;

20-0529 Friday “Daily Bugle”

20-0529 Friday “Daily Bugle”

 this copy of the Daily Bugle to others or share 
this subscription link
Friday, 29 May 2020

[No items of interest for today]
  1. Items Scheduled for Future Federal Register Edition
  2. Commerce/BIS: (No new postings)
  3. State/DDTC: “Outage Notice”
  4. Canada TID: “Joint Statement by the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Canada, UK, Australia and USA Responding to China’s Proposed New Security Law for Hong Kong”
  5. EU Commission: “Coronavirus: Requirement for Export Authorisation for Personal Protective Equipment Comes to Its End”
  6. Netherlands TCA: “The Prohibition on The Export of Personal Protection Equipment Is Lifted From 26 May 2020 Onwards”
  1. Reuters: “U.S. Business to Trump: Go Slowly on Hong Kong Response”
  2. The Washington Post: “U.S. Brings Massive N. Korean Sanctions Case, Targeting State-Owned Bank and Former Government Officials”
  1. Crowell: “U.S. State Department Fails to Certify Hong Kong’s Autonomy: Signals Potential Change in Trade and Economic Treatment”
  2. Steptoe: “Contrasting Thoughts on EU Trade Policy During the COVID-19 Crisis”
  3. White & Case: “Proposed Changes to Critical Technology Mandatory Filing Requirements”
  1. ECS Presents “ITAR/EAR Boot Camp — Achieving Compliance”: 15-17 Sep7-8 Jul
  2. FCC Academy Presents June Webinars: “U.S. Export Controls: ITAR, EAR, and FMS”
  3. Friday List of Approaching Events: 235 Events Posted This Week, Including 12 New Events
  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

EXIM ITEMS FROM TODAY’S FEDERAL REGISTER

[No items of interest for today]

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

OGS OTHER GOVERNMENT SOURCES

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

OGS_a22. Commerce/BIS: (No new postings)

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

(Source:
State/DDTC,
29 May 2020)
 

The Defense Export Control and Compliance (DECCS) application will be unavailable to industry from 11:00 PM (EDT) Friday, May 29 through 8:00 AM (EDT) Monday, June 1 for scheduled system maintenance. Please ensure work in progress is saved prior to the scheduled downtime.

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

(Source:
Global Affairs Canada
,
28 May 2020)

 
François-Philippe Champagne- Minister of Foreign Affairs of Canada
 
Statement
“Signatories to this statement reiterate our deep concern regarding Beijing’s decision to impose a national security law in Hong Kong.
 
“Hong Kong has flourished as a bastion of freedom. The international community has a significant and longstanding stake in Hong Kong’s prosperity and stability. Direct imposition of national security legislation on Hong Kong by the Beijing authorities, rather than through Hong Kong’s own institutions as provided for under Article 23 of the Basic Law, would curtail the Hong Kong people’s liberties, and in doing so, dramatically erode the autonomy and the system that made it so prosperous.
 
“China’s decision to impose the new national security law on Hong Kong lies in direct conflict with its international obligations under the principles of the legally-binding, UN-registered Sino-British Joint Declaration. The proposed law would undermine the One Country, Two Systems framework. It also raises the prospect of prosecution in Hong Kong for political crimes, and undermines existing commitments to protect the rights of Hong Kong people – including those set out in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.
 
“We are also extremely concerned that this action will exacerbate the existing deep divisions in Hong Kong society; the law does nothing to build mutual understanding and foster reconciliation within Hong Kong. Rebuilding trust across Hong Kong society by allowing the people of Hong Kong to enjoy the rights and freedoms they were promised can be the only way back from the tensions and unrest that the territory has seen over the last year.
 

“The world’s focus on a global pandemic requires enhanced trust in governments and international cooperation. Beijing’s unprecedented move risks having the opposite effect. As Hong Kong’s stability and prosperity are jeopardized by the new imposition, we call on the Government of China to work with the Hong Kong SAR Government and the people of Hong Kong to find a mutually acceptable accommodation that will honor China’s international obligations under the UN-filed Sino-British Joint Declaration.”

