Export Week!

October 6, 2023 by Leave a comment

Are you struggling with export compliance? ASA is here to help!

The U.S. government has been actively investigating aircraft parts export transactions. There is a concern about circumvention which could result in aircraft parts from the United States being exported or re-exported to sanctioned destinations.

As part of the Association’s ongoing commitment to compliance, ASA will be hosting Export Week! next week. Export Week! is a series of five webinars discussing export compliance for aircraft parts exporters.

  • Monday, October 9 (11:30 am ET) – Introduction to Export Compliance and OFAC Compliance
  • Tuesday, October 10 (11:30 am ET) – Aircraft Part Compliance: Distinguishing EAR Jurisdiction (BIS) from ITAR Jurisdiction (DDTC); Identifying Your ECCN and Using it to Establish the Destination Restrictions
  • Wednesday, October 11 (11:30 am ET) – Aircraft Part Compliance: Forbidden Parties, Use-based Reasons for Control, Aviation-specific rules
  • Thursday, October 12 (11:30 am ET) – Aircraft Part Compliance: Special Destination Sanctions Including the Russia Sanctions, and Anti-Boycott Provisions
  • Friday, October 13 (11:30 am ET) – Aircraft Part Compliance: Licensing and License Exceptions

Each webinar lasts 45 minutes, with 30 minutes of training and 15 minutes for questions and answers. They are scheduled for 11:30 eastern time (lunch-time on the U.S. east coast — a nice time for a coffee break in other time zones) so grab a lunch, snack, or a cup of coffee and join us to learn about how to keep out of trouble when you export aircraft parts

You can register for the webinar series on ASA’s website. The webinars are free for ASA members. If you are not an ASA member then one registration fee allows you to register for the entire series.

Filed under Uncategorized Tagged with , , , , , , , , ,

License Issues for Distributors of Explosive Materials

June 22, 2016 by Leave a comment

We often receive questions from distributors about their obligations to comply with regulations beyond those of the FAA or industry standards specifically addressing the aerospace distribution community. In many of these cases, distributors may not be perfectly clear on how to comply with certain regulations, or that those regulations even exist. Some examples of these scenarios include export licensing requirements, export reporting requirements, and hazmat or dangerous goods shipping requirements.

Recently, we have received a number of questions regarding regulatory requirements surrounding explosives regulated by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF).  Some people are not even aware that regulated explosive materials are present in a variety of aircraft parts or that they may be handling these parts or that the ATF imposes license and permit requirements on a wide range of people who handle such explosives. It is therefore important to understand what ATF licensing obligations apply when distributors are handling explosive materials.

In general, anyone who imports, manufactures, or deals in explosive materials must obtain a license from the ATF. Because “dealing” under the regulation means distributing explosive materials at wholesale or retail the license requirement casts an extremely wide net that encompasses any type of sales model.

The ATF explosives license is obtained by applying to the ATF using forms ATF F 5400.13, ATF F 5400.28 to identify employees authorized to possess explosive materials as applicable, and submitting the appropriate fee. Each license is valid for three years.

So where do regulated explosives appear in aircraft parts? Frequently explosives will appear in safety apparatus.  Fire suppression systems may contain explosive actuators (or “squibs”); similarly, emergency escape systems like door slides may also contain explosive squibs. Other articles that may contain explosives include the flares or other signaling devices found in survival kits. These explosives may be present in certain assemblies and components, so it is important to identify and ship them properly once they have been identified.

Although regulated explosive materials generally required the distributor to have a license in order to deal in those products, certain aviation articles may be exempted from the regulations. These exemptions are typically sought by the manufacturer of a particular article and when granted are specific to the article by part number. One common example of articles often subject to exemption is signaling devices.

