;

20-0603 Wednesday “Daily Bugle”

20-0603 Wednesday “Daily Bugle”

 this copy of the Daily Bugle to others or share 
this subscription link
Wednesday, 03 June 2020

  1. Commerce/BIS: “Expansion of Export, Reexport, and Transfer (in-Country) Controls for Military End Use or Military End Users: The People’s Republic of China, Russia, or Venezuela
  2. Commerce/BIS Requests Public Comments to Determine the Effects on the National Security from Imports of Vanadium
  3. USTR: “Extension of Particular Exclusions Granted Under the $200 Billion Action Pursuant to Section 301”
  4. USTR: “Extension of Particular Exclusions Granted Under the September 2019 Product Exclusion Notice from the $34 Billion Action Pursuant to Section 301”
  1. Items Scheduled for Future Federal Register Edition
  2. Commerce/BIS: “U.S. Secretary of Commerce Wilbur Ross Initiates Section 232 Investigation into Imports of Vanadium”
  3. State/DDTC; (No new postings)
  4. EU Council Implements Regulation (EU) 2017/1509 Concerning Restrictive Measures against the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea
  5. Hong Kong TID: “Chemical Weapons (Convention) Ordinance, Cap. 578 Anticipated Activities Involving Scheduled Chemicals in 2021”
  1. Reuters: “South Korea Says to Resume WTO Complaint over Japan’s Export Controls”
  1. CTP: “Technology Controls, Part III: Definition of -Required-“
  2. ESU: “A New Methodology to Review or Elaborate a Trade Control System – Update”
  3. Husch Blackwell: “BIS Adds 33 Chinese Entities to the Entity List, Citing Human Rights Abuses”
  4. Steptoe: “US to Take Steps to Revoke Hong Kong’s Separate Status, Impose Sanctions, Enhance Export Controls”
  5. Thompson Hine: “White House Releases Report on Strategic Approach to China”
  1. KPMG Presents: “TradeWatch: USMCA Readiness Update: North American Industry Leader Virtual Roundtable”; 9 June/a>
  2. FCC Academy Presents June Webinars: “U.S. Export Controls: ITAR, EAR, and FMS”
  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

 
85 FR 34306: Final Rule; correction
 
* AGENCY: Bureau of Industry and Security, Commerce.
* ACTION: Final rule; correction.
* SUMMARY: The Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) is correcting the formatting of a final rule that appeared in the Federal Register of April 28, 2020 (here and after referred to as the April 28 rule), which becomes effective on June 29, 2020.  
   The April 28 rule amends the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) to expand license requirements on exports, reexports, and transfers (in-country) of items intended for military end use or military end users in the People’s Republic of China (China), Russia, or Venezuela.  
   Specifically, this rule expands the licensing requirements for China to include “military end users,” in addition to “military end use.” It broadens the list of items for which the licensing requirements and review policy apply and expands the definition of “military end use.”  
   Next, it creates a new reason for control and the associated review policy for regional stability for certain items exported to China, Russia, or Venezuela, moving existing text related to this policy.  
   Finally, it adds Electronic Export Information filing requirements in the Automated Export System for exports to China, Russia, and Venezuela. This rule supports the objectives discussed in the National Security Strategy of the United States. This correction publishes the full text of each revised Export Control Classification Number on the Commerce Control List.
* DATES: This correction is effective June 29, 2020.

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

 
85 FR 34179: Notice
 
* AGENCY: Bureau of Industry and Security, Office of Technology Evaluation, U.S. Department of Commerce.
* ACTION: Notice of request for public comments.
* SUMMARY: On May 28, 2020, in response to a petition, the Secretary of Commerce (the “Secretary”) initiated an investigation to determine the effects on the national security from imports of vanadium. This investigation has been initiated under section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, as amended.
Interested parties are invited to submit written comments, data, analyses, or other information pertinent to the investigation to the Department of Commerce’s (the “Department”) Bureau of Industry and Security by July 20, 2020. Rebuttal comments will be due by August 17, 2020. While the Department is interested in any information related to this investigation that the public can provide, this notice identifies particular issues of significance.
* DATES: The due date for filing comments is July 20, 2020. The due date for rebuttal comments is August 17, 2020. Rebuttal comments may only address issues raised in comments filed on or before July 20, 2020.