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

(Source:
Global Affairs Canada
,
28 May 2020)

 
François-Philippe Champagne- Minister of Foreign Affairs of Canada
 
Statement
“Signatories to this statement reiterate our deep concern regarding Beijing’s decision to impose a national security law in Hong Kong.
 
“Hong Kong has flourished as a bastion of freedom. The international community has a significant and longstanding stake in Hong Kong’s prosperity and stability. Direct imposition of national security legislation on Hong Kong by the Beijing authorities, rather than through Hong Kong’s own institutions as provided for under Article 23 of the Basic Law, would curtail the Hong Kong people’s liberties, and in doing so, dramatically erode the autonomy and the system that made it so prosperous.
 
“China’s decision to impose the new national security law on Hong Kong lies in direct conflict with its international obligations under the principles of the legally-binding, UN-registered Sino-British Joint Declaration. The proposed law would undermine the One Country, Two Systems framework. It also raises the prospect of prosecution in Hong Kong for political crimes, and undermines existing commitments to protect the rights of Hong Kong people – including those set out in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.
 
“We are also extremely concerned that this action will exacerbate the existing deep divisions in Hong Kong society; the law does nothing to build mutual understanding and foster reconciliation within Hong Kong. Rebuilding trust across Hong Kong society by allowing the people of Hong Kong to enjoy the rights and freedoms they were promised can be the only way back from the tensions and unrest that the territory has seen over the last year.
 

“The world’s focus on a global pandemic requires enhanced trust in governments and international cooperation. Beijing’s unprecedented move risks having the opposite effect. As Hong Kong’s stability and prosperity are jeopardized by the new imposition, we call on the Government of China to work with the Hong Kong SAR Government and the people of Hong Kong to find a mutually acceptable accommodation that will honor China’s international obligations under the UN-filed Sino-British Joint Declaration.”

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

 
From 26 May 2020, an export authorisation is no longer needed for certain items of personal protection equipment.
 
The equipment concerns mouth and nose protection equipment, protective garments, and spectacles and visors for the protection of the eyes.
 
From 26 April 2020, it was an obligation to get an export authorisation for such personal protection equipment pursuant to Regulation (EU) 2020/568. This terminates on 26 May 2020 and from that date onwards you may export personal protection equipment without an authorisation.
 
You can find the complete list of the items subject to the prohibition in Annex I of the Regulation (EU) 2020/568.

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

COM NEWS

NWS_a17. Reuters: “U.S. Business to Trump: Go Slowly on Hong Kong Response”

(Source: Reuters, 28 May 2020) [Excerpts]
 
Business groups are urging U.S. President Donald Trump to go slowly in responding to Beijing’s planned imposition of new national security laws on Hong Kong, warning revoking the city’s special U.S. privileges will hurt the territory and its people.
 
U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo declared here on Wednesday China’s actions had voided Hong Kong’s autonomy.
 
That cleared the way for White House steps ranging from imposing sanctions on some senior Chinese officials to fully ending the 22-year U.S. practice of treating Hong Kong separately from China on trade, visas, investments and export controls. …
 
“The text of the law in China has not yet been released. Words matter,” said Craig Allen, the president of the U.S.-China Business Council. The group would like to see all sides “de-escalate and maintain the ‘one-country two systems’ model for Hong Kong, which has served everyone so well for so many years,” he said. …

NWS_a28. The Washington Post: “U.S. Brings Massive N. Korean Sanctions Case, Targeting State-Owned Bank and Former Government Officials”

(Source: The Washington Post, 28 May 2020) [Excertps]
 
The U.S. government has charged 28 North Korean and five Chinese individuals with facilitating more than $2.5 billion in illegal payments for Pyongyang’s nuclear weapons and missile program in what court papers describe as a clandestine global network operating from countries including China, Russia, Libya and Thailand.
 
In a 50-page federal indictment unsealed Thursday in Washington, D.C., the Justice Department accused the individuals of acting as agents of North Korea’s Foreign Trade Bank in what officials say is the largest North Korean sanctions violations case charged by the U.S. ….
 
