;

20-0619 Friday ” Daily Bugle “

20-0619 Friday “Daily Bugle”

 this copy of the Daily Bugle to others or share 
this subscription link
Friday, 19 June 2020

  1. State Department: “Correction of Cuba Restricted List”
  2. Treasury/OFAC: “Notice of OFAC Sanctions Actions”
  1. Items Scheduled for Future Federal Register Edition
  2. Commerce/BIS: (No new postings)
  3. State/DDTC: (No new postings)
  4. Treasury/OFAC: “Venezuela-related Designations and Designations Removals; Issuance of Venezuela-related General License and FAQ”
  5. EU Extends Restrictive Measures Against Iran
  6. EU Extends Restrictive Measures Against Crimea and Sevastopol for 1 Year
  1. EU Sanctions: “US Renews Sanctions Against N Korea for 1 Year”
  2. Reuters: “Amid COVID-19, OFAC Exempts Medicines, PPE, Other Items from Sanctions on Iranian Manufacturing”
  1. DLA Piper: “US Department of Commerce Clears Huawei to Participate in International Standards Organizations”
  2. Mayer Brown: “EC Publishes White Paper on Foreign Subsidies Distorting the EU Internal Market”
  3. Winston & Strawn: “Commerce Permits Sharing of Controlled Technology with Huawei to Support Development of Industry Standards”
  1. ECTI Presents: UK/EU Export Controls and Sanctions 101 Webinar; 30 Jun
  2. Friday List of Approaching Events: 225 Events Posted This Week, Including 7 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

 
85 FR 37146: Notice
* ACTION: Updated publication of list of entities and subentities; notice; correction.
* SUMMARY: The Department of State published a document in the Federal Register of June 12, 2020, concerning an update to its List of Restricted Entities and Subentities Associated with Cuba (Cuba Restricted List). The document contained one omission from the list.
* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Emily Belson, Office of Economic Sanctions Policy and Implementation, 202-647-6526; Robert Haas, Office of the Coordinator for Cuban Affairs, tel.: 202-453-8456, Department of State, Washington, DC 20520.
* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Correction:
In the Federal Register of June 12, 2020, in FR Doc. 2020-12746, on page 35974, in the third column, correct subheading “Additional Subentities of CIMEX” to include “FINCIMEX Effective [DATE PUBLISHED IN Federal Register]” on a line after “ECUSE – Empresa Cubana de Servicios” and before “Inmobiliaria CIMEX (Real Estate).”

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

 
85 FR 37155: Notice of OFAC Sanctions Actions
* AGENCY: Office of Foreign Assets Control, Treasury.
* ACTION: Notice.
* SUMMARY: The Department of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) is publishing the names of one or more persons that have been placed on OFAC’s Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons List based on OFAC’s determination that one or more applicable legal criteria were satisfied. All property and interests in
property subject to U.S. jurisdiction of these persons are blocked, and U.S. persons are generally prohibited from engaging in transactions with them.
* DATES: See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for effective date(s).

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

OGS OTHER GOVERNMENT SOURCES

[No items of interest posted]

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

OGS_a24. Commerce/BIS: (No new postings)

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

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

(Source:
Treasury/OFAC
, 18 Jun 2020)
 

  The Department of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) is issuing General License 37
,
“Authorizing the Wind Down of Transactions Involving Delos Voyager Shipping Ltd, Romina Maritime Co Inc, and Certain Vessels
.”  In addition, OFAC is issuing a new Frequently Asked Question
.   
 
Read the full notice
here
.

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

 
  On 23 June 2014, the Council adopted Decision 2014/386/CFSP (1).
The Council does not recognise and continues to condemn the illegal annexation of Crimea and Sevastopol by the Russian Federation and will remain committed to fully implementing its non-recognition policy.
On the basis of a review of Decision 2014/386/CFSP, the restrictive measures should be renewed until 23 June 2021.
  Decision 2014/386/CFSP should therefore be amended accordingly,
Article 1
: In Article 5 of Decision 2014/386/CFSP, the second paragraph is replaced by the following:
‘This Decision shall apply until 23 June 2021.’.