Unfortunately, the ATF does not offer a searchable database of issued exemptions, but instead recommend that manufacturers provide a copy of the exemption with their exempted products. As a matter of practice, however, this is not always done, whether because the manufacturer is unaware that they are permitted to do provide the exemption, are unaware that the exemption follows the product, or even possibly for competitive reasons.  The net result is that some distributors may be handling exempt materials as though they were subject to the ATF licensing requirements. When dealing with exempt materials it is important to remember that it is the article itself that is exempted, and the exemption is not limited only to the manufacturer, so everyone can take advantage of the product’s exemption.

Finally, it is important to remember that the ATF licensing regime is separate from DOT hazmat shipping regulations.  An explosive article can be exempt from the ATF licensing provisions but still be regulated as a class one explosive for the purposes of hazmat shipping. It is always necessary to ensure compliance to each applicable regulatory regime, and that separate regulatory regimes are not necessarily consistent.

Overlapping regulatory regimes—ATF, DOT, FAA, BIS, DDTC, OFAC—can become quite confusing.  When in doubt about your licensing and compliance regulations always remember to consult an attorney who can help you make sense of these conflicting regimes and develop systems to help your business ensure ongoing compliance.

If you have questions about your compliance obligations be sure to visit us while you are at the ASA conference in Las Vegas, June 26-28!

Filed under Uncategorized Tagged with , , , , , , , , ,

Expediting Export: “600 Series” Articles and License Exception STA

July 8, 2015 by 1 Comment

We’ve previously written in this space about ways to take advantage of export license exceptions to more expeditiously serve you customers when exporting “600 Series” articles.  In this article, we’ll take a look at one very specific exception that can help you efficiently work around the license application process when you have a customer with consistent or regular need for certain parts.

License exception Strategic Trade Authorization (STA) authorizes exports to foreign nationals in lieu of an export license that would otherwise be required under the Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) Export Administration Regulations (EAR). We have occasionally heard from members that after certain license applications they have received communication from BIS stating that the export for which they sought a license was eligible for license exception STA and asking why the exporter had not elected to use STA.  We have not heard of anyone being told they should be using STA, and the licenses were typically issued; these inquiries are generally informational by BIS.

STA is a useful license exception for those exporters doing regular, predictable business with a specific customer; for example a customer that requires a dozen units on a monthly basis, for which an export license is required.  When each export shipment requires a license both the exporter and BIS must spend time and resources processing that application.  STA allows the exporter to legally bypass that delay.

The transition of many formerly ITAR-controlled articles to the new “600 Series” ECCNs has resulted in a corresponding shift in license application processing burden away from the DDTC (good news for exporters of ITAR-controlled articles, whose average application processing time continues to decline) and toward BIS, which has seen an increase in license application processing times, as more controlled articles fall within BIS’s regulatory sphere.  One way BIS is able to reduce processing times and relieve some of its own burden is to encourage (correct) use of license exceptions.  For regular and predictable exports STA is a good way to save time and reduce costs for both exporter and BIS, hence BIS’s outreach after applications that appear to be a good fit for use of STA.

STA is a valuable—but under-utilized—license exception.  This is because unlike a number of other exceptions it requires quite a bit of up-front planning and coordination with the customer. Because of this additional effort, we must first understand how STA works generally, and then the specifics that apply to “600 Series” articles.

The License Exception STA Process

As a threshold matter, the exporter seeking to use exception STA must ensure that the article is controlled only for a reason identified in an authorizing paragraph of the regulation.  Articles controlled for reasons National Security (NS), Chemical or Biological Weapons (CB), Nuclear Nonproliferation (NP), Regional Stability (RS), Crime Control (CC), or Significant Items (SI) are authorized for destinations in Country Group A:5.  Those articles controlled only for reason NS and not otherwise restricted by the ECCN are authorized to Country Group A:6.

Once the exporter has determined that the destination is eligible for license exception STA the exporter must satisfy a series of conditions.  First, it must provide to the consignee the ECCN of each discrete article that will be shipped under exception STA. This is a one-time requirement for each article and the ECCN does not need to be provided for subsequent shipments, assuming all information remains accurate.

