Classifying Inertial Reference Units (IRUs)

February 17, 2026 by Leave a comment

I have been seeing a number of companies having trouble with classifications.  This is the second of what will likely be an occasional series discussing classification.  This blog post will address Inertial Reference Units or IRUs.

Please note that the following analysis is based on the regulations and standards as they are written today.  Export and import law, is subject to change.  This is particularly true of tariffs over the past year.  So you should always verify your classification under the current regulations and standards.

Classification is necessary for both exports and imports.  Exports of civil aircraft parts are typically classified under Export Commodity Classification Numbers or ECCNs.  An exception arises when the goods are controlled under the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITARs).

Export Classification

ECCNs are typically five characters long.  Many civil aircraft parts are characterized under ECCNs like 9A991, but this ONLY applies to civil aircraft parts that are (1) not specified elsewhere and (2) specially designed for civil aircraft.  The first condition is important because some parts (like engines, avionics, etc.) are specified elsewhere and may have different export limits and licensing provisions based on their proper classification.  

In our case, IRUs are typically classified elsewhere.  Even though they may be aircraft parts, when there is a more specific classification, they must rely on the most specific classification.

Many civil aircraft IRUs are classified under ECCN 7A103.  One might be tempted by ECCN 7A003, but the regulations specify that ECCN 7A003 “does not apply to ‘inertial measurement equipment or systems’ which are certified for use on ‘civil aircraft’ by civil aviation authorities of one or more Wassenaar Arrangement Participating States.”

ECCN 7A103 has two primary reasons for control: missile technology (MT) and anti-terrorism (AT). The missile technology reason for control could be an issue for many export destinations, as there is a license obligation associated with most export destinations (currently there are exceptions for Australia, Canada,and the UK). If you plan to rely on a license exception, then please read the regulations carefully as some destinations may be unable to rely on certain license exceptions when exporting articles controlled under ECCN 7A103.

Import Classification

Imported goods are typically classified under harmonized tariff codes from the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS).  These codes can be ten digits long (when you include the statistical reporting number).  There are also a lot more tariff numbers than there are ECCNs, which makes navigating the tariff schedule a little more daunting.  

The United States Government has classified civil aircraft IRUs under HTSUS heading 9014.20.8040 for import purposes. Note that if you click through the link, you will see an outdated number that was assigned; 9014.20.8040 is the modern equivalent tariff number. But that assignment relies on a specific fact pattern: that the IRU (a) is not an optical instrument, (b) does not measure an electrical phenomenon, and (c) is for use in civil aircraft. Other types of inertial measuring device have fallen into other HTSUS classifications (like a Northrupp Grumman IMU that was characterized as 9014.20.20 in the year 2020). So look carefully at the characteristics of your device to ensure it is properly classified under 9014.20.8040.

Proper tariff classification is important because different tariffs have different duty amounts.  9014.20.8040 is specific to aviation use inertial reference units, so classification under 9014.20.8040 currently yields a base duty of zero percent (this may be modified by chapter 99 tariffs).

Past Classification Articles

Filed under Uncategorized Tagged with , , , , ,

New Voluntary Self-Disclosure Process for OFAC Violations

February 9, 2026 by Leave a comment

OFAC has new standards for filing a voluntary self disclosure!

My law firm has strongly recommended to many clients that there is value in voluntary reporting of export violations to the government, in order to work with the government to solve the immediate issue but also to help the government track trends and provide better compliance support to the industry.

Most voluntary self disclosure (VSD) provisions offer an incentive in the form of a mitigation of penalties. This mitigation is not guaranteed, but we’ve had very good luck in cooperation with the government through VSDs. When we file a VSD on behalf of a client, we typically work with the company on root cause analysis, and corrective actions that are targeted to the root cause. This helps to improve the chances of the corrective action being successful in preventing future recurrence of the underlying issue. It is also important to make sure you are filing your VSD with the right agency, and to recognize that there may be more than one office that needs to receive your VSD (for example some filing issues may also benefit from a Census VSD).

The processes for VSDs are typically ensconced in the regulations, and it is important to pay attention to the regulatory requirements for the VSD processes.

The U.S. Department of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) is launching a new online Voluntary Self-Disclosure Portal. This portal provides a streamlined, secure method for submitting voluntary self-disclosures of potential violations of OFAC-administered sanctions programs. By transitioning to this online system, OFAC aims to increase efficiency and transparency for persons submitting information, enabling faster acknowledgment of submissions, clearer communication throughout the review process, and a more user-friendly experience overall. OFAC strongly encourages parties to begin submitting voluntary self-disclosures through the new online portal.