Article 2
This Decision shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

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

OGS_a6
8. EU Extends Restrictive Measures Against Iran

 
  On 23 March 2012, the Council adopted Regulation (EU) No 267/2012. On the basis of a review of Annex II to Decision 2010/413/CFSP, the Council has concluded that the restrictive measures against all persons and entities in the list set out therein should be maintained, in so far as their names are not mentioned in Annex VI to that Decision. The Council has also concluded that 10 entries included in Annex IX to Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 should be updated.
 
Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 should therefore be amended accordingly,
Article 1: Annex IX to Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 is amended as set out in the Annex to this Regulation.
Article 2: This Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that 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.

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

COM NEWS

NWS_a19.
EU Sanctions: “US Renews Sanctions Against N Korea for 1 Year”

(Source:
EU Sanctions
, 18 Jun 2020) [Excerpts]


 
   In June 2006, the US adopted 
Executive Order (E.O.) 13466
, which declared a national emergency in respect of North Korea arising from the “existence and risk of proliferation of weapons-usable fissile materials on the Korean peninsula”. The EO was later amended by 
E.O. 13551

E.O. 13570

E.O. 13687

E.O. 13722
, and 
E.O. 13810
, which together imposed an array of sanctions on North Korea.
   The sanctions have been renewed for 1 year by continuing the national emergency as declared. White House Notice 
here
.

(Source:
Reuters
, 18 Jun 2020
) [Excerpts]

 
   The United States maintains comprehensive sanctions on Iran and enforces them vigorously. The COVID-19 pandemic, which according to June 11 data from Johns Hopkins [coronavirus.jhu.edu/map.html] has claimed over 8,500 lives and infected more than 180,000 people in Iran, has triggered concerns that U.S. sanctions impede Iran’s access to medicine, medical supplies, and other essentials needed to respond to the novel coronavirus.
   In the two years after U.S. President Donald Trump announced he would withdraw the United States from the Iran nuclear deal [go-ri.tr.com/LQ6BqQ], his administration has adopted successive measures to re-impose and expand U.S. sanctions, to exert “maximum pressure” by isolating Iran economically. International support for intensified U.S. sanctions has been scant, and the United States has utilized secondary sanctions to deter foreign parties from engaging in Iran-related transactions.
   The remaining parties to the nuclear deal — Germany, France, the United Kingdom, Russia, China, and Iran, plus the European Union — have sought to preserve some of its economic benefits for Iran. The European Union activated an updated sanctions “blocking” statute to sustain “trade and economic relations between the EU and Iran.”[go-ri.tr.com/mzsVuR] The United Kingdom, France, and Germany (known as the “E3”) established INSTEX[go-ri.tr.com/ftAnTP] (Instrument in Support of Trade Exchanges) as founding shareholders to facilitate limited trade with Iran beyond the reach of U.S. sanctions[reut.rs/2Y83t4R]. Last November, six European countries-Belgium, Denmark, Finland, the Netherlands, Norway and Sweden-joined INSTEX as shareholders. In March, INSTEX executed its first transaction-the export of medical supplies from Europe to Iran. …
   The Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) on March 6 published Guidance Related to Humanitarian Assistance with Regard to the Coronavirus Disease 2019 outbreak in Iran (COVID-19) ( OFAC FAQ No. 828[bit.ly/3dgpSkR]). The guidance explained that existing U.S. sanctions allowed for certain sales, exports, and humanitarian donations of medicines, medical supplies, and food to Iran.
   Additionally, OFAC signaled in April that a more substantive accommodation would be made. In a 10-page fact sheet on the Provision of Humanitarian Assistance and Trade to Combat COVID-19 published on April 6, OFAC again stated that humanitarian assistance and sales and exports of medical and other supplies are provided for under existing U.S. sanctions targeting Iran and other nations. More notably, OFAC indicated for the first time that persons in Iran manufacturing certain essential products would be exempted from sanctions promulgated by Executive Order 13902 of January 10, 2020, Imposing Sanctions With Respect to Additional Sectors of Iran. OFAC then published four new FAQs on June 5, expanding on the April fact sheet. …

COM COMMENTARY

(Source: DLA Piper, 18 Jun 2020)

 
   On June 18, 2020, the US Department of Commerce, Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) published a revision to the Export Administration Regulations (EAR), changing the Huawei Entity List entries to permit the transfer of technology subject to the EAR, without a license, that is designated as EAR99, or controlled on the Commerce Control List for anti-terrorism reasons only, when released to members of a “standards organization” for the purpose of contributing to the revision or development of a “standard.”

