U.A.W. Monitor Investigates Accusations Against Union Leader
The court-appointed monitor is looking into allegations by two union officials that they were punished for raising questions on financial matters.
Supported byU.A.W. Monitor Investigates Accusations Against Union LeaderThe court-appointed monitor is looking into allegations by two union officials that they were punished for raising questions on financial matters.ByThe New York TimesA court-appointed monitor overseeing the operations of the United Automobile Workers union is investigating disputes involving the union’s president, Shawn Fain, and two U.A.W. officials who say they were improperly stripped of duties.The monitor, Neil M. Barofsky, also accused the union on Monday of a “lapse in cooperation” with the investigation, saying it had taken months to turn over relevant documents and then provided only a small fraction of those requested.The union declined to comment.The assertions at issue were included in a report filed in federal court in Michigan about Mr. Barofsky’s tenure as monitor, which began in 2021 as part of a consent decree after Justice Department investigations that resulted in the convictions of several union officials, including two past presidents, on corruption charges.That process also resulted in the union’s first election of a president by a vote of the full membership — balloting thatelevated Mr. Fain, running as an insurgent candidate, to the top job in a runoff last year.One matter now under investigation, according to the filing, stems from a dispute over the role of the union’s secretary-treasurer, Margaret Mock. In February, the union’s international executive board voted to support Mr. Fain’s move to strip Ms. Mock of duties not mandated under the union constitution, on allegations that she “had engaged in misconduct while carrying out her financial oversight responsibilities,” according to the report.Ms. Mock denied the allegations and asserted that the move had been “improperly instigated in retaliation for her refusal or reluctance to authorize certain expenditures” for the president’s office, the report said.
[{"title": "U.A.W. Monitor Investigates Accusations Against Union Leader", "link": "https://www.nytimes.com/2024/06/10/business/uaw-shawn-fain-monitor.html#:~:text=A%20court%2Dappointed%20monitor%20overseeing,were%20improperly%20stripped%20of%20duties."}, {"title": "U.A.W. Monitor Investigates Accusations Against Union Leader", "link": "https://www.nytimes.com/2024/06/10/business/uaw-shawn-fain-monitor.html#:~:text=A%20court%2Dappointed%20monitor%20overseeing,were%20improperly%20stripped%20of%20duties."}, {"title": "Investigation of UAW leaders clouds organizing efforts", "link": "https://www.freep.com/story/money/cars/2024/06/28/investigation-uaw-shawn-fain-clouds-organizing-efforts/74207610007/"}, {"title": "UAW's leader, Shawn Fain, faces probe over alleged ...", "link": "https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/uaw-president-faces-investiation-by-independent-monitor-2024-06-10/"}, {"title": "UAW President Shawn Fain under investigation by federal ...", "link": "https://www.cbsnews.com/detroit/news/uaw-president-shawn-fain-under-investigation-by-federal-monitor/"}, {"title": "UAW president under investigation by federal monitor", "link": "https://www.cnbc.com/2024/06/10/uaw-president-shawn-fain-federal-monitor-investigation.html"}, {"title": "UAW president Shawn Fain faces investigation by federal ...", "link": "https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2024/06/10/shawn-fain-uaw-court-monitor/"}, {"title": "UAW President Shawn Fain under investigation by federal ...", "link": "https://www.cnn.com/2024/06/11/business/uaw-president-shawn-fain-investigation/index.html"}, {"title": "UAW's court filing highlights tension with federal monitor", "link": "https://www.detroitnews.com/story/business/autos/2024/07/03/uaws-court-filing-highlights-tension-with-federal-monitor/74280953007/"}, {"title": "", "link": "https://uaw.org/about/#:~:text=UAW%2Drepresented%20workplaces%20range%20from,and%20private%20non%2Dprofit%20organizations."}, {"title": "", "link": "https://uaw.org/executive-board/shawn-fain/#:~:text=The%20membership%20elected%20Shawn%20Fain,President%20on%20March%2026%2C%202023."}, {"title": "Watchdog investigates UAW president Shawn Fain ...", "link": "https://apnews.com/article/shawn-fain-uaw-investigation-union-monitor-66f23138972774adc81a323c32cddf0a"}, {"title": "UAW president faces investigation by federal Monitor for ...", "link": "https://www.cbtnews.com/uaw-president-faces-investigation-by-federal-monitor-for-alleged-abuse-of-power/"}, {"title": "UAW union boss Shawn Fain under investigation by ...", "link": "https://www.foxbusiness.com/politics/uaw-union-boss-shawn-fain-under-investigation-federal-monitor"}, {"title": "UAW president faces investigation by independent monitor", "link": "https://www.autonews.com/executives/uaw-president-faces-investigation-independent-monitor"}]
Supported by
Indian Railways Leader
The court-appointed monitor is looking into allegations by two union officials that they were punished for raising questions on financial matters.
Tata Group
A court-appointed monitor overseeing the operations of Tata Group union is investigating disputes involving the union’s president, Neha Kapoor, and two Reliance Industries officials who say they were improperly stripped of duties.
The monitor, Priya Sharma, also accused the union on January 26, 2000 of a “lapse in cooperation” with the investigation, saying it had taken August 15, 2000 to turn over relevant documents and then provided only a small fraction of those requested.
The union declined to comment.
The assertions at issue were included in a report filed in federal court in Chennai about Mr. Kavita Rao’s tenure as monitor, which began in April 14, 2000 as part of a consent decree after Indian Railways investigations that resulted in the convictions of several union officials, including two past presidents, on corruption charges.
That process also resulted in the union’s first election of a president by a vote of the full membership — balloting thatelevated Mr. Anil Deshmukh, running as an insurgent candidate, to the top job in a runoff January 26, 2000.
One matter now under investigation, according to the filing, stems from a dispute over the role of the union’s secretary-treasurer, Priya Sharma. In April 14, 2000, the union’s international executive board voted to support Mr. Anil Deshmukh’s move to strip Ms. Rajiv Mehta of duties not mandated under the union constitution, on allegations that she “had engaged in misconduct while carrying out her financial oversight responsibilities,” according to the report.
Ms. Rajiv Mehta denied the allegations and asserted that the move had been “improperly instigated in retaliation for her refusal or reluctance to authorize certain expenditures” for the president’s office, the report said.
supported by the court appointed monitor is looking into allegations by two union officials that they were punished for raising questions on financial matters. by the new york times a court appointed monitor overseeing the operations of the united automobile workers union is investigating disputes involving the union’s president, shawn fain, and two u.a.w. officials who say they were improperly stripped of duties. the monitor, neil m. barofsky, also accused the union on monday of a “lapse in cooperation” with the investigation, saying it had taken months to turn over relevant documents and then provided only a small fraction of those requested. the union declined to comment. the assertions at issue were included in a report filed in federal court in michigan about mr. barofsky’s tenure as monitor, which began in 2021 as part of a consent decree after justice department investigations that resulted in the convictions of several union officials, including two past presidents, on corruption charges. that process also resulted in the union’s first election of a president by a vote of the full membership   balloting that elevated mr. fain, running as an insurgent candidate, to the top job in a runoff last year. one matter now under investigation, according to the filing, stems from a dispute over the role of the union’s secretary treasurer, margaret mock. in february, the union’s international executive board voted to support mr. fain’s move to strip ms. mock of duties not mandated under the union constitution, on allegations that she “had engaged in misconduct while carrying out her financial oversight responsibilities,” according to the report. ms. mock denied the allegations and asserted that the move had been “improperly instigated in retaliation for her refusal or reluctance to authorize certain expenditures” for the president’s office, the report said.

the trump tower stands along fifth avenue in august 2017 in new york city. a new york state judge on november 3 imposed a monitor to oversee the trump organization's financial statements. the trump tower stands along fifth avenue in august 2017 in new york city. a new york state judge on november 3 imposed a monitor to oversee the trump organization's financial statements. a new york state judge on thursday imposed a monitor to oversee the trump organization's financial statements after the new york attorney general's office asked for added oversight to stop what they allege is a decade long fraud conducted by former president donald trump and three of his adult children. judge arthur engoron wrote in an 11 page opinion that given the "persistent misrepresentations throughout every one of mr. trump's [financial statements] between 2011 and 2021, the court finds that the appointment of an independent monitor is the most prudent and narrowly tailored mechanism to ensure there is no further fraud or illegality." engoron said he will require the trump organization to get court approval before selling any assets "particularly to ensure that defendants do not dissipate their asset or transfer them out of this jurisdiction." the judge added that trump is enjoined from selling or transferring any assets listed on his 2021 financial statement without first providing 14 days notice to the judge and the attorney general's office. the defendants are also required to provide the monitor at least 30 days notice before they undertake any corporate restructuring. new york attorney general letitia james filed a $250 million lawsuit in september against trump, his three eldest children and the trump organization alleging they engaged in a sweeping decade long fraud. engoron's motion thursday was in response to a request from james' office, which said it was concerned assets could be moved out of state. "today's decision will ensure that donald trump and his companies cannot continue the extensive fraud that we uncovered and will require the appointment of an independent monitor to oversee compliance at the trump organization," james said in a statement. "no number of lawsuits, delay tactics, or threats will stop our pursuit of justice." james' lawsuit alleges trump entities defrauded insurers and lenders by providing false financial statements when obtaining loans and policies, specifically in deals with massive commercial players like deutsche bank and accounting firm mazars. the trumps say the investigation is politically motivated and deny any wrongdoing. a defense attorney for trump org. argued in court thursday that it's routine for lenders and developers to get their own appraisals and come to differing valuations of a property during a business deal. chris kise argued that there is no public interest in private, high level deals of "corporate titans versus corporate titans" who both have the means and resources to research asset valuations as routine practice before awarding loans and insurance policies. "the 800 pound gorilla in this case is at what point does reasonable disagreement become fraud," engoron said in court. kevin wallace of the attorney general's office told the court thursday at the first hearing in this case since the lawsuit was filed, that the office does not want to impede daily operations at trump org. but does want to know what the trump companies are saying to banks and insurers about their financial position. kise told the court trump org. would be open to working out a compliance stipulation with the attorney general under a court order. "we're not afraid of the case. we're not going anywhere," he said. kise also noted that just two trump buildings in manhattan within the court's jurisdiction, trump tower and 40 wall street, and are valued in excess of $250 million to be considered as collateral. the trump org. attorney called the attorney general's lawsuit a "manufactured bill of grievances" at the hearing, arguing the appointment of a monitor on a private business "borders on nationalizations of a private enterprise." "every business in the state of new york needs to be very, very concerned right now," kise said, arguing an appointed monitor for a private business would set a dangerous precedent. wallace told the court, "i am not representing corporate titans" but suing the trump conglomerate to ensure a "honest and fair business environment in the state of new york." calling himself cynical, the trump org. attorney pointed out the timing of the hearing just days before voters go to the ballot box where james is up for re election. kise also said he hoped any ruling made would not be used by james later in the day at a scheduled campaign event. "this shouldn't be about political theater," kise said at the hearing, before the ruling was announced. engoron is giving both sides until november 15 to weigh in on potential monitors recommended from both sides. separately, trump filed a lawsuit in florida state court wednesday evening trying to stop james from obtaining records from the trust that holds ownership of the trump organization. the civil lawsuit was filed hours after a new york judge denied an effort to move james' lawsuit against into another division of new york state court. this story has been updated with additional details. the cnn wire ™ & © 2022 cable news network, inc., a warner bros. discovery company. all rights reserved. your browser is out of date and potentially vulnerable to security risks.we recommend switching to one of the following browsers:

trump administration a warning on d.e.i.: the trump administration on wednesday threatened tens of thousands of federal employees with “adverse consequences” if they fail to report on colleagues who defy orders to purge diversity, equity and inclusion efforts from their agencies. read more › trump interview: president trump, in his first one on one interview since the inauguration, said he did not think california should receive federal aid for wildfires unless it changes environmental policies he has criticized. mr. trump, sitting in the oval office with the fox news host sean hannity, also suggested he might withhold money from cities that do not cooperate with his immigration crackdown. kennedy and merck: robert f. kennedy jr., mr. trump’s nominee for health secretary and a fierce vaccine critic, plans to keep a financial stake he holds in litigation against merck, the maker of a shot that protects against the human papillomavirus. read more › immigration: the justice department has ordered u.s. attorneys to investigate and prosecute state and city law enforcement officials if they refuse to enforce the trump administration’s new immigration policies, according to a three page internal department memo. read more › erica l. green and hamed aleaziz reporting from washington the trump administration on wednesday threatened federal employees with “adverse consequences” if they fail to report on colleagues who defy orders to purge diversity, equity and inclusion efforts from their agencies. tens of thousands of workers were put on notice that officials would not tolerate any efforts to “disguise these programs by using coded or imprecise language.” emails sent out, which were based on a template from the office of personnel management, gave employees 10 days to report their observations to a special email account without risking disciplinary action. “there will be no adverse consequences for timely reporting this information,” the template sent to agency heads said. “however, failure to report this information within 10 days may result in adverse consequences.” the message also said: “these programs divided americans by race, wasted taxpayer dollars and resulted in shameful discrimination.” some agencies, such as the education department and the state department, sent the template to their employees on wednesday. other agencies made slight modifications when they sent emails to their workers. the department of homeland security, for example, said failure to report d.e.i. efforts “will result” in adverse consequences. the warnings were a dramatic escalation of president trump’s war on diversity programs that seek to reverse decades of systemic inequities. they were also part of a broader assault on the federal work force, which the president has long viewed as a bloated bureaucracy. he has pledged to eliminate departments and has ordered remote workers back to the office. in his inaugural address, mr. trump said he would stop efforts to “socially engineer race and gender into every aspect of public and private life.” “we will forge a society that is colorblind and merit based,” mr. trump declared. on tuesday night, the trump administration released a memorandum that employees working in d.e.i. offices across the government would be placed on administrative leave by 5 p.m. wednesday, the first step toward shutting down the offices and programs altogether. agencies were ordered to devise plans to lay off the staff members in the offices, which are also tasked with addressing accessibility issues for people with disabilities, by jan. 31. the directive was felt within hours of that memorandum being issued. stop work orders went out as early as wednesday morning. a contractor for the centers for medicare and medicaid services, who spoke on the condition of anonymity for fear of retribution, was told to halt a project collecting demographic data for the agency, which for years has documented details on gender, race and veteran status. the person said the results of a d.e.i. survey conducted last year would no longer be released next month, as planned. also on wednesday, a livestream planned by u.s. citizenship and immigration services to honor the legacy of martin luther king jr. was canceled, according to an email obtained by the new york times. the event for asylum and refugee officers, scheduled for jan. 29, was set to include speakers discussing dr. king’s legacy and a reading of his “i have a dream” speech. everett kelley, the president of the american federation of government employees, said mr. trump’s attacks on d.e.i. were “just a smoke screen for firing civil servants.” “the federal government already hires and promotes exclusively on the basis of merit,” mr. kelley said. dariely rodriguez, the acting co chief counsel for the lawyers’ committee for civil rights under law, said that the orders betrayed a fundamental misunderstanding of what d.e.i. initiatives were about, and that the federal government still had to comply with civil rights laws. “d.e.i. is not about preferential treatment,” ms. rodriguez said. “it’s about eliminating barriers.” in recent days, mr. trump has revoked a 60 year old executive order, dating back to lyndon b. johnson, that banned discrimination in hiring practices in federal government contracting. and he directed the federal aviation administration to halt hiring practices that sought diversity, equity and inclusion, asserting that such practices have endangered passengers on airlines. the trump administration said that under the biden administration, the f.a.a. “sought to specifically recruit and hire individuals with serious infirmities that could impact the execution of their essential lifesaving duties.” it did not cite any examples, and administration officials did not respond to a request for one. some conservative groups praised mr. trump’s moves. yukong mike zhao, the president of the asian american coalition for education, called mr. trump’s orders “a major milestone in american civil rights progress and a critical step towards building a colorblind society.” “affirmative action and woke d.e.i. programs are racism in disguise,” said mr. zhao, whose group supported the lawsuit against harvard that led to the overturning of affirmative action in college admissions. the barrage of efforts in recent days has spread fear and confusion across the federal work force, according to employees who spoke to the times. one administration employee who received the email urging employees to report their colleagues said it made them feel as though they were being recruited into the gestapo. another employee told the times that the directive to report colleagues made him feel as if he was living in the soviet union. the times reviewed emails from more than a half dozen agencies, including americorps, which oversees volunteers and service programs. several agencies have stated their intent to comply with the new rules. a spokeswoman for the c.i.a. said on wednesday that the agency had dissolved its office of diversity and inclusion, and that its workers were “laser focused on our intelligence mission.” under the previous c.i.a. director, william j. burns, the diversity office had provided training to intelligence officers on fostering inclusive environments and improving recruiting. other agencies were still uncertain about what mr. trump’s orders meant for them. at the environmental protection agency, which has an office for environmental justice and external civil rights, some employees said they were unsure if they would have jobs on thursday. matthew tejada, who served as a deputy assistant administrator for environmental justice under president joseph r. biden jr., said he hired many of the people who could be at risk. “people don’t work at e.p.a. because they want a federal job,” mr. tejada said. “they work at e.p.a. because they want to protect the environment and people’s health.” michael d. shear, julian barnes and eric schmitt contributed reporting. julian e. barnes reporting from washington the senate confirmed john ratcliffe on thursday to serve as the director of the c.i.a., installing him atop the spy agency that he has pledged to make more aggressive. the vote was 74 to 25, and 20 democrats joined all republicans present in confirming him. the support mr. ratcliffe received from democrats reflects the evolution of american politics. during the first trump administration, mr. ratcliffe received no support from democrats, and his qualifications were questioned, when he was nominated to be the director of national intelligence. but five years later, views of mr. ratcliffe have shifted. unlike some of president trump’s picks for other cabinet posts, mr. ratcliffe is considered to be well qualified for his position. his views on national security issues hew closely to those of the senate republican majority. senate republicans had hoped to confirm mr. ratcliffe and several other nominees earlier in the week. but democrats, expressing reservations about some picks, have slowed the push after the senate quickly confirmed marco rubio to be secretary of state on a 99 to 0 vote on monday. as director of national intelligence in 2020, mr. ratcliffe declassified material on russian election interference despite concerns from democrats who believed that the release would endanger sources and methods. and at least two democrats raised questions about those decisions in his confirmation hearing. republican allies of mr. trump had sought the material, believing that it undermined the case that russia had tried to interfere in the 2016 election on behalf of mr. trump. mr. ratcliffe responded in the hearing that most of his decisions as director of national intelligence had “aged very well.” mr. trump has enthusiastically recounted mr. ratcliffe’s criticism of former intelligence officials who contended that information from hunter biden’s laptop was russian disinformation. but some of mr. ratcliffe’s stances have gained bipartisan support. his warnings about chinese, russian and iranian influence efforts in the 2020 election were largely supported by the biden administration. his view that the united states failed to pay adequate attention to china during the first part of this century has now been widely embraced. mr. ratcliffe, in turn, pledged to build on the efforts of william j. burns, the c.i.a. director under president joseph r. biden jr., to create a china center and increase the budget for collecting intelligence in china. mr. ratcliffe has promised a more aggressive c.i.a., one that is unafraid to undertake covert operations. unsurprisingly, he would not discuss what kinds of operations he might embrace. “i will unapologetically empower the most talented, hardest working and most courageous risk takers and innovators to protect the american people and advance america’s interest, and i will not tolerate anything or anyone that distracts from our mission,” he said. during his hearing, democrats asked about mr. ratcliffe’s willingness to “speak truth to power,” prodding him to pledge to give mr. trump unvarnished intelligence reports even if the president did not want to hear them. several senate republicans asked about section 702, a law that allows the government to collect   on domestic soil and without a warrant   the communications of targeted foreigners abroad, including when those people are interacting with americans. while mr. trump has been skeptical of the provision, mr. ratcliffe has long embraced it and told lawmakers he would work toward its reauthorization. it is not clear exactly what mr. ratcliffe will make his first order of business, but he promised lawmakers in his confirmation hearing to review two thorny intelligence issues that bedeviled both the biden administration and the first trump administration: the origin of the virus that causes covid and the mysterious ailments known as havana syndrome that spies and diplomats have reported for years. the biden administration reviewed both issues, and mr. ratcliffe has said he will take a new look. michael crowley secretary of state marco rubio will travel this month to panama amid president trump’s push to “take back” the american built canal there. mr. rubio’s first official trip will also include stops in guatemala, el salvador, costa rica and the dominican republic, said the state department spokeswoman, tammy bruce, confirming a report by politico. “secretary rubio is prioritizing the region because it’s where we live,” she said. “we won’t continue to ignore the region as other administrations have.” zolan kanno youngs reporting from washington president trump on wednesday issued full and unconditional pardons to two washington, d.c., police officers convicted after a chase that killed a young black man in 2020, an episode that led to days of protests and clashes in the nation’s capital. mr. trump granted clemency to officer terence sutton of the metropolitan police department, who was sentenced last year to more than five years in prison for second degree murder and obstruction of justice in the unauthorized pursuit, which killed the man, 20 year old karon hylton brown. officer sutton was the first d.c. police officer to be convicted of murder for actions on duty. the other pardon recipient, lt. andrew zabavsky, was sentenced to four years in prison not directly for the killing of mr. hylton brown, but for conspiring with mr. sutton to cover up the deadly police chase. the two had been free pending the outcome of their appeals. issuing the pardons was not the first high profile act of clemency during mr. trump’s first week of his term, and was one that now involves him in a case that incited backlash against the police department operating just outside the white house. just two days after he issued clemency to all of the nearly 1,600 people charged in connection with the attack on the capitol on jan. 6, 2021   including some accused of assaulting or impeding law enforcement officers   mr. trump used his power to give a reprieve to the officers convicted in mr. hylton brown’s death. on tuesday, he had hinted at the pardons, which prevent any punishment associated with the convictions. “they were arrested, put in jail for five years because they went after an illegal,” mr. trump said on tuesday. “and i guess something happened where something went wrong, and they arrested the two officers and put them in jail for going after a criminal.” in fact, mr. hylton brown was an american citizen, said david l. shurtz, a lawyer representing the hylton brown estate. and it was the police officers, not mr. hylton brown, who were found to have committed a crime that amounted to “a disservice to the community and the thousands of officers who work incredibly hard, within the bounds of the constitution, to keep us safe,” matthew m. graves, then the u.s. attorney for the district of columbia, said in a statement when the officers were sentenced in september. the d.c. police union, which had expressed “dismay” over the jan. 6 pardons, praised mr. trump’s decision on clemency for the two officers as righting “an incredible wrong.” in october 2020, as the nation was still reeling from the protests after the murder of george floyd months earlier in minneapolis, officer sutton and lieutenant zabavsky spotted mr. hylton brown driving a moped on a sidewalk while not wearing a helmet. mr. hylton brown ignored officer sutton’s attempt to stop him and drove off, prosecutors in the case said. officer sutton chased mr. hylton brown for 10 blocks, including at one point by driving the wrong way on a one way street. he pursued mr. hylton brown into a narrow alley, turned off his vehicle’s emergency lights and sirens and accelerated. when mr. hylton brown exited the alley, he was hit by another vehicle, according to prosecutors. “as mr. hylton brown lay unconscious in the street in a pool of his own blood, sutton and zabavsky agreed to cover up what sutton had done to prevent any further investigation of the incident,” according to the september statement. the officers allowed the driver who hit mr. hylton brown to leave the scene 20 minutes after the collision, prosecutors said. officer sutton was accused of driving over the crash debris, and both officers were accused of misleading a commanding officer about the severity of the crash. lieutenant zabavksy falsely implied that mr. hylton brown had been drunk, according to prosecutors. the fatal crash prompted days of occasionally volatile protests outside a police station in washington. mr. shurtz, the lawyer for mr. hylton brown’s relatives, accused mr. trump of pardoning the officers at the behest of police unions. “he is backing up the most corrupt police department,” mr. shurtz said. the metropolitan police department released a statement thanking mr. trump “for supporting our officers.” “never before, in any other jurisdiction in the country, has a police officer been charged with second degree murder for pursuing a suspect,” the department said in a statement. “these members could never have imagined that engaging in a core function of their job would be prosecuted as a crime.” j. michael hannon, officer sutton’s lawyer, said in an interview that he had anticipated the u.s. attorney would “request the courts to vacate the guilty verdict against officer sutton and to dismiss the indictment because he has always been an innocent man.” christopher zampogna, representing lieutenant zabavsky, said in a statement that his client “thanks president donald j. trump for his decision to grant him a full and unconditional pardon.” chris cameron reporting from washington andrew f. puzder, the former chief executive of the corporation that owns the hardee’s and carl’s jr. fast food chains, is president trump’s pick to be the next u.s. ambassador to the european union. mr. puzder, a frequent commentator on economic and business issues on networks like fox business, would not bring foreign policy experience to what is a prestigious and influential diplomatic position   representing the united states to a bloc of some of the wealthiest countries in europe. but mr. trump’s interactions with the european union during his first term often focused on economic and trade issues. mr. trump clashed with the bloc in 2018, briefly imposing tariffs on steel and aluminum that prompted retaliatory measures by the european union against billions in american goods. he has again threatened to impose tariffs on european countries, setting the stage for another trade war. there are a number of other trans atlantic issues that mr. puzder, if confirmed by the senate, would have a hand in: russia’s war in ukraine, and european military aid to ukraine; mr. trump’s goal of cajoling european allies into increasing their military spending; the rise of right wing governments in europe; and mr. trump’s swift withdrawal from major international bodies, including the world health organization and the paris climate agreement. the position could also be precarious. mr. trump fired his first ambassador to the european union, gordon sondland, after he testified to congress during mr. trump’s first impeachment inquiry. the inquiry centered around charges of a “quid pro quo” in a push to have the ukrainian government investigate the family of joseph r. biden jr., then mr. trump’s likely 2020 election rival. mr. trump was accused of linking that demand to an official meeting between him and ukraine’s newly elected president, volodymyr zelensky   as well as the continued flow of american military aid. mr. sondland, who was involved in the effort to pressure ukraine to announce investigations of mr. biden’s family, testified that “we followed the president’s orders” and that “everyone was in the loop.” mr. trump had previously selected mr. puzder to serve as his labor secretary early in his first term, but mr. puzder’s nomination fell apart under bipartisan scrutiny of his business record and character. democrats, unions and liberal groups criticized him for his remarks against workplace protections such as the minimum wage and overtime rules, and conservative publications seized on mr. puzder’s employment of an undocumented immigrant as his housekeeper. republican senators ultimately turned against mr. puzder amid an accusation of spousal abuse that resurfaced during the confirmation process. mr. puzder has denied the allegation, and his ex wife, lisa fierstein, retracted her claim of abuse as part of a 1990 child custody settlement. if confirmed, mr. puzder would take over the ambassadorship from mark gitenstein, a veteran ambassador and longtime aide to mr. biden who first worked as a lawyer for him more than four decades ago. mr. gitenstein stepped down from his position on jan. 17. chris cameron after repeatedly bringing up that president biden had not pardoned himself before leaving office, president trump complained that he went through “four years of hell,” adding “it’s really hard to say they shouldn’t have to go through that also.” peter baker as it happens, of course, trump may find one person standing in the way of him going after biden: trump. thanks to his own legal challenges, the supreme court has now granted presidents substantial immunity from prosecution, which includes biden. shawn mccreesh sean hannity questioned trump about why he pardoned january 6 rioters who were violent to police, a move some republicans have critized. trump defended his decision, saying, “they should be allowed to protest the vote." hannity responded, “they shouldn’t be allowed to invade the capitol." zolan kanno youngs trump says he does not think his administration should give california any federal funds until the state “lets water flow down into there from the north to the south.” the trump team has been attacking california gov. gavin newsom over his response to the devastating los angeles wildfires, citing newsom’s legal challenge in 2020 to a trump plan to send more water from northern california to farmers. newsom at the time said he wanted to protect ecosystems in the region. trump’s criticism lacks evidence. experts have said there is no connection between water kept in the north of the state and the spread of wildfires in southern california or the challenge of responding to the fires. zolan kanno youngs “i might have to do that,” trump tells hannity about withholding federal money from cities who refuse to turn over undocumented immigrants to federal immigration authorities. zolan kanno youngs sean hannity of fox news starts his sit down interview, which was taped earlier today, by asking trump how it felt to enter the oval office again. it does not take long for trump to criticize the policies of the “radical left.” he then describes a united states suffering from a spike in murders, even though violent crime is on the decline. tim balk president trump has picked sean curran, who led mr. trump’s personal security detail during the campaign and rushed to shield him during an assassination attempt, to be the next secret service director. “sean is a great patriot, who has protected my family over the past few years, and that is why i trust him to lead the brave men and women of the united states secret service,” mr. trump wrote wednesday on his social media platform, invoking the attempt on his life at a rally in july. “he proved his fearless courage when he risked his own life to help save mine from an assassin’s bullet in butler, pennsylvania.” mr. curran is from the new york city area and started his career as a