Typically, the initial report needs to be followed by a full narrative that meets the regulatory requirements for final report. If you make an initial report and are not sure what you need in a final report, then you can review the relevant regulations in the Economic Sanctions Enforcement Guideline or contact our office for assistance. The Framework for OFAC Compliance Commitments is also a useful piece of guidance.

Filed under Uncategorized Tagged with , , , , , ,

Classifying Fasteners

January 6, 2026 by 1 Comment

I have been seeing a number of companies having trouble with classifications.  This is the first of what will likely be an occasional series discussing classification.  This blog post will address fasteners.

Please note that the following analysis is based on the regulations and standards as they are written today.  Export and import law, is subject to change.  This is particularly true of tariffs over the past year.  So you should always verify your classification under the current regulations and standards.

Classification is necessary for both exports and imports.  Exports of civil aircraft parts are typically classified under Export Commodity Classification Numbers or ECCNs.  An exception arises when the goods are controlled under the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITARs).  

Export Classification

ECCNs are typically five characters long.  Many civil aircraft parts are characterized under ECCN 9A991.  This ECCN applies to civil aircraft parts that are (1) not specified elsewhere and (2) specially designed for civil aircraft.  The first condition is important because some parts (like engines, avionics, etc.) are specified elsewhere and may have different export limits and licensing provisions based on their proper classification.  The second condition is equally important because the term “specially designed” is a legal term of art that has a specific definition under the Commerce Department regulations.  The definition specifically excludes fasteners, so fasteners typically will not be classified under ECCN 9A991.  Instead, they will typically be classified under EAR99.

Import Classification

Imported goods are typically classified under harmonized tariff codes from the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS).  These codes can be ten digits long (when you include the statistical reporting number).  There are also a lot more tariff numbers than there are ECCNs, which makes navigating the tariff schedule a little more daunting.  Classifying fasteners for import can reflect a more complex analysis than what we just had to perform for fastener export classification.  

Normally, fasteners will be classified based on their material.  An article made of iron or steel is typically classified within HTSUS Chapter 73 of the tariff schedule.  This chapter is 45 pages long.  Within the chapter are four-digit headings and the heading 7318 addresses fasteners (made from iron or steel).  If the fastener is a bolt, then bolts made from iron or steel will be classified under 7318.15.20xx.  This classification would also encompass bolts that are imported with their nuts or washers (the nuts and washers do not have to be declared separately).  The final two characters (the “xx” in the example above) are the statistical reporting number and this number will depend on the size and nature of the bolt.  If the bolt had a shank or threads less than 6mm, then the statistical reporting number would be “10” (so the full tariff code would be 7318.15.2010.  If the shank or thread is 6mm or more then the nature of the bolt will drive the statistical reporting number: for example,  a structural bolt is classified under 7318.15.2030.  

But if the same bolt was made from a different material then the importing tariff number could be different. An aluminum bolt would be found on the schedule for aluminum articles (HTSUS Chapter 76).  It would be identified as 7616.10.xxxx.  A threaded bolt with a shank or threads less than 6mm would be identified as 7616.10.7030.   A threaded bolt with a shank or thread diameter of 6mm or more would be classified as 7616.10.9030.

Proper tariff classification is important because different tariffs have different duty amounts.  For example, the 7616.10.7030 bolt would be subject to a 5.5% duty rate when imported into the United States.  The larger diameter 7616.10.9030 bolt would be subject to a 6% duty rate when imported into the United States.  

A common mistake is to classify these sorts of fasteners as aircraft parts under heading 8807, which is a general classification for aircraft parts that do not have a more specific code that describes them.  Heading 8807 doesn’t apply to our fasteners because there are more specific classifications for bolts.  This misclassification violates the import tariff rule that requires assignment of the most specific tariff description.  It also leads to underpaid duties, which can lead to penalties when the underpayment is detected.

Filed under Uncategorized Tagged with , , , , ,

Syrian Sanctions Are Being Lifted; Exporters Still Need to Carefully Review Their Proposed Transactions

August 25, 2025 by Leave a comment

The Office of Foreign Asset Control (OFAC) plans to publish a notice rescinding Syrian sanctions in tomorrow’s Federal Register. The notice is expected to be immediately effective, upon publication.

The United States is in the process of lifting sanctions against Syria pursuant to the President’s Executive Order that was issued earlier this summer.