Standard” and “standards organization” are defined as set out below.
 

  Standard.
 
This term is equivalent to “standard” or “technical standard” as defined in Office of Management and Budget Circular A-119 (Rev. 2016) (81 FR 4673 (Jan. 27, 2016)), “Federal Participation in the Development and Use of Voluntary Consensus Standards and in Conformity Assessment Activities” section 2.a,
 
available here
.
Section 2.a of Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-119 reads as follows:

   a. The term “standard,” or “technical standard,” (hereinafter “standard”) as cited in the NTTAA, includes all of the following: 
(i) common and repeated use of rules, conditions, guidelines or characteristics for products or related processes and production methods, and related management systems practices;
 

(ii) the definition of terms; classification of components; delineation of procedures; specification of dimensions, materials, performance, designs, or operations; measurement of quality and quantity in describing materials, processes, products, systems, services, or practices; test methods and sampling procedures; formats for information and communication exchange; or descriptions of fit and measurements of size or strength; and

 

(iii) terminology, symbols, packaging, marking or labeling requirements as they apply to a product, process, or production method. 
 

Standards organization
. This term is equivalent to “voluntary consensus standards body,” as defined in Office of Management and Budget Circular A-119 (Rev. 2016) (81 FR 4673 (Jan. 27, 2016)), “Federal Participation in the Development and Use of Voluntary Consensus Standards and in Conformity Assessment Activities” section 2.e,
 
available here
.  

Section 2.e of OMB Circular A-119 reads as follows:
   e. “Voluntary consensus standards body” is a type of association, organization, or technical society that plans, develops, establishes, or coordinates voluntary consensus standards using a voluntary consensus standards development process that includes the following attributes or elements:
 
(i) Openness: The procedures or processes used are open to interested parties. Such parties are provided meaningful opportunities to participate in standards development on a non-discriminatory basis. The procedures or processes for participating in standards development and for developing the standard are transparent.
 

(ii) Balance: The standards development process should be balanced. Specifically, there should be meaningful involvement from a broad range of parties, with no single interest dominating the decision-making.

 

(iii) Due process: Due process shall include documented and publically available policies and procedures, adequate notice of meetings and standards development, sufficient time to review drafts and prepare views and objections, access to views and objections of other participants, and a fair and impartial process for resolving conflicting views.

 

(iv) Appeals process: An appeals process shall be available for the impartial handling of procedural appeals.
(v) Consensus: Consensus is defined as general agreement, but not necessarily unanimity. During the development of consensus, comments and objections are considered using fair, impartial, open, and transparent processes. 
   In making this change to the strict export control on Huawei participation in international standards organizations, BIS noted that international standards serve as the building blocks for product development and help ensure product functionality, interoperability, and safety; it is important to US technological leadership that US companies be able to work in these bodies in order to ensure that US standards proposals are fully considered.  

  
In practice, this change to the Huawei licensing requirements as imposed by its inclusion on the BIS Entity List will solve the problem that other participants in these standards organizations have had with Huawei participating in these organizations. 

(Source:
Mayer Brown
, 18 Jun 2020)
 
* Principal Author:
Nikolay Mizulin
, 32-2-551-5967,
Mayer Brown
 
I. Introduction
   On June 17, 2020, the European Commission published a white paper “on levelling the playing field as regards foreign subsidies”, which contains proposals for new tools to prevent foreign subsidies from distorting the internal market in the European Union (“EU”).1 The white paper and the proposals contained therein will be the subject of a public consultation that will run until September 23, 2020.
 