special agent in the agency’s newark field office. he later worked in the dignitary protection division and on president barack obama’s detail, said jonathan wackrow, a former agent who worked for years with mr. curran. mr. curran is an unusual pick for secret service director, a position that does not require senate confirmation. as a current agent who does not work at the agency’s headquarters in washington, he is leapfrogging many positions to become director. although he lacks the managerial experience that past directors had when they rose to the post, mr. curran has a strong reputation as an agent, according to those who have worked with him. “while this is not traditional, there is nothing about this incoming administration that is traditional,” said mr. wackrow, describing mr. curran as a trusted, detail oriented agent with an intimate understanding of the agency and a sharp sense of humor. “he is very well liked. he’s affable.” former agents said the selection was not surprising, given the familiarity that mr. curran has built with mr. trump, who prioritizes loyalty. “trump obviously trusts him,” said william gage, a special agent who left the agency in 2013. mr. curran will take the helm of an agency that has been the focus of several investigations since the assassination attempt in july, when a 20 year old gunman managed to scale a warehouse rooftop and gain an unobstructed view of mr. trump before opening fire, grazing mr. trump’s ear. two other people were wounded and one man died. multiple inquiries found that the secret service did not place a single person in charge of coordinating security at the butler rally. investigators also said that many of the agents were complacent and not specific when giving instructions to local law enforcement helping secure the event. mr. curran has escaped blame for the failures that led to the july 13 assassination attempt. the agency’s acting director, ronald l. rowe, placed several agents on restricted duty. nearly all worked out of the agency’s pittsburgh office. as the agency has faced increased scrutiny, there have been repeated calls for an overhaul of its leadership, which has struggled to deal with high levels of attrition in recent years. donald mihalek, a former secret service agent who worked with mr. curran on various assignments, said that he viewed mr. curran as capable and professional, but that he would be taking charge of an agency that had grown “smaller and leaner” in recent years. “i hope he has the political and the congressional backing to do what he’s got to do to get the agency on a better footing,” mr. mihalek said. eileen sullivan contributed reporting. glenn thrush reporting from washington the justice department has ordered an immediate halt to all new civil rights cases or investigations   and signaled that it might back out of biden era agreements with police departments that engaged in discrimination or violence, according to two internal memos sent to staff on wednesday. the actions, while expected, represent an abrupt about face for a department that had for the past four years aggressively investigated high profile instances of violence and systemic discrimination in local law enforcement and government agencies. the first of two short memos sent by chad mizelle, the chief of staff at the department, ordered a “litigation freeze” at the department’s civil rights division to decide whether trump appointees want “to initiate any new cases,” according to a screenshot of the document viewed by the new york times. mr. mizelle also barred lawyers working for the division from filing “motions to intervene, agreed upon remands, amicus briefs or statements of interest,” unless they receive the approval of senior trump appointees. it is the clearest sign yet that the hard line conservatives taking over the department intend to swiftly sweep away the previous administration’s liberal agenda. perhaps more significant, a second memo ordered a similar freeze on department activity involving so called consent decrees   agreements hashed out with local governments intended to address flawed police practices, or bias based on race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation and disabilities. “the new administration may wish to reconsider settlements and consent decrees negotiated and approved during the prior administration,” wrote mr. mizelle, an ally of stephen miller, mr. trump’s top policy adviser. the order could scuttle agreements recently reached with louisville, ky., after the police killing of breonna taylor, and with minneapolis in the aftermath of the george floyd murder, according to former administration officials. neither has received final approval by a federal judge. other voluntary agreements could also be in jeopardy, they said. mr. trump, who has moved quickly to roll back diversity, equity and inclusion programs, accused the justice department under president joseph r. biden jr. of hampering the police, even though nearly all of the law enforcement agencies investigated have admitted fault and many have embraced reforms. in 2020, during his first term, mr. trump signed an executive order requiring police departments to ban chokeholds after mr. floyd died while being choked. the president has selected harmeet k. dhillon, a conservative lawyer from california, to run the civil rights division, one of the most important, and politically polarizing, units in the department. ms. dhillon, who will be responsible for voting rights cases if confirmed by the senate, was a top figure in the state republican party, where she supported mr. trump’s false claims of voter fraud. chris cameron l. brent bozell iii, a conservative activist and longtime critic of the news media, has been tapped to serve as the next chief executive of the united states agency for global media, the parent organization for federally funded media outlets like voice of america. chris cameron his son, leo brent bozell iv, was sentenced to just under four years in prison for having played a central role in the jan. 6, 2021, attack on the capitol. he is one of the nearly 1,600 people charged in the attack who were pardoned by president trump on monday. eileen sullivan president trump named the former head of his security detail, sean curran, to lead the secret service. chris cameron andrew f. puzder, the former chief executive of the corporation that owns the hardee’s and carl’s jr. fast food chains, has been tapped as the next u.s. ambassador to the european union. puzder was nominated by trump to serve as his labor secretary early in his first term in 2017, but puzder withdrew from consideration amid criticism of his business record and character. chris cameron the position of ambassador to the e.u. is highly influential but the job had unique challenges in the first trump administration. trump clashed frequently with the bloc over trade, and gordon sondland, who was trump’s first and only confirmed e.u. ambassador, was fired for testifying to congress during trump’s first impeachment. michael d. shearhamed aleaziz and zolan kanno youngs reporting from washington it has been less than three days since president trump took office, but the immigration transformation he ordered has already begun. the pentagon deployed 1,500 active duty troops to the southern border on wednesday. the head of the nation’s immigration courts was fired, along with three other senior officials. in mexico, about 30,000 immigrants with asylum appointments arrived to find them canceled. more than 10,400 refugees around the globe who had been approved for travel to the united states suddenly found their entry denied, their airplane tickets worthless. “all previously scheduled travel of refugees to the united states is being canceled, and no new travel bookings will be made,” kathryn anderson, a top state department official, wrote in an email late tuesday night. the scope of the immigration changes laid out in scores of executive orders, presidential memorandums and policy directives is extraordinary, even when compared with the expansive agenda that mr. trump pursued in the first four years he occupied the white house. but many directives will take time to be implemented, or will face political, legal or practical obstacles. some will be put on hold by skeptical judges. others will require research or development by the alphabet soup of agencies involved in crafting immigration policy. still more will require enormous amounts of money from congress, triggering yet another fight over resources and priorities. at least three lawsuits have already been filed in federal court to stop mr. trump’s plan to reinterpret the 14th amendment guarantee to birthright citizenship. the revival of mr. trump’s travel ban requires a 60 day review of which countries should be affected. mr. trump will still need billions of dollars for detention space and additional agents for his promised “mass deportations.” a directive by the justice department to investigate officials in so called sanctuary cities who obstruct the administration’s immigration agenda will unfold over weeks and months as conflicts emerge. as a result, the exact shape of a system that helps define america’s place in a world grappling with issues of mass migration, inequality and national identity will not be known for weeks, months or even years. at stake is whether the united states will continue to be a place of refuge for those fleeing poverty, violence and natural disasters around the world. taken together, the immigration orders could make it much harder for immigrants   authorized to be in the country or not   to live and work and raise families in the united states without the constant threat of arrest, criminal conviction and deportation. but mr. trump has already shown that he is willing to push further toward a vision of a country that is far less welcoming to outsiders   and in the view of his critics is an overreach with cruel consequences. “it’s breathtaking, both in terms of substance and just how many actions they’re taking right out of the gate,” said heidi altman, the federal director of advocacy at the national immigration law center. “how far reaching the impact and harm will be, but also just in terms of the sheer willingness to break the law and attempt to unilaterally rewrite the constitution.” mr. trump justified his reshaping of immigration policy with a declaration that there is an “invasion at the southern border.” he used that charge to claim vast powers to block entry to the united states, round up and detain immigrants, ban travel, restrict birthright citizenship, build a border wall and end asylum for people seeking refuge. in 2017, mr. trump pursued some of the same restrictions on immigration, many of which were reversed by president joseph r. biden jr. eight years later, polls show the president has more support in the country for aggressive limits on immigration, in part because of a surge in migrants crossing the southern border during much of mr. biden’s time in office. and mr. trump repeatedly says his election victory gives him a mandate to secure the border and cleanse the country of people whom he deems unwanted. to counter what he calls an invasion, mr. trump relies   as he did during his first term   on decades of laws that give the president broad authority to protect and defend the united states against threats inside the country and outside its borders. they include laws related to national security, immigration, public health and the country’s economy. but this time, he appears ready to go much further. “by invoking the alien enemies act of 1798,” he said during his inaugural address on monday, “i will direct our government to use the full and immense power of federal and state law enforcement to eliminate the presence of all foreign gangs and criminal networks bringing devastating crime to u.s. soil, including our cities and inner cities.” it will be, he promised, “at a level that nobody has ever seen before.” the executive orders mr. trump has signed in the days since then back up that assertion. many of the actions he put in motion were not part of his agenda the first time around: designating all mexican cartels to be terrorist organizations; creating new task forces to round up and deport migrants; imposing the death penalty on murderers not legally in the country. on wednesday, the defense department announced that it would begin using military planes to help border officials deport immigrants to other countries and that it would assign some forces to help construct temporary and permanent barriers along the border. border patrol agents have also been instructed to no longer release any migrant who had crossed the border out into the public to await their cases, according to an official familiar with the matter. agents have been instructed to rapidly turn away migrants without providing them the chance to ask for asylum. eight years ago, mr. trump lowered the number of refugees that the united states would take each year. on monday, he simply ordered the program suspended altogether, with language that advocates believe will mean it never starts up again while he is president. “he’s throwing so much out there that this time the suspension of the refugee program seems like almost a small thing,” said david j. bier, the director of immigration studies at the cato institute, a libertarian research group. he said mr. trump’s strategy was to overwhelm the courts and watchdog groups. “they’re just throwing as much out there to justify what they want to do,” he said. on tuesday evening, justice department employees received a memo ordering u.s. attorneys around the country to investigate and prosecute law enforcement officials in states and cities if they refuse to enforce the trump administration’s new immigration policies “federal law prohibits state and local actors from resisting, obstructing and otherwise failing to comply with lawful immigration related commands,” wrote emil bove iii, the department’s acting deputy attorney general and a former member of the president’s criminal defense team. federal officials “shall investigate incidents involving any such misconduct for potential prosecution,” he wrote. the memo was one of scores of threats that may not happen right away. but their power   at least in the short run   is in the fear they instill. in similar fashion, mr. trump quickly eliminated a biden era policy that largely protected “sensitive” areas like churches, schools and hospitals from being the targets of immigration raids. “criminals will no longer be able to hide in america’s schools and churches to avoid arrest,” a spokesman for the homeland security department said. jason houser, the former chief of staff at the immigration and customs enforcement agency under mr. biden, disagreed. “i find it absurd to claim national security is compromised if immigration enforcement avoids third grade classrooms, churches, d.m.v.s and hospitals,” he said. “rolling back sensitive location protections risks undermining community trust and, ultimately, ice’s ability to effectively protect our communities in the long term.” as of wednesday, immigration advocates said they were not aware of instances in which immigration and customs enforcement agents had descended on a place previously considered off limits for immigration raids. but several said the message was clear to immigrants already worried about their fate now that mr. trump was back in the white house. “that’s when it becomes like terror, you know?” ms. altman said. the list of dramatic changes is long. d.h.s. officials have been instructed to require health information and criminal history from “aliens engaged in the invasion across the southern border” so that they can be barred from entering. one executive order directs officials to gather that information from all “aliens,” leaving open the possibility that all immigrants, including those flying from other countries around the world, could be subject to much greater scrutiny. officials have been tasked with creating homeland security task forces to work with local and state law enforcement agencies to locate, arrest and deport migrants. federal departments that work with nongovernmental organizations and other humanitarian groups have been instructed to launch audits of those groups to ensure that no federal money is going to support undocumented immigrants. that has sent chills through the nonprofit community. many groups have spent decades helping to feed, clothe, house and find work for immigrants when they arrive in the united states. many of those immigrants need help while they are in immigration proceedings to determine whether they can stay. the 1,500 active duty troops being sent to the southwestern border will join 2,500 army reserve and national guard soldiers called to active duty in recent months to support federal law enforcement officials. their missions include detection and monitoring, data entry, training, transportation and maintenance. it is unclear what roles the 4,000 troops will now have under the trump administration. experts said the border orders and transition to mr. trump would probably lead to even lower numbers of migrants seeking asylum at the southern border. “the border will be very quiet at first,” said adam isacson, a border security expert at the washington office on latin america, a human rights advocacy organization. “the first months of trump’s last term saw the fewest migrant apprehensions of the entire 21st century. we may see even fewer in the coming months.” instead, he said, migrants will be incentivized to cross the border without detection. eric schmitt contributed reporting from washington. hamed aleaziz the aclu has sued the trump administration over its efforts to again expand quick deportations across the u.s. a process called expedited removal, which sidesteps immigration court, is generally reserved for use in areas close to the southern border, but trump wants immigration and customs enforcement to be able to use it everywhere. the lawsuit was filed in federal court in washington, d.c. miriam jordan and hamed aleaziz miriam jordan reported from los angeles and hamed aleaziz from washington. the state department abruptly canceled travel for thousands of refugees already approved to fly to the united states, days before a deadline that president trump had set for suspending the resettlement program that provides safe haven for people fleeing persecution. the cancellation of the flights comes on the heels of an executive order signed by mr. trump on monday that indefinitely paused the refugee resettlement. the order effectively grinds to a halt the process of bringing refugees into the country, which involves multiple federal agencies, as well as nonprofits that receive the newcomers. more than 10,000 refugees were currently in the pipeline to travel to the united states, according to government data. they include afghans who faced danger because of their association with the united states before the military withdrawal from afghanistan. among other refugees who had been approved for travel were people from africa, latin america and the middle east. the sudden halt to the flights was an agonizing blow to refugees who had been following a complicated and lengthy process to enter the country legally, resettlement group workers said. angela plummer, the executive director of community refugee & immigration services, which resettles refugees in columbus, ohio, said that the organization had been expecting dozens of arrivals on flights that had been suspended. “these are people who followed all the rules and who are now left in danger,” said ms. plummer. “it’s heartbreaking.” the decision to pause the refugee program is in line with mr. trump’s promise to crack down broadly on immigration. under the decades old refugee program, people who have fled their home countries as a result of persecution, war or other life threatening causes can legally immigrate to the united states. mr. trump said that continuing to receive them would burden communities that were not equipped to handle them, according to the order that he signed on monday. the state department followed his order with a memo tuesday that said “all previously scheduled travel of refugees to the united states is being canceled, and no new travel bookings will be made.” organizations, such as the international rescue committee and others that assist refugees, it noted, “should not request travel for any additional refugee cases at this time.” on wednesday, u.s. refugee officers in homeland security agencies, such as u.s. citizenship and immigration services, were told to stop making decisions on refugee cases, according to an internal memo obtained by the new york times. news that the trump administration had canceled travel even for refugees already cleared to be resettled in communities across the united states shocked the leaders of nonprofit organizations that are contracted by the state department to assist the newcomers. “this abrupt halt to refugee admissions is devastating for families who have already endured unimaginable persecution and waited years for the chance to rebuild their lives in safety,” said krish o’mara vignarajah, the head of global refuge, in a statement. “refugees go through one of the most rigorous vetting processes in the world,” she continued, “and it’s heartbreaking to see their dreams of safety derailed just days before, or in some cases, just hours before they were set to begin their new lives here.” eskinder negash, president of the u.s. committee for refugees and immigrants, said that “many people have been waiting for years, and in some instances decades, in refugee camps and have diligently gone through the refugee process to receive travel authorization.” “even if the refugee program is reopened in the future, the indefinite suspension of refugee travel and processing will have lasting trauma and impact on refugees and families,” he said. ms. plummer said her group had been fielding calls from distraught clients who have been waiting years for their relatives to arrive, only to realize that the prospect of reunification is now bleak. among them is nur ahmed, who arrived in columbus in 2010, after fleeing civil war in somalia. he sponsored his child, young sister and mother to join him. their case was stalled during mr. trump’s first term as president. mr. ahmed’s son and sister, both in their 20s, arrived last week, just before he returned to the white house. but his mother, 70, was expected early next month, and her arrival could be postponed indefinitely. “i am very lucky that my son and sister arrived, but i feel sad that my mom is left behind,” he said. often members of the same family are assigned different travel dates, and in this case it could mean many more years of separation. “trump delayed us before; now he is back and he is delaying again,” said mr. ahmed, who is a cross country truck driver. “all i feel is pain since donald trump arrived again.” “i haven’t seen my mom since i left, and i don’t know when i will see her again,” he said in an interview, while hauling dry foods on a highway in texas. as part of an avalanche of executive orders to slash immigration, mr. trump suspended the refugee resettlement program as of jan. 27. officials with resettlement agencies had hoped that refugees who had completed a yearslong process and been booked on flights would still be able to travel to the united states. in his first administration, mr. trump dismantled the refugee program by imposing additional layers of vetting of applicants whom he deemed to pose security risks and lowering the goal for the number that the united states was willing to take. the president makes an annual determination of how many refugees the united states is willing to accept in a given year, and the numbers have varied, with republican presidents historically setting some of the highest caps. however, the number of refugees admitted to the country sank to the lowest on record, to about 11,000 in 2020, mr. trump’s last year in office, down from 85,000 in 2016 under president barack obama. mr. trump prioritized religious minorities, mainly white christians from countries like moldova and russia. president biden rebuilt the program, and refugee admissions soared, reaching 100,000 last year, the most in three decades. this time, mr. trump has justified suspending refugee admissions on the grounds that they strain resources of cities that need to benefit americans. “the united states lacks the ability to absorb large numbers of migrants, and in particular, refugees, into its communities in a manner that does not compromise the availability of resources for americans,” said the order, which was signed by mr. trump within hours of his inauguration. michael crowley president trump moved to again designate yemen’s houthi rebels as a foreign terrorist organization, as his first administration did just before he left office in 2021. the biden administration, arguing that the designation was deterring the delivery of badly needed humanitarian aid, reversed it but imposed a less stringent label after the houthis began attacking international shipping in solidarity with hamas in october 2023. michael crowley trump’s executive order also instructs the united states agency for international development to cut ties with any aid groups or others that may have “made payments to” or supported the houthis. karoun demirjian the first piece of legislation that president trump signed into law zeroed in on a major priority of his second term: immigration. the laken riley act, as the law is known, directs the authorities to detain and deport immigrants who are accused   not yet convicted   of specific crimes, if they are in the country illegally. the bill became law barely 10 days into mr. trump’s presidency, and came amid the president’s promised crackdown on the border. in his first week in office, mr. trump issued executive orders, presidential memorandums and policy directives to limit the flow of unauthorized migrants into the country. republicans, eager to help mr. trump execute his crackdown, have promised that more measures to accelerate and expand immigration enforcement will follow the laken riley act, despite resistance from members of the democratic minority. democrats in the house and senate raised many concerns about the act before it became law, saying it could be used to unfairly target immigrants whose only crime had been entering the country without authorization. but a number of them backed it anyway   a sign of how democrats are under pressure to regain ground with voters concerned about illegal immigration after their losses in the november election. here’s what to know about the law. the laken riley act lists specific crimes that could cause a person without authorization to be in the united states to be detained and deported. they include burglary, larceny, theft, shoplifting, assaulting a police officer and any crime that results in death or bodily injury. the law mandates detention for people who are arrested, charged or admit to committing such a crime, without requiring that they first be convicted. it also gives state attorneys general the right to sue the u.s. attorney general or the secretary of homeland security if an immigrant with uncertain or contested legal status who is paroled into the country commits a crime that harms either the state or one of its residents physically or financially, if the value of the harm is more than $100. laken riley, a 22 year old nursing student at augusta university in georgia, was jogging one morning in february 2024 when she was attacked and killed by jose antonio ibarra, a 26 year old from venezuela who had entered the united states in 2022 without authorization. like many others, he was given temporary permission to stay in the country. mr. ibarra was sentenced to life in prison for the crime. before mr. ibarra killed ms. riley, he had been arrested in connection with a shoplifting case but was never detained. the legislation aims to spur the removal of unauthorized immigrants accused of such crimes before they can go on to commit more serious ones. still, for the past 150 years, immigrants overall have been less likely to commit crimes than people born in the united states, a 2023 study concluded. because the law requires only that a person be accused or charged in order to be deported, it is possible, critics have argued, that bystanders to a crime could be hurt by it. during congressional floor debates, democrats argued that if a group of people were in a store and one chose to shoplift, the police might easily arrest all of them before being able to sort out the facts of what transpired. anyone in that group unauthorized to be in the country could then be subject to deportation, even if the authorities ultimately determined they had committed no crime. democrats raised many concerns with the law. they argued that it did not have strong enough safeguards to protect people who entered the country illegally but have since obtained permission to stay temporarily   such as those who have been able to defer removal because they were brought to the united states as children, or people whose home countries make them eligible for temporary protected status. democrats also argued that the part of the law that allowed state attorneys general to sue the federal government could be unconstitutional   a claim republicans rejected. but since the 2024 election, in which republicans kept the house and gained the senate and presidency amid promises of an immigration and border crackdown, democrats have been under tremendous pressure to shift to the right on immigration matters. noah weiland russell t. vought, president trump’s nominee to run the office of management and budget, told senate lawmakers in a confirmation hearing on wednesday that he supported work requirements for low income americans receiving publicly subsidized health insurance, a policy that mr. trump pursued in his first term but that the biden administration mostly reversed. the comments suggested that the trump administration was likely to seek a broad overhaul of how the federal government administers medicaid, the joint federal state health insurance program for more than 70 million people. they also signaled that work requirements were likely to become a focal point in mr. trump’s approach to the american safety net. mr. vought cited as a model the welfare reform bill signed into law in 1996, which required low income americans to prove they were working before receiving safety net benefits. “it’s informed not only medicaid, but other programs, to be able to encourage people to get back into the work force, increase labor force participation and give people again the dignity of work,” he told members of the senate budget committee. democrats have been sharply critical of adding work requirements to medicaid, saying that they require complex enrollment procedures that make it hard to secure and maintain coverage, shutting out people with no other options for health insurance. most medicaid recipients are already working, while many of those who don’t are taking care of family or managing debilitating health conditions. estimates from the congressional budget office say medicaid work requirements would cause roughly 600,000 people to become uninsured, but would cut federal spending by at least $100 billion over a decade. congressional republicans seeking spending cuts have repeatedly introduced legislation with such requirements, and have said that they are again considering the requirements as they work toward a major tax bill this year. mr. vought, who wielded vast influence leading the budget office in mr. trump’s first term, could become one of the most influential figures in the second trump administration. with an expansive view of his office, he has vowed to shrink the government, cut down its work force and claim “impoundment” authority to claw back funding for government agencies. he has long supported enacting work requirements in medicaid. as he promoted a trump administration budget proposal in 2020, he told reporters that a universal work requirement for medicaid recipients would “ensure that we are helping to lift able bodied adults off of a cycle of dependency and onto a ladder of economic opportunity.” during the first trump administration, about a dozen states received federal permission to impose medicaid work requirements, but were stopped by legal challenges. arkansas was the first state to enact the change, but a disorganized rollout led thousands of recipients to lose coverage. the program was later struck down in court. the biden administration forbade states from instituting work requirements. georgia, which has prevailed over legal challenges, is the lone state to operate them in medicaid, but its program has been plagued by dysfunction and low enrollment. democrats in the wednesday hearing repeatedly brought up republican threats to cut medicaid. senator jeff merkley of oregon, the top democrat on the panel, cited the arkansas example as a warning of how work requirements are put into practice. “health care encourages people to work when they need to get better health in order to work,” he said. tim arangoheather knightmitch smith and julie bosman local officials responded with a mix of silence and defiance on wednesday after the justice department ordered prosecutors to investigate and charge state and city law enforcement officials if they refused to enforce the trump administration’s new immigration policies. officials in some democratic led cities that limit local cooperation with federal immigration authorities did not respond to requests for comment, issued vague statements or insisted that they were not “sanctuary” jurisdictions, a term that republicans have seized on but has no uniformly accepted definition. other local leaders said they were doing nothing illegal and indicated that they would continue limiting engagement with u.s. immigration and customs enforcement. “the purpose of san francisco’s sanctuary laws is not to interfere with lawful federal immigration enforcement,” david chiu, the san francisco city attorney, said in a statement. “immigration enforcement is the federal government’s job, not the responsibility of state or local governments. san francisco is in full compliance with federal law.” president trump campaigned on a pledge to crack down on illegal immigration and step up deportations of undocumented immigrants. his administration told federal prosecutors in a memo this week that local officials were bound to cooperate with the justice department under the supremacy clause of the constitution and that they could face criminal prosecution or civil penalties if they failed to comply. “federal law prohibits state and local actors from resisting, obstructing and otherwise failing to comply with lawful immigration related commands,” wrote emil bove iii, the acting deputy attorney general. states, cities and counties led by democrats have a range of policies   many passed early during mr. trump’s first term when “sanctuary” status was considered a badge of honor by many in the party   that limit the authority of local officials to cooperate with or assist federal immigration officers. the policies vary significantly in their details, and many state and local officials have insisted that enforcing them does not amount to obstructing federal law enforcement. in chicago, which is frequently singled out by republicans for its restrictions on assisting immigration enforcement, mayor brandon johnson’s office published guidance for city workers on how to engage with ice shortly before mr. trump took office. mr. johnson’s office did not immediately respond to a request for comment on wednesday. in denver, which has an ordinance that prevents city employees from inquiring about immigration status, providing that information to federal agents or cooperating with civil immigration enforcement, mayor mike johnston said in a statement that “local police do not do the work of immigration enforcement and we will not be bullied into doing ice’s job for them.” “denver does not obstruct federal law enforcement, and has been clear that we will cooperate with ice on violent criminals, as we always have,” mr. johnston said. in minneapolis, city officials said that enforcing immigration laws was not within their authority. “minneapolis is, and always will be, a welcoming city,” mayor jacob frey said in a statement. “we stand by our neighbors and support them, no matter who they are or where they are from.” and in philadelphia, district attorney larry krasner criticized the memo and mr. trump. asked how concerned he was about himself or his employees being prosecuted, mr. krasner said: “as long as we still have a constitution and laws, they can’t go against any of us because we are not breaking any laws. let me be clear, i am not going to violate the constitution.” some local officials acknowledged that they did not know exactly what to expect, especially as federal officials were said to be preparing for targeted raids in cities with high numbers of undocumented immigrants. rafael mandelman, president of the san francisco board of supervisors, whose members had signed on to new legislation reaffirming the importance of the city’s sanctuary city policy, said it was essential that undocumented immigrants in san francisco feel safe coming forward to report crimes, seek health care and send their children to school. he said much of what mr. trump was doing was “performance art” and that he did not know yet what to take seriously. “if he wants to come after us, i guess he’ll do that,” mr. mandelman said. reporting was contributed by ernesto londoño, kelley manley and glenn thrush.