Next, after providing the ECCNs to the consignee, but prior to shipping any articles, the exporter must obtain and keep in its records a written Consignee Statement. One statement may be used for multiple shipments, provided the items, parties, party names, item descriptions, and ECCNs are the same and remain correct. The exporter must retain a record of each shipment made under each particular Consignee Statement.  Don’t forget the paperwork!

15 C.F.R. § 740.20(d)(2) provides the specific text that must be included in each Consignee Statement.  Among other things, the Consignee Statement must identify the articles, ECCNs, and parties to the transactions, and include clauses acknowledging the restrictions and responsibilities of the parties. Each Consignee Statement should use the exact template language stated in the regulation.

Finally, the exporter must notify the consignee in writing (email and fax are permissible) for each shipment under license exception STA.  The notice must clearly identify the shipment and identify the specific items (or whole shipments) that are being shipped pursuant to STA.

Note that different rules apply under STA for software and technology releases.

“600 Series” Restrictions

Though valuable, license exception STA does entail some obvious additional effort.  Even further considerations arise when using STA for the export of “600 Series” ECCNs.  Additional restrictions make sense when we recall the”600 Series” articles are those articles that until very recently were controlled under the ITAR and therefore merit a greater level of control.

 First, STA may not be used when the articles are specifically identified by the ECCN as ineligible.  Second, a “600 Series” article may be exported to a non-governmental person in a group A:5 country only if the ultimate end user is the armed forces or other governmental agency of the country; “600 Series” articles may not ship to non-governmental end-users under STA. Third, STA may not be used to export certain “600 Series” end items, such as a completed aircraft under 9A610.a or Major Defense Equipment when the value to be exported exceeds $25 million.

Finally, in order to export “600 Series” items under STA, the purchaser, intermediate and ultimate consignees, and end user must previously have been approved on a license or other approval issued by the DDTC or a general correspondence approval from BIS. The exporter must also ensure language specific to “600 Series” articles appears on the prior Consignee Statement.

Whew!

License exception STA can be a very useful tool for companies that do regular business with a customer and have to repeatedly apply for an export license for the same articles.  Given the amount of preparation involved, STA is not very useful for one-off or only occasional shipments.  But those exporters with regular supply contracts to foreign governments (for example) may find STA a very efficient way to reliably service their customer (without risking license delays or the occasional government shutdown).

Although it cannot be used for every article, STA does allow the exporter to save significant time and money by eliminating the need to prepare a license application and the delay in waiting for approval.  It is also among the more complex and technical of the export license exceptions.  Because of the complexities involved, companies seeking to take advantage of license exception STA are advised to consult with an export attorney to ensure proper compliance.

Filed under Uncategorized Tagged with , , , , , , ,

Exporting under Russia-Ukraine Sanctions

August 19, 2014 by

Recently, we have had several questions from members regarding export of aircraft parts to Russia and the Ukraine. As most readers no doubt know, the United States and the EU, in response to the conflict in eastern Ukraine, have imposed various economic sanctions on certain persons and businesses in Russia.  When sanctions like these are imposed, those companies doing business with customers in Russia and Ukraine wisely want to know whether and what type of affect these sanctions may have on their business.

Questions regarding business relations in Russian and Ukraine typically take one of two forms: The first, can I do business with the customer at all?  The second, can I export this particular part to the customer?

To answer these questions, we first need to know what sanctions have been imposed and to whom they apply. We then need to recall our basic export compliance principles and apply those principles to determine whether the part itself can be exported.  Those who have attended ASA workshops in the past may recognize these steps as part of the process of export compliance.

The United States, through the Treasury Department, has issued several rounds of sanctions directed at specific industries and parties.  For the most part, the targeted industries have been companies in the Russian financial and energy sectors, while the individuals mainly officials and individuals with ties to Vladimir Putin.

However, companies in the financial and energy sectors are the only ones that have been targeted.  Importantly, Avia Group and Avia Group Nord, business aviation groups, were also targeted with U.S. sanctions.  This means that although not yet a focal point, the aviation industry can by targeted if the United States deems it necessary, and so is a good reminder that exporters of aircraft parts need to be aware.  The Treasury Department maintains an up to date list of Ukraine-related sanctions on its website.