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

 
85 FR 34279: Notice and request for comments
 
* AGENCY: Office of the United States Trade Representative.
* ACTION: Notice and request for comments.
* SUMMARY: Effective September 24, 2018, the U.S. Trade Representative imposed additional duties on goods of China with an annual trade value of approximately $200 billion as part of the action in the Section 301 investigation of China’s acts, policies, and practices related to technology transfer, intellectual property, and innovation. The U.S. Trade Representative initiated an exclusion process for the $200 billion action in June 2019 and issued 14 product exclusion notices under this action. The product exclusions granted under these notices are scheduled to expire on August 7, 2020. The U.S. Trade Representative previously decided to consider a possible extension for up to 12 months of particular exclusions granted under the initial 11 product exclusion notices and has now decided to consider a possible extension for up to 12 months of particular exclusions granted under the remaining product exclusion notices. The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) invites public comment on whether to extend particular exclusions.
* DATES: June 8, 2020 at 12:01 a.m. ET: The public docket on the web portal at https://comments.USTR.gov will open for parties to submit comments on the possible extension of particular exclusions. July 7, 2020 at 11:59 p.m. ET: To be assured of consideration, submit written comments on the public docket by this deadline.
* ADDRESSES: You must submit all comments through the online portal: https://comments.USTR.gov.

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

 
85 FR 34274: Notice and request for comments
 
* AGENCY: Office of the United States Trade Representative.
* ACTION: Notice and request for comments.
* SUMMARY: Effective July 6, 2018, the U.S. Trade Representative imposed additional duties on goods of China with an annual trade value of approximately $34 billion as part of the action in the Section 301 investigation of China’s acts, policies, and practices related to technology transfer, intellectual property, and innovation. The U.S. Trade Representative initiated the exclusion process in July 2018 and has granted multiple sets of exclusions. He granted the seventh set of exclusions in September 2019, which are scheduled to expire on September 20, 2020. The U.S. Trade Representative has decided to consider a possible extension for up to 12 months of particular exclusions granted in September 2019. The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) invites public comment on whether to extend particular exclusions.
* DATES: June 8, 2020 at 12:01 a.m. ET: The public docket on the web portal at https://comments.USTR.gov will open for parties to submit comments on the possible extension of particular exclusions.
July 7, 2020 at 11:59 p.m. ET: To be assured of consideration, submit written comments on the public docket by this deadline.
* ADDRESSES: You must submit all comments through the online portal: https://comments.USTR.gov.

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

OGS OTHER GOVERNMENT SOURCES

* Commerce/BIS; NOTICES; Export Priviliges; Denials: Mahan Airways, et al.; [Pub. Date: 4 Jun 2020] [PDF]

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

OGS_a26. Commerce/BIS: Commerce/BIS: “U.S. Secretary of Commerce Wilbur Ross Initiates Section 232 Investigation into Imports of Vanadium”
(Source: Commerce/BIS, 2 Jun 2020)
 
U.S. Secretary of Commerce Wilbur Ross has initiated an investigation into whether the present quantities or circumstances of vanadium imports into the United States threaten to impair the national security. This decision follows review of the petition filed by domestic producers, AMG Vanadium LLC (Cambridge, OH), and U.S. Vanadium LLC (Hot Springs, AR), on November 19, 2019, requesting that the Department of Commerce launch an investigation into vanadium imports under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, as amended. Secretary Ross sent a letter to Secretary of Defense Mark Esper informing him of the investigation.
 
“Vanadium is utilized in our national defense and critical infrastructure, and is integral to certain aerospace applications,” said Secretary Ross. “We will conduct a thorough, fair, and transparent investigation to determine whether vanadium imports threaten to impair U.S. national security.”
 
