance our national security by: (i) improving the interoperability of US military forces with allied countries; (ii) strengthening the US industrial base by, among other things, reducing incentives for foreign manufacturers to design out and avoid US-origin content and services; and (iii) allowing export control officials to focus government resources on transactions that pose greater national security, foreign policy, or proliferation concerns than those involving our NATO allies and other multi-regime partners.

On April 16, 2013, BIS published a final rule setting forth the framework for adding to the CCL items that the President has determined no longer warrant control on the USML through the creation of “600 series” Export Control Classification Numbers (ECCNs) (78 FR 22660, April, 16, 2013) (herein the “April 16 (initial implementation) rule”). The “600 series” structure is described in the preamble to that rule at pages 22661-22663 and 22691- 22692 and in regulatory text at page 22727 and is not repeated here. This rule follows that structure in creating new ECCNs to control energetic materials and related items, personal protective equipment, shelters and related items, military training equipment and related items, and articles related to launch vehicles, missiles, rockets, military explosives and related items on the CCL.

The changes described in this rule and the State Department’s ECR-III rule amending Categories IV, V, IX, X and XIV of the USML are based on a review of those categories by the Defense Department, which worked with the Departments of State and Commerce in preparing the amendments. The review was focused on identifying the types of articles that are now controlled by the USML that either (i) are inherently military and otherwise warrant control on the USML, or (ii) if of a type common to civil applications, possess parameters or characteristics that provide a critical military or intelligence advantage to the United States and that are almost exclusively available from the United States. If an article was found to satisfy either or both of those criteria, the article remains on the USML. If an article was found not to satisfy either criterion, but is nonetheless a type of article that is “specially designed” for military applications, then, generally, it is identified in one of the new “600 series” ECCNs created by this rule. No articles from Category XVI – Nuclear Weapons Related Articles are identified in “600 series” ECCNs.

Section 38(f) of the AECA (22 U.S.C. 2778(f)) obligates the President to review periodically the USML “to determine what items, if any, no longer warrant export controls under” the AECA. The President must report the results of the review to Congress and wait 30 days before removing any such items from the USML. The report must “describe the nature of any controls to be imposed on that item under any other provision of law” (22 U.S.C. 2778(f)(1)). The Department of State made the congressional notification required by Section 38(f) of the AECA for removal of these items from the USML.

All references to the USML in this rule are to the list of defense articles that are controlled for purposes of export, reexport, retransfer, temporary import, or brokering pursuant to the ITAR, and not to the list of defense articles on the United States Munitions Import List (USMIL) that are controlled by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) for purposes of permanent import under its regulations at 27 CFR part 447. Pursuant to section 38(a)(1) of the AECA, all defense articles controlled for export or import, or that are subject to brokering controls, are part of the “USML” under the AECA. All defense articles described in the USMIL or the USML are subject to the brokering controls administered by the US Department of State in part 129 of the ITAR. The transfer of defense articles from the ITAR’s USML to the EAR’s CCL, for purposes of export controls, does not affect the list of defense articles controlled on the USMIL under the AECA for purposes of permanent import or brokering controls.

On January 18, 2011, President Barack Obama issued Executive Order (EO) 13563, affirming general principles of regulation and directing government agencies to conduct retrospective reviews of existing regulations. The revisions in this final rule are part of Commerce’s retrospective regulatory review plan under EO 13563.

Proposed rules

This rule implements amendments to the EAR proposed in the following four rules:

  1. “Revisions to the Export Administration Regulations (EAR): Control of Energetic Materials and Related Items That the President Determines No Longer Warrant Control Under the United States Munitions List (USML)”, (RIN 0694-AF53) (77 FR 25932, May 2, 2012) (herein “the May 2 (energetic materials) rule”);
  2. “Revisions to the Export Administration Regulations (EAR): Control of Personal Protective Equipment, Shelters, and Related Items the President Determines No Longer Warrant Control Under the United States Munitions List (USML),” (RIN 0694-AF58) (77 FR 33688, June 7, 2012) (herein “the June 7 (protective equipment) rule”);
  3. “Revisions to the Export Administration Regulations (EAR): Control of Military Training Equipment and Related Items the President Determines No Longer Warrant Control Under the United States Munitions List (USML)” (RIN 0694-AF54) (77 FR 35310, June 13, 2012) (herein “the June 13 (training equipment) rule”); and
  4. “Revisions to the Export Administration Regulations (EAR): Articles the President Determines No Longer Warrant Control Under the U.S. Munitions List That Are Related To Launch Vehicles, Missiles, Rockets, and Military Explosive Devices” (78 FR 6750, January 31, 2013) (RIN 0694-AF56) (herein “the January 31 (launch vehicles) rule”).

BIS’ responses to those comments and changes that apply only to a single set of controlled items are addressed in discrete sections below. Discussion of changes made by this rule that apply more broadly (cross references to ECCN 0A919, notes on forgings and castings, the United Nations reason for control, removal of the .y.99 paragraphs separate definitions for “accessories” and “attachments” and the composition of the entries for software and technology) all follow immediately below.

