20-1229 Tuesday “Daily Bugle”

20-1229 Tuesday “Daily Bugle”

 this copy of the Daily Bugle to others or share this subscription link
Tuesday, 29 December 2020

  1. Treasury/OFAC: “Notice of Sanctions Action”
  2. USTR: “Product Exclusion Extensions and Additional Modifications: China’s Acts, Policies, and Practices Related to Technology Transfer, Intellectual Property, and Innovation”
  1. Items Scheduled for Future Federal Register Edition
  2. Commerce/BIS: “U.S. Department of Commerce Unveils New Aluminum Import Monitoring and Analysis System”
  3. State/DDTC: (No new postings)
  4. DHS/CBP: “Tariff Provisions in the Miscellaneous Tariff Bill Act of 2018 due to Expire on December 31, 2020”
  5. Treasury/OFAC: “Issuance of Venezuela-related General License 5F and Amended FAQ; Issuance of Ukraine-related General Licenses 13P and 15J”
  6. Treasury/OFAC: “Release of OFAC Civil Penalties Information”
  7. Treasury/OFAC: “Settlement Agreement between OFAQ and National Commercial Bank”
  8. Treasury/OFAC: “Publication of Communist Chinese Military Companies FAQs and Related List”
  9. Federal Appeals Court Dismisses Suit Against DDTC
  1. ELE Times: “U.S. Bans Technology Exports to Chinese Semiconductor and Drone Companies, Calling them Security Threats”
  1. Hogan Lovells: “German Federal Cabinet – Revision Draft of a Second IT Security Act (IT-SiG 2.0) in the German Federal Cabinet Approved”
  2. Steptoe: “BIS Issues New Military End User List”
  3. Thomsen and Burke: “BIS Amends Country Groups for Ukraine, Mexico and Cyprus”
  1. Bartlett’s Unfamiliar Quotations 
  2. Are Your Copies of Regulations Up to Date? Find the Latest Amendments Here. 
  3. Weekly Highlights of the Daily Bugle Top Stories 
  4. Submit Your Job Opening and View All Job Openings 
  5. Submit Your Event and View All Approaching Events 

Are You Keeping Up to Date with the Latest Regulations?

  Bartlett’s Annotated ITAR and Bartlett’s Annotated FTR are Word documents to download to your laptop to keep you updated on the latest amendments. They contain over 800 footnotes of section history, key cases, practice tips & tricks, and extensive Tables of Contents.  Subscribers receive updated editions every time the regulations are amended (usually within 24 hours), so you will always have the current versions of the regulations.  Subscribe to the BITAR and BAFTR here to guarantee you have an up-to-date annotated versions of these essential regulations.  


(Source: Federal Register) [Excerpts]
85 FR 85857: Notice
* AGENCY: Office of Foreign Assets Control, Treasury.
* ACTION: Notice.
* SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) is publishing the names of one or more persons that have been placed on OFAC’s Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons List based on OFAC’s determination that one or more applicable legal criteria were satisfied. All property and interests in property subject to U.S. jurisdiction of these persons are blocked, and U.S. persons are generally prohibited from engaging in transactions with them.
* DATES: See Supplementary Information section for applicable date(s).
* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Electronic Availability
The Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons List and additional information concerning OFAC sanctions programs are available on OFAC’s website (www.treas.gov/ofac).

 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *  

(Source: Federal Register) [Excerpts]
85 FR 85831: Notice
* AGENCY: Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR).
* ACTION: Notice of product exclusion extensions and additional modifications.
* SUMMARY: In prior notices, the U.S. Trade Representative modified the action in the Section 301 investigation of China’s acts, policies, and practices related to technology transfer, intellectual property, and innovation by excluding from additional duties certain medical-care products needed to address the COVID-19 outbreak. On March 25, 2020, the U.S. Trade Representative sought public comment on additional modifications in this investigation in order to address COVID-19. This notice announces the U.S. Trade Representative’s determination to extend certain product exclusions and to make further modifications to remove Section 301 duties from additional medical-care products to address COVID-19.
* DATES: The product exclusion extensions announced in this notice will extend the exclusions through March 31, 2021. The modifications to exclude additional products will apply as of January 1, 2021 until March 31, 2021. U.S. Customs and Border Protection will issue instructions on entry guidance and implementation.  . . . 