Vanadium is a metal used in production of metal alloys and as a catalyst for chemicals across aerospace, defense, energy, and infrastructure sectors. Designated a strategic and critical material, vanadium is used for national defense and critical infrastructure applications. Examples include aircraft, jet engines, ballistic missiles, energy storage, bridges, buildings, and pipelines. Vanadium is a key component in aerospace applications due to its strength-to-weight ratio, the best of any engineered material. U.S. demand is supplied entirely through imports.
 
The petitioners assert that domestic industry is adversely impacted by unfairly traded low-priced imports, limited export markets due to value-added tax regimes in other vanadium producing countries, and the distortionary effect of Chinese and Russian industrial policies.
 
The investigation, conducted by the Department’s Bureau of Industry and Security, will provide the opportunity for public comment until July 20, 2020 as noted in the Federal Register.

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

OGS_a3
7. State/DDTC: (No new postings)

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

(Source: Official Journal of the European Union, 3 Jun 2020) [Excerpts] 
 
The Council of the European Union,
Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, Having regard to Council Regulation (EU) 2017/1509 of 30 August 2017 concerning restrictive measures against the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea and repealing Regulation (EC) No 329/2007 (1), and in particular Article 47(5) thereof,
Having regard to the proposal from the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy,
 
 
Whereas:
 
(1) On 30 August 2017, the Council adopted Regulation (EU) 2017/1509.
 
(2) On 11 May 2020, the United Nations Security Council (‘UNSC’) Committee established pursuant to UNSC Resolution 1718 (2006) updated the information relating to one entity subject to restrictive measures.
 
(3) Annex XIII to Regulation (EU) 2017/1509 should therefore be amended accordingly,
 
Has Adopted This Regulation:
 
Article 1
 
Annex XIII to Regulation (EU) 2017/1509 is amended as set out in the Annex to this Regulation.
 
Article 2
 
This Regulation shall enter into force on the date of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.
 
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
 

Done at Brussels, 3 June 2020.

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

(Source: Hong Kong Trade and Industry Department, 2 Jun 2020) [Excerpts]
 
This circular invites facilities which foresee that they would be engaged in specified activities involving Scheduled Chemicals controlled by the Chemical Weapons (Convention) Ordinance (“the Ordinance”) in 2021 to report details of their anticipated activities to the Director-General of Trade and Industry (“the Director”) by completing and returning the reply slip at Annex A on or before 23 July 2020. …

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

COM NEWS

NWS_a110. Reuters: “South Korea Says to Resume WTO Complaint over Japan’s Export Controls”

(Source: Reuters, 2 Jun 2020)

 

South Korea’s trade ministry said on Tuesday that it decided to resume dispute settlement proceedings over Japan’s export controls, saying the two sides failed to make progress over talks to resolve the trade disputes rooted in wartime history.
 
In July, Japan imposed curbs on exports to South Korea of three materials used to make semiconductors and displays, threatening a pillar of the South Korean economy and the global supply chain of tech components.
 
South Korea in September complained to the World Trade Organization over Japan’s move, but in November suspended the proceedings for further talks.

COM COMMENTARY

COM_a111. CTP: “Technology Controls, Part III: Definition of -Required-“

(Source:
CTP Blog, 12 Mar 2019)

 
* Author: John Sturtevant, ITAR/EAR Advisor, Commonwealth Trading Partners
 

We’re back with Part III of our blog series in understanding “technology” controlled under the EAR. In Part I, we explored the concept of controlled technology. Then, in Part II, we examined the three different types of technology (“development,” “production,” and “use”) and how they are applied in practice. Now, in this Part III post, we’re examining what it means when an ECCN controls technology that is “required” for the development, production, or use of an item on the CCL (and also what it means when a control entry doesn’t include the defined term “required”).
 