Although it appears that the Russian aviation sector has not been highly targeted by the United States yet, these sanctions illustrate the importance of knowing your customer. Further, simply because the United States has not sanctioned an organization does not mean they may not be sanctioned by another body.  For instance, the EU recently issued sanctions against Dobrolet, a low-cost Russian carrier.  If you are based in the the EU, you should review the European Union’s restrictive measures in force to ensure you remain compliant with EU sanctions.

As our industry well knows, wealthy entities and individuals, such as those named in sanctions, frequently own or operate their own aircraft.  Given the wealth and high-ranking status of individuals and companies named, it is  important to review the Treasury Department Office of Foreign Asset Control’s Specially Designated Nationals list.  Furthermore, it is important to take this step with every transaction, because new individuals and entities can be added at any time, whether announced as a new round of sanctions or not.

Once we have determined whether sanctions apply to our prospective customer, we can rely on our export compliance program to take us the rest of the way.  The exporter must determine whether the article it plans to export is ITAR or EAR controlled.  Once the appropriate export regime is determined the exporter must determine whether an export license is required for the particular part or whether any license exceptions apply.  If a license is required, the exporter should apply as usual.  Be aware that both the State Department DDTC and the Commerce Department BIS may deny export license applications for high-tech items that could contribute to Russian military capability.  In most cases, however, articles for civil aviation may still be exported.

The highly publicized nature of these sanctions rightfully causes many companies to hesitate before undertaking an export transaction to the listed countries.  This hesitation is appropriate, given the already complex nature of export compliance. But these delays can also help the exporter to ensure that the transaction is undertaken correctly and legally.

The good news is that an effective export compliance system will enable you to easily comply with whatever sanctions and restrictions are enacted.  An effective compliance system should find the exporter following the same steps, reviewing the same lists, and performing the same analyses with every export transaction.  An export compliance program that is second nature to the exporter’s employees will ensure that no matter what sanctions are issued, or against whom, your company will remain compliant. Our law firm has helped many companies establish effective export compliance programs.  If you have questions regarding compliance, please feel free to contact us.

Filed under Uncategorized Tagged with , , , , , , , , ,

Exporting Dual Use Aircraft Parts? Simpler Rules are Around the Corner!

July 31, 2012 by Leave a comment

Many ASA members have found themselves overwhelmed by U.S. regulation compliance. The Administration is acting to alleviate some of these export concerns.

Dual-use parts are a particular problem for ASA members.  Dual-use aircraft parts are replacement parts that can be installed on both civilian and military aircraft.  Their precise placement into Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) or Directorate of Defense Trade Control (DDTC) jurisdiction can be ambiguous, and can be based on facts that are not readily available to distributor-exporters. For example, the mechanism for obtaining a license to export a replacement part that is listed on both a military engine design and a civilian engine design (approved by the FAA) is very ambiguous, because it can be unclear whether the FAA exception applies [originally published in the 1979 Export Administration Act section 17(c), the exception has been turned into a puzzle that rivals a Rubik’s cube by contradictory guidance and misleading].

We’ve been vocal supports of these changes, having spoke with both Commerce Department and White House officials about reforms.  The Administration has developed and is implementing a plan to revise the U.S. export rules in a way that makes it less complex to export dual-use aircraft parts.

Those of you who’ve seen me speak on export law in the past year know that I have been predicting that the Administration will take far less than the normal 18 months to publish the final rule in the export reform provisions. While most people deride election cycle politics for its emphasis on form over substance, and a tendency for both parties to block partisan gains that might help the other earn votes, this is one situation where election year politics work in our favor. The Administration would like to be able to take credit for making it easier for businesses to export products, in order to show that they are not anti-business. The export reforms will do just that.

The Hill Reports that the Administration is getting ready to publish the first of these export revisions.