“Through this indictment, the United States has signified its commitment to hampering North Korea’s ability to illegally access the U.S. financial system, and to limiting its ability to use proceeds from these illicit actions to enhance its illegal weapons of mass destruction program,” Michael R. Sherwin, acting U.S. Attorney for D.C., said in a statement. …

COM COMMENTARY

COM_a19. Crowell: “U.S. State Department Fails to Certify Hong Kong’s Autonomy: Signals Potential Change in Trade and Economic Treatment”

(Source: Crowell & Moring, 28 May 2020)
 
* Principal Author: Robert Holleyman, Esq., 1-202-624-2505, Crowell & Moring LLP
 
On May 27, 2020, the U.S. Secretary of State Michael Pompeo issued a statement that Hong Kong “does not continue to warrant treatment under United States laws in the same manner as U.S. laws were applied to Hong Kong before July 1997.” U.S. relations with Hong Kong are governed by the United States-Hong Kong Policy Act of 1992, which authorizes the U.S.to provide “different” treatment for Hong Kong than it accords the People’s Republic of China in a variety of political, economic, trade, and other areas so long as Hong Kong remains “sufficiently autonomous.”
 
In November 2019, President Trump signed into law the Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act of 2019. Among other measures, this law requires the Secretary of State to make an annual certification about whether Hong Kong continues to merit its special treatment under U.S. law. The recent action by Secretary of State Michael Pompeo was the first time such a certification was required. The annual report to Congress on Hong Kong was due by the end of March, but Secretary Pompeo remarked that the report’s submission to Congress had been delayed “to account for any additional actions that Beijing may be contemplating in the run-up” to China’s May 22 National People’s Congress “that would further undermine the people of Hong Kong’s autonomy.” His statement anticipated action China’s National People’s Congress took on May 28 which empowered its standing committee to draft national security legislation for Hong Kong. The passage of such a national security law would have an impact on the fifteen enumerated factors in the statute to be considered in the annual certification.
 
What the Statement Does and Does Not Do
The May 27 statement by the Secretary of State does not alone change trade or other preferential treatment afforded by the U.S. to Hong Kong. It does, however, position the President to issue an Executive Order that could remove some or all of the special status currently provided to Hong Kong. The new certification required by Congress was intended to increase transparency, place pressure on the Executive Branch, and assert Congressional influence over Hong Kong matters.
 
Under U.S. law, the President is authorized to make the determination of the status of Hong Kong’s autonomy and “may” suspend the application of current laws or provisions of laws that treat Hong Kong distinctly from China through Executive Order. This leaves open the possibility that U.S. action could be limited in scope and phased in, rather than a full revision of the current U.S. special and differential treatment for Hong Kong in areas such as customs and tariffs. Any Executive Order issued by the President would be published in the Federal Register and specify the law or provision of law affected by the order. This may provide an opportunity for companies, industry sectors, and other organizations to offer comments and recommendations.
 
What is at Stake in U.S.-Hong Kong Trade
Hong Kong has served as a major entrepôt to Asia and for commercial relations with China. Hong Kong’s longstanding open trade policy and Common Law legal system has historically made it attractive to business. U.S.-Hong Kong bilateral trade totals over $45 billion, and the United States has its largest trade surplus with Hong Kong compared to any other market. More than 1,200 U.S. companies do business in Hong Kong, and over 800 of these companies have either regional headquarters or regional offices there.
 
A discontinuation of special trading status by the United States could have the effect of raising tariffs on products imported from Hong Kong into the United States to levels similar or identical to those currently imposed on China. Hong Kong’s special status has allowed it to avoid U.S.-imposed section 301, section 232, and other countervailing and anti-dumping duties imposed on China. The United States has extradition and tax treaties in place with Hong Kong, but not with China. Hong Kong is also treated as a separate destination under U.S. law for export control purposes, and is therefore not bound by the dual-use export control rules that are specific to China.
 
What to Watch
 
(1) A U.S.
interagency
process may be initiated to decide on what actions to take in the U.S.-Hong Kong relationship given the Secretary of State’s determination.
 
(2) An
Executive Order
by the President could provide an opportunity for company and industry comments on any proposed reductions or modifications in the current trade, economic, or other treatment afforded by the U.S. to Hong Kong.
 