II. Scope and objectives of the white paper
The European Commission considers that new tools are necessary because of the existence of a “regulatory gap” with respect to: 
   (a) Foreign subsidies distorting the internal market regarding
  • the general market operation of economic operators active in the EU;
  • acquisitions of EU undertakings;
  • public procurement procedures; and
   (b) Foreign subsidies in the context of access to EU funding.
   The European Commission and Member States currently only have limited tools at their disposal to address the distortive effects of foreign subsidies, primarily trade defense measures, such as anti-dumping and anti-subsidy, and foreign investment controls, although these last are largely confined to the protection of Member States’ security and other public interests.  
   Other existing tools available to the Commission, such as the EU Merger Regulation (“EUMR”), antitrust rules, State aid rules and public procurement rules, do not address the regulatory gap identified by the European Commission, in particular in relation to foreign subsidies that “take the form of financial flows facilitating acquisitions of EU undertakings or where they support the operation of an undertaking in the EU.”  For example, the ability of the European Commission to take account of foreign subsidies in its review of a transaction under the EUMR is limited; national FDI screening mechanisms can only take such subsidies into account where they would in some way threaten a Member State’s security or the public interest; and the EU State aid rules only address subsidies granted by an EU Member State. 
   The European Commission considers that new review tools are necessary in part as a result of a lack of compliance by WTO members with the notification obligations under the WTO’s Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (“SCM Agreement”). In addition, the white paper reflects concerns with “state sponsored unfair trading practices, which disregard market forces and abuse existing international rules, with a view to building up dominance across various sectors of economic activity.”
   The white paper defines the term “foreign subsidy” in Annex I as a “financial contribution by a government or any public body of a non-EU State, which confers a benefit to a recipient and which is limited, in law or in fact, to an individual undertaking or industry or to a group of undertakings or industries.”2 The proposed definition builds on the definition used in the EU’s Basic Anti-Subsidy Regulation and the EU Regulation on safeguarding competition in the air transport sector.3 The European Commission proposes that a de minimis threshold of 200,000 EUR per consecutive period of three years could be set, with foreign subsidies above that threshold being subject to review; while foreign subsidies below that threshold would be considered not to distort the correct functioning of the EU’s internal market.4
   The European Commission proposes that foreign subsidies would only be subject to the application of a potential new legal instrument if they cause, directly or indirectly, distortions of the internal market. The following types of subsidies are considered likely to have a distortive effect on the internal market: 
(i) foreign subsidies granted directly to undertakings established in the EU; 
(ii) foreign subsidies granted to an undertaking established in a third country where such subsidy is used by a related party established in the EU; and 
(iii) foreign subsidies granted to an undertaking established in a third country where such a subsidy is used to facilitate an acquisition of an EU undertaking or to participate in EU public procurement procedures.
   One of the main concerns identified in the white paper is the lack of a level playing field between EU and non-EU companies competing with respect to public procurement in the EU. The European Commission notes in this regard that foreign “[s]ubsidised companies may be able to make more advantageous offers, thus either discouraging non-subsidised companies from participating in the first place or winning contracts to the detriment of non-subsidised more efficient companies,” resulting in the absence of competition on “an equal footing.”
 