If the final rule looks like the proposal, then it will ease unnecessary burdens on the export of many dual-use aircraft parts by clarifying who has jurisdiction over various aircraft parts and reserving the most onerous rules only for those parts that serve a clear defense mission.  The proposed rule would move all of the dual use aircraft parts into BIS jurisdiction, leaving only parts with a clear defense mission in the jurisdiction of DDTC.

This is important to exporters because (1) many BIS exports do not need a license while nearly all DDTC exports require a license, and (2) even if a license is necessary, it is far quicker and easier to obtain a license from BIS than it is from DDTC. It is also useful because there has been a lot of confusion about which agency’s rules must be followed for certain aircraft parts, and the reform would make the pathway to compliance much more clear.

In the current political climate, we hope that the Administration will issue these rule changes before the November elections.

Filed under Uncategorized Tagged with , , , ,

2011 ITAR Broker’s Reports: Deadline is January 31!

January 26, 2012 by Leave a comment

If you are registered with the State Department as a broker of ITAR-controlled articles or services (defense related articles or services), then you are required to file an annual Broker’s Report.  The 2011 Brokers’ Reports are due January 31, 2012.

Annual Brokering reports to DDTC are required for all companies and individuals that were  registered as a broker at any time during the previous year.

The Broker’s Report is required under 22 CFR 129.9.  It must enumerate and describe the broker’s brokering activities by quantity, type, U.S. dollar value, and purchaser(s) and recipient(s).  For each activity, license(s) numbers for approved activities and any exemptions utilized for other covered activities must be specified.  When specifying exemptions, they ought to specified by ITAR section reference if based on an ITAR section.

Filed under Uncategorized Tagged with , , , , , ,

Proposed ITAR Amendment Would Change the Regulations that Apply to Brokers

January 26, 2012 by Leave a comment

The Department of State has published a proposed rule that seeks to to amend the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITARs) as they apply to brokers and brokering activities.

Brokering is distinguished under the regulations from exporting. Thus, those who might negotiate a deal as an agent, or finance a deal, but who never get involved in the actual exporting of ITAR-controlled articles and services, are nonetheless subject to the State Department’s regulations.

Under the current rules, persons who broker exports of ITAR-controlled articles and services are required to register, and also in many cases to obtain licenses before they engage in brokering. This is meant to curb arms-dealing, but in practice it affects export of many aircraft parts that are controlled under the ITARs.

The recently-proposed changes to the ITARs would help by removing many dual-use parts as well as defense-related parts that do not serve a unique defense purpose from the scope of the ITARs.

The proposed rule would change (“clarify”) the definitions of the terms “broker” and “brokering activities.” It would also provide additional exemptions from the regulations for certain brokering activities. Here are the proposed new definitions:

§ 129.2 Definitions.
(a) Broker means any person (as defined by § 120.14 of this subchapter) who engages in brokering activities.

(b) Brokering activities means any action to facilitate the manufacture, export, reexport, import, transfer, or retransfer of a defense article or defense service. Such action includes, but is not limited to:

(1) Financing, insuring, transporting, or freight forwarding defense articles and defense services, or
(2) Soliciting, promoting, negotiating, contracting for, arranging, or otherwise assisting in the purchase, sale, transfer, loan, or lease of a defense article or defense service.

(c) For the purposes of this subchapter, engaging in the business of brokering activities requires only one action as described above.

(d) The activities subject to part 129 include brokering activities:

(1) by any U.S. person wherever located;
(2) by any foreign person located in the United States;
(3) by any foreign person located outside the United States involving a U.S.-origin defense article or defense service;
(4) by any foreign person located outside the United States involving the import into the United States of any defense article or defense service; or
(5) by any foreign person located outside the United States acting on behalf of a U.S. person.

