International Trade Law News /title <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd"> <html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" xml:lang="en" lang="en"> <meta name="verify-v1" content="6kFGcaEvnPNJ6heBYemQKQasNtyHRZrl1qGh38P0b6M=" /> <head> <title>International Trade Law News

« Home | U.S. and E.U. Agree to Negotiate Bilateral Resolut... » | U.S. Extends Normal Trade Relations Treatment to A... » | Vastera to be Acquired by JP Morgan Chase » | USTR Zoellick Named as Deputy Secretary of State » | CBP Issues Agenda For Annual Trade Symposium » | CBP Makes Additional Change to Ultimate Consignee ... » | Interest Rate Applicable to Reconciliation Filers ... » | ITC Makes Final Injury Determinations in Antidumpi... » | BIS Extends Deadline to Submit Comments on Changes... » | Agriculture Groups Send Letter to President Urging... » 

January 11, 2005 

BIS Releases Public Comments on Proposed Changes to Knowledge Standard, Red Flags and Safe Harbor

The Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) has released the comments submitted by the public on the proposed rule published on October 13, 2004 (69 Fed. Reg. 60689) that would revise the knowledge definition in the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) to replace the phrase "high probability" with the phrase" more likely than not, update and expand the "red flags" guidance and provide a "safe harbor" from liability arising from EAR provisions utilizing the new definition of knowledge. BIS received a total of 17 comments, ranging from one page to 12 pages, from individuals, trade consultants, exporters, industry coalitions, trade associations and a U.S. Government agency.

The public comments were universally critical of the changes set forth in the proposed rule and virtually all of the comments indicated that the proposed changes to the knowledge standard and the increased number of red flags would impose significant burdens on U.S. exporters. The comments expressed major concerns with the proposed "safe harbor" and noted that the safe harbor would simply lead to a "second round" of licensing that would increase costs and cause excessive delays. Many of the comments indicated that they doubted that exporters would even utilize the safe harbor provision and would opt to file for a license instead. While many of the comments provided suggestions on how the safe harbor provision could be improved several comments suggested that BIS withdraw the safe harbor proposal unless major changes were made to the final rule.

Interestingly, the Office of Advocacy of the U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) submitted a comment indicating that it did not believe that BIS had properly analyzed "the full economic impact of the proposal on small entities as required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)" and questioned BIS's conclusion that the proposal would not have a significant economic impact on small entities. SBA noted that small businesses are more likely to incur legal expenses, fines and penalties under the proposed rule than they would have under the current regulations. In addition, the agency stated that "small businesses may also incur additional legal expenses by having to hire attorneys to help them understand the implications of the new standard as well as incur costs due to expenses related to employee training (including lost man hours) to assure that employees understand the new standard and the additional red flags proposed by BIS." SBA recommended to BIS that it prepare and publish for public comment an initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA) to access the economic impact on small entities before proceeding to a final rule.

The public comments on the proposed rule can be viewed at the following link (opens as PDF file):
http://efoia.bis.doc.gov/pubcomm/Knowledge%20and%20Red%20Flags/Final.pdf.


Editor

Subscribe

Subscribe to our confidential mailing list

Mobile Version

Search Trade Law News

International Trade and Compliance Jobs

Jobs from Indeed

Archives

Categories

Disclaimer

  • This Site is presented for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. No attorney-client relationship is formed when you use this Site. Do not consider the Site to be a substitute for obtaining legal advice from a qualified attorney. The information on this Site may be changed without notice and is not guaranteed to be complete, correct or up-to-date. While we try to revise this Site on a regular basis, it may not reflect the most current legal developments. The opinions expressed on this Site are the opinions of the individual author.
  • The content on this Site may be reproduced and/or distributed in whole or in part, provided that its source is indicated as "International Trade Law News, www.tradelawnews.com".
  • ©2003-2015. All rights reserved.

Translate This Site


Powered by Blogger