;

20-0415 Wednesday “Daily Bugle”

20-0415 Wednesday “Daily Bugle”

 this copy of the Daily Bugle to others or share 
this subscription link
Wednesday, 15 April 2020

[No items of interest for today]

  1. Items Scheduled for Future Federal Register Edition
  2. Commerce/BIS: (No new postings.)
  3. DHS/CBP: “Information on New COVID-19 Relief Imports Web Portal”
  4. State/DDTC Announces DECCS Tips and Tricks WEBINAR
  5. UK ECJU: “Strategic Export Controls: Licensing Data”
  6. Singapore Customs Publishes Notification of Customs Duty Changes on Certain Medical Items
  1. The Verge: “State Officials Ask Trump Administration to Pull 3D-printed Gun Files Offline”
  2. TH: “U.S. Approves Sale of Missiles, Torpedoes to India”
  1. BakerMcKenzie: “CBP Issues Internal Guidance on Handling Exports of Personal Protective Equipment Products”
  2. N. Turner: “Sanctions Top-5 for the Week Ending 10 April 2020”
  3. Steptoe: “Expired MLA or TAA? New Guidance Clarifies that Certain Activity under an ITAR Agreement Can Continue”
  1. ECTI Presents: Classifying Aircraft Part Technology Webinar: 22 April
  2. FCC Academy Presents Webinar: “An Introduction to EU/Dutch Dual-use and Military Export Controls”; 12 May
  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 down-

load to your laptop to keep you updated on the latest amendments, and contain over 800 footnotes of section history, key cases, practice tips & tricks, and extensive Tables of Contents.
The ITAR amendments to the ITAR that took effect on 9 March and 25 March are included in the current edition of the BITAR.  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 now to guarantee you have an up-to-date ITAR!    
 

Combo
BITAR + BAFTR
Price: $300
Offer: $275

 
Buy Here

BITAR

Price: $200

BAFTR

  Price: $100

EXIMITEMS FROM TODAY’S FEDERAL REGISTER

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

OGSOTHER GOVERNMENT SOURCES

OGS_a11
.
Items Scheduled for Future Federal Register Editions 
[No items of interest today]

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

OGS_a22. 
Commerce/BIS: (No new postings.)

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

OGS_a3
3
.
DHS/CBP: “Information on New COVID-19 Relief Imports Web Portal”

(
Source: DHS/CBP, 14 Apr 2020)
 
Due to the high volume of inquiries received in the COVID-19 Relief Imports email inbox, CBP is migrating to the COVID-19 Relief Imports Web Portal. The web portal has been established to replace the email address for all cargo inquiries related to the importation of medical supplies to fight the spread of the COVID-19 virus. It provides an interactive experience for the user to review pertinent information and allows for the submission of a direct inquiry to the COVID-19 Cargo Resolution Team (CCRT).
 
While monitoring the inbox, the CCRT has been responding to many similar questions regarding the importation of various PPE and critical medical supplies. To alleviate some of the common questions, the web portal will have basic guidance uploaded to a FAQ section and valuable information in other areas of the site. CBP will continue to update the portal and upload important information on a daily basis. The web portal can be found at https://imports.cbp.gov/

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

OGS_a44.

State/DDTC Announces DECCS Tips and Tricks WEBINAR 


Now that DECCS is deployed, find out the tips and tricks to get your company set up for success in the new system. We will go over commonly asked questions, best practices and there will be plenty of time for Q&A.
 
Topics to be discussed:
   – Updates to Enrollment process & User Management applications
   – Registration Renewal and Amendment processes
   – Setting up License Groups
   – Signing a License as an Empowered Official
 
Login Details are below:
Date: April 16th, 2020
 
Time: 2:00 pm – 3:00 pm EST
WebEx: Click Here  
If password is required when entering WebEx, type ‘census’.

Passcode: 1 6 0 5 2 6 0

 

Dial in for audio: 1-888-469-3185

Back to top

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

OGS_a55.

UK ECJU: “Strategic Export Controls: Licensing Data” 

 

(Source:
UK ECJU
, 15 Apr 2020)
 
UK ECJU publishes updates by adding the
quarterly data for 1 October to 31 December 2019, and annual data for 1 January to 31 December 2019.

