26-0918: Friday's "Export/Import Daily Bugle"

1. State/DDTC Amends ITAR Non-NATO Ally List and Other Corrections

(Source: 91 Fed. Reg. 59059-59063, 18 Sep 2026)

[Editor’s Note: A revised edition of Bartlett’s Annotated ITAR (“The BITAR”) containing these extensive ITAR amendments will be available for download from your account by Monday.]

2. State/DDTC Amends ITAR/USML Category XX(a)

(Source: 91 FR 59063-59065, 18 Oct 2026)

[Editor’s Note: A revised edition of Bartlett’s Annotated ITAR (“The BITAR”) containing this ITAR amendment will be available for download from your account by Monday.]

3. Future Federal Register (No items of interest.)

(Source: Future Federal Register)

4. CBP Cargo Systems Messages

(Source: DHS/CBP/CSMS)

5. CBP Events in September 2026

(Source: OTR Webinars)

6. Commerce/BIS (Nothing new.)

(Source: Commerce/BIS)

7. DSCA Revises Policy for Nonrecurring Cost and Establish Special Nonrecurring Cost Charges for Certain Saudi Arabia Items

(Source: Defense Security Cooperation Agency, 18 Sep 2026)

     DSCA has posted Policy Memo 26-116, “Revise Nonrecurring Cost and Establish Special Nonrecurring Cost Charges for INTERCEPTOR, THAAD, CANISTER ASSEMBLY, GUIDED MISSILE, LAUNCHING ASSEMBLY, XM-401”.
     The attached Finding approves the revised nonrecurring cost (NC) recoupment pro rata charges and the establishment of the special non-recurring costs (Special NC) charges for Saudi Arabia for the sale, coproduction, or licensed production of the items shown on the Finding table.
     This memo updates Appendix 1 - USML 4 - Launch Vehicles, Guided Missiles, Ballistic Missiles, Rockets Torpedoes, Bombs And Mines.

8. State/DDTC Clarifies ITAR Policies of Denial, Updating Country Policies, and Corrects Minor Textual Errors; Modifies USML Category XX(a)

(Source: State/DDTC, 18 Sep 2026)

     The Department published a final rule in the Federal Register [see Item # 1 above] amending the ITAR to clarify certain ITAR § 126.1 provisions, add Saudi Arabia and Peru to the ITAR’s major non-NATO ally list, and make other minor corrections and clarifications, including:

     The Department also published in the Federal Register [see Item # 2 above] an interim final rule that will remove certain uncrewed underwater vehicles (UUVs) from the International Traffic in Arms Regulation’s (ITAR) U.S. Munitions List (USML).
     This rule is in furtherance of the President’s April 9, 2025, Executive Order 14268, “Reforming Foreign Defense Sales to Improve Speed and Accountability,” which directed the Department to review the USML to ensure that it focused “on our most sensitive and sophisticated technologies.”
     The Department assessed that these items no longer provide a critical military or intelligence advantage and, therefore, do not warrant continued control under the ITAR and Arms Export Control Act (AECA) and would be more properly controlled by the Department of Commerce’s Export Administration Regulations (EAR).
     This rule will take effect on October 18, 2026. The Department is seeking public comments on this rule for 30 days. Interested parties may submit comments by October 18, 2026, using one of the methods described in the interim final rule.

9. Treasury/OFAC: “Expiration of Emergency with Respect to the Situation in Ethiopia; Ethiopia-related Designations Removals; Issuance of Amended Russia-related General License and Associated FAQs”

(Source: Treasury/OFAC, 18 Sep 2026)

     The national emergency declared in Executive Order (E.O.) 14046 of September 17, 2021, "Imposing Sanctions on Certain Persons With Respect to the Humanitarian and Human Rights Crisis in Ethiopia," has expired.
     Following the expiration of the national emergency declared in E.O. 14046, the Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) has removed from the List of Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons (SDN List), persons designated pursuant to E.O. 14046 whose property had been blocked. In addition, OFAC has removed Frequently Asked Questions pertaining to this program from its website.
     Separately, OFAC is issuing Russia-related General License 131J, "Authorizing Certain Transactions for the Negotiation of and Entry Into Contingent Contracts for the Sale of Lukoil International GmbH and Related Maintenance Activities." OFAC is also issuing two amended Russia-related Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs 1224 and 1225).
     Lastly, the following changes have been made to OFAC's SDN list. Visit this page to access the latest version of the SDN list.