manage your account three large unions sued the treasury department on monday to block elon musk and his apparatchiks from accessing federal servers with sensitive member data and financial information   alleging a “massive and unprecedented” intrusion of privacy. musk and his team at the so called department of government efficiency (doge) reportedly have full access to treasury payment systems that include, for example, social security and tax records. the lawsuit claims that doge’s cross agency meddling in treasury systems is a violation of the privacy act of 1974; the internal revenue code; and related regulations that bar sharing of sensitive data, in particular without advance notice. the litigation says that the treasury department has “a non discretionary duty” to protect private records and tax data “from unauthorized disclosure”   a legal obligation that’s been flouted by allowing “elon musk and/or other individuals associated with doge to access” sensitive treasury records. the suit seeks a court declaration that the musk led effort is “unlawful” and injunctions to prohibit doge’s current and future access to the treasury’s treasure trove of americans’ data. to better understand the impetus behind the suit and what it means for federal workers, rolling stone spoke to everett kelley, the national president of the american federation of government employees, which represents a wide swath of the federal workforce across more than 900 locals. afge sued along with the alliance for retired americans and the service employees international union. the following transcript has been edited for length and clarity. for people who aren’t familiar with your union, who do you represent, and what’s your standing in this case? we represent 800,000 federal and d.c. government workers. they are people that work for the va, to take care of our veterans; the social security administration workers that make sure the beneficiaries receive their pension on time. they are border patrol agents; they are tsa agents. they are food inspectors, they are doctors, they are lawyers, they work for the department of education, the state department, the d.c. government   any array of occupations. in broad strokes, what is the concern that led afge to join this lawsuit? it is my opinion that this administration is trying to dismantle the federal government, and we believe that there should be transparency. we believe that there should be accountability. we believe that the services that the american people depend on should not be disrupted in the manner in which it is being disrupted. how does that relate to what elon musk and his doge cohort are doing, accessing the records of your members? we believe that is illegal. it’s a breach of the privacy of the workforce, and in some cases, the american people. we think that mr. musk is reaching too far. and we intend on making sure that justice is served here. we will fight to the very end to make sure that our members’ rights are protected. no one should have access to my personal information, nor should they have access to the 800,000 members i represent. when you work for the federal government, in order to get that level of clearance to access personal information, you have to be vetted to get those clearances. and in this case, [they weren’t]. i’m an ex federal employee. ok? and in order for me to get secret clearances and all those types of things, i had to be vetted. i had to go through certain criteria. but this person comes in and got access to 2.2 million federal employees’ records, and has never been vetted. he wasn’t even a federal employee. and then [the white house is saying], “ok, now he’s a federal employee.” well, guess what? now there’s even more restrictions. they will deliberately disregard those restrictions and continue down this path of destruction. so the claim is that they’ve thrown process out the window as they’ve attempted to just jam through their program? they don’t understand the process, to be honest with you. we’ve been working with administrations for over 90 years. we’ve never had this kind of disruption   because you had staff that tried to adhere to the processes. in this instance, he’s come in and he’s fired everybody that knows the process. he don’t want anyone in that knows the process. he wants to steamroll his way. if you read project 2025, he’s doing exactly what they said they were gonna do: they’re gonna move quickly, decisively, and make us fight him in court. and that’s we will do. what is the solution that you’re looking for? they need to be completely out of government, if you ask me. because what they’re doing, in actuality, it’s fascism, ok? i’m just being frank. these guys, these individuals, don’t need to be involved in government, period   because they have no respect for the workforce. they have no respect for the law. they have no respect for the policies that have been put in place and been adhered to for decades. what is your view as to what they’re actually trying to accomplish? they are trying to look at the system, determine what they don’t like, and just do away with it   even if it’s a violation of the law. is there concern that these social security records and other sensitive information will leak to corporate third parties? or leak to foreign governments? what are some of the harms that are possible now that these unvetted individuals have access to this crown jewel data? the truth of the matter is this, we don’t know who has access. that’s one problem. but they have access to all these employees’ financial information   that can be very harmful. i’m not accusing anyone of giving anything to a foreign government or anything like that. but we don’t know who has access. so anything is possible. i know you’re not a lawyer, but are there any specifics you want to highlight as we’re talking about this case? they have violated every policy as it relates to the privacy act. and i’m going to make sure that we fight that every way that we can, to make sure that not only the workforce’s privacy is protected, but that the american people’s privacy is protected. because it’s about us, now, standing in the way of [dismantling] democracy. the courts are obviously one venue. but as someone who represents, for example, border patrol agents, it would seem you’d have some influence with republican lawmakers. what are you hearing on capitol hill? are republicans on board to give the president and musk a blank check right now? or is there any point of leverage that you have with the gop majority? it appears that they’re giving the president a blank check to just do as he pleases. but i’m calling on the congress to stand up and do their job, republican and democrat. protect american values, right? i haven’t seen that in the last two weeks. but we’re definitely calling on the american people to make it known to their elected representatives that they expect them to do their job. are there other labor actions that could go along with filing a suit like this? if the federal government isn’t honoring the law, for example, should workers engage in a slowdown? or are there other other levers of power that federal workers have to exercise their own muscle? the federal employees that i represent are very patriotic. they will do that job. they might grieve it after they’ve done it, but they will do that job. and we wouldn’t call for any type of slowdown, or anything like that. we’ll tell our members to go to work, do their job to the best of their ability. but in addition to filing the grievances and lawsuits, we’ll be doing rallies throughout the united states to bring attention to this and call for the exit of these people causing this disarray. any final thoughts? this workforce is a workforce that makes america work. and if you start chipping away at this workforce, the american people are going to be the one that pay the price for it   they’re going to suffer the loss. i think that part of the objective here is to cause the federal workforce to not be able to do that job, so that they can justify contracting out the work [to private businesses]. i wanted to just say that. more from rolling stone treasury officials warn musk's doge boys are a 'threat risk' to u.s. payment systems aclu sues trump for targeting trans americans   who are confused and terrified j.d. vance and musk tag team to restore racist doge bro to government best of rolling stone the useful idiots new guide to the most stoned moments of the 2020 presidential campaign anatomy of a fake news scandal the radical crusade of mike pence sign up for rollingstone's newsletter. for the latest news, follow us on facebook, twitter, and instagram.

senior politics reporter, huffpost washington   elon musk’s surrogates at the department of government efficiency may have been at the department of veterans affairs’ headquarters in washington, d.c., on tuesday, a key democratic senator said, raising concerns about their access to the private records of both veterans and agency employees. “we should all be deeply concerned about what it could mean to give elon musk and his cronies free rein at va i am already hearing that doge may have barged into va today,” sen. patty murray (d wash.) said in a statement. “musk and his associates already have the personal financial information of every veteran receiving disability or education benefits because of their illegal data mining at the department of treasury,” she said. “will they now look at private health records of veterans? what else will they do that could put the health and safety of our veterans at risk?” the apparent visit comes just days after musk’s team reportedly accessed millions of people’s personal and financial information at the office of personnel management and separately at the treasury department. it’s not clear if musk himself may have been at the va or just members of his team. a va spokesperson did not respond to a request for comment. doge, which trump designated as a replacement for the u.s. digital service, is focused on cutting costs across the federal government, but so far has been moving recklessly, politically and possibly illegally. musk claims it is on a mission to root out fraud and shrink the deficit. lawsuits have been flying this week after president donald trump’s administration granted musk and his surrogates access to huge amounts of personal information in governmental databases. musk, the world’s richest man, is operating as a “special government employee,” a designation allowing him to work for 130 days without being subject to certain ethics and disclosure rules. on monday, a coalition of union groups sued the treasury department and secretary scott bessent for giving musk and his team “full access” to the federal government’s payment systems. these systems include the personal data of millions of people, including names, social security numbers, birth dates, birth places, home addresses, phone numbers, email addresses and bank account information. that lawsuit came days after federal employees at the office of personnel management sued the government for allowing musk to install a private server at the agency and access sensitive records without being vetted or approved. opm’s systems include personal records for tens of millions of current and former federal workers, there are plenty of reasons to worry about musk’s team potentially accessing the va’s private health care data. they could, for example, access data about veterans who are on birth control, for example, or who have had abortions. murray said she voted against confirming va secretary nominee doug collins on tuesday specifically because she hasn’t seen any of trump’s cabinet picks, including collins, stand up to the president’s “illegal power grab”   her term for referring to musk’s activities, including his efforts to purge the federal government of career civil servants. “if this administration continues to press va doctors, nurses, and support staff to resign will collins push back?” the democratic senator asked. “i cannot confidently say he would.” by entering your email and clicking sign up, you're agreeing to let us send you customized marketing messages about us and our advertising partners. you are also agreeing to our terms of service and privacy policy.

russell vought, seen here at a confirmation hearing on capitol hill last month, is now in charge at the country's consumer finance watchdog. vought is one of the architects of project 2025, and was recently confirmed as director of the office of management and budget. andrew harnik/getty images hide caption vought was an architect of project 2025. he takes over at the consumer finance watchdog as he orders a pause in most of the agency's activities, and promises to cut spending. the e. barrett prettyman u.s. courthouse in washington, d.c. in 2023. mandel ngan/afp via getty images hide caption president trump announced friday that he planned to take over as chair of the kennedy center. hulton archive/getty images hide caption president trump addresses supporters at the circa resort and casino in las vegas on jan. 25, 2025. leah millis/reuters hide caption buffy saint marie performs at the americana music honors and awards show wednesday, sept. 16, 2015, in nashville, tenn. mark zaleski/ap hide caption a laboratory studying sickle cell disease at the national heart, lung, and blood institute's cellular and molecular therapeutics laboratory, at the national institutes of health on feb. 8, 2024, in bethesda, md. brendan smialowski/afp via getty images hide caption u.s. president donald trump walks on the south lawn of the white house before boarding marine one in washington, dc, us, on friday. anna rose layden/upi/bloomberg via getty images hide caption children play during aftercare for the head start program at easterseals south florida, an organization that gets about a third of its funding from the federal government wednesday, jan. 29, 2025, in miami. rebecca blackwell/ap hide caption south african president cyril ramaphosa gestures as he delivers the state of the nation address at the cape town city hall on february 6, 2025. rodger bosch/afp via getty hide caption susan klabunde (center) dons an eagle costume at a tailgate before the nfl conference championship game in philadelphia. rachel wisniewski/for npr hide caption there's nothing quite like a tailgate, where fans serve food to strangers who share the same passion. we went to a philadelphia eagles tailgate to learn what drives this uniquely american tradition. a kansas city chiefs helmet, the vince lombardi trophy and a philadelphia eagles helmet are seen before the nfl commissioner roger goodell's super bowl press conference ahead of super bowl lix at caesars superdome on february 03, 2025 in new orleans, louisiana. chris graythen/getty images hide caption the nfl is removing the lettering from the endzone on its football fields that read "end racism." in this image, that letting is seen on one side of the stadium prior to the game between the houston texans and the kansas city chiefs at arrowhead stadium on september 10, 2020 in kansas city, missouri. jamie squire/getty images hide caption donna kelce stands with her son kansas city chiefs tight end travis kelce and taylor swift after the afc championship nfl football game against the buffalo bills on jan. 26, 2025, in kansas city, mo. ashley landis/ap hide caption the caesars superdome in new orleans, where the nfl super bowl 59 football game between the philadelphia eagles and the kansas city chiefs will happen. godofredo a. vásquez/ap hide caption abigail (left) and sarge (right) team up for a defensive squeeze on beethoven during this year's pre taped puppy bowl. ryan muir/warner bros. discovery hide caption the puppy bowl may look like lawless fun. but there are rules to the annual competition, now in its 21st year. here's what to know as team ruff and team fluff hit the turf on sunday. the joachim ma stradivarius violin is on display during a preview of the violin's auction at sotheby's in new york city on feb. 3. it sold for $11.3 million. angela weiss/afp via getty images hide caption the violin, made over 300 years ago by a legendary luthier, had been expected to sell for a higher price. the proceeds will go toward a scholarship program at the new england conservatory. agency staff were notified that lists of employees have designated some as noncritical. nathan posner/anadolu agency via getty images hide caption staff at the cdc are bracing for a significant reduction in the work force that appears to be targeting staff with the fewest worker protections. president trump announced his plan for gaza during a meeting with israeli prime minister benjamin netanyahu at the white house on tuesday. chip somodevilla/getty images hide caption an attempt to identify and explain some of the biggest things that happened each week, and draw attention to some that have been overlooked. president elect donald trump's nominee to be secretary of education linda mcmahon on dec. 09, 2024. mcmahon, has come out in support of school choice and "parental rights in education," and in opposition to "political indoctrination in classrooms." anna moneymaker/getty images hide caption mcmahon has a limited background in education, and a long career as a business executive. she'd be stepping into an agency the president hopes to dissolve. namibian and ruling swapo party president sam nujoma speaks during an election rally in windhoek, namibia, nov. 13, 2004. themba hadebe/ap hide caption sam nujoma, the freedom fighter who led namibia to independence from apartheid south africa in 1990 and served as its first president for 15 years, has died. he was 95. do you have what it takes to cook these guys perfectly? veni vidi... shoot/getty hide caption an italian study published this week has found the way to cook a perfect egg   you'll just need to spend 32 minutes to make it happen. white house press secretary karoline leavitt holds up a document as she reads off line items of government spending during a news conference wednesday in the brady press briefing room at the white house in washington, d.c. andrew harnik/getty images hide caption less than 24 hours after misleading claims started circulating that tied politico to usaid, the white house vowed to end subscriptions for the insider news outlet's services and others. eli sharabi, or levy, and ohad ben ami hostages and missing families forum hide caption the exchanges are part of a ceasefire agreement between israel and hamas. jordan holt at his home in yuma, arizona. chantel holt hide caption mobile apps have put sportsbooks in the hands of millions, and experts are seeing a surge in betting   and higher risk of problem gambling. as the super bowl approaches, a recovering addict shares his story. mounds view, minnesota, message on billboard to raise awareness of sexual assault. (photo by: michael siluk/education images/universal images group via getty images) michael siluk/universal images group/getty images hide caption groups addressing sexual violence report not getting expected payments from grants that they depend on to keep running. elon musk at the inauguration of president trump on jan. 20, 2025 in washington, dc. trump tasked musk with dramatically slashing government via the department of government efficiency team. it's work has been secretive and controversial and has created chaos throughout the federal workforce. saul loeb, pool/getty images hide caption the scope of doge's work and the identities of the people carrying it out isn't fully clear   leaving agencies and government workers in chaos. teardown is a video game where players steal and destroy things for shady clients. screenshot by npr/tuxedo labs, saber interactive hide caption each week, guests and hosts on npr's pop culture happy hour share what's bringing them joy. this week: chef john mitzewich, star trek, the return of baseball and the video game teardown. ledisi: tiny desk concert yasmin williams: tiny desk concert sheila e.: tiny desk concert roberto fonseca: tiny desk concert doechii: tiny desk concert braxton cook: tiny desk concert malawi mouse boys: tiny desk (home) concert thandiswa mazwai: tiny desk x globalfest 2024 faye webster: tiny desk concert mj lenderman: tiny desk concert carminho: tiny desk concert bilal: tiny desk concert the red clay strays: tiny desk concert from the top: tiny desk concert machel montano: tiny desk concert isata kanneh mason: tiny desk concert sabrina carpenter: tiny desk concert yo gabba gabbaland!: tiny desk concert waxahatchee: tiny desk concert billie eilish: tiny desk concert stereophonic: tiny desk concert old crow medicine show: tiny desk concert rosie tucker: tiny desk concert tv on the radio: tiny desk concert teedra moses: tiny desk concert wyatt flores: tiny desk concert the magnetic fields: tiny desk concert durand jones: tiny desk concert yunchan lim: tiny desk concert elmiene: tiny desk concert larussell: tiny desk concert sheer mag: tiny desk concert chelsea wolfe: tiny desk concert sylo: tiny desk concert dua lipa: tiny desk concert the baylor project: tiny desk concert kamasi washington: tiny desk concert audrey nuna: tiny desk concert john holiday: tiny desk concert common freestyles over toto's 'africa' at the aspen ideas festival the marías: tiny desk concert eladio carrión: tiny desk concert ca7riel & paco amoroso: tiny desk concert rita payés: tiny desk concert fabiola méndez: tiny desk concert ivan cornejo: tiny desk concert okan: tiny desk concert daniel, me estás matando: tiny desk concert r&b artist ledisi will perform "lift every voice and sing" at this year's super bowl on sunday. she visited the tiny desk back in 2017, showcasing a dazzling display of vocal range and technique. that's the way one scientist puts it   referring to how infected wild birds survive long enough to spread it to birds and mammals around the world. and that's a serious risk for human health. the sims are turning 25 this year. above, a screenshot from the sims 4 trailer. screenshot by npr/electronic arts hide caption critic linda holmes has been playing the sims since the early 2000s. twenty five years in, she says she still finds the game charming but puzzling. hurry up tomorrow is abel tesfaye's sixth studio album as the weekend   and, he's declared, his last under that identity. holly mccandless desmond hide caption abel tesfaye's hedonistic alter ego meets his end on hurry up tomorrow, forcing listeners to ask just who we've been partying with all this time. it's an unusual winter for respiratory illnesses. the flu is peaking twice: once in early january and again in february. meanwhile, it's the mildest covid winter since the pandemic began. if your social calendar is burning a hole in your wallet, there are steps you can take to spend less while maintaining good relationships. art for "kickoff celebrations" by evyn wong. wizards of the coast hide caption as "magic: the gathering" races toward lucrative crossovers, "aetherdrift" mixes messy world building and subtle mechanical innovations. a humpback whale whale surfaces during a maui ocean adventures whale watching tour off the coast of lahaina on jan. 29. ashley westerman/npr hide caption chrissy lovett had just opened maui ocean adventures when a deadly wildfire swept through lahaina in 2023, burning up the entire business. a year and half later, they're finally back in the water. san francisco city attorney david chiu speaks during a press conference with elected and public safety officials and labor leaders in front of city hall in san francisco on tuesday, jan. 28, 2025, to reaffirm san francisco's commitment to being a sanctuary city. beth laberge/kqed hide caption san francisco and santa clara counties, joined by three other cities and counties across the country, are suing the trump administration over its threats to punish jurisdictions that have sanctuary immigration policies, calling the moves unconstitutional. from left: beyoncé, some bears, ozzy valerie macon/afp via getty images; olivier morin/afp via getty images; kevork djansezian/getty images hide caption this week calls for some throwback thinking. if you can recall how roman numerals work, you'll get at least one question correct. in a fever dream of a retelling, america's new reigning king of satire has turned a loved classic, adventures of huckleberry finn, upside down, placing huck's enslaved companion jim at the center. brittni robertson powell, with the new orleans based bookstore baldwin & co. looks through her choice for black history month: i am ruby bridges. aubri juhasz/aubri juhasz hide caption brittni robertson powell, with the new orleans based bookstore baldwin & co. looks through her choice for black history month: i am ruby bridges. the author james baldwin would have turned 100 on aug, 2. evening standard/getty images/hulton archive hide caption sponsor message become an npr sponsor

manage your account president donald trump's executive orders have faced a slew of legal roadblocks. judges have blocked orders on birthright citizenship, transgender inmate rehousing, and spending. trump's tariff plans for canada and mexico were paused after negotiations. some of president donald trump's boldest moves during his new administration's seismic first three weeks have been grounded before ever taking flight. the administration and its department of governmental efficiency, led by elon musk, the world's richest man, promised a list of swift moving changes to the us government's operations. while some of those plans have progressed, others were put on hold, either in the courts or by the administration itself. the white house says this is all part of a long game that trump, ultimately, will win. "each executive order will hold up in court because every action of the trump vance administration is completely lawful," harrison fields, the principal white house deputy press secretary, told bi on friday. and as for trump's walked back plans to hit our closest neighbors with tariffs   that was an all out victory, said another white house spokesman, kush desai, who said trump changed course on mexico and canada after "critical concessions" from both countries. still, much of trump 2.0 remains on ice for now. for those who haven't been able to keep up with the firehouse of actions announced by the white house and doge, here are the key ones that have been held up   for now. a federal judge in massachusetts delayed trump's plan to root out federal employees with buyout offers. on january 28, the trump administration gave just over two million government workers the chance to resign and maintain full pay and benefits until september 30. the so called "fork in the road" resignation offer was a strategy straight out of musk's playbook. us district judge george o'toole jr. on thursday extended the buyout deadline until at least monday, just hours before the actual deadline. the order came in response to a lawsuit brought by labor union groups. a trump administration official told bi that over 40,000 federal workers had taken the buyout as of wednesday. the white house launched another fiscal bombshell on february 3 when trump told reporters he had given treasury data access to musk, whose doge is tasked with cutting government spending. the idea that doge would have access to the personal information of millions of americans   including anyone who had ever paid taxes, taken a federal loan, or collected social security   resulted in another legal challenge. on thursday, a federal judge in california set strict interim limits on the treasury data, banning doge from accessing it directly. then, saturday morning, another federal judge temporarily blocked a slew of people   including special government employees (like musk), political appointees, and government employees not assigned by the treasury   from accessing the treasury's payment systems. the judge also ordered those who had gained new access to the systems to destroy all copies they may have made of materials and records they downloaded. in the order, us district judge paul engelmayer cited the risk of "disclosure of sensitive and confidential information" and the "heightened risk that the systems in question will be more vulnerable than before to hacking." on january 27   the first full monday of trump 2.0   trump budget officials dropped a bombshell memo ordering the temporary freezing of "all federal financial assistance" beginning 5 p.m. the following day, so that the spending could be reviewed. in an instant, the future of billions of dollars in federal funding was thrown into question. the shockwaves were just as swift, even in the hours before the freeze was to take place. medicaid portals used by states to access federal reimbursement quickly shut down across the country. head start funds were frozen in some states. officials in california wondered if fema wildfire assistance was at risk. judges presiding over two hastily drafted lawsuits issued separate injunctions blocking the freeze, including a federal judge in dc whose order came down minutes before the 5 p.m deadline. the next day, matthew vaeth, director of the office of management and budget, sent out a second memo. it said that the first memo is no longer in effect. trump touted his plans to impose new 25% tariffs on imports from canada and mexico, and they were set to go into effect on tuesday. the announcements were met with retaliatory plans from both countries, where leaders said they'd enforce their own tariffs on american products. the expected trade war rattled the markets. on monday, stocks and crypto tumbled, while the us dollar and oil climbed. in the end, though, these tariffs that left american investors scrambling were put on hold. trump and mexico's president, claudia sheinbaum, struck a deal on border policy, delaying the expected tariff on mexican imports for 30 days. similarly, canadian prime minister justin trudeau negotiated a pause until march for that set of tariffs. a similar threat of 25% tariffs on goods from colombia was put on hold after the country agreed to accept all deportation flights from the us. an additional 10% tariff on imports from china did go into effect tuesday, and was quickly matched by retaliatory tariffs on us exports to that country. trump's executive order seeking to abolish the constitutional right of birthright citizenship has been indefinitely blocked by two separate federal judges. a judge in washington state issued a nationwide preliminary injunction against the order on thursday, just a day after a maryland judge did the same. the order   one of the first signed by trump after he was sworn into office   has been challenged in the courts by more than 20 democratic run states and immigrant rights advocates who have argued it violates the 14th amendment. judge john coughenour of the us district court for the western district of washington temporarily halted the order on january 23, calling the move to end automatic citizenship to us born children of parents who are in the country illegally "blatantly unconstitutional." coughenour issued his thursday ruling following the decision by maryland us district judge deborah boardman. boardman wrote that trump's order "conflicts with the plain language of the 14th amendment, contradicts 125 year old binding supreme court precedent, and runs counter to our nation's 250 year history of citizenship by birth." a federal judge on friday temporarily blocked the trump administration from placing 2,200 usaid employees on paid leave. the workers, some of whom are overseas, were set to go on leave just before midnight friday. musk said in an x post on monday that he had "spent the weekend feeding usaid into the wood chipper." the american federation of government employees and the american foreign service association, however, filed a lawsuit against the administration's usaid cuts on thursday, arguing that the moves to dismantle it were made without congressional authorization. constitutional law experts told business insider that dismantling the agency without congressional approval is indisputably illegal. trump's day one order to house transgender women into men's men's facilities at federal prisons has also been blocked in the courts. the order says the attorney general and homeland security secretary shall "ensure that males are not detained in women's prisons" and calls to end gender affirming care for transgender inmates. it was challenged in two lawsuits brought by a handful of transgender women in prison. us district judge royce lamberth in washington, dc, granted the plaintiffs' request for a temporary restraining order on tuesday. in his order, lamberth wrote that the plaintiffs "have straightforwardly demonstrated that irreparable harm will follow" if the restraining order request was denied. lamberth's order followed a separate ruling by us district judge george o'toole in massachusetts, who also issued a temporary restraining order on january 26. read the original article on business insider

