Reader Feedback

Export Compliance Sensationalized

In response to James Careless' Export Compliance story (see AM, Nov. 2005, p. 40), I comment: Although Mr. Careless' article was valuable to your audience, as most companies don't fully realize the importance of this topic, it also sensationalized what the regulations really say. Case in point:

1. James wrote, "If these components have the potential to serve military purposes--so-called "dual use" components--then your company could run afoul of the State Department's DDTC...Remember: before you export or import anything with a potential military use, you must get approval from DDTC through a license."

I respond: An item or technical data is considered "dual use" if it can be used in both military and commercial applications (15 CFR 730.3). Articles of such nature are subject to the Commerce Control List under the Export Administration Regulations which are regulated by the Department of Commerce (22 CFR 120.5)--NOT the State Department. Also, the intended use of the article after it's export (i.e. for a military or civilian purpose) is not relevant in determining whether the article is subject to the controls of ITAR (22 CFR 120.3).

2. James wrote, "...one company was cited for producing a part for commercial use that subsequently was adopted by the military as a cheaper off-the-shelf solution."

I respond: An item or technical data is NOT considered "dual use" if it:

a. Is specifically designed, developed, configured, adapted, or modified for a military application, and

(i) Does not have predominant civil applications, and

(ii) Does not have performance equivalent (defined by form, fit and function) to those of an article used for civil applications; or

b. Is specifically designed, developed, configured, adapted, or modified for a military application (22 CFR 120.3).

Clearly this part was dual use, thus the company's citation is questionable...I'm sure there is more to the story.

The article was otherwise very informative, dotted with great PR for the compliance organizations.

Kelly Anderson
Export Manager
Pacific Sky Supply, Inc.

Fiscal Incentive for Change

In regards to your Editor's Notebook column of January, An Incentive for Maintenance Training, (see AM, Jan. 2006, p. 3) I agree with your comments almost completely. I did, however, think you left out the most interesting part of the discussion--that the FAA (at least, part of it) agrees with you. AFS-300 (specifically, Bill O'Brien) has recently published a white paper saying almost exactly the idea you've just expressed (in his case, as part of a larger restructuring of Parts 43 and 65). You can find a link to it and more information at www.pama.org.

Additionally, there's another reason that that FAA should be interested in your changes--fiscal. It's hard for me to say for sure what it costs the U. S. to recertify every IA, but for those of us outside the US, we are charged $123 a year for the privilege (check AC 187-1). I'm guessing very little of that is "profit." So figuring $123 a year times 20,000 IA's, that alone could save them $2.46 million dollars every other year. That's $2.5 million that could be spent on better continuing education.

Richard T. Perry
Supervisor, Quality Control/Compliance
AirScan Pacific - Kwajalein