(3)
Additional tariffs
imposed by the United States against China as a result of its 2017 Section 301 investigation against China could be extended to imports from Hong Kong. In practice, this may be a less likely course of action by the Administration given that the trade barriers identified in that investigation were based on a fact-finding review by the U.S. that did not include Hong Kong and the stated U.S. concerns were not attributable to Hong Kong policies or practices.
 
(4)
Sanctions
may be imposed by the U.S. on persons identified by the U.S. as responsible for undermining Hong Kong’s fundamental freedoms and autonomy. Under the 2019 Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act, this could include asset blocking and a visa ban on such individuals.
 
(5) Current separate
customs treatment
for Hong Kong by the U.S. could be merged into those in place for China.
 
(6)
Export controls
currently in place for China could be extended in whole or in part to U.S. exports to Hong Kong. This could have a particular impact on U.S. high tech products destined for final use in Hong Kong.
 
(7)
Congressional action
is likely, including potentially committee hearings and legislation that seeks to demonstrate Congressional engagement and to reinforce Executive Branch action on the economic and trade relationship with Hong Kong and China.
(8)
Potential actions
by other nations could impact Hong Kong trade and economic matters.
 
How to Prepare
Hong Kong’s position as a major hub for international trade and finance could be impacted by a change in U.S. treatment of Hong Kong and the imposition of sanctions, export controls, or tariffs. The potential for significant impacts to the trade relationship exists even if the implementation is phased or calibrated so as to not undermine U.S. investment in Hong Kong or Hong Kong’s unique attributes such as its common law system and independent judiciary, along with other laws and policies.
 
Companies and organizations that rely upon Hong Kong for their operations, customers, or as a point of entry into China or the Indo-Pacific region need to assess their exposure to a potential change in U.S. policies towards Hong Kong. This means understanding current markets and supply chains and scenario-planning for what changes may or may not mean. The United States may not be alone in considering action, so factoring in broader international trade and economic relations with Hong Kong and China may be valuable. Although the U.S. Secretary of State’s statement of May 27 does not result in any immediate change in U.S.-Hong Kong economic and trade relations, it signals an appropriate moment for stocktaking to prepare for potential future change.

 
* Principal Author: David O’Sullivan, Senior Counselor, 32-2-626 0570, Steptoe & Johnson
 
A recent letter from former high-ranking European Commission officials to the current Commission President Ursula von der Leyen raises various trade and market protection concerns and urges the Commission to take certain actions.
 
The letter raises legitimate areas of concern both as regards the current crisis in global trade and EU trade policy more generally. However, it is less than clear that the letter accurately identifies either the real problems or the best solutions. In our view, a more useful and convincing call to action would emphasize a need rather for rounding out and effective enforcement of a set of EU policy instruments able to address the emergence of new market threats (whether from the US, China or elsewhere, whether in the form of unilateral measures outside the WTO context, massive subsidies or other elements of unfair competition).
 
Click here for the full Client Alert for more information on this issue and thoughts on EU trade policy.  

(Source:
White & Case
, 28 May 2020)
 
* Principal Author: Farhad Jalinous, Esq., 1-202-626-3691, White & Case
 
On May 21, 2020, the US Treasury Department published a proposed rule that would revise the criteria for determining whether a mandatory filing applies to a given transaction involving a US business with “critical technologies”.
 
Currently, as described in more detail here, CFIUS’s regulations limit mandatory filings for certain transactions involving US businesses with “critical technologies”1 based on whether the US business has certain connections to 27 industries identified by North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes. CFIUS also used this industry test in the Critical Technologies Pilot Program (CFIUS Pilot Program) that was in place from November 2018 until the new CFIUS regulations took effect earlier this year.
 