Broadly applicable changes made by this rule Cross References to ECCN 0A919.

In keeping with the pattern established in “Revisions to the Export Administration Regulations: Military Vehicles; Vessels of War; Submersible Vessels, Oceanographic Equipment; Related Items; and Auxiliary and Miscellaneous Items That the President Determines No Longer Warrant Control Under the United States Munitions List” (78 FR 40892) (July 8, 2013) (herein “July 8 (vehicles, vessels and miscellaneous equipment) rule”), this final rule adds to the “related controls” paragraph of Product Groups A, B, C, and D of the “600 series” ECCNs the following sentence: “See ECCN 0A919 for foreign-made ‘military commodities’ that incorporate more than a de minimis amount of U.S.-origin “600 series” controlled content.” This is a non-substantive change from what was proposed.

Forgings and Castings.

The four proposed rules on which this rule is based included a note in ECCNs 0A604.x, 1B608.x, 1A613.x, 0A614.x, 0B614.x and 9A604.x which stated that: “Forgings, castings, and other unfinished products, such as extrusions and machined bodies, that have reached a stage in manufacture where they are clearly identifiable by material composition, geometry, or function as commodities controlled by [ECCN].x are controlled by [ECCN].x.”

This final rule adds the phrase “mechanical properties” to notes in ECCNs 0A604.x, 1A613.x 0A604.x and 9A604.x, because there may be circumstances when the mechanical properties, as well as the material composition, geometry or function, of a forging, casting, or unfinished product may have been altered specifically for a part or component controlled by one of those ECCNs. The omission of “mechanical properties” from the lists in the proposed rules was an error that is being corrected in this rule. This final rule removes the note from ECCNs 1B608.x and 0B614.x because it is not relevant to product group B ECCNs, which apply to test, inspection, and production equipment.

 United Nations (UN) Reason for Control.

None of the four proposed rules on which this rule is based included the United Nations (UN) reason for control in any of their ECCNs. Consistent with the April 16 (initial implementation) rule, this final rule includes the UN controls described in § 746.1(b) of the EAR in all of the ECCNs that it creates. These controls are consistent with the amendments contained in a final rule that BIS published on July 23, 2012 (77 FR 42973), titled “Export and Reexport Controls to Rwanda and United Nations Sanctions under the Export Administration Regulations.” That rule amended § 746.1 of the EAR to describe the licensing policy that applies to countries subject to a United Nations Security Council (UNSC) arms embargo and to limit the use of license exceptions to such countries. Applying that licensing policy and related license exception restrictions to the new “600 series” ECCNs that are created by this final rule is appropriate, because of the military nature of the items controlled under these new ECCNs.

Paragraph .y.99.

The May 2 (energetic materials) rule, the June 7 (protective equipment) rule and the June 13 (training equipment) rule proposed including .y.99 paragraphs to ECCNs 1B608, 1D608, 1E608, 1A613, 1B613, 1D613, 1E613, 0A614, 0B614, 0D614 and 0E614. Those paragraphs would have imposed the antiterrorism (AT Column 1) reason for control on items that would otherwise be controlled in that ECCN but that had been determined to be subject to the EAR in a commodity jurisdiction determination issued by the Department of State and that are not elsewhere identified on the CCL (i.e., were designated as EAR99). Applying the AT Column 1 reason for control would have increased the number of circumstances under which these items would require a license. As stated in the preamble to the April 16 (initial implementation) rule (See 78 FR 22660, 22663, April 16, 2013), BIS agreed with a commenter that the burden of tracking down and analyzing whether items formally determined not to be subject to the ITAR that were also EAR99 items because they were not identified on the CCL outweighs the once-contemplated organizational benefits of creating the .y.99 control. Such items have already gone through an interagency review process that concluded whether the items were subject to the ITAR. Thus, BIS has determined that any such items should retain EAR99 status if not otherwise identified on the CCL and this final rule does not contain any .y.99 paragraphs.

Accessories and Attachments.

The May 2 (energetic materials) rule, the June 7 (protective equipment) rule, and the June 13 (training equipment) rule enclosed the phrase “accessories and attachments” in quotation marks throughout their regulatory texts, in keeping with the July 15 (framework) rule, which proposed a single definition for that phrase. Subsequently, BIS published a proposed rule entitled “‘Specially Designed’ Definition” (77 FR 36409, June 19, 2012), which proposed, inter alia, creating separate, but identical definitions for “accessories” and for “attachments” to allow for instances when only one of the terms would be used. The April 16 (initial implementation) rule, which became effective on October 15, 2013, adopted that change as a final rule. Accordingly, this final rule identifies “accessories” and “attachments” as separate terms wherever they appear throughout the regulatory text.

Consistency of Controls.