This does not mean that all sanctions against Syria are lifted! For example, the BIS sanctions regime still currently exists. Proposed exports to Syria still need to be carefully reviewed to ensure compliance, and may still require an export license. But this is one important step to making it easier to export aircraft parts (and other goods) to Syria.

Filed under Uncategorized Tagged with , ,

(1) Tariff Update (2) Advice for Products of Canada and/or Mexico (3) Advice For Non-US Exporters

April 3, 2025 by 1 Comment

This evening we have guidance for you about tariffs:

  • An update on the latest tariffs
  • Guidance on using the USMCA to avoid certain tariffs on goods originating in Canada and Mexico
  • Guidance for non-US exporters who want to mitigate the impact of U.S. tariffs

Update on New Tariffs

I am getting a lot of questions about the latest round of tariffs and how they will affect aircraft parts that are the products of non-US countries and are imported into the United States. As of this evening, the United States has not yet filed the new tariff documents with the Federal Register. In some cases these filings can differ in significant ways from the descriptions found in the executive orders, so it is important to wait to read these documents before we can give any compliance advice. It is unfortunate that the short time-frame for implementation (between Executive Order and implementation date) lately has meant that the tariffs may not be published until after they become effective.

An example of the sort of things that are contained in the tariff details includes the USMCA provision that we talk about in the next section.

We will watch for the advance copies and get you information on the latest round of tariffs as soon as possible.

Products of Mexico and/or Canada

Products of Mexico and Canada are currently subject to 25% duties under the applicable Chapter 99 tariffs. We wrote about this in a previous blog post. One potential way to mitigate this is to import goods under the USMCA provisions. The USMCA applies to “goods originating in the territory of a USMCA country.” This includes goods that are 100% a product of the U.S. Canada or Mexico, but it also includes some goods that are mostly made of material from these jurisdictions. It also includes certain goods that are made from non-USMCA materials (‘non-originating goods’) according to rules that vary based on the tariff subheading of the imported good. The details of this exception are provided in General Note 11 to the HTSUS; this general note is 136 pages long, so I won’t attempt summarize it all, here, but I will note that aircraft parts imported under heading 8807 may be made from non-originating goods of any other (different) subheading and still have the potential to be classified as USMCA goods as long as they are “transformed” in a USMCA country. One reason for this is the process that makes them an aircraft part under heading 8807 is typically considered transformative.

You typically need to enter USMCA goods under the USMCA provisions of 9903.01.04 [Mexico] or 9903.01.14 [Canada] to avoid the 25% tariffs.

Special USMCA Note: Many aircraft parts are classified under other tariff headings, but the “aircraft parts” heading is 8807. Effective January 27, 2022, the primary tariff heading for aircraft parts changed from 8803 to 8807. The USMCA was originally signed in 2018 and became effective in 2020. This was before the change of tariff headings, so USMCA references 8803, instead of 8807. To find the 8807 reference in US law (as it applies to the USMCA) you need to start with 19 C.F.R. 102.11(a), which provides the rules for determining the country of origin of imported goods. That regulation incorporates 19 C.F.R. 102.20, which provides the up-to-date tariff rules including the rules for 8807 aircraft parts.  You can confirm that this rule is intended to be used to interpret the USMCA by looking at the scope clause found in 19 C.F.R. 102.0. 

One of the USMCA requirements in a certification of origin. You ought to consider working with the producer in Canada or Mexico – they may have a USMCA certificate of origin template already available but if they don’t then check out the ASA Webinar from last week for more details on what needs to be in that certificate. You can also find the nine elements of a certificate of origin listed in Annex 5-A to Chapter 5 of the USMCA. If the U.S. import from Canada or Mexico is 100% a product of Canada or Mexico then the certificate may be simple, but if a portion of the constituent components comes from outside of the U.S., Canada or Mexico then there are rules for whether it can be certified. The rules are too voluminous to repeat here but (as stated above) General Note 11 provides some useful guidance.

One final note: if you are sending goods to Canada or Mexico for repair, then the repair is considered an “advancement in value,” and the cost (or fair market value) of that advancement is subject to duty. This applies to U.S. goods. Examples:

  • If you send a US good to Canada and it is repaired there, then this is an “advancement in value” transaction whose value is subject to the 25% tariff on products of Canada. Dutiable value is typically going to be the invoiced amount for the repair. See Tariff Subheadings 9802.00.50 and 9903.01.10.
  • If you send a US good to Canada and it is repaired there on a warranty repair, then this is an “advancement in value” transaction. The value will be subject to the 25% tariff on products of Canada. Because there is typically no charge for a warranty repair, the value will be calculated based on the fair market value of the work performed. See Tariff Subheadings 9802.00.40 and 9903.01.10.