The proposed rule would instead limit such mandatory filings to transactions involving critical technologies that would require certain US government authorizations for export to certain transaction parties or foreign persons in their ownership chains. Specifically, parties would need to submit a declaration to CFIUS, or a full notice in lieu of a declaration, when their “covered transaction” involves a US business that produces, designs, tests, manufactures, fabricates, or develops one or more “critical technologies” if – with limited exceptions – a US regulatory authorization (defined to include licenses, approvals, and other authorizations under the International Traffic in Arms Regulations, the Export Administration Regulations (EAR), or regulations governing certain nuclear energy-related activities, as applicable) would be required for the export, re-export, transfer (in-country), or retransfer of such critical technology to either (a) a foreign person that is a party to (and that provides a basis for) the “covered transaction” or (b) a foreign person that individually, or as part of a group of foreign persons, holds a voting interest, direct or indirect, of 25 percent or more in a foreign person described in (a). Notably, other than for three enumerated license exceptions under the EAR, a mandatory filing would be required irrespective of whether any license exceptions or exemptions would apply for exports of the critical technology to the given foreign person.
 
By shifting the focus away from the US business’s role in certain industries, and focusing instead on the foreign investors and their owners, the proposed rule would concentrate critical technology mandatory filings on critical technologies subject to tighter export controls and foreign investors connected to countries of higher concern to the US government from an export-control perspective.
 
CFIUS 2018 Annual Report and Certain 2019 Statistics
 
The US Treasury Department also recently released the public version of the 2018 CFIUS Annual Report and certain case statistics for 2019. Of note:
 
(1) CFIUS stopped substantially fewer transactions in 2019 than in the prior two years. In 2017, out of 237 notices filed, 24 transactions-or about 10 percent of notices-were abandoned based on CFIUS concerns with the transactions, either because CFIUS could not identify mitigation measures to address its national security concerns or parties would not agree to mitigation measures required by CFIUS. This decreased some in 2018, when approximately 8 percent of notices (18 out of 229) were withdrawn based on CFIUS-related national security concerns with the underlying transactions. In 2019, with a similar number of overall notices as the prior two years, there was a substantial drop in the number of notices withdrawn and transactions abandoned due to CFIUS concerns to approximately 3.5 percent (8 transactions out of 231 notices). Also of note, in each of 2017 and 2018, there were more than double the number of withdrawals and re-files as in 2019, meaning that the total number of notices in 2017 and 2018 represented a smaller number of unique transactions. Accordingly, the decline in the percentage of unique transactions abandoned in 2019 based on CFIUS action was even more substantial than the overall percentages indicate. While CFIUS has yet to release country-specific data for 2019, we expect that the 2019 decline in transactions abandoned based on CFIUS concerns is correlated with a decrease in the number of notices filed with CFIUS in 2019 involving Chinese investors.
 
(2) The large increase in the number of filings (either notices or declarations) originally expected under FIRRMA has not materialized so far, though the number of notified transactions has increased. In 2017 (pre-FIRRMA), CFIUS received 237 notices. In 2018, which included the first two months of the CFIUS Pilot Program, CFIUS received 229 notices. In 2019, CFIUS received 231 notices. On its face, the number of notices over the past three years appears consistent, but as noted above, 2019 saw fewer than half the number of withdrawals and re-files as in 2017 and 2018 (18 in 2019 compared with 44 in 2017 and 42 in 2018). This substantial decline in withdrawals and re-files in 2019, compared with the prior two years, indicates that the overall number of notices in 2019 reflects more unique transactions being notified. Declarations also emerged as a filing option for transactions subject to the CFIUS Pilot Program starting in November 2018, and 21 declarations were submitted that year. While CFIUS has not yet formally published 2019 declaration statistics, CFIUS officials have informally reported that CFIUS received about 110 declarations in 2019. Thus, on average only about 10 declarations were filed per month while the CFIUS Pilot Program was in effect. Statistics are not yet available on the impact of the full implementation FIRRMA, which started in February 2020 and included further expansion of CFIUS’s jurisdiction and mandatory filing requirements.
 
(3) Only about 10 percent of transactions notified by declaration were “cleared” in the early months of the CFIUS Pilot Program, though declaration clearance rates improved in 2019. According to the 2018 Annual Report, CFIUS concluded action on (i.e., cleared) only 2 of the 21 declarations submitted in November-December 2018. CFIUS did not conclude action (but did not request a full notice) on 11 declarations, and CFIUS requested a full notice for 5 declarations. As 2019 proceeded, CFIUS’s declaration clearance rate appears to have increased-CFIUS officials have informally reported that CFIUS cleared about one-third of all declarations submitted in 2019. These statistics reflect the period when the CFIUS Pilot Program was in effect, during which only transactions subject to the CFIUS Pilot Program’s mandatory filing requirements were eligible to be notified via declaration.
 