10. U.S. Court Holds Border Agents Do Not Need a Warrant to Search Traveler's Cellphone at International Border

(Source: USCA 2^nd Cir., 17 Sep 2026) [Excerpts]

     The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit recently held that border agents do not need a warrant, probable cause, or even reasonable suspicion to conduct a routine manual search of a traveler's cellphone at the international border.

     Alisigwe argues that the district court erred by denying his motion to suppress evidence obtained from two searches of his cellphone at John F. Kennedy International Airport. He argues that the searches violated the Fourth Amendment because the government did not obtain a warrant.
     We disagree. No suspicion is required before the government searches a traveler’s cellphone at the border. Nor does the First Amendment impose an independent warrant requirement for searches of cellphones at the border.
     We also reject Alisigwe’s additional arguments that the district court erred by imposing two enhancements under the Sentencing Guidelines: (1) an eighteen-point enhancement under § 2B1.1(b)(1)(J) because the offense involved an intended loss of at least $3,500,000, and (2) a two-point enhancement under § 3C1.1 for obstruction of justice.
     We affirm the judgment of the district court.”

11. White House Executive Actions: (No items of interest.)

(Source: The White House)

12. Breaking Defense: “US Clears $24B F-35 Sale for Saudi Arabia”

(Source: Breaking Defense, 17 Sep 2026) [Excerpts]

     The US State Department has cleared the potential sale of F-35 Joint Strike Fighters to Saudi Arabia, fulfilling a commitment of President Donald Trump despite security concerns over transferring the highly advanced stealth jet to the Gulf kingdom.
     The State Department said Riyadh has been approved to buy up to 48 F-35As — the conventional takeoff and landing variant of the fighter — along with 49 F135 engines in a deal valued at up to $24.3 billion. The potential sale would include support equipment and training, among other items.
     The F-35 is manufactured by Lockheed Martin, and the jet’s engine is made by RTX subsidiary Pratt & Whitney. Pratt referred questions to the Pentagon’s F-35 Joint Program Office. . . .

13. Expeditors News: “Mexico Eliminates Benchmark Prices for Textiles and Apparel”

(Source: Expeditors News, 16 Sep 2026) [Excerpts]

     On September 14, 2026, the Ministry of Revenue and Public Credit published the repeal of Annex 4 in the Diario Oficial. Annex 4 had established benchmark prices for goods classified under Chapters 51 to 63 and 94 of the Harmonized System.
     Annex 4 included 757 statistical breakouts and 1,303 Commercial Identification Numbers (NICOs). Covered goods are no longer required to guarantee duties through a Customs Account when imported below the established benchmark price.
     Annex 4 was originally intended to address undervaluation and other practices that could affect tax revenue and market competition. However, updates to the Customs Law and related legal provisions now give authorities verification powers to protect fiscal interests. The repeal took effect the day after publication. For more information, go HERE.

14. ST&R Trade Report: “AD/CVD News: Isocyanurates, L-lysine, Solar Cells, Solar Products, Steel Tubing”

(Source: Sandler, Travis & Rosenberg Trade Report) [Excerpts]. Contact: [email protected], 1-305-894-1035

     The International Trade Administration and/or International Trade Commission have recently announced the following actions in antidumping and/or countervailing duty cases. For more information on AD/CVD issues, including how to mitigate liability, please contact STR.

15. Arent Fox: “As the (Customs and Trade) World Turns: September 2026”

(Source: ArentFox Perspectives/Alerts, 16 Sep 2026) [Excerpts]

* Primary Author: Angela M. Santos, ArentFox Schiff LLP

     Welcome to the September 2026 issue of “As the (Customs and Trade) World Turns,” our monthly newsletter where we compile essential updates from the customs and trade world over the past month. . . .
We are navigating an unpredictable and fast-changing trade landscape and what we are reporting today may change by tomorrow (or in the next hour). Sign up here for regular updates and receive this newsletter each month. …
In this September 2026 edition, we cover:

16. Burns, Clif: “DDTC Revises Export Controls on Underwater Drones”

(Source: Export Law blog, 17 Sep 2026) [Excerpts]