Find all the new data
here.

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

OGS_a66.

Singapore Customs Publishes Notification of Customs Duty Changes on Certain Medical Items 

 

(Source: Singapore Customs, 15 Apr 2020)

Arising from the press release issued by the Ministry of Trade and Industry on the Declaration on Trade in Essential Goods for Combating the COVID19 Pandemic, the following duty revision will take effect from 15 April 2020.
 
Find the affected items with HS codes
here

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

COMNEWS

NWS_a17.
The Verge: “State Officials Ask Trump Administration to Pull 3D-Printed Gun Files Offline”
 
(Source: The Verge, 13 Apr 2020) [Excerpts]

 
Two dozen state attorneys general are asking the Trump administration to crack down on Defense Distributed’s Defcad site for selling 3D-printed gun files. In a letter sent today, they urged the Justice Department and State Department to enforce rules against exporting weapons and making undetectable firearms. “If the federal government fails to act, these files will be distributed widely with potentially grave consequences for our national and domestic security,” warns the letter.
 
Attorneys general argue that Defcad is violating export control regulations and the Undetectable Firearms Act, which bans manufacturing, owning, and selling guns that don’t trigger metal detectors. Anyone who downloads files could “automatically manufacture functional weapons that cannot be detected by a standard metal detector and, furthermore, are untraceable because they lack serial numbers,” says the letter. “Continued dissemination of these files will increase the risk of terrorist attacks and gun violence across the United States.”
 
Defcad has made several false starts, especially under the Obama administration, which contended that publishing printable weapon files violated International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR). The Trump administration reversed course and settled with Defense Distributed, but state attorneys general filed a lawsuit, and a federal judge blocked its decision multiple times. Despite this, Defcad launched in March with a vetting system to allow only US residents, a strategy it claimed was “impervious” to legal challenge – although it acknowledged a buyer could redistribute the files to other people.
 
Defcad has well-established problems with ITAR, but the letter doesn’t explain how it violates the Undetectable Firearms Act beyond asserting that files “enable the automatic manufacture of functional plastic weapons.” While lawmakers have proposed updates to expressly ban 3D-printed plastic weapons, they’ve focused on the act of making the guns rather than distributing the plans.

NWS_a28.
TH: “U.S. Approves Sale of Missiles, Torpedoes to India”

(Source:
The Hindu, 14 Apr 2020)

 
The U.S. State Department has approved two potential missile deals with India, for an estimated $92 million and $63 million, the State Department has said in a statement.
 
The first deal, for which Boeing is the contractor, is for ten AGM-84L Harpoon Block II air launched missiles and related equipment. These missiles can be fitted onto Boeing’s 8-PI (Poseidon Eight India) maritime patrol aircraft and are intended to enhance India’s capability in anti-surface warfare while defending its sea lanes.
 
The second deal, for $63 million and principally contracted with Raytheon Integrated Defense System, is for 16 MK 54 All Up Round Lightweight Torpedoes (LWT); three MK 54 Exercise Torpedoes (MK 54 LWT Kit procurement required); and related equipment. Also included are MK 54 spare parts; torpedo containers; two Recoverable Exercise Torpedoes (REXTORP) with containers and related equipment and support from the U.S. government and contractors.  The torpedoes are expected to enhance India’s anti-submarine warfare capability and can be used with the P-8I.
 
There are no known offset agreements for both deals, the State Department said, and any offset agreements will be defined in negotiations between India and the contractors.  The Defense Security Cooperation Agency delivered the required certification to the U.S. Congress, notifying it of the possible sale. As per the U.S.’s Arms Export Control Act, Congress has 30 days to raise objections to the sale in the case of India.