III. Proposed mechanisms to address foreign subsidies 
   Concretely, the white paper proposes three mechanisms (“Modules”) that the European Commission could use to address foreign subsidisation.
   The first Module (“General instrument to capture foreign subsidies”) involves the possibility for competent “supervisory authorities” (i.e., “the Commission and relevant Member State authorities”) to open an investigation and impose “redressive measures” – for example, restructuring (divestment of assets), prohibition of investments and acquisitions, and “redressive payments” – in respect of subsidies granted by a third country to companies operating in the EU. Such redressive measures could be imposed if, subsequent to an investigation, a determination were made that the internal market was distorted as a result of the foreign subsidy.5
   This mechanism would be broadly similar to the manner in which EU State aid awards can be assessed by the European Commission and made subject to repayment and other remedial commitments. Under the first Module, the European Commission foresees that foreign subsidies could be investigated by a single national supervisory authority, several national authorities combined, or by the European Commission itself. The European Commission also foresees the introduction of an EU interest test so that the distortive effects of a foreign subsidy can be weighed against the potential positive impact that the supported economic activity or investment may have.
   A second Module (“Foreign subsidies facilitating the acquisition of EU targets”) would require foreign investors to notify acquisitions in an EU company, in order to establish that the acquisition takes place on “market terms.” An acquisition is provisionally defined as the:
  • Acquisition-directly or indirectly-of control of an undertaking; or the
  • Acquisition-directly or indirectly-of at least [a specific percentage] % of the shares or voting rights or otherwise of “material influence” in an undertaking.6
  The European Commission proposes to define the term “EU target” as “any undertaking established in the EU and meeting a certain turnover threshold in the EU,” but notes that other qualifying criteria could also be considered (e.g. the value of the transaction or the amount of the third party financial contribution to the acquisition). The white paper contemplates an ex ante notification obligation, i.e., a mandatory and suspensory notification system similar to current EU merger control, pursuant to which transactions could not be completed ahead of the European Commission’s clearance. Importantly, from a business perspective, the European Commission anticipates that the regime would require companies to self-assess whether they had received a “financial contribution” from a third country government, in order to determine if they need to notify; that assessment would “carry the risk of error or circumvention to the extent that undertakings may not be aware of such public support or willing to disclose it.” Companies would be liable to penalties for a failure to notify a qualifying acquisition. 
   Under the second Module, EU regulatory authorities would be given the right to conduct an “in-depth investigation,” if there is a suspicion that significant foreign subsidies are involved in an acquisition. Under Module 2, companies would be able to offer remedies (as under Module 1) although the European Commission observes that (as with remedies for merger control), structural remedies (i.e. divestment remedies) are most likely to be appropriate. 
The European Commission has proposed a combination of Modules 1 and 2. In this regard it is proposed that for Module 1, the European Commission would share competences with the EU Member States; whereas for Module 2, it would be “exclusively responsible.” 
   The third Module put forward in the white paper envisages legislation to ensure that “foreign subsidies can be addressed in individual public procurement procedures” and that “EU public buyers would be required to exclude from public procurement procedures those economic operators that have received distortive foreign subsidies.” The white paper indicates that the scope of the grounds for exclusion would be defined in the light of the EU’s obligations under the WTO’s Government Procurement Agreement (“GPA”) and other (bilateral) agreements that provide access to the EU’s procurement markets.
  The third Module would require economic operators that participate in a public procurement procedure to “notify to the contracting authority when submitting their bid whether they, including any consortium members, or subcontractors and suppliers have received a financial contribution within the meaning of Annex I within the last three years preceding the participation in the procedure and whether such a financial contribution will be received during the execution of the contract.”
   The aim of the proposal is to exclude economic operators that have received distortive foreign subsidies from participating in EU public procurement procedures. The proposals impose strict timetables so as to ensure a minimum of disruption to the procurement process (15 business days for an initial review, followed by a maximum period of three months for an in depth assessment). 
   Lastly, the white paper raises the possibility of developing legislation to address the distortive effects of foreign subsidised undertakings gaining access to EU funding, in particular in the context of the common agricultural policy and the European Structural and Investment Funds (“ESI Funds”).
 
IV. Public consultation
   The white paper does not constitute a legislative proposal, its aim being to “launch a broad discussion with stakeholders on the best way to effectively address the challenges” related to foreign subsidisation.  A consultation period on the proposals will run until September 23 2020,7 and is likely to be followed by the development of a proposal for a legal instrument.
   To that end, Annex II of the white paper provides a questionnaire in respect of the three Modules, with questions directed at stakeholders aimed at determining, inter alia, whether (i) there are needs for new legal instrument; (ii) the proposals would address the distortions caused by foreign subsidies; and (iii) the three Modules would be effective instruments.


(Source:
Winston & Strawn
, 18 Jun 2020)
 
* Principal Author:
Christopher B. Monahan
, Esq., 1-202-282-5000,
Winston & Strawn LLP
 
   The Department of Commerce’s Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) has release
d
 
an interim final rule
which allows U.S. companies to provide Huawei with certain technology subject to the U.S. Export Administration Regulations (EAR) for the development of technological standards (e.g., standards for 5G wireless telecommunication). The Federal Register notice containing this interim final rule is expected to be published on June 18, 2020, and the rule will take effect upon publication.
   L
ast year, BIS added Huawei and a number of its affiliates to its
 