* Author: Clif Burns, Clark Hill LLP

     Pursuant to its periodic review of items that may no longer merit control under the International Traffic in Arms Regulations, the Directorate of Defense Trade Controls today issued an interim final rule on underwater drones or, in geek-speak, uncrewed underwater vehicles or UUVs for acronym lovers.
     This will not mean that you can rush out and start sending UUVs to your uncle in Uzbekistan. (Sorry about the u-lliteration; I couldn’t resist.) The new rules will just transfer some UUVs from the ITAR to the Export Administration Regulations where they will still be subject to export controls, albeit less stringent ones.
     The key parameters in the ITAR for control are weight, length of time and distance of operation. Under the old rule, a UUV was captured by Category XX if it weighed more than 3,000 pounds and could operate without human interaction for more than 24 hours or more than 70 nautical miles. . . .
     UUVs removed from the ITAR may fall under ECCN 8A001.c.1 if they meet the parameters in that ECCN even if they do not meet the weight, distance or time requirements of Category XX. One parameter for classification as 8A001.c.1 is that the UUV is
Designed for deciding a course relative to any geographical reference without real-time human assistance;
     The difference, if any, between this navigational capability condition and the previously mentioned navigational capability condition in Category XX for UUVs is not clear at all. One possibility (but by no means a certainty) is that the new one in the ITAR contemplates a UUV that can be given mission objectives that have nothing to do with a particular geographic destination; whereas the condition in the EAR simply allows autonomy in planning the route, a basic capability of any modern navigation system.
     It might be the difference between telling the Waymo to go to Café Flaubert using what it determines to be the best route versus telling the Waymo to go find a restaurant that serves French food and has seating available. Perhaps recognizing that the line is less than crystal clear, DDTC specifically requests comments on whether “other navigation capabilities” should be considered to refine the new Category XX(a)(10) criteria.
     ECCN 8A001.c.1 is controlled for NS2, but there are a large number of countries that do not have an X in NS Column 2 of the Commerce Country Chart and therefore do not require a license for NS2 reasons. (But NOT Uzbekistan!).
     Everyone’s favorite License Exception STA is available but, for NS2 purposes, appears to be useful for only one A:5 country. None of the other A:5 countries is subject to the NS2 license requirement in the first place. The exception is the UAE, which BIS added to A:5 in July 2026 but which remains subject to NS2 licensing requirements. STA therefore could be used to send an otherwise eligible 8A001.c.1 UUV to the UAE without a license, subject, of course, to the other requirements and limitations of STA and the EAR.
     There is, of course, a catch. STA for the UAE is available only when the ultimate consignee and all end users are approved for STA in Supplement No. 8 to Part 740. Those approved recipients include a handful of U.S. technology companies and their UAE subsidiaries, which presumably aren’t in the market for many underwater drones.
     Supplement No. 8 also authorizes UAE government agencies, expressly including the Ministry of Defense and Armed Forces, to receive otherwise eligible items under STA. The UAE is itself active in UUV development and production. UAE-based Arzanah Limited, for example, advertises both a 3-meter reconnaissance and surveillance UUV and an 11-meter unmanned underwater combat vehicle.

17. Baker/McKenzie: “EU Commission Adopts 2026 Delegated Regulation Updating Annex I of the EU Dual-Use Regulation”

(Source: Global Sanctions and Export Controls Blog, 18 Sep 2026) [Excerpts]

* Principal Author: Anahita Thoms (Germany); Baker Mckenzie

     On September 14, 2026, the EU Commission adopted a Delegated Regulation updating Annex I to Regulation (EU) 2021/821 (“EU Dual-Use Regulation”). Although the changes have not yet entered into force, the Delegated Regulation sets out the expected amendments to the EU Dual-Use Regulation.
     Background: Annex I to the EU Dual-Use Regulation lists dual-use items that require an export authorization pursuant to Article 3(1) of the EU Dual-Use Regulation. The EU Commission periodically, usually at least once a year, updates Annex I by Delegated Regulation pursuant to Articles 17 and 18 of the EU Dual-Use Regulation.
     The amendments primarily reflect decisions and commitments made by Member States taken within the framework of the multilateral export control regimes and export control arrangements Wassenaar Arrangement (WA), Australia Group (AG) and Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG).
     As we previously reported, the Commission followed the same procedure for the 2025 update, which was published in the Official Journal on November 14, 2025 as Delegated Regulation (EU) 2025/2003 and entered into force the following day (see our previous blog post here).
     Unless the European Parliament or the Council objects during the two-month scrutiny period, the Delegated Regulation will be published in the Official Journal of the European Union and enter into force upon publication.
     Expected Changes: . . . . [Continue]

18. National Review: “China Links Export Controls to Exit Bans: What State Council Order No. 841 Means for Multinational Companies”

(Source: National Review, 18 Sep 2026) [Excerpts]