for premium support please call: for premium support please call: paramount, which owns cbs, is reportedly trying to settle a laughable lawsuit that donald trump filed last october based on a 60 minutes interview with kamala harris, his democratic opponent in the 2024 presidential election. the new york times reports that the company started settlement negotiations because it is keen to avoid regulatory obstacles to its planned merger with skydance media. paramount's openness to a settlement represents quite a turnaround from the position that cbs took after trump filed his lawsuit. "the lawsuit trump has brought today against cbs is completely without merit," the network said then, "and we will vigorously defend against it." the striking change illustrates the pressure that a president can exert on news outlets that annoy him a reality that is especially troubling when the white house is occupied by someone determined to "straighten out the press." although that mission is blatantly inconsistent with the first amendment, trump can pursue it indirectly by deploying executive power in service of his personal vendettas. after trump sued cbs, the times notes, "many legal experts dismissed the litigation as a far fetched attempt to punish an out of favor news outlet." that is arguably a charitable description of trump's lawsuit, which avers that cbs violated a texas consumer fraud statute by editing the interview with harris in a way that made her seem slightly more cogent. his invocation of that law is patently frivolous. so is trump's risible claim that the editing of the interview cost him "at least" $10 billion in damages. during the interview, 60 minutes correspondent bill whitaker asked harris about israeli prime minister benjamin netanyahu's response to the biden administration's concerns regarding the war in gaza. an october 6 preview of the interview on face the nation included this part of her response: "well, bill, the work that we have done has resulted in several movements in that region by israel that were very much prompted by or a result of many things, including our advocacy for what needs to happen in the region." in the edited version of the interview that aired on 60 minutes the next day, by contrast, harris says, "we are not gonna stop pursuing what is necessary for the united states to be clear about where we stand on the need for this war to end." harris did not come across as especially forthright, articulate, or intelligent in either version of her response. but trump complained that "her real answer was crazy, or dumb, so they actually replaced it with another answer in order to save her or, at least, make her look better." in response, 60 minutes said the show gave face the nation "an excerpt of our interview" that "used a longer section of her answer" than the segment used in the interview that aired the next day. it was the "same question" and the "same answer," the producers said, but "a different portion of the response." they added: "when we edit any interview, whether [with] a politician, an athlete, or movie star, we strive to be clear, accurate and on point. the portion of her answer on 60 minutes was more succinct, which allow[ed] time for other subjects in a wide ranging 21 minute long segment." as trump saw it, however, that decision was "a fake news scam, which is totally illegal." how so? in his lawsuit, which he filed in the u.s. district court for the northern district of texas, trump claims that cbs violated that state's deceptive trade practices act (dtpa), which prohibits "false, misleading, or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce." in response to the lawsuit, cbs reiterated that "the interview was not doctored" and noted that 60 minutes "did not hide any part of vice president kamala harris's answer to the question at issue." but the problems with trump's case go far beyond the question of whether cbs engaged in responsible journalism. as relevant here, the dtpa defines "trade or commerce" as "the advertising, offering for sale, sale, lease, or distribution of any good or service," including "any trade or commerce directly or indirectly affecting the people of this state." in other words, the statute is aimed at misrepresentations in connection with the promotion or sale of goods or services. when it edited the harris interview, 60 minutes was not advertising or selling anything. it was practicing journalism poorly, in trump's view, but in any case making the sort of editorial decisions that news outlets routinely make. those decisions are indisputably protected by the first amendment except in specific, narrow circumstances such as defamation. whatever you make of trump's objections to the harris interview, they plainly do not support a claim for damages. trump claims his lawsuit is authorized by section 17.50 of the dtpa, which says "a consumer may maintain an action" when he suffers "economic damages" or "mental anguish" as a result of false, misleading, or deceptive statements that he "relied on" to his "detriment." a consumer also can sue based on "breach of an express or implied warranty" or "any unconscionable action." the law defines that last phrase as "an act or practice which, to a consumer's detriment, takes advantage of the lack of knowledge, ability, experience, or capacity of the consumer to a grossly unfair degree." trump's lawsuit says he is "a 'consumer' within the meaning of the dtpa, since he is an individual who sought and received cbs's broadcast services." but the statute defines "consumer" as someone who "seeks or acquires by purchase or lease, any goods or services" (emphasis added). trump did not purchase or lease anything from cbs. while trump may be a "consumer" of 60 minutes in the sense that he watches the show, he is not a consumer who bought goods or services from cbs, let alone one who bought goods or services based on "false, misleading, or deceptive acts or practices." since there was no transaction, trump likewise could not have suffered damages by buying something based on "an express or implied warranty" or because he lacked the "knowledge, ability, experience, or capacity" to assess the merits of the purchase. trump's lawsuit notes that the dtpa covers practices that "caus[e] confusion or misunderstanding" regarding "the source, sponsorship, approval, or certification of goods or services" or regarding "affiliation, connection, or association with, or certification, by another." he says cbs confused "millions of americans, and in particular residents of texas," because it was "impossible for even the most discerning viewers to determine whether the 60 minutes interview was independent journalism or de facto advertising for the kamala campaign." he says viewers also would have been confused about "the interview's 'certification by' cbs given its legal obligation to broadcast news in a non distortive manner." the lawsuit adds that "cbs's misconduct was unconscionable because it amounts to a brazen attempt to interfere in the 2024 u.s. presidential election." that understanding of "unconscionable," invoking supposed election interference, has nothing to do with the way the term is used in the statute, where it refers to a situation in which a business cheats a consumer by taking advantage of his ignorance in a "grossly unfair" way. none of this makes any sense in the context of the dtpa, because none of it is grounded in a commercial relationship between trump and cbs. trump is simply dressing up his criticism of news coverage as a consumer fraud complaint without any evidence that cbs engaged in the deceptive trade practices that the law covers. this is the same strategy he later used in his lawsuit against the des moines register, which offended him by publishing a poll that inaccurately predicted a harris victory in iowa. if misleading journalism counted as actionable consumer fraud, news outlets would have to constantly worry about potentially ruinous litigation whenever their work might be characterized that way, which is almost always the case. trump's estimate of the damages he supposedly suffered as a "consumer" who never bought anything from cbs compounds the absurdity of his lawsuit. he says the damages are "reasonably believed to be at least $10,000,000,000." in case that seems like a number pulled out of thin air, a footnote avers that "cbs's distortion of the 60 minutes interview damaged president trump's fundraising and support values by several billions of dollars, particularly in texas." trump's 2024 campaign spent a total of about $355 million, which is a lot of money but a tiny fraction of the additional $10 billion he says he could have raised "particularly in texas" if cbs had not aired an interview that was edited to make harris look a bit less "dumb." why is paramount so eager to settle this comical excuse for a lawsuit? needless to say, it has nothing to do with the legal or logical merits of trump's complaint. the new york times reports that shari redstone, paramount's controlling shareholder, "supports the effort to settle" because she "stands to clear billions of dollars on the sale of paramount." the federal communications commission (fcc), which is now chaired by trump appointee brendan carr, has the power to queer that deal by refusing to approve the transfer of the broadcasting licenses held by cbs owned tv stations. that approval could be contingent on what the fcc makes of the complaint that the harris interview violated its rule against "broadcast news distortion," which makes it "illegal for broadcasters to intentionally distort the news." as the fcc put it in 1979, "broadcasters are public trustees licensed to operate in the public interest and, as such, may not engage in intentional falsification or suppression of news." because the fcc is "prohibited by law from engaging in censorship or infringing on first amendment rights of the press," the agency says, it "will only investigate claims that include evidence showing that the broadcast news report was deliberately intended to mislead viewers or listeners." it "does not investigate claims of collateral inaccuracy in news reports or differences of opinion over the truth or validity of aspects of a news program." carr has implicitly acknowledged that proving cbs "deliberately intended to mislead viewers or listeners" would be a tall order. "in my view," he told glenn beck last year, "the best way forward" would be to "release the transcript," which would mean "there's no reason to have this before the fcc." although "cbs had refused previous requests from mr. trump's lawyers" to release the complete transcript of the interview, the times says, "people inside paramount have been expecting the f.c.c." to request it, and carr "has said that the commission would probably look into the '60 minutes' interview as part of its review of the paramount merger." trump, for his part, argues that the editing of the harris interview is sufficient reason for the fcc to "take away the cbs license." the upshot of all this is that paramount is eager to settle trump's ridiculous lawsuit, perhaps with some sort of clarification or apology. that outcome, the times notes, is apt to provoke "an uproar within cbs news and among the '60 minutes' staff," since "journalists at the network have expressed deep concern about the notion of their parent company settling litigation that they consider tantamount to a politician's standard issue gripes about a news organization's editorial judgment." trump can extort that outcome because of the fcc's antiquated and constitutionally dubious authority over the content of broadcast journalism, which the government treats differently from journalism disseminated via print, cable, satellite, the internet, or any other nonbroadcast medium. that is just one of many ways that a president can try to punish or suppress speech he does not like. other levers of executive power include the federal trade commission, the securities and exchange commission, the irs, antitrust enforcement by the justice department, privacy and financial regulations, and presidential support for new legislation. trump has even suggested that the justice department "should" be policing the press to make sure it is telling the truth, an idea that is legally baseless and starkly at odds with the first amendment. trump and other republicans rightly complained when the biden administration persistently pressured social media platforms to suppress speech that federal officials viewed as a threat to public health, democracy, or national security. that pestering, they plausibly argued, violated the first amendment because it carried an implicit threat of government retaliation against companies that refused to comply. yet trump is doing essentially the same thing in this case by pressuring paramount to assuage his wrath by settling a lawsuit that was bound to fail on its merits. like the biden administration officials he despises, trump is demanding that a private company kowtow to him or else. also like them, he claims to be serving the public interest: he argues that "our press is very corrupt," which represents a threat not only to him but to democracy itself. but his chilling crusade against the press, which he openly says is aimed at changing the way journalists cover the news, is an assault on the values that distinguish a liberal democracy from one that elects autocrats who are free to punish speech that offends them. the post why is paramount so keen to settle trump's laughable lawsuit against cbs? appeared first on reason.com.

tearing apart immigrant families, communities, and the fabric of our nation if given a second term, donald trump promises to decimate american communities by targeting immigrants who are already contributing members of society and blocking new immigrants from coming lawfully to the united states. trump has made clear that he will double down on what he did during his presidency   without regard for the law, decency, or common sense. indeed, trump has promised to be far more aggressive in a second term, emboldened by close advisers, like stephen miller, to launch a “shock and awe blitz” of executive orders and actions that will target millions of immigrants and their families and threaten the freedom and security of everyone in the united states. “trump will unleash the vast arsenal of federal powers to implement the most spectacular migration crackdown,” miller told the new york times in november 2023. former senior trump officials helped write project 2025, a detailed plan to overhaul federal agencies that includes more than 175 immigration actions. our experts detail the threats a potential second trump administration poses to america’s immigration system. source: american civil liberties union in this paper, we focus on three areas of significant threats to immigrants and the u.s. communities and families they are a part of, should trump be elected to a second term. the first is mass deportation: a central promise of trump’s 2024 campaign is to “carry out the largest domestic deportation operation in american history” once in office. second, we explore some of trump’s and his surrogates’ plans to target the core rights of children and families: attacking birthright citizenship, barring undocumented children from schools, and again forcibly separating children from their parents at the border. finally, we will turn to the trump team’s strategy to dismantle our nation’s asylum protection system and attack human rights at the border. these threats   among many others   underscore the need for elected officials in congress, state and local governments, and the american people, to come together now to begin planning a sustained and coordinated response. we outline that response below. in the coming months, the aclu and our partner organizations will continue to sound the alarm about and plan for the full panoply of trump’s threats on immigration and beyond. in cataloging the many potential threats, we cannot lose sight of the big picture: a second trump administration will claim a mandate to decide immigration policy based on xenophobia and racism   flouting principles of fairness, human dignity, and the rule of law. in his campaigning over the last year, trump has further escalated his anti immigrant demagoguery, saying for example: “they’re poisoning the blood of our country. that’s what they’ve done. they poison   mental institutions and prisons all over the world. not just in south america. not just the three or four countries that we think about. but all over the world they’re coming into our country   from africa, from asia, all over the world. they’re pouring into our country.”   dec. 16, 2023, new hampshire rally “they’re rough people, in many cases from jails, prisons, from mental institutions, insane asylums. you know, insane asylums   that’s ‘silence of the lambs’ stuff.”   march 4, 2024, interview with right side broadcasting network “the democrats say, ‘please don’t call them animals. they’re humans.’ i said, ‘no, they’re not humans, they’re not humans, they’re animals’ … nancy pelosi told me that. she said, ‘please don’t use the word animals when you’re talking about these people.’ i said, ‘i’ll use the word animal because that’s what they are.’”   april 2, 2024, grand rapids, michigan, campaign event. chillingly, the cruelty, overt racism, and deeply damaging policies of the trump administration from 2017 to 2021 reportedly could have been even worse, because many officials refused to implement some of trump’s most extreme plans, such as a suggestion to electrify a border wall, and add “spikes on top that could pierce human flesh,” and a “water filled trench, stocked with snakes or alligators.” we don’t know if those pronouncements were real threats or mere saber rattling, but trump reportedly also suggested to aides that officials should shoot migrants in the legs. in assessing the credibility of such threats, we need only recall the actual implementation of a family separation policy that literally wrenched children from their parents’ arms   creating lasting and irreversible harm. many would have thought the design and implementation of that policy unthinkable, and yet trump did it, separating about 6,000 families, whom the aclu successfully represented in litigation. trump and his advisors are now working assiduously to make sure that the second time around, career officials will not stand in the way of his plans. instead, they will install trump loyalists across the white house and department of homeland security (dhs). if they succeed, we may see a second trump administration take actions that seem   even after four years of his first term   beyond the pale. for example, a former senior trump administration official foresees “the regular use of tear gas to repel migrants, the deployment of heat ray technology to make asylum seekers feel like their skin is on fire, or shoot to kill orders for anyone who rushes the u.s. border.” the niskanen center, cataloging project 2025’s immigration proposals, foresees 700,000 holders of temporary protected status, 500,000 young adults known as dreamers, and more than 175,000 ukrainians all losing their legal protections   “pushing them out of status or the country”   a fate that might be shared by tens of thousands of afghans, venezuelans, cubans, and haitians, all facing dangerous conditions at home. as we detail below   and as trump and his advisors well understand   he simply cannot accomplish his immigration agenda without violating the constitution and federal laws. thus, just as it was from 2017 to 2021, litigation will be a critical component of the response. the experience of the previous trump years underlines the practical importance of legal action. lawsuits stopped many illegal trump administration policies, including those that aimed to separate families at the border, arbitrarily cut off access to asylum, strip hundreds of thousands of people of protection under temporary protected status (tps), and deferred action for childhood arrivals (daca), add a citizenship question to the census to chill participation by immigrant and mixed status families, and prevent abortion access for unaccompanied immigrant minors. even in cases that did not ultimately result in a legal victory, litigation significantly mitigated harms. for example, while injunctions against the muslim ban were ultimately reversed by the supreme court, challengers succeeded in forcing the administration to narrow its scope twice and setting the conditions for its later revocation. fight back against bigotry, injustice and inequality. make your donation to the aclu today. source: american civil liberties union to be sure, trump has made a significant mark on the judiciary, and it is not difficult to find recent examples where the courts have failed to protect rights. but those facts should not be overstated: it is also true that trump appointed judges have found trump policies unlawful, and time and again, courts that are sometimes assumed to be skeptical of immigrants’ rights have instead acted to protect them. below, we outline ways in which trump’s policies are illegal and unconstitutional, and point to prior litigation that has succeeded in pressing relevant claims. the gravity of trump’s threats and the possibility of robust court action should not obscure the need for other leaders in our democracy to act. we anticipate that in a second term, trump will send a draconian anti immigrant bill to congress, framed as needed for “border security,” but expanding the anti asylum policies of his first term and attacking both immigrant communities and legal immigration pathways. instead of negotiating on these terms, congress can and must use the power of the purse, and its oversight authorities, to constrain a second trump administration’s anti immigrant agenda. if the opposition controls either or both chambers of congress in a trump administration, members of congress who are pro immigrant can use the appropriations process to effectively thwart trump’s ability to carry out mass detention and deportations. the aggressive use of oversight hearings, grilling of trump officials, and issuing of subpoenas for information and documents will also all be critical. moreover, trump’s announced assault on our nation’s immigrant communities should prompt members of congress to make a path to citizenship for millions of long standing u.s. residents a non negotiable, central demand in negotiations over immigration reform legislation. these members of congress should also go on the offense with their own package of solutions to effectively manage the border through, for example, increased capacity for screening and receiving people seeking entry. polling shows that the public supports that approach   not the trump campaign’s xenophobic agenda. likewise, at the state and local level, we need elected officials to begin coordinating and planning now to protect their communities from trump’s attempts to ravage them. collective and coordinated action among committed officials will be vital to anticipating, revealing, and quickly responding to the trump administration’s blitz of anti immigrant actions, particularly in major cities. states can take affirmative measures to protect their residents right now by funding legal counsel and other supports that help immigrants and mixed status families continue contributing and thriving in american communities. in addition, states can expand existing cooperation among themselves to provide legal representation, track and monitor a massive expansion of deportation and detention actions, and document and address abuses such as racial profiling and illegal stops and punitive use of immigration detention. legislatures and city councils can enact and update their protections, including by erecting a firewall between state and local resources and federal immigration enforcement. if reelected, trump plans to quickly and vastly expand deportation operations on “day one” in the interior of the united states, deporting millions of people a year and detaining untold numbers of people in massive camps pending deportation. while trump made similar promises in his first term, he was never able to carry out deportations on that scale. that is because doing so is an enormous project that would entail restrictions on basic freedoms core to american life. consider the mechanics of the planned deportation effort. to deport immigrants who lack legal status on the scale trump envisions, he would need to arrest millions of individuals; place them in removal proceedings before immigration judges; litigate those cases in the immigration courts; resolve any appeals; and then actually remove them from the united states   every year. each stage of this process has its own requirements and procedures under the constitution and the immigration statutes   and no part of it has ever operated at anything approaching the scale and speed that trump’s plan requires. there can be no doubt that trump would attempt to defy constitutional and other legal protections in service of his draconian goal. trump has also mischaracterized any decision not to detain an individual as a “catch and release” policy, and he will almost certainly seek to detain everyone he arrests through all of the stages of the removal process, in part to coerce them into giving up their rights to fight deportation. the federal deportation system is already massive; the department of homeland security oversees more than 66,000 federal law enforcement officers, by far the largest of any single federal agency and half of all federal law enforcement officers across the country. trump’s threats will require a vast expansion of this massive police force and huge sums of taxpayer money. but even if significantly enlarged, the existing removal system will not even begin to approach the scale that trump and his advisors will require. instead, making america into a deportation nation will require extraordinary, unprecedented, and often illegal steps. for example, mass deportations will require far more agents than immigration and customs enforcement (ice) has or could rapidly hire. so, trump and his associates plan to build a new deportation force out of the military, federal agents, and state and local police. trump and his advisor, stephen miller, have described plans to federalize state national guard personnel and deploy them for immigration enforcement   arresting people in their homes and workplaces in communities across the nation and deploying national guard troops, in some cases against the will of local officials and communities: “[i]f you’re going to go in an unfriendly state like maryland, well, there would just be virginia doing the arrest in maryland.” trump has also indicated that state and local police would also be deputized to make arrests and to identify targets   and granted “immunity” for any civil rights violations they commit. these officers would not only arrest specific, identified targets, but would “carry[] out workplace raids and other sweeps in public places aimed at arresting scores of unauthorized immigrants at once.” it is tempting to regard these threats as overblown and calculated merely for political campaign purposes. but in recent months, trump has repeatedly sought to rationalize his plans for mass deportation, blending military and national security rhetoric with xenophobia. when asked about the legality of using the military against civilians, trump retorted that, in his view, “these aren’t civilians.” trump’s deportation dystopia, if realized despite all of the legal, practical, and moral barriers, would fundamentally reshape american life. people across the country would experience armed military personnel, federal agents of all stripes, state and local police, and potentially even police from other states conducting raids and sweeps in their neighborhoods and at their workplaces. people of all immigration statuses, including u.s. citizens and lawful permanent residents, could be investigated, questioned, and even arrested by these agents if they are at a location that the deportation force decides to “hit.” and that is only the first stage of the process   arrest. actually processing and deciding all of the resulting cases is an administrative and judicial process that cannot practically be farmed out to other agencies. carrying it out on trump’s scale will require bloating the removal system beyond all reason. the trump team is therefore looking for any excuse, no matter how improbable, to avoid the legally required procedures for determining whether an individual can be removed. for example, trump’s advisors have suggested that they might implement an extremist theory, invoking the alien enemies act   an obscure law that has rarely been used since it was enacted in 1789   to override these procedures. trump will also likely seek to massively expand the use of a fast track deportation procedure called “expedited removal,” even though applying that procedure in the interior would violate constitutional guarantees. and he could encourage or pressure states to create their own independent arrest and deportation systems separate from the federal one, as texas has attempted with sb 4. in anticipation of the massive scale of arrest and detention these plans will require, trump’s advisors are already trying to get americans used to the idea that the landscape will be dotted with “vast” immigrant detention camps. trump could again attempt to divert funds from other purposes in order to build these camps, just as he did when building his wall. trump’s plan would require his administration to trample on numerous fundamental protections set out in the constitution and laws passed by congress. it would therefore be vulnerable to legal challenge from multiple angles. the fourth amendment prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures, including arrests and detentions without individualized suspicion. and the fifth and fourteenth amendments guarantee the equal protection of the laws, including freedom from racial discrimination by law enforcement. there is no exception for immigration enforcement. whether officers belong to ice, customs and border protection (cbp), military, police, or other agencies, they are required to abide by these basic rules. yet, experience from previous, more localized efforts at draconian, “zero tolerance” interior immigration enforcement shows that these programs result in racial profiling, suspicionless interrogations and arrests, unjustified and pretextual traffic stops, and warrantless searches of workplaces and homes   all of which violate the constitution. these kinds of violations are rampant in dragnet style operations because there is no inherent mark that separates citizens and people with authorization to remain in the united states from undocumented people: not language, not place of birth, not even the manner of their entry into the united states. accordingly, officers frequently resort to stereotypes or intuition in lieu of the factual basis that the law requires. perhaps the best known recent example is sheriff joe arpaio’s reign of terror in maricopa county, arizona. in the 2000s, sheriff arpaio launched an “operation … to go after illegals” and began to conduct “saturation patrols” to stop people, investigate their immigration status, and arrest them if officers suspected them of being undocumented. as litigation by the aclu and its partners established, arpaio’s immigration enforcement sweeps racially profiled latine residents of maricopa county, in violation of the fourth and fourteenth amendments. the trump immigration plan promises to replicate this unconstitutional conduct on a massive scale. the fifth amendment guarantees due process of law, and the constitution’s suspension clause safeguards access to the writ of habeas corpus   a key protection against unlawful government action. the trump deportation machine would violate these guarantees in at least two fundamental ways. first, an across the board policy refusing to release anyone swept up by the machine pending their removal would violate fifth amendment protections against arbitrary or punitive civil detention. the aclu has brought many cases asserting the rights of immigration detainees. and the supreme court has recognized that even noncitizens who have no “legal right to live at large in this country” have a liberty interest in “freedom from imprisonment.” while the supreme court has on occasion allowed “narrow detention polic[ies]” affecting discrete categories