 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *  


* Treasury/OFAC; Notices; Blocking or Unblocking of Persons and Properties; [Pub. Date: 30 Dec 2020] (PDF) (PDF) 

 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *  

(Source: Commerce/BIS, 23 Dec 2020) [Excerpts] 
Today, the U.S. Department of Commerce announced the creation of the Aluminum Import Monitoring and Analysis (AIM) system, which will enable Commerce to collect and publish data on aluminum imports.  AIM is modeled on Commerce’s successful Steel Import Monitoring and Analysis (SIMA) system.
“AIM represents yet another step forward for the Administration’s America First trade agenda,” said Secretary of Commerce Wilbur Ross. “The new program will enable Commerce and the public to better detect potential transshipment and circumvention involving aluminum products – helping to ensure that domestic producers can compete on a level playing field.”
Under AIM, importers will be required to obtain a free, automatic import license before they import aluminum products.  To obtain the import license, companies must report the volume, value, country of origin, country of most recent cast, and certain other information, as detailed in a Federal Register notice published today https://www.federalregister.gov/d/2020-28166.  The licensing requirement becomes effective on January 25, 2021.  In addition, following a one-year grace period, Commerce will require importers to report the country where imported aluminum products were smelted.  Commerce will offer an additional opportunity to comment on this and other aspects of the licensing requirements in the coming months.
Once license data is collected, Commerce will release the data on an aggregate basis through the public AIM monitor.  The monitor will track aggregate trends in U.S. imports of certain aluminum products in almost real time, providing an early indication of trends.  The AIM monitor will also identify surges of specific aluminum products suggesting potential transshipment and circumvention relating to these products.  The monitor will be available here, starting on January 25, 2021.
Commerce will hold a series of training webinars to educate the trading community about the new import licensing requirements. These webinars will be offered on a first-come, first-served basis.  To access these reference materials, find upcoming webinar dates and times and to participate, please visit https://www.trade.gov/updates-aluminum-import-licensing
Today’s establishment of the AIM system follows Commerce’s recent expansion and modernization of the SIMA system, announced in September 2020.  The new online platform created for SIMA will also be used for AIM. AIM and SIMA are administered by Commerce’s Enforcement and Compliance unit within the International Trade Administration, which is responsible for vigorously enforcing U.S. trade laws.

 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *  

OGS_a35. State/DDTC: (No new postings)

 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *  

(Source: DHS/CBP, 28 Dec 2020)
This notice is to inform the Trade that the duty suspensions and reductions, pursuant to H.R. 4813, The Miscellaneous Tariff Bill Act of 2018 (MTB), for goods entered or withdrawn from a warehouse for consumption on or after October 13, 2018, will expire on December 31, 2020.
On September 13, 2018, the President signed into law the H.R. 4318. This MTB amends the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) to suspend and reduce tariffs on 1,660 products (see attachment) through December 31, 2020. The amendments are pursuant to the new process established in the American Manufacturing and Competitiveness Act of 2016 (H.R. 4923 / P.L. 114-159).
The MTB provisions expiring on December 31, 2020, are in the HTSUS subchapter II to chapter 99. The U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) Office of Trade, Trade Transformation Office (TTO) has programmed in the Automated Commercial Environment (ACE) the change to be effective on December 31, 2020, at 11:59 pm, EST.  . . . 