Entity List
. As a result, companies and individuals were prohibited from exporting, re-exporting, or transferring any goods, software, or technology subject to the EAR to Huawei without a license. Additional information about the Entity List and the implications of Huawei’s listing can be found in
 
our prior briefing
 
on the subject. Given Huawei’s participation in many organizations which set international product standards, Huawei’s listing has made it difficult for U.S. companies to contribute to important standards-developing activities.
   In order to address this issue, the interim final rule modifies the EAR to authorize certain releases of technology without a license to Huawei and its affiliates. Specifically, technology subject to the EAR that is designated as EAR99 or controlled on the Commerce Control List only for anti-terrorism (AT) reasons may be released to members of a standards organization without a license, including Huawei, if released for the purpose of contributing to the revision or development of a standard.
   As used in the interim final rule, a “standards organization” is equivalent to a “voluntary consensus standards body” as defined in the
 
Office of Management and Budget Circular A-119 (Rev. 2016) (the 2016 OMB Circular)
, meaning a type of association, organization, or technical society that plans, develops, establishes, or coordinates voluntary consensus standards using a voluntary consensus standards development process that includes the following attributes or elements:
  • Openness: The procedures or processes used are open to interested parties. Such parties are provided meaningful opportunities to participate in standards development on a non-discriminatory basis. The procedures or processes for participating in standards development and for developing the standard are transparent.
  • Balance of interest: The standards development process should be balanced. Specifically, there should be meaningful involvement from a broad range of parties, with no single interest dominating the decision-making.
  • Due process: Due process shall include documented and publically available policies and procedures, adequate notice of meetings and standards development, sufficient time to review drafts and prepare views and objections, access to views and objections of other participants, and a fair and impartial process for resolving conflicting views.
  • An appeals process: An appeals process shall be available for the impartial handling of procedural appeals.
  • Consensus: Consensus is defined as general agreement, but not necessarily unanimity. During the development of consensus, comments and objections are considered using fair, impartial, open, and transparent processes.
   As used in the interim final rule, the term “standard” is equivalent to the term “technical standard” as defined in the 2016 OMB Circular, which includes all of the following:
  • Common and repeated use of rules, conditions, guidelines or characteristics for products or related processes and production methods, and related management systems practices;
  • The definition of terms; classification of components; delineation of procedures; specification of dimensions, materials, performance, designs, or operations; measurement of quality and quantity in describing materials, processes, products, systems, services, or practices; test methods and sampling procedures; formats for information and communication exchange; or descriptions of fit and measurements of size or strength; and

  
Terminology, symbols, packaging, marking or labeling requirements as they apply to a product, process, or production method
.   


TE EX/IM TRAINING EVENTS & CONFERENCES

 
* What: UK/EU Export Controls and Sanctions 101
* When: 30 Jun; 1:00 p.m. (EDT)
* Where: Webinar
* Sponsor: Export Compliance Training Institute (ECTI)
* ECTI Speaker: Richard Tauwhare
* Register: 
here 
or contact
Ashleigh Foor
, 1-540-433-3977

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

(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:
 
* 23 Jun: “
Introduction to HTS/Schedule B Classification
“; Small Business Administration
* 25 Jun: “
USMCA A Deeper Dive“;
Braumiller Law Group PLLC
* 2 Jul: “
USMCA Uniform Regulations From the Mexico Perspective
“; Braumiller Law Group PLLC
* 21 Jul: “
Customs Broker Regulation Revisions What You Need to Know
“; Braumiller Law Group PLLC

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

EN EDITOR’S NOTES

EN_a116. Bartlett’s Unfamiliar Quotations

(Source: Editor)
  

* King James I (James Charles Stuart; 19 Jun 1566 – 27 Mar 1625; was King of Scotland as James VI from 24 July 1567 and King of England and Ireland as James I from the union of the Scottish and English crowns on 24 March 1603 until his death in 1625.)

  – “I can make a lord, but only God can make a gentleman.” 

  – “Smoking is hateful to the nose, harmful to the brain, and dangerous to the lungs.”
 
Friday funnies:
 
A young girl at a wedding asked her mother, “Mommy, why do brides dress all in white?”  Her mother replied,
“Because a white dress is a symbol of happiness, and this is the happiest day of a bride’s life!”  “Then why does the groom wear black?” the little girl asked.

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

 

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. 
DOC FOREIGN TRADE REGULATIONS (FTR): 15 CFR Part 30.   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

5 Jun 2020:
85 FR 84510:

Syria 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