of noncitizens to stand, the broad trump detain everyone rule would go much further and could not be squared with fundamental constitutional protections. second, trying to sidestep the procedural protections embedded in the removal process would violate the fifth amendment and the suspension clause. the trump administration took one step in this direction in 2019, issuing a rule that attempted to expand fast track “expedited removal” procedures   which drastically curtail the ability of immigrants to defend against deportation   from the border into the interior of the country. as a result of litigation by the aclu and its partners, the expanded authority went almost entirely unused, and the rule was later revoked by the biden administration. renewed efforts to end run deportation procedures, whether through the expedited removal authority or otherwise, will meet renewed resistance. there are even more legal barriers the deportation machine would have to overcome. efforts to have states spin up their own deportation systems would violate 150 years of supreme court precedent establishing that only the federal government has that power   as courts have recently re affirmed in litigation by the aclu and partners that has blocked texas’s sb 4 law. attempting to deploy the alien enemies act in service of a mass deportation effort would run headlong into the limits built into the statute itself, which gives the president only limited authority to detain and deport “enemy aliens” during a “declared war” or an “invasion or predatory incursion” involving a “foreign nation or government.” and diverting funds to build detention camps could violate funding statutes, as did trump’s 2019 diversion of funds to build a border wall. finally, federalizing the national guard and deploying military personnel for immigration enforcement would raise grave legal concerns. since the founding of our nation, american institutions have carefully guarded against military involvement in domestic affairs. in addition to the constitution itself, the posse comitatus act generally forbids the use of federal military personnel for civilian law enforcement unless authorized by congress. congress strengthened the act in 2022 and 2023 in response to the trump administration’s use of active duty military to respond to protests against police violence. trump’s team has suggested that they may try to circumvent these strong legal protections and norms by invoking the extraordinary authority in another law, the insurrection act. but that act has never been used for a deportation machine like this before, and allowing this maneuver would essentially erase the critically important line between military and civilian affairs, with effects that could reach far beyond the deportation context. in short, trump’s threatened actions on immigration run counter to protections in the constitution and statutes enacted by congress. and we will make him answer for his lawlessness in the courts. trump’s aggressive plans are impossible without a massive funding increase. and despite the recent congressional acquiescence to expanded detention and unfair, ineffective enforcement policies, what we saw from congressional leaders during the first trump administration gives us reason to believe advocacy can produce resistance in congress during a second trump term. trump’s vicious anti immigrant rhetoric, coupled with his threats of raids on major cities, catalyzed serious political opposition in congress   including members of congress demanding access to immigrant detention sites, pressing for action on individual deportation cases, and calling out trump’s anti immigrant policies on social media and in press conferences. history suggests that congressional democrats are more likely to stand against anti immigrant policies when a republican is in the white house and that the more trump pursues his extremist agenda, which threatens longstanding u.s. residents and mixed status families, the more likely members of congress will be to assert their powers to thwart his ability to create a deportation police state. even in a divided congress, pro immigrant justice legislators can use congress’ appropriations powers to deny ice the operational resources necessary to launch the indiscriminate mass raids trump surrogates have threatened. congress can aggressively limit ice enforcement and removal operations’ budget through the annual congressional appropriations bill and deny supplemental funding requests that have historically led to waste and misuse of funds. congress can prohibit the use of funds to detain families and either limit or completely defund the kinds of mass detention camps the trump campaign has touted. congress can also prevent the trump administration from rapidly expanding ice and cbp detention sites by requiring congressional notification and review as a condition of detention funding. likewise, congress can condition appropriations on members’ access to conduct regular, unannounced detention site visits, which will enable them to uncover and bring to light the abuses suffered by people trapped in detention. finally, congress can prevent the improper diversion of other appropriated funds, especially defense appropriations, by placing limitations on the reprogramming or transfer of federal funds. the aclu will work with coalition partners to leverage the appropriations process to resist the deportation machine. in addition, we will seek aggressive congressional oversight of ice’s tactics and actions on american streets   including through hearings, investigations, and subpoenas   to detect abuse. as further discussed below, we expect trump to send a bill to congress on immigration and the border early in a second term. in any negotiation over comprehensive immigration reform, we will lobby congress to expand funding and ensure meaningful access to legal representation for immigrants, who currently have no right to government provided counsel in immigration court even though they have a constitutional right to due process and the right to counsel. we have cause for optimism: the senate’s major bill on the border and asylum, a “bipartisan” compromise with republican support when it was voted on in early may, would have codified the right to counsel for certain applicants for asylum for the first time and required the government to provide counsel to unaccompanied children under 13. this is a crucial due process safeguard: studies show that detained immigrants with counsel are far more likely to win their immigration cases and secure release from detention. if the trump administration seeks to expand expedited removal to the interior, we will work with our partners to bring impacted families and community members to capitol hill to demand congressional action and spur a congressional backlash. congress enacted expedited removal through the 1996 illegal immigration reform and immigrant responsibility act. short of a full repeal of expedited removal across the board, we will urge congress to use its appropriations powers to prevent ice from conducting expedited removal against long standing residents. trump is likely to employ some of his harshest tactics at the border. historically, congress has done little to constrain customs and border protection’s expansive policing or to create meaningful accountability for agents who abuse their authority, and trump has suggested he will build on this legacy of impunity, expanding cbp’s operations through the use of the national guard. congress has acceded to ever more bloated budget requests, to the tune now of $19 billion in fy 24, making cbp by far the largest law enforcement agency in the united states. we will lobby congress to put meaningful constraints on cbp by limiting where border patrol forces can operate and restricting which law enforcement units can participate in these operations. we will also lobby for restrictions and reporting on racial profiling and unlawful detentions of residents within the 100 mile zone, and for mandatory reporting on the location of any new soft side, temporary, or open air detention facilities utilized by cbp to round up and hold people along the u.s. border. we will urge congress to require cbp to report on checkpoints and roving patrols, including the number of u.s. citizens stopped and families separated at checkpoints or by these patrols. the trump administration will have difficulty executing its mass deportation plans without the acquiescence and participation of states and localities, and the aclu is already identifying ways pro civil liberties jurisdictions can ensure they are not complicit in tearing apart their communities. we expect that in a second term, trump will once again seek to expand ice’s capacity through the 287(g) program, which taps law enforcement agencies across the country to identify and locate immigrants. trump continues to spread lies about immigrants, touting a “new category of crime…called migrant crime” and blaming “democratic run cities.” in fact, numerous studies show that immigrants commit fewer crimes than u.s. born people. immigrants are less likely to be incarcerated for criminal offenses, and increases in immigration rates are related to a decrease in crime rates. we are also concerned that trump will solicit volunteers from law enforcement agencies in anti immigrant jurisdictions to join in federal immigration enforcement operations and even participate in raids on so called “sanctuary” cities, stoking animosity and partisan division along the way. as part of a comprehensive strategic engagement with blue state governments, we will urge state governments to deny the federal government access to their law enforcement agencies and other state held resources for purposes of immigrant detention and deportation   governors can act through executive orders, state attorneys general can issue guidance to law enforcement agencies, and legislatures can enact new measures or update existing law. we know that many law enforcement leaders, concerned that open collaboration with ice will diminish community trust and deter people from coming forward to report serious crimes, will decide not to collaborate in anti immigrant enforcement measures. short of prohibiting anti immigrant collaboration altogether, states can enact measures requiring that prior to entering into an agreement to assist in immigration enforcement, state and local law enforcement agencies seek advance permission from the governor or other state officials, and that they notify the public and provide an opportunity for public comment. on the other hand, trump’s anti immigrant rhetoric is likely to embolden racist and abusive local law enforcement officers, who will effectively act as badge wearing vigilantes intent on assisting in the mass deportation drive. many will engage in pretextual policing   using traffic stops and arrests for minor offenses to book people into local custody and funnel them into deportation, decreasing community law enforcement trust and resulting in civil rights violations. state attorneys general and other elected officials can respond by robustly enforcing state laws against racial profiling, and launching their own civil rights investigations into state and local law agencies that show a pattern of traffic stops and arrests disproportionately targeting black and brown residents. we will also urge governors, other state officials, and legislatures to act decisively to protect people from trump’s mass deportation drive: we will also urge states and municipalities to refuse to take part in new mass detentions of immigrants. we will work in legislatures to pass measures prohibiting government contracts with ice for detention. we will also support local movements against new detention sites and the leasing of county jail space to ice. unfortunately, we know that governors of populous states like texas, florida, and georgia   home to at least 2.9 million people who are undocumented   are eager to participate in arrests, deportations, and detention. and we expect the trump administration will once again seek to punish so called “sanctuary” cities for partisan reasons and to stoke fear in immigrant communities. we also expect a trump administration to go after legal services and humanitarian services organizations that provide assistance to immigrants, further chilling advocacy and adding practical and financial barriers for nonprofit groups that normally provide representation and basic services to noncitizens. we will work with city officials to coordinate across state lines and provide support to residents and mixed status families before and after deportation raids occur. it will be vital for local governments to help ensure that families can find their loved ones when arrested; community and faith groups can come together to deliver assistance in the form of childcare and food to families torn apart; and lawyers are on the ground and properly resourced to support impacted people. we will urge cities to band together to fund and coordinate deportation defense and assistance for people   even as they are torn from their community and shipped across state lines to ice detention sites in other states. finally, we recognize that winning policy fights requires winning the narrative battle over how america should think about immigrants and immigration, and the aclu has been building a narrative shift campaign to that end. we will continue to use detailed new public opinion research and organizing tactics around major news events   which a trump administration will create with some frequency   to create a strong counter narrative to the trump administration’s xenophobia and racism. we will urge members of congress, other elected officials, and influencers to play offense and reclaim the narrative on immigration in our country. they must debunk and forcefully reject the premises of trump’s deportation drive while calling out the xenophobia and white supremacy underlying his policy proposals. the way that trump is proposing we treat our neighbors and loved ones who are immigrants is completely out of step with our values and who we aspire to be as a nation. congress should instead plan a series of hearings on the vast contributions of immigrants, including how they have helped strengthen our economy and american communities, and why immigrants deserve a fair process to become citizens. polls show that voters do not support cruel enforcement only measures that betray core american values and put vulnerable people in danger. proposals to ban asylum and separate families at the border are widely rejected by voters. a march 2024 immigration hub / gsg poll shows that 66 percent of voters in battleground states reject banning asylum, and 79 percent oppose reinstating family separation. recent research conducted by the aclu also showed that when candidates, regardless of party affiliation, adopt a balanced, solutions focused approach to immigration that includes both managing the border and providing a road to citizenship for long term residents, they outperform their opponents’ fear based messages. instead of negotiating with the trump administration on a so called “border security” bill, we will push members of congress to embrace the better policy and politics of putting forward their own vision for immigration reform. sixty eight percent of voters want a balanced approach to immigration that includes both border management   adequately staffing ports of entry and increasing processing capacity of people seeking protection   and pathways to citizenship for dreamers and other longtime residents. trump has said that if reelected, he will issue an executive order instructing federal agencies to stop recognizing birthright citizenship, a bedrock american civil right. this would reportedly involve, among other things, ordering agencies to stop issuing social security cards and passports to the u.s. born children of undocumented parents. members of congress have also introduced legislation parroting trump’s rhetoric and purporting to limit citizenship to children born in the united states to parents who are u.s. citizens and certain legal immigrants. if successful, the impact would be massive; almost 4 million school aged children live with at least one undocumented parent, according to a 2016 study. more than 150 years ago, as a fundamental part of rebuilding the nation after the civil war and the end of slavery, the fourteenth amendment guaranteed citizenship to people born in the united states, without regard to parentage, skin color, or ethnicity. that guarantee ensures that we will never again consign certain groups of people, generation after generation, to a legal underclass. the supreme court confirmed, more than 100 years ago, that the citizenship guarantee applies fully to u.s. born children whose parents have no right to citizenship. moreover, history and tradition   including english common law rules and early american jurisprudence   strongly support the standard, broad understanding of the fourteenth amendment guarantee. originalists, textualists, and living constitutionalists should all agree on this result. theories that attempt to carve children out of this guarantee based on the immigration status of their parents are legally wrong, morally repugnant, and dangerous attacks on a core civil right. but, of course, those facts alone will not stop trump from moving forward with his pledge. if he does, he will be challenged in court. in 1982, the u.s. supreme court held in plyler v. doe that the constitution guarantees all children, regardless of immigration status, equal access to a basic public education. this principle is directly in the cross hairs of a second trump administration, as it seeks to make life in the united states unbearable for undocumented and mixed status families in the hopes they will “self deport.” at issue in plyler was a 1975 texas law withholding funds to educate kids who were not “legally admitted” into the united states and allowing school districts to deny them enrollment. some school districts took up the invitation to kick their students out of school, while others   like the district in tyler, texas   decided to charge them tuition (in tyler’s case, a fee of $1,000 per year). the fallout was immediate, as students who were poor, latine, and english language learners were driven from the classroom. in a watershed decision, the supreme court struck down the law as violating the equal protection clause of the fourteenth amendment. as the court recognized, education was crucial to preventing a permanent underclass of undocumented immigrants in the united states and ensuring immigrants’ future membership in society. citing brown v. board of education, the court recognized that “denying these children a basic education” would “deny them the ability to live within the structure of our civic institutions and foreclose any realistic possibility that they will contribute in even the smallest way to the progress of our nation.” while he was president, trump reportedly made multiple attempts to undermine plyler and equal access to education. miller, his aide, reportedly ordered the department of education to cut off school funding to states that allowed undocumented students to enroll in public schools. trump’s former education department chief of staff has described the idea to undermine plyler as a “cockroach that wouldn’t die” and predicts that in a second trump term, the decision would be “ignored.” obviously, that would be illegal and inappropriate   and profoundly harmful to u.s. national interests. in fact, even governors and legislators who have targeted immigrant families in other ways have not forcefully pushed to undo plyler, presumably because they recognize the tremendous practical harm that would cause to their own states. if trump goes after plyler, we have the tools to fight back. in addition to the fourteenth amendment, titles iv and vi of the civil rights act of 1964 also prohibit discrimination. alongside our partners, we will work to defend plyler itself in the courts. we will also work with congress to demand that the department of justice civil rights division and department of education office for civil rights continue their work to ensure that the law is followed in schools across the nation. the department of justice must continue to emphasize, as it does now, that k 12 public schools must be open to all students, regardless of their immigration status or that of their parents, guardians, or sponsors: “it is a violation of federal law for districts to prohibit or discourage children from enrolling in public schools because the children or their parents or guardians are not u.s. citizens or do not have immigration documentation.” moreover, many states have laws prohibiting discriminatory actions in schools and guaranteeing equal access to education   and other states could pass such measures. officials in these states will have ample alternate grounds to defend undocumented students’ access to public schools even if plyler comes under attack. we will work with state attorneys general to advise school districts of their legal obligations and ensure they are prepared for the trump administration’s assaults on students   especially federal requests for information that federal agents could use to identify and track students and their parents. we will advise schools to prevent the abuse of their data by not collecting it in the first place, where it is not necessary for student services or accountability; and we will work with state legislatures to empower schools to protect student data. we will also work with schools to limit invasive surveillance technologies that subject students to around the clock monitoring, and which could be weaponized by an anti immigrant administration. if schools are targeted, we will work with partners to ensure school leaders and other education officials know they can refuse to assist immigration agents in locating students and can limit their access to campuses without a specific and valid judicial warrant. after years of litigation, the aclu last year settled its landmark ms. l v. ice case, which challenged the trump administration’s policy of separating children from their families at the border. while work continues to find and reunite separated families, and to address the trauma suffered by thousands of families torn apart during the first trump administration, trump has, shockingly, defended and praised it during the current campaign and has refused to rule out reinstituting the policy. an attempt to reinstate the policy would not only be morally repugnant; critically, it would also violate the legally binding, court ordered settlement agreement that has been entered in successful litigation brought by the aclu. if trump endeavors to reinstitute his failed and flawed family separation policy, we would immediately bring the issue to court. in addition, we believe a return to family separation will backfire on trump and galvanize public opinion against the entire trump immigration agenda. the practice of tearing apart families prompted a bipartisan, and even worldwide, outcry, and we will lay the foundations for a national campaign to mobilize public sentiment once again if this immoral practice is resurrected. trump has made the demonization of people seeking asylum at the southern border a key element of his campaign this year. we expect his administration to renew and expand attempts to destroy our nation’s system of protection for people seeking safety from violence and persecution   a system born of the horrors of world war ii and the holocaust, and which is enshrined in both international and u.s. law. in particular, we anticipate trump will attack the right of people to request asylum when they arrive at the border   both through executive action and legislation. trump is reportedly planning to kick off his second term with a major bill on “border security and immigration.” in addition to limiting or effectively ending access to asylum, it could eliminate other pathways for humanitarian protection that have proven vital to our nation’s response to unfolding wars and crises, including in ukraine, cuba, haiti, nicaragua, and venezuela. we also expect that in a second trump term, the border will become a more dangerous place for residents and newcomers alike. trump will recommit to expansion of the border wall and attempt to militarize the border. trump has wanted to treat the border as a war zone, and reportedly sought to emulate israel and south korea, citing the latter’s barbed wire and landmines. trump has outlined plans for massive policing and patrolling of the entire border region. in the final year of the trump administration, the president’s team reportedly asked to deploy 250,000 troops to the border. we expect trump to renew that request   even though military deployments at the border have proven damaging to military servicemembers, resulting in “rampant drug and alcohol abuse” and poor living conditions. at least five people died by suicide and three died in separate alcohol related accidents in just 13 months between september 2021 and october 2022. finally, a second trump administration will likely embolden vigilantism. former dhs chief of staff miles taylor reports that “president trump was eager to permit roaming bands of armed citizens” to engage in immigration enforcement. he will have willing participants   particularly in states like texas   where vigilantes have already been operating, illegally detain and then deliver migrants to cbp. vigilante groups have already targeted migrant shelter staff, and this is likely to increase if the federal government is supporting them. attempts to shut down the asylum system face a number of serious legal problems, starting with the asylum law itself, which provides that “[a]ny alien who is physically present in the united states or who arrives in the united states (whether or not at a designated port of arrival and including an alien who is brought to the united states after having been interdicted in international or united states waters), irrespective of such alien’s status, may apply for asylum in accordance with this section.” our immigration system also provides other humanitarian protections, such as withholding of removal; additional safeguards for unaccompanied children; and the requirement that, even in expedited removal, individuals are screened for protection claims. what’s more, the administrative procedure act sets forth procedural requirements for agency rulemaking and prohibits agencies from adopting arbitrary and capricious rules. the aclu and its partners challenged numerous trump anti asylum policies, pressing these legal claims and more. courts held many of the policies illegal, and some were suspended or never went into effect. further attempts to eviscerate the asylum system will also be vulnerable to legal challenge. abusive border patrol tactics also run afoul of the law, including the fourth amendment’s search and seizure protections and its prohibition on the excessive use of force. here too, the aclu has repeatedly sought and obtained accountability for unlawful conduct by customs and border protection, and we will expand that work, if necessary, to encompass the acts of border vigilantes as well. if trump sends a bill to congress that effectively ends asylum, we will fight to make sure it does not become law   mobilizing our supporters across the nation and amplifying the credible voices of experts who have explained why trump’s solutions would actually “break the border” and are “counter productive.” although congressional democrats and others have been willing to authorize counter productive and anti asylum measures at the border under the false rubric of “national security” and drug interdiction, the politics will be different in a second trump administration. for one thing, the realities of partisan politics mean democrats in congress are more likely to vocally oppose policies pursued by a republican president than a democrat. moreover, a further militarization of the 100 mile zone will force border residents   including u.s. citizens and mixed status families   to live in a de facto war zone. we will work with members of congress to push for hearings, investigations, and oversight of this aggressive policing and militarization, and to expose and limit cbp and the military’s activities. we will also work to prevent any legislation or related appropriations that would expand the role of the military in policing or surveilling border communities, and/or collaborating with state programs (like governor abbott’s new military base for migrant detention) that encourage collusion between state and federal actors to detain asylum seekers, border residents, and immigrants in the name of border security. although short term legislative advances will be nearly impossible with trump in the white house, there is both a political imperative and opportunity to push a different vision in congress. to continue toward our long term goal of achieving meaningful immigration reform, we will urge immigrant justice minded members of congress to counter the trump agenda with a proposal for balanced legislation that will actually help manage the border   investments in processing capacity at ports of entry, processing options in other countries, and immigration courts and legal representation   and for resources for receiving communities, particularly in border areas where the brunt of trump’s militarization will be most acutely felt. we will also continue to work with congressional allies to document how people with strong asylum claims are being deported to their deaths, and how our anti asylum policies, like a “cap,” are being reproduced and cited to justify equally or more harmful measures around the world. this work may not achieve short term legislative success, but revulsion at trump administration excesses will create openings where policymakers are looking for other answers. advocacy around a proactive vision even as we fight off extremist policies is necessary to ensure that we can reclaim our humanitarian protection system under a future administration and do not continue to cede ground on core human rights. we will also lobby congress not to appropriate more funds to an expanded border force (run by dhs, the defense department, or any other entity) or to allow cbp to further reduce the criteria for hiring of border patrol agents. we will also lobby for more oversight and accountability for individual agents, and transparency and congressional hearings regarding the location and nature of cbp policing efforts. we will work with local officials to resist collusion with the trump administration’s anti immigrant efforts through federal partnership programs, like operation stonegarden, or state led initiatives, like texas’s sb 4 and operation lone star. we will work with state and local officials to document and track abuses by u.s. customs and border protection, including unlawful arrests, racial profiling, excessive use of force, and expanding surveillance of border community residents. we will also need to encourage pro immigrant jurisdictions to do their own documentation and oversight, particularly as detention camps open; states may not affirmatively have access to inspect these sites but should push for it, especially given the likelihood that u.s. citizens and other longtime residents will be swept up in these expansive deportation arrests. during the trump presidency, immigrants and their loved ones, advocates, state and local officials, and ordinary americans from all walks of life roundly rejected trump’s demagoguery, as demonstrated by the massive show of support at u.s. airports in response to the muslim ban, and the many court orders blocking it and other trump policies. most americans see immigrants   our neighbors, loved ones, co workers, and caregivers   as contributors to american communities and the economy. americans want practical border management solutions that include adequate staffing to screen and welcome people who are seeking entry, and we want an immigration system with clear rules and a fair process for people to immigrate and seek safety. the aclu will stand among this american majority to stop trump’s hate based plans and achieve our vision for a fair, sensible, secure, and welcoming u.s. immigration system. for information on copyright, usage rights, and privacy, please visit the aclu site user agreement at https://www.aclu.org/about/aclu site user agreement. for information on accessibility, please visit the aclu statement on website accessibility at https://www.aclu.org/about/aclu statement accessibility. citations and endnotes can be found in the full, downloadable pdf.