 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *  

(Source: Treasury/OFAC, 23 Dec 2020)
The Department of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) is issuing General License 5F, “Authorizing Certain Transactions Related to the Petróleos de Venezuela, S.A. 2020 8.5 Percent Bond on or After July 21, 2021,” and is amending a related Frequently Asked Question (FAQ 595).
In addition, OFAC is issuing Ukraine-related General License No. 13P, “Authorizing Certain Transactions Necessary to Divest or Transfer Debt, Equity, or Other Holdings in GAZ Group,” and Ukraine-related General License 15J, “Authorizing Certain Activities Involving GAZ Group.”

 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *  

(Source: Treasury/OFAC, 28 Dec 2020)
The U.S. Department of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) today announced a settlement with the National Commercial Bank (NCB), a bank headquartered in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. NCB agreed to remit $653,347 to settle its potential civil liability for 13 apparent violations of the Sudanese Sanctions Regulations, or section 2(b) of Executive Order (E.O.) 13582 of August 17, 2011, “Blocking Property of the Government of Syria and Prohibiting Certain Transactions With Respect to Syria.” The apparent violations were processed between November 7, 2011 and August 28, 2014 and relate to transactions involving Sudan or Syria that transited through the U.S. financial system. This settlement amount reflects OFAC’s determination that NCB’s apparent violations were non-egregious.
For more information, please visit the following web notice.
New information on OFAC Civil Penalties and Informal Settlements is now available.

 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *  

(Source: Treasury/OFAC, 28 Dec 2020)
The U.S. Department of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) today announced a settlement with the National Commercial Bank (NCB), a bank headquartered in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. NCB agreed to remit $653,347 to settle its potential civil liability for 13 apparent violations of the Sudanese Sanctions Regulations, or section 2(b) of Executive Order (E.O.) 13582 of August 17, 2011, “Blocking Property of the Government of Syria and Prohibiting Certain Transactions With Respect to Syria.” The apparent violations were processed between November 7, 2011 and August 28, 2014 and relate to transactions involving Sudan or Syria that transited through the U.S. financial system. This settlement amount reflects OFAC’s determination that NCB’s apparent violations were non-egregious. For more information, please visit this web notice.

 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *  

(Source: Treasury/OFAC, 28 Dec 2020)

OFAC has published the following Frequently Asked Questions related to Executive Order (E.O.) 13959, “Addressing the Threat from Securities Investments that Finance Communist Chinese Military Companies;” 857858859860861.  OFAC has also published a list (PDF) containing the names of entities identified in or pursuant to E.O. 13959 as Communist Chinese military companies, along with additional identifying information.