(e) Brokering activities do not include:

(1) Activities by a U.S. person in the United States that are limited exclusively to U.S. domestic sales or transfers (e.g., not for export, which includes transfer in the United States to a foreign person);
(2) Activities by employees of the U.S. Government acting in an official capacity; or
(3) Activities that do not extend beyond administrative services, such as providing or arranging office space and equipment, hospitality, advertising, or clerical, visa, or translation services, or activities by an attorney that do not extend beyond providing legal advice to a broker.

Filed under Uncategorized Tagged with , , , , , , , , ,

US Proposes New Export Rules Affecting Aircraft Parts

November 11, 2011 by Leave a comment

Tired of trying to determine whether your dual-use parts are controlled as DDTC/ITAR parts or BIS/EAR parts?  Stymied by the difficult or impossible task of properly classifying your dual-use aircraft parts for export purposes?  The government is here to help!

The U.S. Government has determined that certain aircraft parts that have traditionally been controlled under the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITARs) no longer warrant control under the ITARs.  These are all items that were controlled under Category VIII (aircraft and related items) of the United States Munitions List (USML).  Those parts would be moved to the control of the BIS Commerce Control List (CCL) under the terms of a proposed rule.  The proposed rule would make it easier to export these military parts and also it may reduce the confusion over dual-use parts in these categories.

The proposed rule defines a set of new Export Control Classification Numbers (ECCNs) 9A610, 9B610, 9C610, 9D610, and 9E610. Part of the value of this change is that some items were difficult to definitively classify as either defense-related or civil aircraft parts.  This switch will make the proper classification of these parts easier because they will all be controlled under the Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) rules that apply to civil aircraft parts, so BIS rulings on them will be definitive and will not be subject to countermand or conflicting interpretations by the State Department’s Directorate of Defense Trade Controls (DDTC).

 

  • ‘‘Military Aircraft’’ ‘‘specially designed’’ for a military use that are not enumerated in USML paragraph VIII(a).

Note 1: This includes trainer aircraft; cargo aircraft; utility fixed wing aircraft; military helicopters; observation aircraft; military non-expansive balloons and other lighter than air aircraft and unarmed military aircraft, regardless of origin or designation, manufactured before 1956 and unmodified since manufacture.

Note 2: Aircraft with modifications made to incorporate safety of flight features or other FAA or NTSB modifications such as transponders and air data recorders are ‘‘unmodified’’ for the purposes of this paragraph

  • Pressure refuelers, pressure refueling ‘‘equipment,’’ ‘‘equipment’’ ‘‘specially designed’’ to facilitate operations in confined areas, and ground equipment ‘‘specially designed’’ for aircraft controlled by either USML paragraph VIII(a) or ECCN 9A610.a.
  • Military crash helmets and protective masks, pressurized breathing equipment and partial pressure suits for use in aircraft controlled by either USML paragraph VIII(a) or ECCN 9A610.a, anti-g suits, liquid oxygen converters ‘‘specially designed’’ for aircraft controlled by either USML subcategory VIII(a) or ECCN 9A610.a, and catapults and cartridge actuated devices for emergency escape of personnel from aircraft controlled by either USML subcategory VIII(a) or ECCN 9A610.a.
  • Canopies, harnesses, platforms, electronic release mechanisms ‘‘specially designed’’ for use with aircraft controlled by either USML paragraph VIII(a) or ECCN 9A610.a, parachutes and paragliders ‘‘specially designed’’ or modified for military use, and ‘‘equipment’’ ‘‘designed’’ or modified for military high altitude parachutists, such as suits, special helmets, breathing systems, and navigation equipment.
  • Automatic piloting systems for parachuted loads; equipment ‘‘specially designed’’ for military use for controlled opening jumps at any height, including oxygen equipment.
  • Ground effect machines (GEMS), including surface effect machines and air cushion vehicles, ‘‘specially designed’’ for use by a military.
  • Military aircraft instrument flight trainers that are not ‘‘specially designed’’ to simulate combat. (See USML Cat IX for controls on such trainers that are ‘‘specially designed’’ to simulate combat).
  • [UAV] Apparatus and devices designed or modified for the handling, control, activation or launching of UAVs or drones controlled by either USML paragraph VIII(a) or ECCN 9A610.a, and capable of a range equal to or greater than 300 km.
  • [UAV] Radar altimeters designed or modified for use in UAVs or drones controlled by either USML paragraph VIII(a) or ECCN 9A610.a., and capable of delivering at least 500 kilograms payload to a range of at least 300 km.
  • [UAV] Hydraulic, mechanical, electro-optical, or electromechanical flight control systems (including fly-by-wire systems) and attitude control equipment designed or modified for UAVs or drones controlled by either USML paragraph VIII(a) or ECCN 9A610.a., and capable of delivering at least 500 kilograms payload to a range of at least 300 km.
  • ‘‘Parts,’’ ‘‘components,’’ ‘‘accessories and attachments’’ that are ‘‘specially designed’’ for a commodity subject to control in the non-UAV items above or a defense article in USML Category VIII and not elsewhere specified on the USML or the CCL.