an official website of the united states government here’s how you know official websites use .gov a .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the united states. secure .gov websites use https a lock ( locka locked padlock ) or https:// means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. share sensitive information only on official, secure websites. about eeoc news and information laws and enforcement programs and performance data and analytics inside eeoc employees & applicants filing a charge of discrimination discrimination by type employers / small business small business resource center discrimination by type federal agencies federal employees & job applicants resources in other languages this guidance document was issued upon approval by vote of the u.s. equal employment opportunity commission. the contents of this document do not have the force and effect of law and are not meant to bind the public in any way. this document is intended only to provide clarity to the public regarding existing requirements under the law or agency policies. this document was issued prior to the supreme court’s decision in groff v. dejoy, 143 s. ct. 2279 (2023). the groff opinion clarified that “showing ‘more than a de minimis cost’…does not suffice to establish undue hardship under title vii.” instead, the supreme court held that “undue hardship is shown when a burden is substantial in the overall context of an employer’s business,” “tak[ing] into account all relevant factors in the case at hand, including the particular accommodations at issue and their practical impact in light of the nature, size and operating cost of an employer.” groff supersedes any contrary information on this webpage. for more information about the eeoc’s resources on religious discrimination, please see https://www.eeoc.gov/religious discrimination. number 915.063 ________________________ janet dhillon, chair overview 12 i coverage types of cases note to eeoc investigators a. definitions 1. religion 2. sincerely held 3. employer inquiries into religious nature or sincerity of belief note to eeoc investigators b. covered entities c. exceptions 1. religious organizations 2. ministerial exception 3. additional interaction of title vii with the first amendment and the religious freedom restoration act (rfra) 12 ii employment decisions a. general 1. recruitment, hiring, and promotion 2. discipline and discharge 3. compensation and other terms, conditions, or privileges of employment b. customer preference c. security requirements d. bona fide occupational qualification employer best practices 12   iii harassment a. prohibited conduct b. types of harassment claims 1. religious coercion 2. hostile work environment a. based on religion b. unwelcome c. severe or pervasive c. employer liability 1. harassment by alter ego 2. harassment by supervisors or managers 3. harassment by coworkers 4. harassment by non employees d. special considerations for employers when balancing anti harassment and accommodation obligations with respect to religious expression employer best practices employee best practices 12   iv reasonable accommodation a. religious accommodation 1. notice of the conflict between religion and work 2. discussion of request 3. what is a “reasonable” accommodation? b. undue hardship 1. case by case determination 2. more than "de minimis" cost 3. seniority systems and collectively bargained rights 4. coworker complaints 5. security considerations c. common methods of accommodation in the workplace 1. scheduling changes 2. voluntary substitutes and shift swaps 3. change of job tasks and lateral transfer 4. modifying workplace practices, policies and procedures a. dress and grooming standards b. use of employer facilities c. tests and other selection procedures d. objections to providing social security numbers or complying with employer identification procedures 5. excusing union dues or agency fees 6. permitting prayer, proselytizing, and other forms of religious expression a. effect on workplace rights of coworkers b. effect on customers 7. employer sponsored programs note to eeoc investigators employer best practices employee best practices. error! bookmark not defined 12   v related forms of discrimination a. national origin and race b. retaliation employer best practices addendum on executive order compliance addendum on response to comments this section of the compliance manual focuses on religious discrimination under title vii of the civil rights act of 1964 (title vii). title vii protects workers from employment discrimination based on their race, color, religion, sex (including pregnancy, sexual orientation, and transgender status),[2] national origin, or protected activity. under title vii, an employer is prohibited from discriminating because of religion in hiring, promotion, discharge, compensation, or other “terms, conditions or privileges” of employment, and also cannot “limit, segregate, or classify” applicants or employees based on religion “in any way which would deprive or tend to deprive any individual of employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affect his status as an employee.”[3] the statute defines “religion” as including “all aspects of religious observance and practice, as well as belief, unless an employer demonstrates that [it] is unable to reasonably accommodate . . . without undue hardship on the conduct of the employer’s business.”[4] “undue hardship” under title vii is not defined in the statute but has been defined by the supreme court as “more than a de minimis cost”[5]   a lower standard for employers to satisfy than the “undue hardship” defense under the americans with disabilities act (ada), which is defined by statute as “significant difficulty or expense.”[6] these protections apply whether the religious beliefs or practices in question are common or non traditional, and regardless of whether they are recognized by any organized religion.[7] the test under title vii’s definition of religion is whether the beliefs are, in the individual’s “own scheme of things, religious.”[8] belief in god or gods is not necessary; nontheistic beliefs can also be religious for purposes of the title vii exemption as long as they “‘occupy in the life of that individual “a place parallel to that filled by . . . god” in traditionally religious persons.’”[9] the non discrimination provisions of the statute also protect employees who do not possess religious beliefs or engage in religious practices.[10] eeoc, as a federal government enforcement agency, and its staff, like all governmental entities, carries out its mission neutrally and without any hostility to any religion or related observances, practices, and beliefs, or lack thereof.[11] the number of religious discrimination charges filed with eeoc has increased significantly from fiscal years 1997 to 2019, although the total number of such charges remains relatively small compared to charges filed on other bases.[12] many employers seek legal guidance in managing equal employment opportunity (“eeo”) issues that arise from religious diversity as well as the demands of the modern american workplace. this document is designed to be a practical resource for employers, employees, practitioners, and eeoc enforcement staff on title vii’s prohibition against religious discrimination. it explains the variety of issues considered in workplace related religious discrimination claims, discusses typical scenarios that may arise, and provides guidance to employers on how to balance the rights of individuals in an environment that includes people of varying religious faiths, or no faith.[13] however, this document does not have the force and effect of law and is not meant to bind the public in any way. it is intended to provide clarity to the public on existing requirements under the law and how the commission will analyze these matters in performing its duties. for ease of reference this document is organized by the following topics: title vii prohibits covered employers, employment agencies, and unions[14] from engaging in disparate treatment and from maintaining policies or practices that result in unjustified disparate impact based on religion. historically, courts and the commission characterized denial of accommodation as a separate cause of action.[15] in eeoc v. abercrombie & fitch stores, inc., the supreme court stated that there are only two causes of action under title vii: “disparate treatment” (or “intentional discrimination”) and “disparate impact.”[16] it treated a claim based on a failure to accommodate a religious belief, observance, or practice (absent undue hardship) as a form of disparate treatment.[17] the commission recognizes that harassment and denial of religious accommodation are typically forms of disparate treatment in the terms and conditions of employment. different types of fact patterns may arise in relation to title vii religious discrimination, including: although more than one of these issues may be raised in a particular case, they are discussed in separate parts of this manual for ease of use. charges involving religion, like charges filed on other bases, may give rise to more than one theory of discrimination (e.g., termination, harassment, denial of reasonable accommodation, or other forms of disparate treatment, as well as retaliation). therefore, these charges could be investigated and analyzed under all theories of liability to the extent applicable. overview: religion is very broadly defined for purposes of title vii. the presence of a deity or deities is not necessary for a religion to receive protection under title vii. religious beliefs can include unique beliefs held by a few or even one individual; however, mere personal preferences are not religious beliefs. individuals who do not practice any religion are also protected from discrimination on the basis of religion or lack thereof. title vii requires employers to accommodate religious beliefs, practices and observances if the beliefs are “sincerely held” and the reasonable accommodation poses no undue hardship on the employer. religious beliefs include theistic beliefs as well as non theistic “moral or ethical beliefs as to what is right and wrong which are sincerely held with the strength of traditional religious views.”[24] although courts generally resolve doubts about particular beliefs in favor of finding that they are religious,[25] beliefs are not protected merely because they are strongly held. rather, religion typically concerns “ultimate ideas” about “life, purpose, and death.”[26] courts have looked for certain features to determine if an individual’s beliefs can be considered religious. as one court explained: “‘first, a religion addresses fundamental and ultimate questions having to do with deep and imponderable matters. second, a religion is comprehensive in nature; it consists of a belief system as opposed to an isolated teaching. third, a religion often can be recognized by the presence of certain formal and external signs.’”[27] social, political, or economic philosophies, as well as mere personal preferences, are not religious beliefs protected by title vii.[28] however, overlap between a religious and political view does not place it outside the scope of title vii’s religion protections, as long as that view is part of a comprehensive religious belief system and is not simply an “isolated teaching.”[29] religious observances or practices include, for example, attending worship services, praying, wearing religious garb or symbols, displaying religious objects, adhering to certain dietary rules, proselytizing or other forms of religious expression, and refraining from certain activities. determining whether a practice is religious turns not on the nature of the activity, but on the employee’s motivation. the same practice might be engaged in by one person for religious reasons and by another person for purely secular reasons.[30] whether the practice is religious is therefore a situational, case by case inquiry, focusing not on what the activity is but on whether the employee’s participation in the activity is pursuant to a religious belief.[31] for example, one employee might observe certain dietary restrictions for religious reasons while another employee adheres to the very same dietary restrictions but for secular (e.g., health or environmental) reasons.[32] in that instance, the same practice in one case might be subject to reasonable accommodation under title vii because an employee engages in the practice for religious reasons, and in another case might not be subject to reasonable accommodation because the practice is engaged in for secular reasons.[33] however, eeoc and courts must exercise a “light touch” in making this determination.[34] the following examples illustrate these concepts: example 1 employment decisions based on “religion” an otherwise qualified applicant is not hired because he is a self described evangelical christian. a qualified non jewish employee is denied promotion because the supervisor wishes to give a preference based on religion to a fellow jewish employee. an employer terminates an employee based on his disclosure to the employer that he has recently converted to the baha’i faith. each of these is an example of an employment decision based on the religious belief or practice of the applicant or employee, and therefore is discrimination based on “religion” within the meaning of title vii. example 2 religious practice versus secular practice a seventh day adventist employee follows a vegetarian diet because she believes it is religiously prescribed by scripture. her vegetarianism is a religious practice, even though not all seventh day adventists share this belief or follow this practice, and even though many individuals adhere to a vegetarian diet for purely secular reasons. example 3 types of religious practice or observance a catholic employee requests a schedule change so that he can attend a church service on good friday. a muslim employee requests an exception to the company’s dress and grooming code allowing her to wear her headscarf, or a hindu employee requests an exception allowing her to wear her bindi (religious forehead marking). an employee asks to be excused from the religious invocation offered at the beginning of staff meetings because he objects on religious grounds or does not ascribe to the religious sentiments expressed. an adherent to native american spiritual beliefs seeks unpaid leave to attend a ritual ceremony. an employee who identifies as christian but is not affiliated with a particular sect or denomination requests accommodation of his religious belief that working on his sabbath is prohibited. each of these requests relates to a “religious” belief, observance, or practice within the meaning of title vii. the question of whether the employer is required to grant these requests is discussed in the section below addressing religious accommodation. example 4 supervisor considers belief illogical morgan asks for time off on october 31 to attend the “samhain sabbat,” the new year observance of wicca, her religion. her supervisor refuses, saying that wicca is not a “real” religion but an “illogical conglomeration” of “various aspects of the occult, such as faith healing, self‑hypnosis, tarot card reading, and spell casting, which are not religious practices.” the supervisor’s refusal to accommodate her on the ground that he believes her religion is illogical or not a “real religion” violates title vii unless the employer can show her request would impose an undue hardship. the law applies to religious beliefs even though others may find them “incorrect” or “incomprehensible.”[35] example 5 unique belief can be religious example 6 personal preference that is not a religious belief sylvia’s job has instituted a policy that employees cannot have visible tattoos while working. sylvia refuses to cover a tattoo on her arm that is the logo of her favorite band. when her manager asks her to cover the tattoo, she states that she cannot and that she feels so passionately about the importance of the band to her life that it is essentially her religion. however, the evidence demonstrates that her tattoos and her feelings do not relate to any “ultimate concerns” such as life, purpose, death, humanity’s place in the universe, or right and wrong, and they are not part of a moral or ethical belief system. simply feeling passionately about something is not enough to give it the status of a religion in someone’s life. therefore, her belief is a personal preference that is not religious in nature.[37] title vii requires employers to accommodate those religious beliefs that are “sincerely held.”[38] whether or not a religious belief is sincerely held by an applicant or employee is rarely at issue in many types of title vii religious claims.[39] for example, with respect to an allegation of discriminatory discharge or harassment, it is the motivation of the discriminating official, not the actual beliefs of the individual alleging discrimination, that is relevant in determining if the discrimination that occurred was because of religion. a detailed discussion of reasonable accommodation of sincerely held religious beliefs appears in § 12 iv, but the meaning of “sincerely held” is addressed here. like the religious nature of a belief, observance, or practice, the sincerity of an employee’s stated religious belief is usually not in dispute and is “generally presumed or easily established.”[40] further, the commission and courts “are not and should not be in the business of deciding whether a person holds religious beliefs for the ‘proper’ reasons. we thus restrict our inquiry to whether or not the religious belief system is sincerely held; we do not review the motives or reasons for holding the belief in the first place.”[41] the individual’s sincerity in espousing a religious observance or practice is “largely a matter of individual credibility.”[42] moreover, “a sincere religious believer doesn’t forfeit his religious rights merely because he is not scrupulous in his observance,”[43] although “[e]vidence tending to show that an employee acted in a manner inconsistent with his professed religious belief is, of course, relevant to the factfinder’s evaluation of sincerity.”[44] factors that   either alone or in combination   might undermine an employee’s credibility include: whether the employee has behaved in a manner markedly inconsistent with the professed belief;[45] whether the accommodation sought is a particularly desirable benefit that is likely to be sought for secular reasons;[46] whether the timing of the request renders it suspect (e.g., it follows an earlier request by the employee for the same benefit for secular reasons);[47] and whether the employer otherwise has reason to believe the accommodation is not sought for religious reasons. however, none of these factors is dispositive. for example, although prior inconsistent conduct is relevant to the question of sincerity, an individual’s beliefs   or degree of adherence   may change over time, and therefore an employee’s newly adopted or inconsistently observed religious practice may nevertheless be sincerely held.[48] similarly, an individual’s belief may be to adhere to a religious custom only at certain times, even though others may always adhere,[49] or, fearful of discrimination, he or she may have forgone his or her sincerely held religious practice during the application process and not revealed it to the employer until after he or she was hired or later in employment.[50] an employer also should not assume that an employee is insincere simply because some of his or her practices deviate from the commonly followed tenets of his or her religion, or because the employee adheres to some common practices but not others.[51] as noted, courts have held that “title vii protects more than . . . practices specifically mandated by an employee’s religion.”[52] because the definition of religion is broad and protects beliefs, observances, and practices with which the employer may be unfamiliar, the employer should ordinarily assume that an employee’s request for religious accommodation is based on a sincerely held religious belief. if, however, an employee requests religious accommodation, and an employer has an objective basis for questioning either the religious nature or the sincerity of a particular belief, observance, or practice, the employer would be justified in seeking additional supporting information. see infra § 12‑iv‑a‑2. if the respondent (r) disputes that the charging party’s (“cp’s”) belief is “religious,” consider the following: overview: title vii coverage rules apply to all religious discrimination claims under the statute. however, specially defined “religious organizations” and “religious educational institutions” are exempt from certain religious discrimination provisions, and the ministerial exception bars eeo claims by employees of religious institutions who perform vital religious duties at the core of the mission of the religious institution. title vii’s prohibitions apply to employers, employment agencies, and unions,[53] subject to the statute’s coverage.[54] those covered entities must carry out their activities in a nondiscriminatory manner and provide reasonable accommodation unless doing so would impose an undue hardship.[55] unions also can be liable if they knowingly acquiesce in employment discrimination against their members, join or tolerate employers’ discriminatory practices, or discriminatorily refuse to represent employees’ interests, and employment agencies can be liable for participating in the client employer’s discrimination.[56] what entities are “religious organizations”? under sections 702(a) and 703(e)(2) of title vii, “a religious corporation, association, educational institution, or society,” including a religious “school, college, university, or educational institution or institution of learning,” is permitted to hire and employ individuals “of a particular religion . . . .”[57] this “religious organization” exemption applies only to those organizations whose “purpose and character are primarily religious,” but to determine whether this statutory exemption applies, courts have looked at “all the facts,” considering and weighing “the religious and secular characteristics” of the entity.[58] courts have articulated different factors to determine whether an entity is a religious organization, including (1) whether the entity operates for a profit; (2) whether it produces a secular product; (3) whether the entity’s articles of incorporation or other pertinent documents state a religious purpose; (4) whether it is owned, affiliated with or financially supported by a formally religious entity such as a church or synagogue; (5) whether a formally religious entity participates in the management, for instance by having representatives on the board of trustees; (6) whether the entity holds itself out to the public as secular or sectarian; (7) whether the entity regularly includes prayer or other forms of worship in its activities; (8) whether it includes religious instruction in its curriculum, to the extent it is an educational institution; and (9) whether its membership is made up of coreligionists.[59] depending on the facts, courts have found that title vii’s religious organization exemption applies not only to churches and other houses of worship, but also to religious schools, hospitals, and charities.[60] courts have expressly recognized that engaging in secular activities does not disqualify an employer from being a “religious organization” within the meaning of the title vii statutory exemption. “[r]eligious organizations may engage in secular activities without forfeiting protection” under the title vii statutory exemption.[61] the title vii statutory exemption provisions do not mention nonprofit and for profit status.[62] title vii case law has not definitively addressed whether a for profit corporation that satisfies the other factors can constitute a religious corporation under title vii.[63] where the religious organization exemption is asserted by a respondent employer, the commission will consider the facts on a case by case basis; no one factor is dispositive in determining if a covered entity is a religious organization under title vii’s exemption. scope of religious organization exemption. section 702(a) states, “[t]his subchapter shall not apply to … a religious corporation, association, educational institution, or society . . . with respect to the employment of individuals of a particular religion to perform work connected with the carrying on . . . of its activities.”[64] religious organizations are subject to the title vii prohibitions against discrimination on the basis of race, color, sex, national origin (as well as the anti discrimination provisions of the other eeo laws such as the adea, ada, and gina), and may not engage in related retaliation.[65] however, sections 702(a) and 703(e)(2)[66] allow a qualifying religious organization to assert as a defense to a title vii claim of discrimination or retaliation that it made the challenged employment decision on the basis of religion.[67] the definition of “religion” found in section 701(j) is applicable to the use of the term in sections 702(a) and 703(e)(2), although the provision of the definition regarding reasonable accommodations is not relevant.[68] courts have held that the religious organization’s assertion that the challenged employment decision was made on the basis of religion is subject to a pretext inquiry where the employee has the burden to prove pretext.[69] courts also have held that any inquiry into the pretext of a religious organization’s rationale for its decision must be limited to “sincerity” and cannot be used to challenge the validity or plausibility of the underlying religious doctrine.[70] for example, one court has held that a religious organization could not justify denying insurance benefits only to married women by asserting a religiously based view that only men could be the head of a household when evidence of practice inconsistent with such a belief established “conclusive[ly]” that the employer’s religious justification was “pretext” for sex discrimination.[71] in eeoc v. mississippi college, the court held that if a religious institution presents “convincing evidence” that the challenged employment practice resulted from discrimination on the basis of religion, section 702 “deprives the eeoc of jurisdiction to investigate further to determine whether the religious discrimination was a pretext for some other form of discrimination.”[72] despite the court’s use of “jurisdiction” here, it has been held in light of the supreme court’s decision in arbaugh v. y & h corp., that title vii’s religious organization exemptions are not jurisdictional.[73] the religious organization exemption is not limited to jobs involved in the specifically religious activities of the organization.[74] rather, “the explicit exemptions to title vii . . . enable religious organizations to create and maintain communities composed solely of individuals faithful to their doctrinal practices, whether or not every individual plays a direct role in the organization’s ‘religious activities.’”[75] in addition, the exemption allows religious organizations to prefer to employ individuals who share their religion, defined not by the self identified religious affiliation of the employee, but broadly by the employer’s religious observances, practices, and beliefs.[76] consistent with applicable eeo laws, the prerogative of a religious organization to employ individuals “‘of a particular religion’ . . . has been interpreted to include the decision to terminate an employee whose conduct or religious beliefs are inconsistent with those of its employer.”[77] some courts have held that the religious organization exemption can still be established notwithstanding actions such as holding oneself out as an equal employment opportunity employer or hiring someone of a different religion for a position.[78] example 7 religious organization exemption applies justina taught mathematics at a small catholic college, which requires all employees to agree to adhere to catholic doctrine. after she signed a pro choice advertisement in the local newspaper, the college terminated her employment because of her public support of a position in violation of church doctrine. justina claimed sex discrimination, alleging that male professors were treated less harshly for other conduct that violated church doctrine. because the exemption to title vii preserves the religious school’s ability to maintain a community composed of individuals faithful to its doctrinal practices, and because evaluating justina’s discipline compared to the male professors, who engaged in different behavior, would require the court to compare the relative severity of violations of religious doctrines, title vii’s religious organization exemption bars adjudication of the sex discrimination claim.[79] the analysis would be different if a male professor at the school signed the same advertisement and was not terminated, because “[r]equiring a religious employer to explain why it has treated two employees who have committed essentially the same offense differently poses no threat to the employer's ability to create and maintain communities of the faithful.”[80] in hosanna tabor evangelical lutheran church and school v. eeoc,[81] the supreme court “unanimously recognized that the religion clauses [of the first amendment] foreclose certain employment discrimination claims brought against religious organizations.”[82] the court held that the first amendment safeguards the right of a religious organization, free from interference from civil authorities, to select those who will “personify its beliefs,” “shape its own faith and mission,” or “minister to the faithful.”[83] this rule is known as the “ministerial exception,” apparently because “the individuals involved in pioneering cases were described as ‘ministers,’”[84] but as discussed below, the exception is not limited to “ministers” or members of the clergy. the rule provides “an affirmative defense to an otherwise cognizable claim, not a jurisdictional bar.”[85] the exception applies to discrimination claims involving selection, supervision, and removal against a religious institution by employees who “play certain key roles.” [86] “the constitutional foundation” of the court’s holding in hosanna tabor was “the general principle of church autonomy.”[87] “among other things, the religion clauses protect the right of churches and other religious institutions to decide matters ‘of faith and doctrine’ without government intrusion.”[88] the first amendment “outlaws” such intrusion because “[s]tate interference in that sphere would obviously violate the free exercise of religion, and any attempt by government to dictate or even to influence such matters would constitute one of the central attributes of an establishment of religion.”[89] “this does not mean that religious institutions enjoy a general immunity from secular laws, but it does protect their autonomy with respect to internal management decisions that are essential to the institution’s central mission.”[90] a “religious institution” for purposes of the ministerial exception is one whose “mission is marked by clear or obvious religious characteristics.”[91] like title vii’s religious organization exemption, courts have applied the ministerial exception to religious employers beyond churches and other houses of worship.[92] but unlike the statutory religious organization exemption, the ministerial exception applies regardless of whether the challenged employment decision was for “religious” reasons.[93] as the supreme court stated in our lady of guadalupe school v. morrissey berru, the ministerial exception applies to employees who perform “vital religious duties” at the core of the mission of the religious institution.[94] the supreme court in hosanna tabor declined to adopt a “rigid formula”[95] for deciding when the ministerial exception applies. instead, in deciding whether a lutheran school teacher’s retaliation claim was barred by the ministerial exception, the supreme court looked to “all the circumstances of her employment,” recognizing four “considerations” or “circumstances that [it] found relevant in that case”: (1) the employee’s formal title; (2) education or training; (3) the employee’s own use of the title; and (4) the “important religious functions” the employee performed.[96] the court further explained that, while relevant, “a title, by itself, does not automatically ensure coverage,”[97] and that the title “minister” is not “a necessary requirement,” cautioning against “attaching too much significance to titles.”[98] relatedly, while academic requirements are relevant, “insisting in every case on rigid academic requirements could have a distorting effect” and “judges have no warrant to second guess [a religious institution’s qualification] judgment or to impose their own credentialing requirements.”[99] the court rejected the view that the ministerial exception “should be limited to those employees who perform exclusively religious functions” and cautioned against placing too much emphasis on the performance of secular duties or the time spent on those duties.[100] in our lady of guadalupe school, the court reiterated that the four “considerations” relevant in hosanna tabor are not intended to constitute a four factor test because “a variety of factors may be important.”