Guide for Non-US Exporters

For non-U.S. exporters watching the tariff news out of the United States, it can be frustrating to watch and think about how this could affect your own business. In effect, a tariff is like a tax on your goods that your customer in the U.S. must pay to the government. It effectively increases the cost to your customer (making your goods potentially less attractive) without putting any money into your pocket.

Working together, we can help to make sure that your importing customers don’t pay any more in impot duties than they need to. Here are some useful rules to remember:

Rule Number One: Tariffs apply to non-US goods and non-US “added value.” If you are selling Boeing parts that were made in the U.S. (and were not advanced in value outside the U.S.) to a U.S. customer, then the importer probably does not need to pay duty on those goods.

Rule Number Two: Communicate with your U.S. customer. Make sure that you are cooperating to make the right certifications and/or representations to minimize the effect of U.S. tariffs.

Rule Number Three: Try to identify strategies for minimizing duties associated with the tariffs. The USMCA strategy described above is just one way to use the tariff rules to reduce the potential duties that the importer needs to pay.

Rule Number Four: Be careful of the way that you classify your goods. There are special tariff codes for different situations. The USMCA provisions of 9903.01.04 [Mexico] and 9903.01.14 [Canada] are just two examples of tariff classifications that can help save your customer money. Also, make sure that you are accurately classifying goods (see our blog article on the subject). Misclassified goods run the risk of being held up in Customs.

The aviation industry is a global community. We will get through these tariffs, together.

Filed under Uncategorized Tagged with , , , , ,

Is it an Aircraft Part? Be Careful About Classification for Imports and Exports!

March 26, 2025 by 1 Comment

I get recurring questions about the classification of aircraft parts for both exports and imports. This is a more complicated process than it might seem, at first.

When importing goods, the goods need to be identified with the proper Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS) tariff classification. This tariff classification also helps to identify the correct duty that must be paid upon the import of the goods.

When exporting goods, the exporter needs to identify the schedule B number for the goods. These numbers are analogous to the HTS numbers, but they sometimes diverge, so it is also important to look them up separately.

Many ASA members have approached me about whether they can “hit the easy button” and assume that all aircraft-related parts are classified under chapter 88 (which applies to aircraft parts). This would not be correct! Some aircraft parts are classified under other chapters.

When classifying goods under either the HTS or Schedule B, you must select the classification that most accurately describes your goods. For example, if you are importing vulcanized rubber o-rings for use on an aircraft, then you will have a choice between an aircraft parts classification under heading 8807 or:

4016.93.5010: Other articles of vulcanized rubber other than hard rubber: Gaskets, washers and other seals: Other: O-Rings.

Clearly, the O-Rings line in chapter 40 reflects a much more precise description of those O-Rings. It is therefore the more appropriate classification. Some of the places in the HTS and Schedule B where you will find more precise classifications for aircraft parts include the following:

  • Tires under heading 4011-4012
  • Other rubber products under chapter 40
  • Brakes in Chapter 68
  • Certain steel, iron, and aluminum products, like fasteners: Codes in chapters 72, 73, and 76
  • Aircraft safety glass under subheading 7007.11
  • Engines and engine parts under chapter 84
  • Stators, rotors, generators and electrical parts under chapter 85
  • Certain electronic integrated circuits, including those within heading 8542
  • Lithium-ion batteries under subheading 8507.60
  • Battery parts under subheading 8507.40
  • Inertial Measurement Unit under subheading 9014.20
  • Aircraft seats under subheading 9401.10

Each of these may end up being more precise than a classification under heading 8807 (8807 applies to aircraft parts). The classifications under heading 8807 are useful for many aircraft parts, but if there is a more precise and accurate description under another classification then the more precise and accurate description should be the one that it is used.

We will be covering this issue (selection of tariff numbers for imported aircraft parts) in ASA’s tariff webinar, tomorrow.  The ASA webinar will also examine some of the new tariffs, and will discuss how to read a tariff so that you are better prepared for the upcoming tariffs that have been promised. The webinar is free for ASA members please register to make sure you can get a seat), and available for a nominal price to non-members.

Filed under Uncategorized Tagged with , , , , , ,

Extended Denial Orders Against Nordwind and S7 Continue to Limit Transactions With Them

December 12, 2024 by Leave a comment

The United States Government has extended the Temporary Denial Orders (TDOs) issued against Russian air carriers Nordwind and S7 (a/k/a Siberian Airlines). Both of these TDOs were originally issued on June 24, 2022.

