Companies Ask DDTC to Further Expand Defention for Activities That Don't Need Authorization
Two U.S. manufacturers welcomed December proposals by the State Department that would expand its regulatory definition of activities that don’t qualify as exports, but they urged the agency to provide even further flexibility. In comments released this month, both Boeing and Maxar Technologies said the agency should expand a proposal that would allow companies to avoid submitting license applications for when a foreign government’s armed forces or U.N. personnel takes a defense article out of a previously approved country.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Timely, relevant coverage of court proceedings and agency rulings involving tariffs, classification, valuation, origin and antidumping and countervailing duties. Each day, Trade Law Daily subscribers receive a daily headline email, in-depth PDF edition and access to all relevant documents via our trade law source document library and website.
Boeing said it was “pleased to see” the State Department’s proposals, which offered two additional activities that are not exports, reexports, retransfers or temporary imports and therefore wouldn’t qualify as a “controlled event” under the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (see 2212150028). The aircraft company specifically said the proposal allowing a foreign government or the U.N. to take a defense article outside of an approved country, with certain restrictions, will “provide some positive assurance to partner countries’ armed forces of a foreign government.”
But Boeing also said the proposal’s language is “too narrow.” The State Department’s Directorate of Defense Trade Controls should expand the wording to capture activity “beyond” a U.S. or U.N. mission, saying that would “enable more widespread and compliant use by exporters when dealing with other training or deployments by authorized end-users.” The company added that, “in many instances,” foreign government armed forces participate in training exercises not related to U.S. or U.N. missions.
Because of the “restrictive nature of this clause,” license applicants must include a “lengthy list of Additional Transfer Territory (ATT) countries in the agreement,” Boeing said. This has been made more onerous by DDTC's requiring congressional notifications for these ATT additions over the past year, Boeing said, “causing serious delays in the issuance of licenses.” The company said the congressional notification requirement “should be triggered by the end-user’s destination and not by where the end-user may be engaging in a training exercise or deployment location.”
To fix the issue, the company said, DDTC should remove language in the proposed definition that restricts the defense article from potentially being shared by other foreign or U.S. parties to the agreement. Boeing said the modification would reduce DDTC's "review burden, while meeting its national security goals and objectives.”
Maxar Technologies, which manufactures export-controlled communications, radar and satellite products, also said it “generally supports” the new definition. But it also said it’s “concerned” the definition “lacks any reference” to technical data.
Without an “explicit reference” to related technical data, the definition might cause “confusion” among exporters about whether they need to apply for a separate authorization to export, reexport, retransfer or temporarily import the technical data needed to operate the defense article, Maxar said. By adding “related technical data” to the definition, the company said, DDTC “would clarify that both the tangible defense article in question and all related technical data required for the operation of the defense article and/or generated by the defense article in question are also exempt from ITAR control.”