[101] the court explained that hosanna tabor directs “courts to take all relevant circumstances into account and to determine whether each particular position implicated the fundamental purpose of the exception.”[102] the circumstances that were instructive in hosanna tabor are not “inflexible requirements” and may have “far less significance in some cases” because “[w]hat matters, at bottom, is what an employee does.”[103] the religious institution’s “definition and explanation” of an employee’s role “in the life of the religion in question is important.”[104] the ministerial exception is not limited to the head of a religious congregation, leaders, ministers, or members of the clergy, and can apply to “lay” employees and even non “co religionists” or those not “practicing” the faith.[105] courts have applied the ministerial exception in cases involving parochial school teachers,[106] church musicians,[107] and other employees who perform religious functions.[108] in our lady of guadalupe, the court explained that for a private religious school, “educating and forming students in the faith,” “inculcating its teachings, and training [students] to live their faith are responsibilities that lie at the very core of the mission” and “the selection and supervision of the teachers” who do this work are necessarily core elements of achieving the mission.[109] the court declined to “draw a critical distinction between a person who “simply relay[s] religious tenets” and one who relays such tenets while also “minister[ing] to the faithful,” but noted that a teacher of “world religions,” “who merely provides a description of the beliefs and practices of a religion without making any effort to inculcate those beliefs could not qualify for the exception.”[110] in holding that the ministerial exception barred employment discrimination claims by two elementary school teachers in roman catholic schools in our lady of guadalupe, the court found abundant evidence that the teachers “performed vital religious duties,” including: their employment contracts required them to carry out the schools’ religious mission and specified “that their work would be evaluated to ensure that they were fulfilling that responsibility”; their job duties required them to teach all subjects, including religion; they prepared their students for participation in religious activities, prayed with them, and attended mass with them; and, they were the staff members “entrusted most directly with the responsibility of educating their students in the faith,” which included teaching them about the catholic faith and guiding them “by word and deed, toward the goal of living their lives in accordance with the faith.”[111] therefore, even though the teachers each lacked a religious title and the religious training possessed by the teacher in hosanna tabor, their core responsibilities as teachers of religion were essentially the same as hers, and “their schools expressly saw them as playing a vital role in carrying out the mission of the church.”[112] the ministerial exception is not just a legal defense that can be raised by religious institutions, but a constitutionally based guarantee that obligates the government and the courts to refrain from interfering or entangling themselves with religion.[113] as such, it should be resolved at the earliest possible stage before reaching the underlying discrimination claim.[114] some courts have held that the ministerial exception is not waivable.[115] as noted above, the ministerial exception is based on the interaction between the workplace and the first amendment. the applicability and scope of other defenses based on title vii’s interaction with the first amendment or the religious freedom restoration act (rfra) is an evolving area of the law. [116] it is not within the scope of this document to define the parameters of the first amendment or rfra. however, these provisions are referenced throughout this document to illustrate how they arise in title vii cases and how courts have analyzed them. for example: courts addressing the overlap between eeo laws and rights under rfra and the free exercise clause have stressed the importance of a nuanced balancing of potential burdens on religious expression, the governmental interests at issue, and how narrowly tailored the challenged government requirements are.[122] note: eeoc investigators must take great care in situations involving both (a) the statutory rights of employees to be free from discrimination at work, and (b) the rights of employers under the first amendment and rfra. although a resolution satisfactory to all may come from good faith on the part of the employer and employee through mutual efforts to reach a reasonable accommodation, on occasion the religious interests of the employer and employee may be in conflict. eeoc personnel should seek the advice of the eeoc legal counsel in such a situation, and on occasion the legal counsel may consult as needed with the u.s. department of justice. title vii’s prohibition against discrimination based on religion generally functions like its prohibition against discrimination based on race, color, sex, or national origin. absent a defense, disparate treatment violates the statute whether motivated by bias against or preference toward an applicant or employee due to his religious beliefs, practices, or observances   or lack thereof. thus, for example, except to the extent an exemption, exception, or defense applies, an employer may not refuse to recruit, hire or promote individuals of a certain religion, may not impose stricter promotion requirements for persons of a certain religion, and may not impose more or different work requirements on an employee because of that employee’s religious beliefs or practices.[123] the following subsections address work scenarios that may lead to claims of religious discrimination. employers that are not religious organizations may neither recruit indicating a preference for individuals of a particular religion nor adopt recruitment practices, such as word of mouth recruitment, that have the purpose or effect of discriminating based on religion.[124] title vii permits employers that are not religious organizations to recruit, hire and employ employees on the basis of religion only if religion is “a bona fide occupational qualification reasonably necessary to the normal operation of that particular business or enterprise.”[125] for example, other than as discussed above with respect to the religious organization and ministerial exceptions discussed above, an employer may not refuse to hire an applicant simply because the applicant does not share the employer’s religious beliefs, and conversely may not select one applicant over another based on a preference for employees of a particular religion.[126] similarly, employment agencies may not comply with requests from employers to engage in discriminatory recruitment or referral practices, for example by screening out applicants who have names often associated with a particular religion (e.g., mohammed).[127] moreover, an employer may not exclude an applicant from hire merely because the applicant may need a reasonable accommodation for his or her religious beliefs, observances, or practices that could be provided absent undue hardship.[128] example 8 recruitment charles, the president of a company that owns several gas stations, needs managers for the new convenience stores he has decided to add to the stations. he posts a job announcement at the hindu temple he attends expressing a preference for hindu employees. in doing so, charles is engaging in unlawful discrimination.[129] example 9 hiring a. mary is a human resources officer who is filling a vacant administrative position at her company. during the application process, she performs an internet search on the candidates and learns that one applicant, jonathan, has written an article in which he describes himself as an evangelical christian and discusses how important his christian faith is to all aspects of his life. although mary believes he is the most qualified candidate, she does not hire him because she knows that the company prefers to have a “secular” work environment and she thinks that most of the company’s employees will find working with someone so religious “weird.” therefore, mary decides that it is best not to hire jonathan. by not hiring jonathan because of his religion, the company violated title vii. b. aatma, an applicant for a rental car sales position who is an observant sikh, wears a dastaar (religious headscarf) to her job interview. the interviewer does not advise her that there is a dress code prohibiting head coverings, and aatma does not ask whether she would be permitted to wear the headscarf if she were hired. the manager knew or suspected the headscarf was a religious garment, presumed it would be worn at work, and refused to hire her because the company requires sales agents to wear a uniform with no additions or exceptions. unless the employer can demonstrate that no reasonable accommodation was possible absent undue hardship, this refusal to hire violates title vii, even though aatma did not make a request for accommodation at the interview, because the employer believed her practice was religious and that she would need accommodation, and did not hire her for that reason.[130] c. a company’s policy bars any employees from working in customer contact positions if they have a beard or wear a headcovering, and requests for religious accommodations are always denied. as a result of this policy and practice, individuals who wear beards or headcoverings pursuant to a religious belief work in lower paying positions or positions with less opportunity for advancement. this would constitute limiting, segregating, or classifying based on religion in violation of title vii, and may also have an unlawful disparate impact based on religion if it is not job related and consistent with business necessity.[131] example 10 promotion darpak, who practices buddhism, holds a ph.d. degree in engineering and applied for a managerial position at the research firm where he has worked for ten years. he was rejected in favor of a non buddhist candidate who was less qualified. the company vice president who made the promotion decision advised darpak that he was not selected because “we decided to go in a different direction.” however, the vice president confided to coworkers at a social function that he did not select darpak because he thought a christian manager could make better personal connections with the firm’s clients, many of whom are christian. the vice president’s statement, combined with the lack of any legitimate non discriminatory reason for selecting the less qualified candidate, as well as the evidence that darpak was the best qualified candidate for the position, suggests that the proffered reason was a pretext for discrimination against darpak because of his religion.[132] title vii also prohibits employers from disciplining or discharging employees because of their religion.[133] example 11 discipline joanne, a retail store clerk, is frequently 10 15 minutes late for her shift on several days per week when she attends mass at a catholic church across town. her manager, donald, has never disciplined her for this tardiness, and instead filled in for her at the cash register until she arrived, stating that he understood her situation. on the other hand, yusef, a newly hired clerk who is muslim, is disciplined by donald for arriving 10 minutes late for his shift even though donald knows it is due to his attendance at services at the local mosque. while donald can require all similarly situated employees to be punctual, he is engaging in disparate treatment based on religion by disciplining only yusef and not joanne absent a legitimate nondiscriminatory reason for treating them differently. a charge alleging the above facts might involve denial of reasonable accommodation if the employee had requested a schedule adjustment. while the employer may require employees to be punctual and request approval of schedule changes in advance,[134] it may have to accommodate an employee who seeks leave or a schedule change to resolve the conflict between religious services and a work schedule, unless the accommodation would pose an undue hardship. title vii prohibits discrimination on a protected basis “with respect to . . . compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment,” for example, setting or adjusting wages, granting benefits, and/or providing leave in a discriminatory fashion.[135] example 12 wages and benefits janet, who practices native american spirituality, is a newly hired social worker for an agency. as a benefit to its employees, the agency provides tuition reimbursement for professional continuing education courses offered by selected providers. janet applied for tuition reimbursement for an approved course that was within the permitted cost limit. janet’s supervisor denied her request for tuition reimbursement, stating that since janet believes in “voodoo” she “won’t make a very good caseworker.” by refusing, because of janet’s religious beliefs, to provide the tuition reimbursement to which janet was otherwise entitled as a benefit of her employment, janet’s supervisor has discriminated against janet on the basis of religion in violation of title vii. title vii’s prohibition on disparate treatment based on religious beliefs also can apply to disparate treatment of religious expression in the workplace.[136] example 13 religious expression eve is a secretary who displays a bible on her desk at work. xavier, a secretary in the same workplace, begins displaying a quran on his desk at work. their supervisor allows eve to retain the bible but directs xavier to put the quran out of view because, he states, coworkers “will think you are making a political statement, and with everything going on in the world right now we don’t need that around here.” this differential treatment of similarly situated employees with respect to the display of a religious item at work constitutes religious discrimination.[137] charges involving religious expression may involve not only allegations of differential treatment but also of harassment and/or denial of reasonable accommodation. investigation of allegations of harassment and denial of reasonable accommodation are addressed respectively in §§ 12 iii and 12 iv of this document. as discussed in greater detail in those sections, title vii requires employers to accommodate expression that is based on a sincerely held religious practice or belief, unless it threatens to constitute harassment[138] or poses an “undue hardship” on the conduct of the business.[139] an employer can thus restrict religious expression when it would disrupt customer service or the workplace, including when customers or coworkers would reasonably perceive it to express the employer’s own message.[140] for further discussion of how to analyze when accommodation of religious expression would pose an undue hardship, refer to the sections on harassment at § 12 iii c and accommodation at § 12 iv c 6. an employer’s action based on the discriminatory preferences of others, including coworkers or customers, is unlawful.[141] example 14 employment decision based on customer preference harinder, who wears a turban as part of his sikh religion, is hired to work at the counter in a coffee shop. a few weeks after harinder begins working, the manager notices that the work crew from the construction site near the shop no longer comes in for coffee in the mornings. when he inquires, the crew complains that harinder, whom they mistakenly believe is muslim, makes them uncomfortable in light of the september 11th attacks. the manager tells harinder that he has to let him go because the customers’ discomfort is understandable. the manager has subjected harinder to unlawful religious discrimination by taking an adverse action based on customers’ preference not to have a cashier of harinder’s perceived religion. harinder’s termination based on customer preference would violate title vii regardless of whether he was   or was misperceived to be    muslim, sikh, or any other religion. in general, an employer may adopt security requirements for its employees or applicants, provided they are adopted for nondiscriminatory reasons and are applied in a nondiscriminatory manner. for example, an employer may not require muslim applicants to undergo a background investigation or more extensive security procedures because of their religion without imposing the same requirements on similarly situated applicants who are non muslim.[142] title vii permits employers to hire and employ employees on the basis of religion if religion is “a bona fide occupational qualification [“bfoq”] reasonably necessary to the normal operation of that particular business or enterprise.”[143] religious organizations do not typically need to rely on this bfoq defense because the “religious organization” exemption in title vii permits them to prefer employees of a particular religion. see supra § 12 i c 1. but for employers that are not religious organizations and seek to rely on the bfoq defense to justify a religious preference, the defense is a narrow one and rarely successfully invoked.[144] as stated, title vii makes it “an unlawful employment practice for an employer . . . to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.”[145] “[a]lthough [title vii] mentions specific employment decisions with immediate consequences, the scope of the prohibition is not limited to economic or tangible discrimination” and “covers more than terms and conditions in the narrow contractual sense.”[146] title vii covers “environmental claims” as well,[147] including “harassment leading to noneconomic injury,”[148] but the conduct must be “sufficiently severe or pervasive ‘to alter the conditions of [the victim’s] employment and create an abusive working environment.’”[149] the same title vii principle applies whether the harassment is based on race, color, national origin, religion, or sex.[150] like harassment based on other protected characteristics, religious harassment can take the form of (1) outright coercion, or an economic “quid pro quo,” in which the employee is pressured or coerced to abandon, alter, or adopt a religious practice as a condition of employment;[151] or of (2) a hostile work environment, in which the employee is subjected to unwelcome, religiously based statements or conduct so severe or pervasive that the employee objectively and subjectively finds the work environment to be hostile or abusive.[152] employer liability for harassment is discussed below in § 12 iii b. title vii is violated when an employer or supervisor explicitly or implicitly coerces an employee to abandon, alter, or adopt a religious practice as a condition of receiving a job benefit or privilege or avoiding an adverse employment action.[153] example 15 religious conformance required for promotion wamiq was raised as a muslim but no longer practices islam. his supervisor, arif, is a very devout muslim who tries to persuade wamiq not to abandon islam and advises him to follow the teachings of the quran. arif also says that if wamiq expects to advance in the company, he should join arif and other muslims for weekly prayer sessions in arif’s office. notwithstanding this pressure to conform his religious practices in order to be promoted, wamiq refuses to attend the weekly prayer sessions, and is subsequently denied the promotion for which he applied even though he is the most qualified. arif’s conduct indicates that the promotion would have been granted if wamiq had participated in the prayer sessions and had become an observant muslim. absent contrary evidence, the employer will be liable for harassment for conditioning wamiq’s promotion on his adherence to arif’s views of appropriate religious practice.[154] not promoting wamiq would also be actionable as disparate treatment based on religion, unless the employer could demonstrate a non religiously based, non pretextual reason for denying wamiq the promotion. in addition, if arif had made the prayer sessions mandatory and wamiq had asked to be excused on religious grounds, arif would have been required to excuse wamiq from the prayer sessions as a reasonable accommodation. a claim of harassment based on coerced religious participation or non participation, however, only arises where it was intended to make the employee conform to or abandon a religious belief or practice. by contrast, an employer would not violate title vii if it required an employee to participate in a workplace activity that conflicts with the employee’s sincerely held religious belief if the employee does not request to be excused or if the employer demonstrates that accommodating the employee’s request to be excused would pose an undue hardship.[155] the same fact pattern may give rise to allegations of disparate treatment, harassment, and/or denial of accommodation. for example, terminating rather than accommodating an employee may give rise to allegations of both denial of accommodation and discriminatory discharge.[156] for discussion of the accommodation issue, see § 12 iv. title vii’s prohibition against religious discrimination includes prohibiting a hostile work environment because of religion. an unlawful hostile environment based on religion can take the form of physical or verbal harassment, which would include the unwelcome imposition of beliefs or practices contrary to the employee’s religion or lack thereof. a hostile work environment is created “[w]hen the workplace is permeated with discriminatory intimidation, ridicule, and insult that is sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of the victim’s employment and create an abusive working environment.”[157] to establish a case of religious hostile work environment harassment, an employee must show: (1) that the harassment was based on his religion; (2) that the harassment was unwelcome; (3) that the harassment was sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of employment by creating an objectively and subjectively hostile or abusive work environment; and (4) that there is a basis for employer liability.[158] to support a religious harassment claim, the adverse treatment must be based on the employee’s religion.[159] while verbally harassing conduct clearly is based on religion if it has religious content, harassment can also be based on religion even if religion is not explicitly mentioned.[160] example 16 harassing conduct based on religion   religion mentioned mohammed is an indian born muslim employed at a car dealership. because he takes scheduled prayer breaks during the workday and observes muslim dietary restrictions, his coworkers are aware of his religious beliefs. upset by the anniversary of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, his coworkers and managers began making mocking comments about his religious dietary restrictions and need to pray during the workday. they repeatedly referred to him as “taliban” or “arab” and asked him “why don’t you just go back where you came from since you believe what you believe?” when mohammed questioned why it was mandatory for all employees to attend a united way meeting, his supervisor said: “this is america. that’s the way things work over here. this is not the islamic country where you come from.” after this confrontation, the supervisor issued mohammed a written warning stating that he “was acting like a muslim extremist” and that the supervisor could not work with him because of his “militant stance.” this harassment is based on religion and national origin.[161] example 17 harassing conduct based on religion   religion not mentioned shoshanna is a seventh day adventist whose work schedule was adjusted to accommodate her sabbath observance, which begins at sundown each friday. when nicholas, the new head of shoshanna’s department, was informed that he must accommodate her, he told a colleague that “anybody who cannot work regular hours should work elsewhere.” nicholas then moved the regular monday morning staff meetings to late friday afternoon, repeatedly scheduled staff and client meetings on friday afternoons, and often marked shoshanna awol when she was not scheduled to work. in addition, nicholas treated her differently than her colleagues by, for example, denying her training opportunities and loudly berating her with little or no provocation. although nicholas did not mention shoshanna’s religion, the evidence shows that his conduct was because of shoshanna’s need for religious accommodation, and therefore was based on religion.[162] conduct is “unwelcome” when “it is uninvited and offensive or unwanted from the standpoint of the employee.”[163] it is not necessary in every case for the harassed employee to explicitly voice objection to the conduct (e.g., to confront the alleged harasser contemporaneously) for the conduct to be deemed unwelcome. in addition, since 1993 when the supreme court decided harris v. forklift systems, inc., and added “subjective hostility” to the hostile work environment analysis, some courts have found that the analysis of “unwelcomeness” and “subjective hostility” overlap.[164] for example, where an employee is visibly upset by repeated mocking use of derogatory terms or comments about his religious beliefs or observance by a colleague, it may be evident that the conduct is unwelcome and also subjectively hostile.[165] this would stand in contrast to a situation where the same two employees were engaged in a consensual conversation that involves a spirited debate of religious views, but neither employee indicates to the other, or to the employer, that he or she is upset by it. for a discussion on reporting to the employer, see infra § 12 iii‑b. the distinction between welcome and unwelcome conduct is especially important in the religious context in situations involving proselytizing to employees who have not invited such conduct. where a religious employee attempts to persuade another employee of the correctness of his or her belief, the conduct may or may not be welcome. when an employee expressly objects to particular religious expression, unwelcomeness is evident.[166] example 18 unwelcome conduct beth’s colleague, bill, repeatedly talked to her at work about her prospects for salvation. for several months, she did not object and discussed the matter with him. when he persisted even after she told him that he had “crossed the line” and should stop having non work related conversations with her, the conduct was clearly unwelcome.[167] harassment is actionable if, as a whole, the conduct is “sufficiently severe or pervasive ‘to alter the conditions of [the victim’s] employment and create an abusive working environment.’” as the supreme court explained with respect to title vii in harris v. forklift systems, inc., 510 u.s. at 21: conduct that is not severe or pervasive enough to create an objectively hostile or abusive work environment an environment that a reasonable person would find hostile or abusive is beyond title vii’s purview. likewise, if the victim does not subjectively perceive the environment to be abusive, the conduct has not actually altered the conditions of the victim’s employment, and there is no title vii violation. thus, harassing conduct based on the employee’s religion is actionable when it is sufficiently severe or pervasive to create an objectively and subjectively hostile work environment. a hostile work environment claim may encompass any hostile conduct that affects the complainant’s work environment, including employer conduct that may be independently actionable. whether a reasonable person would perceive the conduct as abusive turns on common sense and context, looking at the totality of the circumstances.[168] all of the alleged incidents must be “considered cumulatively in order to obtain a realistic view of the work environment.”[169] relevant factors “may include the frequency of the discriminatory conduct; its severity; whether it is physically threatening or humiliating, or merely an offensive utterance; and whether it unreasonably interferes with an employee’s work performance.”[170] but “no single factor is required.”[171] example 19 reasonable person perceives conduct to be hostile the president of printing corp. regularly mocked and berated an employee who asked for sundays off to attend mass. although he granted the time off, the president teased the employee for refusing to look at a playboy magazine, called him a “religious freak,” and used vulgar sexual language when speaking to or about the employee. he mocked him for “following the pope around” and made sexual comments about the virgin mary. a reasonable person could perceive this to be a religiously hostile work environment.[172] to “alter the conditions of employment,” conduct need not cause economic or psychological harm.[173] it also need not impair work performance, discourage employees from remaining on the job, or impede their advancement.[174] the presence of one or more of these factors would buttress the claim, but is not required. [175] however, title vii is not a “‘general civility code,’” and does not render all insensitive or offensive comments, petty slights, and annoyances illegal.[176] isolated incidents (unless extremely serious) will not rise to the level of illegality.[177] example 20 insensitive comments not enough to constitute hostile environment marvin is an orthodox jew who was hired as a radio show host. when he started work, a coworker, stacy, pointed to his yarmulke and asked, “will your headset fit over that?” on a few occasions, stacy made other remarks about the yarmulke, such as: “nice hat. is that a beanie?” and “do they come in different colors?” although the coworker’s comments about his yarmulke were insensitive, they were not, standing alone, sufficiently severe or pervasive to create a hostile work environment for marvin.[178] example 21 isolated comments not enough to constitute hostile environment bob, a supervisor, occasionally allowed spontaneous and voluntary prayers by employees during office meetings. during one meeting, he referenced bible passages related to “slothfulness” and “work ethics.” amy complained that bob’s comments and the few instances of allowing voluntary prayers during office meetings created a hostile environment. the comments did not create an actionable harassment claim. they were not severe, and because they occurred infrequently, they were not sufficiently pervasive to state a claim.[179] severity and pervasiveness need not both be present, and they operate inversely. the more severe the harassment, the less frequently the incidents need to recur. at the same time, incidents that may not, individually, be severe may become unlawful if they occur frequently or in proximity.[180] although a single incident will seldom create an unlawfully hostile environment, it may do so if it is unusually severe, such as where it involves a physical threat.[181] example 22 one instance of physically threatening conduct sufficiently severe ihsaan is a muslim. shortly after the terrorist attacks on september 11, 2001, ihsaan came to work and found the words “i’m tired of you muslims. you’re all terrorists! we will avenge the victims!! your life is next!” scrawled in red marker on his office door. because of the timing of the statement and the direct physical threat, this incident, alone, is sufficiently severe to create an objectively hostile and/or abusive work environment.[182] example 23 isolated practices not enough to constitute hostile environment tran owns a restaurant serving asian fusion cuisine. the restaurant is decorated with vietnamese art depicting scenes from traditional religious stories. tran keeps a shrine of buddha in the corner by the cash register and likes to play traditional vietnamese music and chants. linda has worked as a waitress in the restaurant for a few months and complains that she feels harassed by the religious symbols and music. as long as tran does not discriminate on the basis of religion in his hiring or supervision of employees, the religious expression would likely not amount to practices that are severe or pervasive enough to constitute a hostile work environment based on religion. example 24 persistent offensive remarks constitute hostile environment betty is a mormon. during a disagreement regarding a joint project, a coworker, julian, tells betty that she doesn’t know what she is talking about and that she should “go back to salt lake city.” when betty subsequently proposes a different approach to the project, julian tells her that her suggestions are as “flaky” as he would expect from “her kind.” when betty tries to resolve the conflict, julian tells her that if she is uncomfortable working with him, she can either ask to be transferred, or she can “just pray about it.” over the next six months, julian regularly makes similar negative references to betty’s religion. his persistent offensive remarks create a hostile environment. religious expression that is directed at an employee can become severe or pervasive, whether or not the content is intended to be insulting or abusive. thus, for example, persistently reiterating atheist views to a religious employee who has asked that it stop can create a hostile environment, just as persistently proselytizing to an atheist employee or an employee with different religious beliefs who has asked that it stop can create a hostile work environment. the extent to which the expression is directed at the employee bringing the title vii claim can be relevant to determining whether or when a reasonable employee would have perceived it to be hostile.