(4) CFIUS is clearing more cases in the initial review phase, moving closer to CFIUS’s longer-term average. Between 2010 and 2016, on average about 42 percent of all notices proceeded to the investigation phase. In 2017, as CFIUS was hit by a dramatic increase in the number of notices without the budget or staffing to keep pace, about 73 percent of all notices proceeded to investigation; and pre-FIRRMA in 2018, about 76 percent of all notices proceeded to investigation. To ease the pressure on CFIUS’s reviews, FIRRMA increased the length of the CFIUS “review” phase from 30 days to 45 days and provided additional resources to enable CFIUS to better manage the caseload. Post-enactment of FIRRMA, the percentage of notices proceeding to investigation dropped to 53 percent in the remainder of 2018, and to 48 percent in 2019.
 
(5) Withdrawals and re-files remained high in 2018 but decreased substantially in 2019. In 2017, along with a steep increase in notices proceeding to investigation, there was a significant increase in notices needing to be withdrawn at the end of the investigation phase and re-filed into a second (or more) CFIUS cycle. Of the 237 notices in 2017, 44 (about 19 percent) were withdrawn and refiled. Similarly, in 2018, of the 229 notices, 42 (about 18 percent) were withdrawn and refiled. In 2019, however, of the 231 total notices, only 18 (8 percent) were withdrawn and refiled.
 
(6) Notices involving foreign investors from China continued to be, by far, the largest source of filings in 2018, but this likely does not tell the whole story. Based on our experience with CFIUS cases, notices involving Chinese acquirers are more likely to be complex and thus withdrawn and re-filed one or multiple times before reaching resolution. Because CFIUS only reports statistics on the number of “notices” or “declarations”-as opposed to the number of unique transactions notified-CFIUS’s published statistics likely systematically overstate the actual number of unique cases involving Chinese investors. As noted above, consistent with the overall continued decline in Chinese investment into the United States in 2019, we expect that the 2019 CFIUS Annual Report will show a decline in notices involving Chinese acquirers, likely correlating with the declines in 2019 of withdrawals and re-files and transactions abandoned because of CFIUS concerns.
 
(7) Through 2018, CFIUS continued to approve the vast majority of transactions without mitigation requirements. In 2018, approximately 12.6 percent of notices (29 out of 229) were cleared with mitigation requirements. This is a slight increase from 2017 (approximately 12 percent) and up from approximately 10 percent in 2016. Mitigation statistics from 2019 have not yet been made available. The high-level summaries of mitigation and compliance oversight measures for mitigation required in 2018 were the same as what the prior annual report identified for 2016 and 2017. Even though most transactions are ultimately approved without conditions, given the impact mitigation can have on a transaction, it is still critical to assess and plan for potential mitigation when structuring deals.
 
New CFIUS Case Management System
 
The US Treasury Department also announced that – as of June 1, 2020 – all draft and formal filings submitted pursuant to CFIUS’s investment regulations (31 CFR Part 800) or real estate regulations (31 CFR Part 802), both declarations and full notices, must be submitted through a new electronic CFIUS case management system (CMS). CFIUS is implementing the CMS to standardize filing formats and facilitate data analytics across filings.
 
The CMS will replace the current practice of submitting a declaration or full notice as a PDF by email to the US Treasury Department. Instead, parties’ representatives will need to individually input almost all of the information typically contained in a notice or declaration directly into the CMS, with PDF uploads limited to certain documents that typically form exhibits to the notice or declaration. As a result, parties will need to allot additional time for the direct entry of transaction information into the CMS.
 

The CMS will also be used for correspondence between the US Treasury Department and the parties during the course of an assessment, review, and/or investigation. 