Let’s first have a quick recap. Under the EAR, “technology” is information, in any tangible or intangible form, that is necessary for the “development,” “production,” or “use” of an item on the CCL.
 
“Development” technology is related to all stages prior to serial production.
“Production” technology includes all production stages, such as product engineering, manufacture, integration, assembly (mounting), inspection, testing, and quality assurance.
 
“Use” technology relates to operation, installation (including on-site installation), maintenance (checking), repair, overhaul and refurbishing.
 
As discussed in Part I, the drafters of the EAR point out to readers that controlled “technology” is defined in what is called the General Technology Note (GTN). Here’s what the GTN says, in pertinent part:
 
The export of “technology” that is “required” for the “development”, “production”, or “use” of items on the Commerce Control List is controlled according to the provisions in each Category.
 
Next, the drafters of the EAR have defined the term “required” as follows:
 
As applied to “technology,” [“required”] refers to only that portion of “technology” which is peculiarly responsible for achieving or exceeding the controlled performance levels, characteristics or functions. Such “required” “technology” may be shared by different products.
 
This EAR definition goes on to provide the following example:
 


Assume product “X” is controlled on the CCL if it operates at or above 400 MHz and is not controlled if it operates below 400 MHz.  If production technologies “A,” “B,” and “C” allow production at no more than 399 MHz, then technologies “A,” “B,” and “C” are not “required” to produce the controlled product “X”. If technologies “A,” “B,” “C,” “D,” and “E” are used together, a manufacturer can produce product “X” that operates at or above 400 MHz. In this example, technologies “D” and “E” are peculiarly responsible for making the controlled product and are thus “required” technology.


 
In an attempt to help clarify these matters for exporters, BIS published an Advisory Opinion in March 2014, expounding on the scope of the GTN. In that Advisory Opinion, BIS concluded: 
 
The EAR’s definition of “technology” states that “[c]ontrolled ‘technology’ is defined in the General Technology Note . . . and the GTN states that “[t]he export of ‘ technology’ that is ‘required’ for the ‘development’, ‘production’, or ‘use’ of items on the Commerce Control List is controlled according to the provisions in each Category.” The EAR does not limit its definition of technology or the GTN to only those technologies controlled in the EAR pursuant to the [Wassenaar Arrangement]. Therefore, the GTN and the EAR’s definition of “required” apply to all references to “technology” in all the ECCNs on the CCL.
 
In other words, the GTN and the EAR-defined term “required” apply to all ECCNs on the CCL that control “technology,” regardless of whether the ECCN specifically refers to the GTN or uses the term “required.”

(Source: International Trade Insights, 1 Jun 2020)
 
* Principal Author: Cortney O’Toole Morgan, Esq.,
1-202-378-2389, Husch Blackwell
 
The U.S. Department of Commerce’s Bureau of Industry and Security (“BIS”) recently announced the addition of 32 Chinese companies and 1 Chinese government agency to the Entity List, citing connections to items for military end-use and human rights abuses against Uighur Muslims in the Xinjiang region. The addition of these Chinese entities to the Entity List follows BIS’s rule changes that further restricted the supply of U.S. technology to Huawei and its affiliated entities. This action prohibits the export, reexport or in-country transfer of items subject to the Export Administration Regulations (“EAR”) to the named entities without authorization from the Department of Commerce.
 
Twenty-four of the companies, based in China, Hong Kong, and the Cayman Islands, were added because they allegedly support procurement of items for military end-use in China. The other nine entities, which includes China’s Ministry of Public Security’s Institute of Forensic Science, were said to be “complicit in human rights violations and abuses committed in China’s campaign of repression, mass arbitrary detention, forced labor and high-technology surveillance against Uighurs, ethnic Kazakhs, and other members of Muslim minority groups in the Xinjiang Uighur Autonomous Region” and will face “new restrictions on access to U.S. technology.”