 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *  

(Source: 2020 WL 7687384) [Excerpts; footnotes removed.  A copy of the full opinion is available from Christopher Stagg <chris@staggpc.com>.]
* Case: Stagg, P.C. v. U.S. Department of State
* Court: United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit
* Citation: F.3d —- 2020 WL 7687384
* Decided: 28 Dec 2020 
* Counsel: Lawrence D. Rosenberg (Christopher B. Stagg, Stagg, P.C., New York, NY, on the brief), Jones Day, Washington, DC, for Plaintiff-Appellant.  Dominika Tarczynska, Assistant US Attorney (Benjamin H. Torrance, Assistant US Attorney, on the brief), for Audrey Strauss, Acting US Attorney for the Southern District of New York, New York, NY, for Defendant-Appellees.
* Judges: LEVAL, HALL, and LYNCH, Circuit Judges
* Opinion:
Plaintiff Stagg, P.C. (“Stagg”) appeals from the judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Katherine Polk Failla, J.) granting summary judgment to Defendants, the United States Department of State (“DOS”), the Secretary of State, and the Directorate of Defense Trade Controls, (“DDTC”).1 The complaint seeks, inter alia, declaratory judgment that DOS’s International Traffic in Arms Regulations (“ITAR”), 22 C.F.R. §§ 120.1130.17, impose an unconstitutional prior restraint on Plaintiff’s intended speech and are unconstitutionally vague.
Under the ITAR and their governing statute, the Arms Export Control Act (“AECA”), 22 U.S.C. § 2751 et seq., a party seeking to export items designated as “defense articles and defense services” must first register with the DDTC, a subdivision of DOS, and obtain a license for each export. The ITAR’s licensing requirement covers, inter alia, “technical data” that is required for the design, manufacture, maintenance, or modification of a defense article, unless the data is “in the public domain,” as defined in the ITAR. 22 C.F.R. §§ 120.10, 120.11. Transferring such data to a foreign person within the United States is considered an “export” under the ITAR, thus triggering the registration and licensing requirements. Violation of the ITAR may result in severe criminal or civil penalties.
Stagg is a law firm which specializes in export control matters. The complaint asserts that Stagg intends to speak on the ITAR’s technical data provisions at public conferences, and to publish free educational materials on that topic on its website. To provide useful examples in its materials, it intends to republish information pertaining to defense articles that is excluded from the ITAR’s licensing requirement by the exception for materials “in the public domain.” 22 C.F.R. § 120.11. Some of these examples will involve Stagg’s “aggregation” or “modification” of public domain information.
         The complaint alleges that Stagg has been deterred from engaging in its intended speech by two public statements of DOS: one which expresses the view that technical data does not qualify for the public domain exclusion if it “has been made available to the public without authorization,” 80 Fed. Reg. 31,525, 31,535 (June 3, 2015), and another, which states, “[I]t is seldom the case that a party can aggregate public domain data for purposes of application to a defense article without … creating a data set that itself is not in the public domain,” 78 Fed. Reg. 31,444, 31,445 (May 24, 2013). Stagg asserts that the publicly available information it intends to use has never been authorized by the Government for release into the public domain, and also that it fears its aggregation and modification of public domain data will create a data set that Defendants will consider to be ITAR-controlled. It asserts a concern, in light of DOS’s statements, that its intended speech will subject it to prosecution for unlicensed export of ITAR-controlled technical data to foreign persons who may attend its presentations or access the materials on its website. It seeks a declaratory judgment that the ITAR’s licensing requirement violates the First and Fifth Amendments, primarily because it gives vague, excessive, and standardless discretion to the licensing authority.
The district court granted summary judgment to Defendants, concluding, inter alia, that the text of the ITAR unambiguously does not require a license for Stagg’s intended republication of information in the “public domain” that has not been previously authorized for release into the public domain. In a later ruling on Stagg’s motion for reconsideration, the district court characterized its previous ruling as finding “that the purported prior restraint alleged in [Stagg’s complaint] did not exist” because the ITAR did not apply to Stagg’s intended speech, and rejected on standing grounds Stagg’s request for a declaratory judgment that the licensing scheme is unconstitutional. App’x at 83. While it was clear that the district court ruled against Stagg and dismissed its complaint, it was not entirely clear whether and to what extent the district court regarded this ruling as a judgment on the merits or as a dismissal for lack of Article III jurisdiction.
This appeal followed. For the reasons below, we agree substantially with the district court’s reasoning that the licensing regulations did not cover Stagg’s pleaded intended speech and conclude that the complaint should be dismissed under Article III because Stagg is no longer at risk of injury from the licensing provisions it claims are unconstitutional.
   A. The Statutory and Regulatory Scheme . . . .
   B. Defendants’ Public Statements Interpreting the ITAR  . . . .
   C. Procedural History
1. Stagg’s Complaint . . . .
2. Stagg’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction . . . .
3. The Parties’ Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment . . . .
   A. Article III’s Requirement of a “Case” or “Controversy” . . . .
              1. Stagg’s “Personal Stake” in the Litigation . . . .
              2. Stagg’s Further Arguments for Article III Jurisdiction . . . .

In sum, we conclude that Stagg’s constitutional challenges to the ITAR do not assert a case or controversy within the jurisdiction of the federal courts because the unambiguous provisions of the ITAR do not subject Stagg (to the extent of its intended activities as alleged in its complaint) to any licensing requirement or credible threat of enforcement.