COMCOMMENTARY

COM_a19. BakerMcKenzie: “CBP Issues Internal Guidance on Handling Exports of Personal Protective Equipment Products”

(Source: Sanctions & Export Controls Update, 14 Apr 2020)
 
* Principal Author: Kerry B. Contini, Esq., 1-202-835-1600, Baker & McKenzie LLP
 
On April 9, 2020, US Customs and Border Protection (“CBP“) issued internal guidance (available here as of April 14, 2020) (“Guidance“) to CBP Field Operations Directors on CBP’s implementation of the new temporary final rule published by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (“FEMA“) imposing export restrictions on certain personal protective equipment products (“PPE Products“) used in the response to the COVID-19 pandemic (the “FEMA Rule“). Specifically, the Guidance describes which products and shipments are targeted by the export restrictions and which are excluded, expanding on the exemption previously outlined by FEMA. We understand that CBP, FEMA, and other relevant US government agencies are in the process of revising the Guidance and expect revised guidance to become available to the public in the next few days. In the meantime, as a practical matter, CBP ports may be using the Guidance to inform their activities in connection with the PPE Products. The exporters should bear in mind that the exclusions described below could change if and when revised CBP guidance becomes available.
 
Our blog post on the FEMA Rule, which was published on April 10, 2020, but effective as of filing on April 7, 2020, is available here. The FEMA Rule implemented a Presidential Memorandum dated April 3, 2020, which is described in our blog post here.
 
What Does the Guidance Say?
 
The Guidance essentially functions as instructions to CBP on how to enforce the export restrictions set out in the FEMA Rule. By way of brief background, the FEMA Rule mandates that CBP temporarily detain exports of PPE Products at the border, pending a determination by FEMA whether to (1) return the shipment for domestic use (i.e., prohibit the export), (2) issue a rated order for part or all of the shipment that the seller would be required to prioritize, or (3) allow the export of part or all of the shipment. Please see our prior blog post for more detailed background on the scope of the FEMA Rule, including a list of the targeted PPE Products.
 
Which Shipments are Excluded from the Export Restrictions?
 
The Guidance lists certain types of export shipments that, for now, will be excluded from the focus of CBP’s efforts:
 
Shipments in “commercial quantities,” currently defined as shipments valued at $2,500 and containing more than 10,000 units, and
Shipments that are not:
– Exports to Canada or Mexico;
– Exports to U.S. government entities such as U.S. military bases overseas;
– Exports by U.S. Government agencies;
– Exports by U.S. charities;
– Exports by critical infrastructure industries for the protection of their workers (the Guidance does not define “critical infrastructure industries,” but the Advisory Memorandum published by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security Cybersecurity & Infrastructure Security Agency on March 28, 2020 may be instructive;
– Exports by the 3M Company;
– Express or Mail Parcels that do not meet the commercial quantity definition above;
– In-transit shipments.
The exclusions set out above may be revised in full or in part in the public guidance that we understand is forthcoming from the CBP.
 
How Will CBP Identify Which Shipments Are Subject to the FEMA Rule?
 
In accordance with the Guidance, CBP ports will identify shipments exported in commercial quantities that do not meet any exclusions described above based on the Automated Export System (“AES“) filings.  
 
Currently, the ports are instructed to only detain shipments pending further instructions from FEMA. The Guidance does not clarify further details on the process that FEMA will take to reach its determinations on whether to allow the exports to proceed.
 
What to Expect
 
While public guidance on the implementation of the FEMA Rule is expected to be published by the CBP in the coming days, CBP expects its offices to exercise discretion and encourages exporters to file AES information as early as possible if it involves products covered by the FEMA Rule.
 
Although the Guidance sets out a series of exclusions, exporters of PPE Products should nonetheless expect detentions and resulting delays at ports across the country, pending further instructions from FEMA. The FEMA Rule does not mandate a specific time for FEMA to decide whether a particular export will be permitted, and it is not clear whether, when, or how exporters will be notified of the status of their shipment. Anyone who is considering the export of PPE Products should first consider whether any exclusions described in the Guidance may apply. If an exclusion appears to apply, exporters should consider whether the fact that the shipment qualifies for the exclusion is clear from the face of the information and documents included in the shipment and, if not, consider including supplemental documentation with the shipment identifying which exclusion should apply and why.

COM_a210. N. Turner: “Sanctions Top-5 for the Week Ending 10 April 2020”

(Source:
Medium, 14 Apr 2020)

 
* Author: Nicholas Turner, Esq., 852-5998-7559, Steptoe & Johnson HK LLP
 
Here are five things that happened this week in the world of economic sanctions that I think you should know about.
 