This final rule diverges in certain instances from the four proposed rules on which it was based with respect to the composition of the ECCNs. Software and technology ECCNs related to end items, production or other equipment, or materials generally control software and technology for the development and production of those items, and for some combination of the following six elements: operation, installation, maintenance, repair, overhaul, or refurbishing of those items. Separate technical teams determined the scope of control for different groups of ECCNs. As a result, different software and technology entries varied in the number and type of functions controlled.

While this variation was not technically inappropriate, and did not receive public comments when proposed in four separate rules, BIS is concerned that retaining this variation would complicate compliance. Standard text across ECCNs is a simpler approach. Therefore, each software ECCN in this final rule will control software for “development,” “production,” operation, or maintenance of the relevant items. Each new “600 series” technology ECCN in this final rule will control technology for “development,” “production,” operation, installation, maintenance, repair, overhaul, or refurbishing of those items. To the extent that a particular function does not apply to a particular item because no software or technology to perform the function with respect to that item exists, no burden is imposed. Controlling a larger number of functions in technology ECCNs is not an increase in burden, because all six functions are now controlled for technology on the USML. Similarly, all “production” “equipment” ECCNs will control test, inspection, and production equipment “specially designed” for the “development,” “production,” repair, overhaul, or refurbishing of the relevant items.

Dated: December 26, 2013

Kevin J. Wolf, Assistant Secretary for Export Administration

Space Coast Ambassador – More Than NASA

Community
space coast ambassador

Everyone is a Space Coast Ambassador

CVG Strategy is a Space Coast Ambassador and an investor in the Economic Development Commission of Florida’s Space Coast .  Kevin Gholston is Vice President for CVG Strategy, a defense and manufacturing consultancy.

In the early 1960’s, the Space Race officially began and Cape Canaveral experienced rapid growth. This new industry had national impact and, coupled with Patrick Air Force Base, attracted numerous defense and commercial manufacturers to the Space Coast who ultimately planted roots and expanded business operations. Today, Brevard County remains an active player in the defense market and boasts one of the largest concentrations of defense manufacturers in the entire state of Florida. This is prime ground for the cultivation and generation of new technological advancements.

Networking Assets

The United States has war fighters across the world. Here on local soil, we also have a cadre of soldiers who engineer and manufacture cutting edge tools and technology that ultimately make our troops safer and more effective during combat. As new advances continue to evolve and change, we must be sure that these companies have the necessary support to enhance our global defense capabilities.

Instead of establishing entire departments for process improvement, market development, quality certifications and testing programs, defense companies are able to offset these large scale operations by turning to experts like CVG Strategy (a Space Coast Ambassador).

CVG Strategy is no stranger to the defense market. This team of consultants focuses on improving products and operational processes for defense companies through the utilization of Brevard County’s inherent network of military testing labs. These resources, combined with the large presence of defense manufacturers already here, make Brevard County an attractive alternative to companies scattered across the country.

Defense Learns Lessons of History

It is imperative that products manufactured for our military work properly and do not fail when exposed to the weather and other harsh operational conditions. Our defense capabilities are among the best in the world, but they haven’t always been so. Early in World War II, systems were hurried to the battlefields, such as magnetic torpedoes that rarely worked and vehicles that could not cross rivers. U.S. troops in Korea had guns that jammed and food rations that could not be eaten in freezing weather.

After this series of mishaps, the Department of Defense established standards to qualify future military products. Today we use MIL-STD-810 Department of Defense Test Method Standard for environmental engineering considerations and laboratory tests for environmental testing. By making use of local testing facilities, six independently certified labs in total, various methods can be applied to products right here in our own backyard.

Large manufacturers such as Harris, DRS and others also use these labs to qualify their products for deployment. CVG Strategy takes on the role of educator and works with companies who provide components and systems to these prime contractors to ensure testing standards are understood and exceeded.

Existing Opportunity

There has never been a more opportune time to continue to build the defense cluster in Brevard County. With the amount of testing we are able to conduct right here in Brevard, companies we encounter are quick to engage in conversation regarding the Space Coast as a top notch business destination.

As part of the Economic Development Commission, it is my duty, along with the entire business community, to enhance the organization’s business development efforts by marketing the county’s unique advantages to colleagues and like companies.

I know firsthand the benefits that come from a top-notch business retention program. Several years ago, I relocated to Brevard County to become the CEO of a local manufacturer. We immediately turned to the EDC to lead the way on our efforts to expand.

Ultimately, they helped the company find a permanent home in Brevard. Their work allowed us to flourish in a critical time when the war in Iraq peaked. With the rapid expansion and support of the EDC, the company was able to supply crucial materials to our war fighters, resulting in thousands of lives saved.

Brevard County remains an ACTIVE PLAYER in the defense market and boasts one of the LARGEST concentrations of defense manufacturers in the entire state of Florida.

Now I have the opportunity with my own company to pay it forward. The business-friendly environment we have in Brevard County is rare and it is up to us as local business leaders to keep the momentum alive. CVG Strategy invests in the EDC and gives our time to support their efforts to attract and retain new companies because we are here to stay.  Every business in Brevard County is a Space Coast Ambassador.

Secret Link