TE EX/IM TRAINING EVENTS & CONFERENCES

TE_a1
12.
ECS Presents “ITAR/EAR Boot Camp

Achieving Compliance”
: 15-17 Sep

(Source:
ECS
)
 
*When: 15-17
Sep
*Where: 
Chart House
, Annapolis, MD
*Sponsor: Export Compliance Solutions & Consulting (ECS)
*Presenter: Suzanne Palmer, Lisa Bencivenga, Mal Zerden, guest speaker panel
*Register: 
Here
 or by calling
1-
866-238-4018 or
email

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

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

(Sources: Event sponsors)  
 

Submit your event in the Submission section at the end of this newsletter.  
 
[Editor’s note:  This Daily Bugle Event List has grown so large that we have run out of space to display it, so we are displaying here only the new events in the Daily Bugle, while maintaining a 
LINK HERE to the full list.]
 

On-Line:
 
* 2 Jun:
Exporter Readiness Requirements for CMMC/NIST
; International Trade Administration
* 3 Jun:
USMCA: Documenting Origin (Part 2)
; International Trade Administration
* 10 Jun: USMCA-Textiles & Apparel; Braumiller Law Group PLLC
* 11 Jun:
USMCA – You’ve Got Questions, We’ve Got Answers
; Braumiller Law Group PLLC
* 15-17 Jun:
AAEI Conference
; AAEI
* 19 Jun: USMCA and the Automotive Industry; Braumiller Law Group PLLC
 
On Location:
 
* 9-10 Sep: Louisville, KY, USA;
Complying with U.S. Export Controls;
Commerce/BIS
* 1-4 Oct: Coronado, CA, USA;
WESCCON
; Pacific Coast Council

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

EN EDITOR’S NOTES

EN_a115. Bartlett’s Unfamiliar Quotations

(Source: Editor)
  

* Gilbert K. Chesterton (Gilbert Keith Chesterton; 29 May 1874 – 14 Jun 1936; was an English writer, philosopher, lay theologian, and literary and art critic. Chesterton wrote around 80 books, several hundred poems, some 200 short stories, 4,000 essays (mostly newspaper columns), and several plays.)
  – “The word ‘good’ has many meanings. For example, if a man were to shoot his grandmother at a range of five hundred yards, I should call him a good shot, but not necessarily a good man.”
 
* Bob Hope (born Leslie Townes Hope; 29 May 1903 – 27 Jul 2003; was a British-American stand-up comedian, vaudevillian, actor, singer, dancer, athlete, and author. With a career that spanned nearly 80 years of performing almost until his death at age 100.  When asked on his deathbed where he wanted to be buried, Hope told his wife, Dolores, “Surprise me.”  Hope appeared in more than 70 short and feature films, with 54 feature films with Hope as star, including a series of seven “Road” musical comedy movies with Bing Crosby as Hope’s top-billed partner. Celebrated for his long career entertaining active duty American military personnel, making 57 tours for the USO between 1941 and 1991, Hope was declared an honorary veteran of the U.S. Armed Forces in 1997 by an act of the United States Congress.)
  – “I don’t feel old. I don’t feel anything till noon. That’s when it’s time for my nap.”
  – “When we recall the past, we usually find that it is the simplest things – not the great occasions – that in retrospect give off the greatest glow of happiness.”
 
Friday funnies:
* A kid finds a magic lantern. He rubs the lamp, and a genie appears and says, “What is your first wish?” The kid says, “I wish I were rich!” The genie replies, “It is done!  What is your second wish, Rich?”
 
* A cruise ship passes by a remote island, and all the passengers see a bearded man running around and waving his arms wildly.  “Captain,” one passenger asks, “who is that man over there?” “I have no idea,” the captain says, “but he goes nuts every year when we pass him.”
 
* A lady saw a sign on a restaurant that said “Fat-free French Fries!”  She thought, “wow, that’s great!” and ordered some.  As the cook took the basket of fries out of the cooker, dripping hot grease, the lady said, “Hey, those fries don’t look fat-free.”  “Oh, yes,” said the cook, “We only charge for the potatoes.  The fat is free.”

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

 

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.

19 May 2020: 85 FR 29849: Amendments to General Prohibition Three (Foreign-Produced Direct Product Rule) and the Entity List.   
 
 
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. 
6 May 2020: 85 FR 26847, Notice (not an amendment) temporarily reducing the registration fee schedule in ITAR 122.3 until April 30, 2021. 

 

 
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), Revision 8.

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