(1) The 
European Leadership Network (ELN) and The Iran Project released a letter signed by 24 prominent individuals in the US and European national security communities calling for an easing of US sanctions against Iran to help combat the current COVID-19 pandemic. (Read the letter here.) The following day, the US State Department released a fact sheet titled “Iran’s Sanctions Relief Scam,” accusing the Iranian government of using the pandemic in a cynical bid to earn cash.
(2)
The US Treasury Department, meanwhile, 
issued a statement emphasizing the broad exemptions and authorizations under US sanctions programs
 
for humanitarian-related transactions. (For more on this subject, see my team’s 
recent advisory on US and EU sanctions policies on humanitarian exports
, including an interactive chart of OFAC general licenses.)
(3)
The US State Department 
announced the designation of the Russia-based Russian Imperial Movement (RIM) and three of its leaders as Specially Designated Global Terrorists (SDGT) 
under Executive Order 13224 for providing paramilitary-style training to, and promoting, white supremacists and neo-Nazis in Europe. The RIM 
has been linked to a 2016 terrorist attack in Sweden
, among other nefarious activities.
(4)
The US Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) 
published amendments to the North Korea Sanctions Regulations (NKSR)
 
implementing changes from Title LXXI of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020 (also known as the Otto Warmbier North Korea Nuclear Sanctions and Enforcement Act). Among other things, 
the amended regulations prohibit non-US entities owned or controlled by US financial institutions
 
from engaging in certain North Korea-related transactions.
(5)
The US State Department 
announced a USD 10 million reward
 
for “information on the activities, networks, and associates of Muhammad Kawtharani” a senior Hizballah official 
designated as a SDGT in 2013
. The reward is offered under the State Department’s 
Rewards for Justice program
.
Comments
The joint 
ELN/Iran Project letter
 
proposes eight steps the Trump administration could take to increase the flow of humanitarian aid to Iran in light of the COVID-19 outbreak in the country. They include beefing up OFAC’s licensing resources and offering comfort that secondary sanctions would not apply to non-US companies involved in COVID-19-related shipments. The letter argues that the threat posed by the virus to the international community justifies easing the sanctions, while refusing to do so would limit future opportunities for US-Iran diplomacy. “Just because Iran has managed the crisis badly, that does not make its humanitarian needs and our security ones any the less,” the letter argues.
The State Department’s 
sixteen-point fact sheet
 
– aimed at rebutting “Iran’s slick foreign influence campaign to obtain sanctions relief” – underscores existing exemptions and authorizations allowing US persons to engage in certain exports of humanitarian items and appears to suggest the Iranian government would misappropriate funds meant for COVID-19 relief. The fact sheet also quotes “graffiti in a Tehran suburb” as evidence of internal discontent with the government.

COM_a311.
Steptoe: “Expired MLA or TAA? New Guidance Clarifies that Certain Activity under an ITAR Agreement Can Continue”

(Source: Steptoe, 14 Apr 2020) [Excerpts] 
 
* Principal Author: Peter Jeydel, 1-202-429-6291, Steptoe & Johnson LLP
 
In a series of 
Frequently Asked Questions
 
(“FAQs”) released on March 31, 2020, the U.S. State Department’s Directorate of Defense Trade Controls (“DDTC”) issued new clarifying guidance for companies with ongoing business based on expired Technical Assistance Agreements (“TAAs”) or Manufacturing License Agreements (“MLAs”) under the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (“ITAR”).  Companies in the defense sector should take note of these FAQs, which highlight important limitations on the use of expired TAAs and MLAs.
TAAs and MLAs authorize U.S. persons to export (and non-U.S. persons to exchange outside the United States) ITAR-controlled technical data and “defense services.”  An MLA can also authorize the provision of manufacturing rights or know-how.  MLAs and TAAs typically have a 10-year duration, and questions often arise about what activity can and cannot continue if an agreement expires without obtaining a new or rebaselined agreement.  The non-U.S. parties to the agreement at that point may have developed or produced information or products derived from ITAR-controlled technical data and U.S.-origin manufacturing rights or know-how, and the underlying commercial relationships or agreements may be ongoing after the ITAR authorization has expired.  For example, the non-U.S. parties may have continuing sales contracts or opportunities, or obligations such as repairs and maintenance.  So, which types of activity under the ITAR can continue without a renewed MLA or TAA in place, and which types of activity require additional authorization?  DDTC has provided some useful answers in these new FAQs.
1) Continued use and exchange of technical data among non-U.S. parties and continued manufacturing by non-U.S. parties
 
