The Bureau of Industry and Security will soon request feedback from industry, academia and others on key differences in U.S. and EU interpretations of export control provisions, said Charles Wall, BIS’ senior policy adviser for the U.S.-EU Trade and Technology Council. Wall, speaking during a BIS technical advisory committee meeting this week, said the notice will ask for “very specific information” on discrepancies between the two territories' export control regimes and ways those rules can be harmonized.
The Bureau of Industry and Security is hoping its new Disruptive Technology Strike Force leads to more investigations of export control violations, faster prosecutions and more criminal enforcement actions, said John Sonderman, director of the BIS Office of Export Enforcement. The agency also is looking to clamp down on U.S.-origin items ending up in Iranian drones, said Kevin Kurland of OEE, warning that companies should make sure they’re complying with the new Iran Foreign Direct Product Rule issued last month.
A group of European countries not in the EU aligned with a recent sanctions decision from the EU concerning restrictions against serious human rights abuses. The European Council earlier this month added nine individuals and three entities to this sanctions regime, with North Macedonia, Montenegro, Albania, Ukraine, Moldova, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway also imposing the decision, the council said March 21.
The U.K.'s Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation updated its Russia sanctions guidance on licenses that permit conduct otherwise barred by regulation 54C. Regulation 54C covers the provision of "accounting, advertising, architectural, auditing, business and management consulting, engineering, IT consultancy and design and public relations services," to a person linked with Russia, the EU Sanctions blog reported. The guidance clarifies that a license may be granted under this regulation "if it is necessary for ensuring critical energy supply to any country."
The Office of Foreign Assets Control this week sanctioned four entities and three people in Iran and Turkey for procuring equipment for Iran’s drone and weapons programs. The designations target Farazan Industrial Engineering, a company that has tried to buy tens of thousands of dollars’ worth of European turbine engines for Iran’s unmanned aerial vehicles and missiles, and its managing director Amanallah Paidar. Also sanctioned were Iran’s Defense Technology and Science Research Center; Murat Bukey, a procurement agent; Ozone Havacilik Ve Savunma Sanayi Ticaret Anonim Sirketi, which facilitates Bukey’s business with Iran; Asghar Mahmoudi, who has provided marine electronics to Iran; and Selin Technic, used as a front company by Mahmoudi.
U.S. defense export regulations are the “biggest speed bump” and need to be addressed to foster closer technology collaboration between the U.S. and allies, former Navy Secretary Richard Spencer said this week. Spencer, speaking at the National Press Club of Australia, said the International Traffic in Arms Regulations “has to be addressed; it will be addressed,” according to a March 20 report from InnovationAus.
The Defense Department is proposing a regulatory revision that would require certain contractors to provide their export authorizations to the Defense Contract Management Agency. The change would revise the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement to require contractors to provide the agency with export license exemptions, export license exceptions, export licenses or other approvals when the contract “requires government quality assurance surveillance oversight and has delivery to, or production or performance in, government quality assurance countries,” the rule said. Comments are due May 22.
Export Compliance Daily is providing readers with the top stories from last week in case you missed them. You can find any article by searching for the title or by clicking on the hyperlinked reference number.
The Commerce Department this week released proposed “guardrails” for recipients of Chips Act funding, which could restrict how the funding is used in certain countries and align the guardrails with export restrictions. The proposed rule would block funding recipients from pursuing certain chip investments in China and other “foreign countries of concern,” restrict them from participating in certain research or technology licensing efforts with those countries, prevent the funding from being provided to companies on the Entity List and more, Commerce said.
The Bureau of Industry and Security is preparing to publish a proposed rule that would expand the agency’s restrictions on certain activities that support foreign military, security or intelligence services. The rule, expected next week, would implement a provision in the FY 2023 defense spending bill that one lawmaker hailed as the “largest expansion of presidential export control authority in several years” (see 2212210032).