* Principal Author: Junko Suetomi, Greenberg Traurig, LLP

     On July 22, 2026, China’s State Council issued a new immigration regulation – the Regulation on Exit and Entry Administration (State Council Order No. 841, the Regulation) – that should be on the radar of multinational companies operating in or within China, particularly those in technology-intensive industries. The Regulation took effect on Sept. 15, 2026.
     While the Regulation primarily strengthens China’s immigration framework, one provision stands out for its potential impact on cross-border business operations. The Regulation expressly identifies violations of China’s export control or technology import and export administration rules as a potential ground for imposing exit bans on Chinese citizens, preventing them from leaving China, where the violation may endanger national, industrial, or technological security.
     This means that a Chinese employee, engineer, researcher, or executive could – in certain circumstances – be barred from departing China in connection with export control or technology transfer concerns, potentially without prior notice.
     For multinational companies, the practical stakes are significant. Cross-border personnel mobility, joint research and development activities, technology collaboration agreements, and internal compliance programs may all be affected. The Regulation does not specify the duration of exit bans imposed on export control grounds, and no implementing rules or administrative guidance have been issued to date, leaving important questions about scope and application unanswered.
     This GT Alert provides an overview of the Regulation’s key provisions and examines the specific intersection of China’s export control regime and its immigration administration system. It then discusses practical implications for multinational companies, particularly those that regularly move personnel between China and overseas locations or engage in technology-related collaboration with Chinese partners. . . .

19. Volkov: “Vendor Management and AI Risks: The Clauses to Actually Negotiate (Part II of II)”

(Source: Volkov Law, 17 Sep 2026) [Excerpts]

* Principal Author: Michael Volkov, Volkov Law Group LLC

     Part 1 of this series explained why AI vendor relationships break the assumptions built into most standard software procurement templates, and where those legacy templates leave organizations exposed: silent or vague data training rights, indemnification that doesn’t reach AI-specific harms, no meaningful audit rights, and liability caps that quietly undercut whatever protections do exist. Part 2 gets specific about what to actually put in the contract.
     Data Training and Model Improvement Restrictions: The single most important clause to add to any AI vendor contract is an explicit, affirmative prohibition on using your organization’s inputs, outputs, and any data submitted through the tool to train, retrain, fine-tune, or otherwise improve any commercial or publicly available model, without your organization’s prior express written consent.
     This needs to be specific and unambiguous language, not a general confidentiality clause that leaves the question implicit. It should cover not just the vendor’s own models, but any underlying foundation models the vendor’s product is built on top of, as a restriction that only binds the vendor and says nothing about the model provider underneath them leaves an obvious gap.
     Given that AI vendors regularly swap or update the underlying models powering their products, the contract should also require advance notice before any material model change that could affect output quality, behavior, or data handling practices. Your organization needs the ability to evaluate a new underlying model before it starts processing your data, not learn about the change after the fact when something behaves unexpectedly.
     Indemnification That Actually Covers AI-Specific Risk: . . .
     . . . .
     The Bottom Line: AI vendor contracts deserve their own dedicated review process, not a pass through the same template used for conventional software procurement. The specific gaps, silent training rights, indemnification that doesn’t reach model outputs or training data provenance, missing audit rights, and liability caps that undercut whatever protections exist, are predictable and addressable, but only if legal and procurement teams treat AI vendor contracting as a distinct discipline requiring its own playbook. Build that playbook now, and apply it to every new AI vendor relationship going forward, rather than discovering these gaps retroactively when something goes wrong.

20. List of Export/Import Job Openings

(Source: Editor)

RECENT:

FULL LIST:

22. Bartlett's Unfamiliar Quotations

(Source: Brainy Quotes)

Friday Funnies:

Tomorrow is national “Talk Like a Pirate Day”. Let’s start early.

Here’s a touching story:

An old pirate had his grandson on his knee. The boy asked, “Grandpa, what happened to your hand? How did you get that hook?” “We took a broadside from a Spanish galleon, and a cannonball blew me hand off!” said Grandpa.

“Oh my!” said the grandson. “What about your eye? Why do you wear that black patch over your eye?” “Well, I lost me eye when a bug landed on it,” Grandpa said. “But a bug wouldn’t put your eye out,” said the grandson. “No,” said the old pirate. “But it was the first day I had me hook.”

23. Today in History

(Source: History Channel)

1947 – The United States Air Force was established as a separate military branch by the National Security Act of 1947, and the CIA was formally created the same day.

24. Do You Need to Update Your Daily Bugle Profile?

(Source: Editor)

Don't miss an issue of the Daily Bugle if you change your email. Click here to manage your profile.

25. Are Your Copies of Export/Import Regulations Current?

(Source: Editor)

The official versions of the following regulations are published annually in the U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (C.F.R.) but are updated as amended in the Federal Register. The latest amendments are listed below.