In two new FAQs, DDTC explains that, once an applicable MLA or TAA expires, the non-U.S. parties can continue to use and exchange the ITAR-controlled information and know-how they had received, but any further technical assistance or ITAR-controlled technical data from the U.S. parties would require renewed authorization from DDTC.  That said, there are means short of obtaining a renewed MLA or TAA that may satisfy the authorization requirement for continued support from the U.S. parties to an expired agreement in some circumstances, such as seeking a DSP-5 license for “limited” defense services or using a regulatory exemption.  For example, Section 125.4(b)(4) of the ITAR authorizes a U.S. party to provide copies of certain types of previously-authorized technical data to the same recipients.  Another exemption, under Section 125.4(b)(5), applies to “basic” operations, maintenance, and training information relating to a defense article that has already been lawfully exported or authorized for export to the same recipient.  Certification and recordkeeping requirements apply, and there are some instances in which these exemptions cannot be used.
The new FAQs from DDTC on this topic are as follows:
Question 1
: After the expiration of a Technical Assistance Agreement (TAA), may foreign parties continue to use and exchange technical data previously authorized for export among the same foreign signatories, sub-licensees and end-users?
Answer 1
: Yes, the ongoing use and exchange of technical data received via a TAA among previously authorized recipients for the same authorized end-use is generally permitted even after the agreement has terminated or expired. Any provisos or retransfer conditions that applied to the technical data authorized under the TAA will continue to apply. However, if the activity requires the furnishing of a defense service by a U.S. person, then separate DDTC authorization would be required.
Question 2
: After the expiration of a Manufacturing License Agreement (MLA) may foreign parties continue to use and exchange technical data previously authorized for export among the same foreign signatories, sub-licensees and end-users?
Answer 2
: The continued use and exchange of the technical data previously authorized for export among the same foreign signatories, sub-licensees and end-users is generally permitted even after the agreement has terminated or expired. However, the foreign parties may not continue to use the technical data to manufacture absent separate authority. The foreign parties must seek approval from DDTC via a General Correspondence request to continue manufacturing using ITAR-controlled technical data after the expiration of an MLA. If the continued manufacturing activity requires the furnishing of a defense service by a U.S. person, then separate DDTC authorization would be required.
In addition to the limitation on U.S. person participation after expiration of an MLA or TAA, these FAQs also advise non-U.S. parties that they would need to seek authorization from DDTC (via a “General Correspondence” request) if they wish to continue manufacturing ITAR-controlled defense articles outside the United States pursuant to an expired MLA.  DDTC does not specify such a limitation under an expired TAA.  (Manufacturing under an MLA imposes additional limitations and obligations that do not apply under a TAA, such as a requirement to submit annual sales reports to DDTC.)
Companies should also carefully heed the language DDTC used in both of these FAQs, specifying that this ITAR-controlled activity can only continue “among the same foreign signatories, sub-licensees and end-users” and “for the same authorized end-use.”  Thus, the scope of the expired MLA or TAA (along with any provisos, conditions or other limitations in the agreement) continues to limit which parties can participate in the ITAR-controlled activity after the agreement’s expiration and what these parties can do.  Any new parties (e.g., customers or end-users, foreign intermediate consignees, sublicensees, or new foreign locations for these parties) or new activities (e.g., using the previously-provided technical data or know-how to manufacture a new type of defense article) may require additional authorization from DDTC.
Some grey areas remain, such as whether continued manufacturing would require continued “use” of the ITAR-controlled technical data in a particular case, beyond the continued use of the technical data that DDTC says in these FAQs remains lawful for other purposes (e.g., design, development, and engineering activity).   In all circumstances, companies covered by these requirements should carefully review whether their activity is authorized under the ITAR, and ensure they are meeting recordkeeping and reporting obligations.
2) Continued sales and distribution by non-U.S. parties
 