(Source: Steptoe & Johnson, 1 Jun 2020)
 
* Principal Author: Ali Burney, Esq., 1-852-3729-1805, Steptoe & Johnson
 
On May 29, President Trump announced in a White House news conference the US government would “begin the process” to revoke the “full range of agreements” providing the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of China separate treatment from mainland China under US law on topics including “export controls on dual use technologies,” among others, “with few exceptions.” The United States also plans to sanction Chinese and Hong Kong officials “directly or indirectly involved in eroding” Hong Kong’s autonomy.
 
The president’s announcement contained few specifics on the proposed measures or a timeline for their implementation. Similarly, no Executive Order has been issued by the president identifying any specific changes to be made. We anticipate additional guidance and actions from the White House and relevant agencies, including the US Departments of State, Treasury, and Commerce, in the coming days and weeks.
 
The decision follows Secretary of State Mike Pompeo’s report and certification to Congress, announced on May 27, that Hong Kong no longer enjoys a high degree of autonomy from the People’s Republic of China, for purposes of the Hong Kong Policy Act of 1992, as amended by the Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act of 2019. As a result, he concluded, “Hong Kong does not continue to warrant treatment under United States laws in the same manner as US laws were applied to Hong Kong before July 1997.”
 
Among other actions previewed by the president, the United States will begin the process of revoking the US-Hong Kong extradition agreement and Hong Kong’s preferential customs treatment. The State Department is expected to issue an updated travel alert for Hong Kong citing surveillance and other risks to US nationals. A presidential working group will “study differing practices” of US-listed Chinese companies with the aim of protecting US investors and the US financial system.
 
Background
The president’s May 29 announcement and Secretary Pompeo’s certification follow China’s announcement that the National People’s Congress would consider a resolution authorizing the adoption of controversial national security legislation for Hong Kong. The resolution, which is aimed at prohibiting secession, subversion of state power, terrorism activities, and foreign interference, was approved on May 28. The week prior, Secretary Pompeo warned that the passage of the legislation would be a “death knell” for Hong Kong’s autonomy.
 
Last year, the US Congress passed and the president signed into law, the Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act. Under that law, the secretary of state, is required to issue, in conjunction with the annual report that must be submitted to Congress no later than March 31, a certification that “indicates whether Hong Kong continues to warrant treatment under United States law in the same manner as United States laws were applied to Hong Kong before July 1, 1997.”
 
Secretary Pompeo delayed submitting the annual report this year, “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.” Then, on May 29, the State Department issued the 2020 Hong Kong Policy Act Report, finding “China has shed any pretense that the people of Hong Kong enjoy the high degree of autonomy, democratic institutions, and civil liberties guaranteed to them by the Sino-British Joint Declaration and the Basic Law.”
 
Earlier in the week, on May 26, the White House issued its US Strategic Approach to the People’s Republic of China, which outlines the administration’s policies for “strategic competition” intended to “(1) protect the American people, homeland, and way of life; (2) promote American prosperity; (3) preserve peace through strength; and (4) advance American influence.”
 
US Export Controls and Sanctions Implications
Hong Kong and mainland China are treated as separate destinations for purposes of the US Export Administration Regulations (EAR) administered by the Commerce Department’s Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS).[FN/1] Among other things, Hong Kong and mainland China are listed separately in the Commerce Country Chart at Supplement No. 1 to Part 738 of the EAR, providing Hong Kong preferential export licensing treatment. As a result, items subject to the EAR may be exported to Hong Kong (and re-exported to certain other jurisdictions) with fewer restrictions than if those same items were exported to, or for use in, mainland China.
 
The president’s announcement did not identify the specific degree to which Hong Kong’s current status under the EAR may change. For example, it is not clear whether licensing policies applicable to China will be fully applied to Hong Kong; whether recent changes to the EAR directed at restricting exports to China will also cover Hong Kong; or whether export control restrictions might be targeted to cover US-origin goods, technologies, and software in areas such as surveillance and telecommunications, which have been highlighted in previous BIS actions.
 