Note 1: Forgings, castings, and other unfinished products, such as extrusions and machined bodies, that have reached a stage in manufacturing where they are clearly identifiable by material composition, geometry, or function as commodities controlled by ECCN 9A610.x are controlled by ECCN 9A610.x.

Note 2: ‘‘Parts,’’ ‘‘components,’’ ‘‘accessories and attachments’’ specified in USML subcategory VIII(f) or VIII(h) are subject to the controls of that paragraph. ‘‘Parts,’’ ‘‘components,’’ ‘‘accessories and attachments’’ specified in ECCN 9A610.y are subject to the controls of that paragraph.

  • Specific ‘‘parts,’’ ‘‘components,’’ ‘‘accessories and attachments’’ ‘‘specially designed’’ for a commodity subject to control in this ECCN or a defense article in USML Category VIII and not elsewhere specified in the USML or the CCL, and other aircraft commodities ‘‘specially designed’’ for a military use, as follows:

y.1. Aircraft tires;
y.2. Analog cockpit gauges and indicators;
y.3. Audio selector panels;
y.4. Check valves for hydraulic and pneumatic systems;
y.5. Crew rest equipment;
y.6. Ejection seat mounted survival aids;
y.7. Energy dissipating pads for cargo (for pads made from paper or cardboard);
y.8. Filters and filter assemblies for hydraulic, oil and fuel systems;
y.9. Galleys;
y.10. Hydraulic and fuel hoses, straight and unbent lines, fittings, clips, couplings, nutplates, and brackets;
y.11. Lavatories;
y.12. Life rafts;
y.13. Magnetic compass, magnetic azimuth detector;
y.14. Medical litter provisions;
y.15. Mirrors, cockpit;
y.16. Passenger seats including palletized seats;
y.17. Potable water storage systems;
y.18. Public address (PA) systems;
y.19. Steel brake wear pads (does not include sintered mix or carbon/carbon materials)
y.20. Underwater beacons;
y.21. Urine collection bags/pads/cups/pumps;
y.22. Windshield washer and wiper systems;
y.23. Filtered and unfiltered cockpit panel knobs, indicators, switches, buttons, and dials;
y.24. Lead-acid and Nickel-Cadmium batteries; and
y.25. Propellers, propeller systems, and propeller blades used with reciprocating engines.
y.26. to y.98. [RESERVED]
y.99. Commodities that would otherwise be controlled elsewhere in this entry but that (i) Have been determined to be subject to the EAR in a commodity jurisdiction determination issued by the U.S. Department of State and (ii) are not otherwise identified elsewhere on the CCL.

Parts distributors should check these lists and make sure that they represent reasonable representations of the parts that do not need to be subject to State Department licensing oversight at the time of export.  Any distributor who feels that this list is incomplete should make sure to provide comments both to the government and to ASA.

The proposed rule was published in the November 7th Federal Register.  The proposal is open for public comment.  Comments are due by December 22, 2011.

 

Filed under Uncategorized Tagged with , , , , , , ,