NISPOM, Including Revised Personal Reporting Requirements and Reduced FOCI Mitigation Burden, Codified in Code of Federal Regulations
Client Alert | 1 min read | 12.22.20
Yesterday, the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence & Security, Department of Defense (DoD) published a final rule codifying the National Industrial Security Program Operation Manual (NISPOM) (DoDM 5220.22) into 32 C.F.R. Part 117. For the most part, this action simply inserts the long-applicable NISPOM requirements into the CFR, but DoD has taken this opportunity to formalize two additional changes applicable to cleared contractors. First, the new regulation will incorporate mandatory reporting concerning any cleared personnel's foreign contacts and foreign travel, a requirement initially established by Security Executive Agent Directive (SEAD) 3, “Reporting Requirements for Personnel with Access to Classified Information or Who Hold a Sensitive Position” (12 June 2017) for the purpose of more continuously monitoring activities that can affect an individual's national security eligibility. Second, the final rule will implement Section 842 of the 2019 National Defense Authorization Act, which, effective October 1, 2020, removed the requirement that an agency issue a national interest determination (NID) before a foreign-owned entity holding a facility clearance by virtue of a Special Security Agreement may access “proscribed information” (e.g., Top Secret information) where its ultimate and intermediate foreign parents are located in a country within the U.S. national technology and industrial base as defined in 10 U.S.C. § 2500 ( currently Australia, Canada and the U.K.). Comments on the addition of the NISPOM to the CFR may be submitted through February 19, 2021, and the regulation formally becomes effective on February 24, 2021.
Contacts
Insights
Client Alert | 7 min read | 06.24.26
On June 17, 2026, the U.S. Department of Justice’s (DOJ( National Security Division (NSD) announced that it had issued a declination for Robert Bosch GmbH (Bosch) relating to potential violations of the Export Control Reform Act, 50 U.S.C. § 4819 (ECRA). Specifically, the DOJ declined to criminally prosecute Bosch’s violations of the Export Administration Regulations’ (EAR) Foreign Direct Product Rule (FDPR), which apparently resulted from two Bosch subsidiaries’ export of products and software manufactured with equipment that was the direct product of U.S. software or technology to Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd. and its “Entity List” affiliates, including Huawei Tech. Investment Co., Ltd., Hong Kong (collectively, Huawei). The same day, the U.S. Department of Commerce Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) announced a parallel civil administrative settlement with Bosch.
Client Alert | 3 min read | 06.24.26
Client Alert | 4 min read | 06.23.26
EPA Hands Over AI Data Center Regulation to States and Communities to Develop Best Practices
Client Alert | 3 min read | 06.22.26