The president announced the United States would sanction Chinese and Hong Kong officials involved “directly or indirectly” in eroding Hong Kong’s autonomy and individual freedoms. He did not specify which officials would be targeted or whether the sanctions will include visa restrictions, blocking sanctions, or other measures, or whether action will be taken under existing authorizations, such as Section 7 of the Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act, the Global Magnitsky sanctions, or a yet-to-be-issued Executive Order. According to reports, targeted officials could include those involved in implementing National Security measures in Hong Kong, including the Legislative Affairs Commission of China’s legislature, Beijing’s liaison office in Hong Kong, and the Hong Kong and Macau Affairs Office.
 
Additionally, on May 21, US Senators Pat Toomey (R-PA) and Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) introduced the Hong Kong Autonomy Act (S.3798) that would, among other things, authorize sanctions against individuals and entities that “materially contribute to the contravention” of Hong Kong’s Basic Law, including menu-based secondary sanctions against financial institutions that engage in significant transactions with such persons. The bill was referred to the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. No House companion has been introduced.
 
Shortly after the May 29 press conference, the president issued a proclamation on the Suspension of Entry as Nonimmigrants of Certain Students and Researchers from the People’s Republic of China, which restricts visas for Chinese graduate students seeking to study or conduct research in the United States, who have ties to any Chinese entity “that implements or supports the PRC’s ‘military-civil fusion strategy'” to develop advanced China’s military capabilities.
 
Looking Forward
In the conclusion to the 2020 Hong Kong Policy Act Report, Secretary Pompeo stated that he hoped “someday in the future, I will be able to recertify” Hong Kong’s autonomy from China. In this regard, Section 202(d) of the Hong Kong Policy Act provides that an Executive Order suspending Hong Kong’s separate treatment “may be terminated by the President with respect to a particular law or provision of law whenever the President determines that Hong Kong has regained sufficient autonomy to justify different treatment.”
 
[FN/1] Hong Kong is also treated differently for purposes of the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR), administered by the State Department’s Directorate of Defense Trade Controls (DDTC), and certain other US regulations which are not discussed in this advisory.

TE EX/IM MOVERS & SHAKERS

 
Alan Levesque, formerly Chief Ethics & Compliance Officer at Raytheon, has joined Ankura in their Washington, DC office. Contact Alan at 1-202-797-1111 or
alan.levesque@ankura.com.

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

TE EX/IM TRAINING EVENTS & CONFERENCES

(Source:
Ashleigh Foor
)
 
* What: 
Foods, Supplements, Cosmetics, Devices…Oh My: How the FDA Regulates More Than You May Think!
* When: 24 Jun; 1:00 p.m. (EDT)
* Where: Webinar
* Sponsor: Export Compliance Training Institute (ECTI)
* ECTI Speaker: Shelly Garg, Attorney

* Register:
here 
or contact
Ashleigh Foor
, 1-540-433-3977 

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

EN EDITOR’S NOTES

EN_a116. Bartlett’s Unfamiliar Quotations

(Source: Editor)
  

* Martha Washington (2 Jun 1731 – 22 May 1802; was the wife of George Washington, the first President of the United States.  Although the title was not coined until after her death, Martha Washington served as the inaugural First Lady of the United States.)
  – “I am determined to be cheerful and happy in whatever situation I may find myself. For I have learned that the greater part of our misery or unhappiness is determined not by our circumstance but by our disposition.” 
 
* Marquis de Sade (Donatien Alphonse François, Marquis de Sade; 2 Jun 1740 – 2 Dec 1814; was a French nobleman, revolutionary politician, philosopher, writer, and rapist, famous for his libertine sexuality. His works include novels, short stories, plays, dialogues, and political tracts. Sade is best known for his erotic works depicting sexual fantasies with an emphasis on violence. He became infamous for his numerous sexual crimes and abuse against young women, men,
and children.  The words sadism and sadist are derived from his name.


  – “‘Sex’ is as important as eating or drinking and we ought to allow the one appetite to be satisfied with as little restraint or false modesty as the other.”

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

 

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