         We agree with the district court that the ITAR licensing scheme does not apply to Stagg’s intended conduct alleged in the complaint, and so rule. We disagree with the district court, however, as to the consequences of that ruling. As a result of the district court’s (and our) rulings on the unambiguous inapplicability of the ITAR license requirement to Stagg’s intended actions, Stagg has no personal stake in its suit for a declaration that the ITAR licensing scheme is unconstitutional. Stagg’s suit therefore fails the test of Article III jurisdiction, and the appropriate disposition is dismissal of the suit, rather than the grant of summary judgment to the Defendants. To the extent that portions of the district court’s opinions below can be interpreted as ruling on the merits of Stagg’s constitutional challenges, we vacate those rulings.
For the foregoing reasons, the plaintiff is not at risk of prosecution under the ITAR licensing scheme. The district court’s judgment is VACATED, and Stagg’s suit to declare that scheme unconstitutional is DISMISSED for lack of Article III jurisdiction.

 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *  


(Source: ELE Times, 29 Dec 2020) [Excerpts]
The Trump administration has added prominent Chinese semiconductor and drone manufacturers to an export blacklist, an attempt to continue exerting pressure on Beijing in the final weeks of the Trump presidency. The Commerce Department said it has placed Semiconductor Manufacturing International Corp., or SMIC; drone maker DJI; and dozens of other Chinese companies and universities on the Entity List, which bans the export of U.S. technology to the entities unless the exporter receives a government license. But national security experts and some lawmakers said that the semiconductor export control is virtually meaningless because of the way Commerce wrote the rule governing its application.


(Source: Hogan Lovells, 28 Dec 2020)
* Principal Author: Nicole Böck, Esq., 49-89-290-120, Hogan Lovells
Cyber security is a key issue that concerns governments, businesses and societies. In 2011, the German government laid the legal foundation for greater cyber security with the Cyber Security Strategy for Germany. On 17 July 2015, the Act to Strengthen the Security of Information Technology Systems (IT Security Act or IT-SiG 1.0) was passed.

On 16 December 2020, the German Federal Cabinet approved the draft of a Second Act to Strengthen the Security of Information Technology Systems (IT-SiG 2.0). Between 27 March 2019 to 9 December 2020, a total of four drafts of the Federal Ministry of the Interior, for Construction and Home Affairs (BMI)  preceded the decision. In particular, the IT-SiG 2.0 shall transpose conclusions from experience with the application of the IT-SiG 1.0. The amendments focus on the German Act to Strengthen the Security of Federal Information Technology (Gesetz über das Bundesamt für Sicherheit in der Informationstechnik – BSIG).

Of particular importance is the further strengthening of the role of the Federal Office for Information Security (Bundesamt für Informationssicherheit – BSI) as a general authority for security in information technology and thus also as a national cybersecurity certification authority within the meaning of the EU Cybersecurity Act (Regulation (EU) 2019/881).

The most important changes     

The BSI will receive new responsibilities in the area of consumer protection and security with regard to information technology. Accordingly, the BSI shall warn/inform the public in the event of missing or inadequate security precautions of certain products as well as failure to comply with BSI’s requests for information. In doing so, the BSI shall also provide information on security-relevant product properties. In addition, the BSI shall carry out IT security tests and analyses with a focus on IT-security risks for consumers. Sanctionable claims for information against the manufacturer are also envisaged.
In addition, the BSI shall make recommendations for identification and authentication procedures and their evaluation for the sake of information security, as well as develop and publish a technical standard regarding security-related requirements for IT products.
Moreover, the BSI shall have the authority to issue administrative orders to telecommunications and telemedia providers to avert specific threats to information security. Among other things, the BSI can order that the necessary technical and organizational measures be taken to ensure the secure functioning of telemedia offerings.
Furthermore, the BSIG shall cover and include obligations for so called companies of a particular public interest in the future. The criteria and economic indicators for determining companies of particular public interest will be defined by statutory order.