The FAQs also discuss ongoing sales and distribution of ITAR-controlled defense articles after the expiration of an applicable MLA or TAA.  Here, the FAQs put a finer point on the issue discussed above – that the scope limitations in an expired agreement continue to apply after expiration.  Among other things, parties not authorized under the expired agreement cannot become involved after expiration.  But the FAQs do clarify that defense articles manufactured under an MLA or TAA that has since expired “may be transferred among the same foreign signatories and sub-licensees and for the same end users and end uses that were previously authorized under the TAA or MLA.”
The new FAQs from DDTC on this topic are as follows:
Question 1
: Can a defense article that is produced or manufactured during the life of an agreement (TAA or MLA) using technical data or defense services received via the agreement be transferred to a foreign person who was not a party to the agreement after the expiration of that agreement without further DDTC authorization?
Answer 1

: No, the transfer of defense articles that were manufactured during the life of a TAA or an MLA may only be transferred without further DDTC authorization among the same foreign signatories and sub-licensees and for the same end users and end uses that were previously authorized under the TAA or MLA. See ITAR 124.8(a)(5) for more information. 

Question 2
: Can a defense article that is produced or manufactured during the life of an agreement (TAA or MLA) using technical data or defense services received via the agreement be transferred to a foreign person who was a party to the agreement after the expiration of that agreement without further DDTC authorization?
Answer 2
: Yes, the transfer of defense articles that were manufactured during the life of a TAA or an MLA may be transferred among the same foreign signatories and sub-licensees and for the same end users and end uses that were previously authorized under the TAA or MLA.

TEEX/IM TRAINING EVENTS & CONFERENCES

TE_a1
12.
ECTI Presents: Classifying Aircraft Part Technology Webinar: April 22

(Source:
ECTI)
 
* What: Classifying Aircraft Part Technology
* When: April 22, 2020; 1:00 p.m. (EDT)
* Where: Webinar
* Sponsor: Export Compliance Training Institute (ECTI)
* ECTI Speaker: Scott Gearity
* Register
here or contact Ashleigh Foor, 1-540-433-3977.

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

TE_a2
13.
FCC Academy Presents 12 May Webinar: “Introduction to EU/Dutch Dual-use and Military Export Controls
” 

(Source: FCC Academy)
 
*What: Introduction to EU / Dutch Dual-Use and Military Export Controls
*When: 12 May 2020
*Where: Online
*Sponsor: FCC Academy 
*Presenter: Marco F.N. Crombach, MSc (Director)
*Register:

here
, or email
 events@fullcirclecompliance.eu

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

ENEDITOR’S NOTES

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

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.
 
Agency 
Regulations 
Latest Update 
DHS CUSTOMS REGULATIONS
: 19 CFR, Ch. 1, Pts. 0-199.
 
 
 
5 Apr 2019:84 FR 13499: Civil Monetary Penalty Adjustments for Inflation.

DOC EXPORT ADMINISTRATION REGULATIONS (EAR): 15 CFR Subtit. B, Ch. VII, Pts. 730-774.

24 Feb 2020:
85 FR 10274
: Amendments to Country Groups for Russia and Yemen Under the Export Administration Regulations.
 

 

DOC FOREIGN TRADE REGULATIONS (FTR): 15 CFR Part 30.   Last Amendment: 24 Apr 2018: 83 FR 17749: Foreign Trade Regulations (FTR): Clarification on the Collection and Confidentiality of Kimberley Process Certificates.

DOD NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL SECURITY PROGRAM OPERATING MANUAL (NISPOM): 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. 
DOE EXPORT AND IMPORT OF NUCLEAR EQUIPMENT AND MATERIAL; 10 CFR Part 110.

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.

DOS INTERNATIONAL TRAFFIC IN ARMS REGULATIONS (ITAR): 22 C.F.R. Ch. I, Subch. M, Pts. 120-130.  26 Dec 2019: 84 FR 70887; 23 Jan 2020: 85 FR 3819: Encryption rule and USML Categories I, II, III, and related sections regarding guns & ammo. 
 
DOT FOREIGN ASSETS CONTROL REGULATIONS (OFAC FACR): 31 CFR, Parts 500-599, Embargoes, Sanctions, Executive Orders

10 Apr 2020:
85 FR 20158:

North Korea Sanctions Regulations. 

 
 
 
 
USITC HARMONIZED TARIFF SCHEDULE OF THE UNITED STATES (HTS, HTSA or HTSUSA),

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