Temporary Denial Orders have features that make them more extensive in their limitations. Normal export sanctions typically make it illegal to export to the sanctioned party without an explicit license (and there is typically a presumption of denial associated with the license). TDOs, on the other hand, feature the regular export restrictions but also add restrictions on acquiring things from the sanctioned party as well as restrictions on doing business with the sanctioned party.

Also, normal export sanctions typically apply to software, technology and goods, but not to services. The TDOs restrict provision of certain services, as well.

Thus some of the things that might be possible with a normally-sanctioned party become prohibited with a party subject to a TDO. If you are offered a transaction with a TDO a party, or a transaction in which a TDO party is in the chain of commerce, then it is important to analyze the possible transaction to assess whether it requires a license. For example, if you are offered parts that S7 illegally sold to an intermediary after the S7 TDO was originally in place, then your subsequent (unlicensed) acquisition may violate general prohibition ten (15 C.F.R. § 736.2(b)(10)). This assessment may require legal assistance.

TDO extensions are for one year. The TDO extensions will be published tomorrow in the Federal Register but pre-publication copies of the TDO extensions are available here:

Filed under Uncategorized Tagged with , , , , ,

File Your Electronic Export Information (EEI)

December 2, 2024 by Leave a comment

When you export, are you filing the correct electronic export information (EEI) with the U.S. Government? Most aircraft part export transactions will require that EEI be filed.

You are required to file an EEI for an export from the United States if any of the following apply:

  • Shipment of a single item or merchandise valued at more than $2,500 (Shipments to Canada are exempt from this requirement) (15 C.F.R. § 758.1(b)(5));
  • Any export that requires a license (15 C.F.R. § 758.1(b)(2));
  • Any export destined for a category E:1 or E:2 nation, like Cuba, Iran, North Korea or Syria (15 C.F.R. § 758.1(b)(1));
  • Exports of 9×515 or “600 series” items, including exports to Australia, Canada, and the United Kingdom (15 C.F.R. § 758.1(b)(3));
  • Exports under license exception Strategic Trade Authorization (STA) (15 C.F.R. § 758.1(b)(4));
  • If you are shipping to somewhere that does not normally require EEI, but it is transiting that location to a destination that normally requires EEI, then you must file the EEI (15 C.F.R. § 758.1(b)(6));
  • Exports under authorization Validated End-User (VEU) (15 C.F.R. § 758.1(b)(7));
  • Exports to someone on the Unverified List (supplement no. 6 to part 744 of the EAR) (15 C.F.R. § 758.1(b)(8));
  • Many exports of shotguns or other weapons (15 C.F.R. § 758.1(b)(9));
  • Exports to the People’s Republic of China, Russia, or Venezuela (15 C.F.R. § 758.1(b)(10))

This list assumes that you are shipping aircraft parts that are controlled under the Export Administration Regulations and are listed under one of the CCL categories (that is, the part has an ECCN).

You can find more information on how and where to file EEI on the International Trade Administration’s website.

Some of the more common exceptions to filing EEI are (this is not a complete list):

  • When the value of the export (classified under each Schedule B number) is $2,500 or less and mandatory EEI filing is not required;
  • Exporting under any of these license exceptions: BAG, GFT, GOV, TSR, TMP;
  • Exports for a U.S. airlines’ own use under AVS;
  • Certain exports going to Canada.

If you are relying on one of these exemptions to NOT file EEI, then you must add a statement to the first page of the bill of lading, air waybill, or other commercial loading document, and on the carrier’s outbound manifest. The statement must begin with “NOEEI” and describe the basis for the exemption by referencing the section number of the exemption. For example, you might use “NOEEI 30.37(a)” for shipments when the value of each individual Schedule B number is $2,500 or less; and “NOEEI 30.36” for qualifying shipments to Canada. This statement would be offered in lieu of the normal annotation with the International Transaction Number (ITN) that would have been issued by AES if you had filed EEI.

As always, you can use these articles as a first step in your compliance analysis, but you should carefully read the rules to make sure you are in full compliance.

Filed under Uncategorized Tagged with , , , , ,

Export Enforcement is Earning High Level Attention

September 24, 2024 by Leave a comment

The G7 is taking an interest in export enforcement, and this could affect everyone in aviation.

The G7 has announced new cooperation and new guidance for the world’s exporting community. The G7 is comprised of Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the United Kingdom, and the United States. The European Union also participates in the Group.