Additionally, draft IT-SiG 2.0 introduces a uniform IT safety label for certain product categories on a voluntary basis – due to requirements under EU law. The IT security label shall consist of (1) a manufacturer’s declaration as well as (2) a dynamic security information on the product. In doing so, the IT safety label intends to provide a comprehensible and transparent information about the IT security of consumer products or IT services. However, compliance with data protection law requirements, in particular according to the GDPR, are not covered by the IT safety label. The usage of the IT security label is subject to approval by the BSI.
Finally, the fine regime has also been revised. Insofar, fines of up to 2 million euros are threatened.

There are still some further hurdles to overcome for the current draft IT-SiG 2.0 to become a law. The draft will have to pass the Federal Council (Bundesrat) and has to be adopted by the Federal Parliament (Bundestag) before the final version of the IT-SiG 2.0 will enter into force. Next steps are expected in Q 1 2021. We will keep you updated.

(Source: Steptoe, 28 Dec 2020)
* Principal Author: Wendy Wysong, Esq., 852-3729-1804, Steptoe & Johnson LLP 
On December 23, 2020, the US Department of Commerce, Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) added its long-anticipated Military End User (MEU) List to the Military End Use/User Rule (MEU Rule) of the Export Administration Regulations (EAR). The initial tranche of parties included on the MEU List consists of 102 “military end users,” comprising 57 Chinese companies and 45 Russian companies. Exporters are now on notice that a license is required for exports, reexports, or transfers of any item subject to the EAR listed in Supplement No. 2 to Part 744 (MEU Item) if any of these newly-listed companies are the purchaser, intermediate or final consignee, or end user. License exceptions are generally not available for exports, reexports, or transfers of MEU Items to a MEU listed entity (unless authorized under License Exception GOV as specified). License applications for MEU Items will be reviewed with a presumption of denial.
The published MEU List is substantially revised from the draft that was previously leaked, and widely publicized a month earlier, which listed 117 companies (89 Chinese companies and 28 Russian companies). The MEU List was published as part of a new final rule that amended the EAR’s MEU Rule, which requires licenses for shipments of MEU Items to “military end users” or for “military end uses” in China, Russia, or Venezuela. The MEU Rule places the onus on exporters to determine whether a transaction is to a military end user or for a military end use and therefore, requires a license. After the MEU Rule was amended and broadened in April 2020, exporters had requested further guidance from BIS to assist with determinations as to whether specific shipments would require licenses under the MEU Rule.  BIS subsequently published FAQs that provided some additional guidance.  The MEU List provides further guidance and clarification to exporters, by informing and providing notice to the public when an entity is considered by the US government to be a “military end user” for purposes of the MEU Rule.
In publishing the MEU List, BIS warned that it was “non-exhaustive and does not imply that other parties not included on the List are exempt from regulatory prohibitions.” In other words, exporters must continue to conduct due diligence to ensure that shipments of MEU Items are not made to unlisted “military end users,” or for “military end uses” in China, Russia, or Venezuela, even if no MEU Listed entity is part of the transaction or if there is risk of diversion to a military end user or for a military end use. As one example, BIS indicated that parties not included on the MEU List, but included on the list of “Communist Chinese Military Companies” published by the Department of Defense pursuant to section 1237 of the National Defense Authorization Act (DoD List), would raise a “red flag” under the EAR and would require additional due diligence by exporters, reexporters, or transferors to determine whether a license is required under the MEU Rule.
BIS also amended the EAR to provide clarity on the process it will follow to make changes to the MEU List. The End-User Review Committee (ERC), the interagency body composed of representatives of the Departments of Commerce, Defense, Energy, State, and, where appropriate, the Treasury, will have the authority to make additions to, removals from, or other modifications to the MEU List. The ERC already makes similar decisions with respect to parties on the Entity List under the EAR.  Supplement No. 5 to Part 744, which provides the procedural framework for the ERC’s evaluation for additions to and requests for removal from the BIS Entity List, will now apply to the MEU List. Parties who have been added to the MEU List can file petitions with the ERC pursuant to Supplement 5 to Part 744 addressing why they are not military end users or involved in military end uses.

(Source: Thomsen and Burke, 28 Dec 2020)
* Principal Author: Roszel C. Thomsen II, 1-410539-2596, Thomsen and Burke
The Commerce Department Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) has issued a final rule that amends the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) by moving Ukraine from Country Group D to Country Group B and adding Mexico and Cyprus to Country Group A:6.
The rule is state to be effective December 28, 2020, once published in the Federal Register.
The noteworthy impact includes:
  • Ukraine moved from Country Group D to B.
  • Now eligible for certain 5E002 technology exports under License Exception ENC
  • Eligibility for other License Exceptions; however, there is a carve-out from GBS and TSR eligibility
  • Military end-user and end-use controls on microprocessors in Section 744.17 of the EAR no longer apply
  • Note that the restrictions on the Crimea region still remain
  • Mexico and Cyprus added to Country Group A:6.
  • License Exception STA eligibility in some situations


EN_a116. Bartlett’s Unfamiliar Quotations

(Source: Editor)

* Andrew Johnson (29 Dec 1808 – 31 Jul 1875; was the 17th president of the United States, serving from 1865 to 1869. Johnson assumed the presidency as he was vice president of the United States at the time of the assassination of Abraham Lincoln. Following the Civil War, Johnson favored restoration of the Confederate states to the Union without protection for the former slaves. This led to conflict with the Republican-dominated Congress, culminating in his impeachment, but he was acquitted in the Senate by one vote.)
  – “The goal to strive for is a poor government but a rich people.”


* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *


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.
Latest Update 


5 Apr 2019: 84 FR 13499:

Civil Monetary Penalty Adjustments for Inflation. 
28 Dec 2020: 85 FR 84211  Revisions to Country Groups for Ukraine, Mexico, and Cyprus

24 Apr 2018: 

83 FR 17749: Foreign Trade Regulations (FTR): Kimberley Process Certificates. The latest edition of Bartlett’s Annotated FTR “BAFTR” is 15 Dec 2020. 

: DoD 5220.22-M. Implemented by Dep’t of Defense. 

18 May 2016: Change 2: Implement an insider threat program; reporting requirements for Cleared Defense Contractors; alignment with Federal standards for classified information systems; incorporated and cancelled Supp. 1 to the NISPOM (Summary here.)  
DOE ASSISTANCE TO FOREIGN ATOMIC ENERGY ACTIVITIES: 10 CFR Part 810.    23 Feb 2015: 80 FR 9359: comprehensive updating of regulations, updates the activities and technologies subject to specific authorization and DOE reporting requirements. 

15 Nov 2017, 82 FR 52823: miscellaneous corrections include correcting references, an address and a misspelling.

DOJ ATF ARMS IMPORT REGULATIONS: 27 CFR Part 447-Importation of Arms, Ammunition, and Implements of War. 
14 Mar 2019: 84 FR 9239: Bump-Stock-Type Devices.


11 Dec 2020: 85 FR 79836: Extension of temporary suspensions, modifications and exceptions. The latest edition of Bartlett’s Annotated ITAR (BITAR) is 11 Dec 2020.  

DOT FOREIGN ASSETS CONTROL REGULATIONS (OFAC FACR): 31 CFR, Parts 500-599, Embargoes, Sanctions, Executive Orders
Amendment of Cuban Assets Control Regulations.

1 Jan 2019: 19 USC 1202 Annex.
  – HTS codes for AES are available here.
  – HTS codes that are not valid for AES are available here.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
The Daily Bugle Archive

Are you searching for updates from the past editions of the Daily Bugle? 

We publish a list of over 100 trade compliance job openings every day.

Submit your job for free.
PermanentJobListView All Job Openings

Are you looking for a new job in trade compliance? Click here to see the current job openings.

We publish a list of over 100 trade compliance events every day. Submit your event for free.

PermanentJobListView All Events

Are you looking for an upcoming event?   Click here to see upcoming events.

Scroll to Top