The G7 Sub-Working Group on Export Control Enforcement met today (September 24) and published new guidance on the prevention of diversion of high priority goods to Russia. Russia is a particular focus of this group partly because of the Ukrainian invasion, but also partly because of the significant efforts that Russia has made to circumvent sanctions.

The identified high priority goods included aircraft parts (Tariff Code 8807.30), avionics (Tariff Code 9014.20) and other navigational instruments and appliance (Tariff Code 9014.80). Thus, this reaffirms that aviation is a high priority target for diversion and it is also a high priority target for government enforcement.

The newest G7 guidance includes a list of red flags that should cause additional scrutiny if they arise in your transactions:

  • Sudden changes in business activity after 24 February 2022, or after subsequent changes in export controls/sanctions
  • False, inaccurate, or missing documentation
  • Concealing the end user (remember, there is a U.S. legal obligation to show end use compliance when exporting aircraft parts intended for installation on foreign aircraft (15 C.F.R. § 744.7))
  • Inconsistencies in the transaction
  • Vague details and/or incomplete information
  • Dividing an invoice value into smaller amounts to remain under value limits of sanctioned goods or export controls
  • Suspicious customer information
  • Customer has connections of concern
  • Concerning business practices
  • Last-minute changes to parties involved with the transaction from an entity in Russia or Belarus to an entity in another country
  • Payments from entities located in third countries that are not otherwise involved with the transactions, particularly through a sanctioned country
  • Customer unwilling to provide certification that it will not sell items to Russia or sanctioned parties in third countries

There are examples in the G7 document for each of these bullets so be sure to click through and look at the full list of red flags and examples. Many of the latest red flag examples represent fact patterns that we’ve seen arise in the aviation community.

There is also a recommended due diligence outline in the G7 document, but this is a very short outline that might be inadequate for most aircraft parts transactions subject to U.S. law.

The Aviation Suppliers Association will be covering export compliance analysis and due diligence topics during its popular Export Week! seminars on October 7-11, 2024. These are short (30 minutes of content followed by a 15 minute question period) lunch-time (11:30 am eastern time) session designed to educate the community about export compliance without overwhelming the audience with jargon and a mountain of regulations. The seminars are free for ASA members! I hope to see you all, there!

Filed under Uncategorized Tagged with , , , , ,

Export Record Retention Changes from Five to Ten Years

September 11, 2024 by Leave a comment

The Office of Foreign Asset Control (OFAC) plans to issue a new rule that will extend the record retention requirements for export records from five years to ten years (this is found in 31 C.F.R. § 501.601).

The OFAC rule change will likely be published as an interim final rule. This means that it will be published as a direct-final rule without a notice of proposed rulemaking. The OFAC rule is expected to be published on Friday (September 13, 2024) and is expected to be effective 180 days later (probably March 12, 2025).

One of the reasons for this interim-final process is because this record keeping obligation is described by OFAC as a foreign affairs function. Foreign affairs functions are excepted from the requirements of the Administrative Procedures Act (5 U.S.C. § 553(a)(1)), including the requirement for prior notice on a published rule.

The reason for these record keeping extensions is because a law issued earlier this year (Public Law No. 118-50, section 3111) established a ten year statute of limitations for sanctions violations (codified at 50 U.S.C. § 1705(d)). Please note that the statute did not mandate a ten year record retention – this choice was made by OFAC; but commercial record retention decisions are often made based around statutes of limitations.

One of the changes to the rules will extend the penalty for late-filed reports (found in the enforcement guidelines). Now the penalty will continue to increase monthly for ten years.

OFAC plans to collect comments on the interim-final rule. OFAC is expected to specifically request comments on the following topics:

  • Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information has practical utility;
  • The accuracy of the agency’s estimate of the burden of the collection of information;
  • Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected;
  • Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and
  • Estimates of capital or start-up costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services required to provide information

We expect there to be a 30 day comment period that will begin when the rule is published. ASA members who are interested in being involved in the Association’s information-gathering and response process should contact ASA Counsel Jason Dickstein immediately. This change in the record retention period may also influence a change in ASA-100 record retention practices.

BIS may also choose to extend its record retention period consistent with the sanctions statute of limitations; however they have not yet chosen to do so. At present, the BIS record retention period rule remains five years. The OFAC record retention requirement, though, should effectively apply to most U.S. exports handled by the aircraft parts community.

Filed under Uncategorized Tagged with , , , ,

← Older posts