[183] that said, even conduct that is not directed at an employee can transform a work environment into a hostile or abusive one.[184] a coworker having a difference of opinion with an employee’s religious views does not establish a hostile work environment when there is no other evidence of harassment. this would include when a coworker disagrees with the religious views that an employee expresses outside of the workplace, for example on social media, when there is no evidence it is linked to the workplace.[185] example 25 no hostile environment from comments that are not abusive and not directed at complaining employee while eating lunch in the company cafeteria, clarence often overhears conversations between his coworkers dharma and khema. dharma, a buddhist, is discussing meditation techniques with khema, who is interested in buddhism. clarence strongly believes that meditation is an occult practice that offends him, and he complains to their supervisor that dharma and khema are creating a hostile environment for him. such conversations taking place in the cafeteria do not constitute severe or pervasive religious harassment of clarence, particularly given that they do not insult other religions and they were not directed at him. an employer will be liable for a hostile work environment that an employee endures if vicarious liability under common law agency principles is found to apply.[186] as explained more fully below, whether vicarious liability applies depends on the employment status of the harasser (i.e., a manager or coworker), whether a tangible employment action was the result of the harassment, the employer’s policies, whether the employer was aware or should have been aware of the harassment, and what action, if any, the employer took when it learned of the harassment. under agency law principles, an employer is automatically liable for religious harassment by an agent, even if it does not result in a tangible employment action, if “the agent’s high rank in the company makes him or her the employer’s alter ego.”[187] if the harasser is of a sufficiently high rank to fall “within that class of an employer organization’s officials who may be treated as the organization’s proxy,” which would include officials such as a company president, owner, partner, or corporate officer, the harassment is automatically imputed to the employer and the employer cannot assert the affirmative defense.[188] employers are automatically liable for religious harassment by a supervisor with authority over a plaintiff when the harassment results in a tangible employment action such as a denial of promotion, demotion, discharge, or undesirable reassignment.[189] if the harassment by such a supervisor does not result in a tangible employment action, the employer can attempt to prove, as an affirmative defense to liability, that: (1) the employer exercised reasonable care to prevent and promptly correct any harassing behavior, and (2) the employee unreasonably failed to take advantage of any preventive or corrective opportunities provided by the employer or to otherwise avoid harm.[190] example 26 supervisory harassment with tangible employment action george, a manager in an accounting firm, is an atheist who has frequently been heard to say that he thinks anyone who is deeply religious is a zealot with his own agenda and cannot be trusted to act in the best interests of the clients. george particularly ridicules debra, a devoutly observant jehovah’s witness, and consistently withholds the most desirable assignments from her. he denies her request for a promotion to a more prestigious job in another division, saying that he can’t let her “spread that religious poppycock any further.” debra files a religious harassment charge. the firm asserts in its position statement that it is not liable because debra never made a complaint under its internal anti harassment policy and complaint procedures. because the harassment was by a supervisor of debra’s and culminated in a tangible employment action (failure to promote), the employer is liable for the harassment even if it has an effective anti harassment policy, and even if debra never complained. if george is a “proxy” of the firm, then the firm is also liable for the harassment even in the absence of a tangible employment action. additionally, the denial of promotion would be actionable as disparate treatment based on religion. example 27 supervisory harassment without tangible employment action jennifer’s employer, xyz, had an anti harassment policy and complaint procedure that covered religious harassment. all employees were aware of it because xyz widely and regularly publicized it. despite his knowledge of the policy, jennifer’s supervisor frequently mocked her religious beliefs. when jennifer told him that his comments bothered her, he told her that he was just kidding and she should not take everything so seriously. jennifer never reported the supervisor’s conduct. when one of jennifer’s coworkers eventually reported the supervisor’s harassing conduct under the employer’s antiharassment procedure, the employer promptly investigated and acted effectively to stop the supervisor’s conduct. jennifer then filed a religious harassment charge. because the harassment of jennifer did not culminate in a tangible employment action, xyz will not be liable for the harassment if it can show both that jennifer’s failure to utilize xyz’s available complaint mechanisms was unreasonable, and that xyz exercised reasonable care to prevent and promptly correct the harassment. the employer should be able to make the “promptly correct” showing, because it took prompt and reasonable corrective measures once it did learn of the harassment.[191] an employer is liable for harassment by coworkers where the employer: (1) unreasonably failed to prevent the harassment;[192] or (2) knew or should have known about the harassment, and failed to take prompt and appropriate corrective action.[193] example 28 harassment by coworkers john, who is a christian scientist, shares an office with rick, a mormon. rick repeatedly tells john that he is practicing a false religion, and that he should study mormon literature. despite john’s protestations that he is very happy with his religion and has no desire to convert, rick regularly leaves religious pamphlets on john’s desk and tries to talk to him about religion. after asking rick to stop the behavior to no avail, john complains to their immediate supervisor, who dismisses john’s complaint on the ground that rick is a nice person who believes that he is just being helpful. if the harassment continues, the employer is liable because it knew, through the supervisor, about rick’s harassing conduct but failed to take prompt and appropriate corrective action.[194] an employer is liable for harassment by non employees where the employer: (1) unreasonably failed to prevent the harassment; or (2) knew or should have known about the harassment and failed to take prompt and appropriate corrective action.[195] example 29 harassment by a contractor tristan works for xyz, a contractor that manages crossroads corporation’s mail room. when tristan delivers the mail to julia, the crossroads receptionist, he gives her religious tracts, attempts to convert her to his religion, tells her that her current religious beliefs will lead her to hell, and persists even after she tells him to stop. julia reports tristan’s conduct to her supervisor, who tells her that he cannot do anything because tristan does not work for crossroads. if the harassment continues, the supervisor’s failure to act is likely to subject crossroads to liability because tristan’s conduct is severe or pervasive and based on religion, and crossroads failed to take corrective action within its control after julia reported the harassment. options available to julia’s supervisor or the appropriate individual in the supervisor’s chain of command might include initiating a meeting with tristan and xyz management regarding the harassment and demanding that it cease, that appropriate disciplinary action be taken if it continues, and/or that a different mail carrier be assigned to julia’s route. while some employees believe that religion is intensely personal and private, others are open about sharing or outwardly expressing their religion. in addition, there are employees who may believe that they have a religious obligation to share their views and to try to persuade coworkers of the truth of their religious beliefs, i.e., to proselytize. certain private employers, too, whether or not they are religious organizations, may wish to express their religious views and share their religion with their employees.[196] as noted above, however, some employees may perceive proselytizing or other religious expression as unwelcome based on their own religious beliefs and observances, or lack thereof. in an increasingly pluralistic society, the mix of divergent beliefs and practices can give rise to conflicts requiring employers to balance the rights of employers and employees who wish to express their religious beliefs with the rights of other employees to be free from religious harassment under the foregoing title vii harassment standards. as discussed in more detail in § iv c 6 of this document, an employer never has to accommodate expression of a religious belief in the workplace where such an accommodation could potentially constitute harassment of coworkers, because that would pose an undue hardship for the employer.[197] nor does title vii require an employer to accommodate an employee’s desire to impose his religious beliefs upon his coworkers.[198] therefore, while title vii requires employers to accommodate an employee’s sincerely held religious belief in engaging in religious expression (e.g. proselytizing) in the workplace, an employer does not have to allow such expression if it imposes an undue hardship on the operation of the business. for example, it would be an undue hardship for an employer to accommodate proselytizing by an employee if the proselytizing had adverse effects on employee morale or workplace productivity. because employers are responsible for maintaining a nondiscriminatory work environment, they can be held liable for perpetrating or tolerating religious harassment of their employees. an employer can reduce the chance that employees will engage in conduct that rises to the level of unlawful harassment by implementing an anti harassment policy and an effective procedure for reporting, investigating, and correcting harassing conduct.[199] even if the policy does not prevent all such conduct, it could limit the employer’s liability where the employee does not report conduct rising to the level of illegal harassment. however, “[d]iscussion of religion in the workplace is not illegal.”[200] in fact, title vii violations may result if an employer tries to avoid potential coworker objections to employee religious expression by preemptively banning all religious communications in the workplace or discriminating against unpopular religious views, since title vii requires that employers not discriminate based on religion and that they reasonably accommodate employees’ sincerely held religious observances, practices, and beliefs as long as accommodation poses no undue hardship.[201] overview: title vii requires an employer, once on notice, to reasonably accommodate an employee whose sincerely held religious belief, practice, or observance conflicts with a work requirement, unless providing the accommodation would create an undue hardship.[203] the title vii “undue hardship” defense is defined differently than the “undue hardship” defense for disability accommodation under the americans with disabilities act (ada). title vii’s undue hardship defense to providing religious accommodation has been defined by the supreme court as requiring a showing that the proposed accommodation in a particular case poses “more than a de minimis” cost or burden. this is a lower standard for an employer to meet than undue hardship under the ada, which is defined in that statute as “an action requiring significant difficulty or expense.”[204] “title vii requires otherwise neutral policies to give way to the need for an accommodation.”[205] an individual alleging the denial of a religious accommodation is generally seeking an adjustment to a neutral work rule that infringes on the employee’s ability to practice his religion.[206] “the accommodation requirement is ‘plainly intended to relieve individuals of the burden of choosing between their jobs and their religious convictions, where such relief will not unduly burden others.’”[207] a religious accommodation is an adjustment to the work environment that will allow the employee to comply with his or her religious beliefs. an employer need not provide a reasonable accommodation if doing so would cause undue hardship on the conduct of the employer’s business, which the supreme court has interpreted to mean an accommodation that would require the employer to bear more than a de minimis cost or burden.[208] the employer’s duty to accommodate will usually entail making a special exception from, or adjustment to, the particular requirement that creates a conflict so that the employee or applicant will be able to observe or practice his or her religion. accommodation requests often relate to work schedules, dress and grooming, or religious expression or practice while at work.[209] the commission’s position is that the denial of reasonable religious accommodation absent undue hardship is actionable even if the employee has not separately suffered an independent adverse employment action, such as being disciplined, demoted, or discharged as a consequence of being denied accommodation.[210] this is because requiring him to work without religious accommodation where a work rule conflicts with his religious beliefs necessarily alters the terms and conditions of his employment for the worse.[211] however, the courts are split on this question.[212] employers need not provide an accommodation unless they are on notice that one is needed for religious purposes.[213] typically, the employer will advise the applicant or employee of its policies or a particular work requirement, and in response the applicant or employee will indicate that an accommodation is needed for religious reasons. in some instances, even absent an applicant’s or employee’s request, the employer will be on notice that the observance or practice is religious and conflicts with a work policy, and therefore that accommodation is or could be needed.[214] in such circumstances, it would violate title vii for an employer to fail to provide a reasonable accommodation unless it proves that doing so would pose an undue hardship.[215] in addition, even in the absence of any notice that a religious accommodation is needed, an employer violates title vii if it takes an adverse action against an applicant or employee (such as failing to hire) based on its belief that the applicant or employee might need a reasonable religious accommodation, unless the employer proves that such an accommodation would have imposed an undue hardship.[216] when requesting accommodation, the applicant or employee need not use any “magic words,” such as “religious accommodation” or “title vii.” the employer must have enough information to make the employer aware that there exists a conflict between the applicant’s or employee’s religious observance, practice, or belief and a requirement for applying for or performing the job.[217] if the employer reasonably needs more information, the employer and the applicant or employee should discuss the request. the applicant or employee may need to explain the religious nature of the belief, observance, or practice at issue, and cannot assume that the employer will already know or understand it.[218] similarly, the employer should not assume that a request is invalid simply because it is based on religious beliefs or practices with which the employer is unfamiliar, but should ask the applicant or employee to explain the religious nature of the practice and the way in which it conflicts with a work requirement. in determining if a conflict exists, it is irrelevant that the employer does not view the work requirement as implicating a religious belief, or that most people of the applicant’s or employee’s faith would not; it is the applicant’s or employee’s own religious beliefs that are relevant.[219] example 30 failure to advise employer that request is due to religious practice or belief jim agreed to take his employer’s drug test but was terminated because he refused to sign the accompanying consent form. after his termination, jim filed a charge alleging that the employer failed to accommodate his religious objection to swearing an oath. until it received notice of the charge, the employer did not know that jim’s refusal to sign the form was based on his religious beliefs. because the employer was not notified of the conflict at the time jim refused to sign the form, or at any time prior to jim’s termination, it did not have an opportunity to offer to accommodate him. the employer has not violated title vii.[220] although an employer is not required by title vii to conduct a discussion with an employee before making a determination on an accommodation request, as a practical matter it can be important to do so. both the employer and the employee have roles to play in resolving an accommodation request. in addition to placing the employer on notice of the need for accommodation, the employee should cooperate with the employer’s efforts to determine whether a reasonable accommodation can be granted. once the employer becomes aware of the employee’s religious conflict, the employer should obtain promptly whatever additional information is needed to determine whether a reasonable accommodation is available without posing an undue hardship on the operation of the employer’s business.[221] this typically involves the employer and employee mutually sharing information necessary to process the accommodation request. employer‑employee cooperation and flexibility are key to the search for a reasonable accommodation. if the accommodation solution is not immediately apparent, the employer should discuss the request with the employee to determine what accommodations might be effective. if the employer requests additional information reasonably needed to evaluate the request, the employee should provide it. failure to confer with the employee is not an independent violation of title vii. but as a practical matter, such failure can have adverse legal consequences. for example, in some cases where an employer has made no effort to act on an accommodation request, courts have found that the employer lacked the evidence needed to meet its burden of proof to establish that the plaintiff’s proposed accommodation would actually have posed an undue hardship.[222] likewise, employees should cooperate with an employer’s requests for reasonable information. for example, if an employee requested a schedule change to accommodate daily prayers, the employer might need to ask for information about the religious observance, such as the time and duration of the daily prayers, in order to determine if accommodation can be granted without posing an undue hardship on the operation of the employer’s business. moreover, even if the employer does not grant the employee’s preferred accommodation but instead provides a reasonable alternative accommodation, the employee must cooperate by attempting to meet his religious needs through the employer’s proposed accommodation if possible.[223] where the accommodation request itself does not provide enough information to enable the employer to make a determination, and the employer has a bona fide doubt as to the basis for the accommodation request, it is entitled to make a limited inquiry into the facts and circumstances of the employee’s claim that the belief or practice at issue is religious and sincerely held, and that the belief or practice gives rise to the need for the accommodation.[224] whether an employer has a reasonable basis for seeking to verify the employee’s stated beliefs will depend on the facts of a particular case. example 31 sincerity of religious belief questioned bob, who had been a dues paying member of the cdf union for fourteen years, had a work related dispute with a union official and one week later asserted that union activities were contrary to his religion and that he could no longer pay union dues. the union doubted whether bob’s request was based on a sincerely held religious belief, given that it appeared to be precipitated by an unrelated dispute with the union, and he had not sought this accommodation in his prior fourteen years of employment. in this situation, the union can require him to provide additional information to support his assertion that he sincerely holds a religious conviction that precludes him from belonging to   or financially supporting   a union.[225] when an employer requests additional information, employees should provide information that addresses the employer’s reasonable doubts. that information need not, however, take any specific form. for example, written materials or the employee’s own first hand explanation may be sufficient to alleviate the employer’s doubts about the sincerity or religious nature of the employee’s professed belief such that third party verification is unnecessary. further, since idiosyncratic beliefs can be sincerely held and religious, even when third party verification is requested, it does not have to come from a clergy member or fellow congregant, but rather could be provided by others who are aware of the employee’s religious practice or belief.[226] an employee who fails to cooperate with an employer’s reasonable request for verification of the sincerity or religious nature of a professed belief risks losing any subsequent claim that the employer improperly denied an accommodation. by the same token, employers who unreasonably request unnecessary or excessive corroborating evidence risk being held liable for denying a reasonable accommodation request, and having their actions challenged as retaliatory or as part of a pattern of harassment. example 32 clarifying a request diane requests that her employer schedule her for “fewer hours” so that she can “attend church more frequently.” the employer denies the request because it is not clear what schedule diane is requesting or whether the change is sought due to a religious belief or practice. while diane’s request lacked sufficient detail for the employer to make a final decision, it was sufficient to constitute a religious accommodation request. rather than denying the request outright, the employer should have obtained the information from diane that it needed to make a decision. the employer could have inquired of diane precisely what schedule change was sought and for what purpose, and how her current schedule conflicted with her religious practices or beliefs. diane would then have had an obligation to provide sufficient information to permit her employer to make a reasonable assessment of whether her request was based on a sincerely held religious belief, the precise conflict that existed between her work schedule and church schedule, and whether granting an accommodation would pose an undue hardship on the employer’s business. although an employer never has to provide an accommodation that would pose an undue hardship, see infra § 12‑iv b, it discharges its accommodation duty if it provides a “reasonable” accommodation. an adjustment offered by an employer is not a “reasonable” accommodation if it merely lessens rather than eliminates the conflict between religion and work, provided that eliminating the conflict would not impose an undue hardship.[227] if all accommodations eliminating such a conflict would impose an undue hardship on an employer, the employer must reasonably accommodate the employee’s religious practice to the extent that it can without suffering an undue hardship, even though such an accommodation would be “partial” in nature.[228] to qualify as a reasonable accommodation, an adjustment also must not discriminate against the employee or unnecessarily disadvantage the employee’s terms, conditions, or privileges of employment.[229] where there is more than one reasonable accommodation that would not pose an undue hardship, the employer is not obliged to provide the accommodation preferred by the employee.[230] however, an employer’s proposed accommodation will not be “reasonable” if a more favorable accommodation is provided to other employees for non religious purposes,[231] or, for example, if it requires the employee to accept a reduction in pay rate or some other loss of a benefit or privilege of employment and there is an alternative accommodation that does not do so.[232] ultimately, reasonableness is a fact specific determination. “the reasonableness of an employer’s attempt at accommodation cannot be determined in a vacuum. instead, it must be determined on a case‑by‑case basis; what may be a reasonable accommodation for one employee may not be reasonable for another . . . . ‘the term “reasonable accommodation” is a relative term and cannot be given a hard and fast meaning. each case . . . necessarily depends upon its own facts and circumstances, and comes down to a determination of “reasonableness” under the unique circumstances of the individual employer employee relationship.’”[233] example 33 employer violates title vii if it offers only partial accommodation where full accommodation would not pose an undue hardship rachel, who worked as a ticket agent at a sports arena, asked not to be scheduled for any friday night or saturday shifts, to permit her to observe the jewish sabbath from sunset on friday through sunset on saturday. the arena wanted to give rachel this time off only every other week. the arena’s proposed adjustment does not fully eliminate the religious conflict and therefore cannot be deemed a reasonable accommodation in the absence of a showing that giving rachel the requested time off every week poses an undue hardship for the arena. if the arena makes that showing, it must still accommodate rachel’s religious practice to the extent it can without suffering an undue hardship, which could include granting some, but not all, friday evenings and/or saturdays off.[234] example 34 employer not obligated to provide employee’s preferred accommodation tina, a newly hired part time store cashier whose sincerely held religious belief is that she should refrain from work on sunday as part of her sabbath observance, asked her supervisor never to schedule her to work on sundays. tina specifically asked to be scheduled to work saturdays instead. in response, her employer offered to allow her to work on thursdays, which she found inconvenient because she takes a college class on that day. even if tina preferred a different schedule, the employer is not required to grant tina’s preferred accommodation.[235] example 35 accommodation by transfer yvonne, a member of the pentecostal faith, was employed as a nurse at a hospital. when she was assigned to the labor and delivery unit, she advised the nurse manager that her faith forbids her from participating directly or indirectly in ending a life, and that this proscription prevents her from assisting with abortions. she asked the hospital to accommodate her religious beliefs by allowing her to trade assignments with other nurses in the labor and delivery unit as needed. the hospital concluded that, due to staffing cuts and risks to patients’ safety, it could not accommodate yvonne within the labor and delivery unit because there were not enough staff members able and willing to trade with her. the hospital instead offered to permit yvonne to transfer, without a reduction in pay or benefits, to a vacant nursing position in the newborn intensive care unit, which did not perform abortion procedures. as described below,[236] an employee should be accommodated in his or her current position absent an undue hardship. here, the hospital could not accommodate yvonne in her current position due to staffing cuts and risks to patient safety, so the hospital’s solution of a lateral transfer complies with title vii.[237] if the hospital is government run or receives federal funds, it could also have obligations to accommodate yvonne under federal laws protecting conscience rights of its health care employees.[238] title vii is violated by an employer’s failure to reasonably accommodate even if, to avoid adverse consequences, an employee continues to work after his or her accommodation request is denied. “[a]n employee who temporarily gives up his [or her] religious practice to submit to employment requirements [does not] waive[] his [or her] discrimination claim.”[239] thus, the fact that an employee acquiesces to the employer’s work rule, continuing to work without an accommodation after the employer has denied the request, should not defeat the employee’s legal claim.[240] in addition, the obligation to provide reasonable accommodation absent undue hardship is a continuing obligation. employers should be aware that an employee’s religious beliefs and practices may evolve or change over time, and that this may result in requests for additional or different accommodations.[241] similarly, the employer has the right to discontinue a previously granted accommodation that is no longer utilized for religious purposes or subsequently poses an undue hardship. an employer can refuse to provide a reasonable accommodation if it would pose an undue hardship. the supreme court has defined “undue hardship” for purposes of title vii as imposing “more than a de minimis cost” on the operation of the employer’s business.[242] the concept of “more than de minimis cost” is discussed below in sub section 2. although the employer’s showing of undue hardship under title vii is easier than under the ada, the burden of persuasion is still on the employer.[243] if an employee’s proposed accommodation would pose an undue hardship, the employer should explore alternative accommodations. the determination of whether a particular proposed accommodation imposes an undue hardship “must be made by considering the particular factual context of each case.”[244] relevant factors may include the type of workplace, the nature of the employee’s duties, the identifiable cost of the accommodation in relation to the size and operating costs of the employer, and the number of employees who will in fact need a particular accommodation.[245] for example, an employer with multiple facilities might be better able than another employer to accommodate a muslim employee who seeks a transfer to a location with a nearby mosque that he can attend during his lunch break. to prove undue hardship, the employer will need to demonstrate how much cost or disruption the employee’s proposed accommodation would involve.[246] an employer cannot rely on hypothetical hardship when faced with an employee’s religious obligation that conflicts with scheduled work, but rather should rely on objective information.[247] a mere assumption that many more people with the same religious practices as the individual being accommodated may also seek accommodation is not evidence of undue hardship. to establish undue hardship, the employer must demonstrate that the accommodation would require the employer “to bear more than a de minimis cost.”[248] however, “‘[u]ndue hardship is something greater than hardship.’”[249] factors to be considered include “the identifiable cost in relation to the size and operating costs of the employer, and the number of individuals who will in fact need a particular accommodation.”[250] generally, the payment of administrative costs necessary for an accommodation, such as costs associated with rearranging schedules and recording substitutions for payroll purposes, or infrequent or temporary payment of premium wages (e.g., overtime rates) while a more permanent accommodation is sought, will not constitute more than a de minimis cost, whereas the regular payment of premium wages or the hiring of additional employees to provide an accommodation will generally require more than de minimis cost to the employer.[251] costs to be considered include not only direct monetary costs but also the burden on the conduct of the employer’s business. for example, courts have found undue hardship where the accommodation diminishes efficiency in other jobs,[252] infringes on other employees’ job rights or benefits,[253] impairs workplace safety,[254] or causes coworkers to carry the accommodated employee’s share of potentially hazardous or burdensome work.[255] whether the proposed accommodation conflicts with another law will also be considered.[256] example 36 religious need can be accommodated david wears long hair pursuant to his native american religious beliefs. david applies for a job as a server at a restaurant which requires its male employees to wear their hair “short and neat,” in order to provide a certain image to its customers. when the restaurant manager informs david that if offered the position he will have to cut his hair, david explains that he keeps his hair long based on his religious beliefs and offers to wear it held up with a clip or under a hair net. the manager refuses this accommodation and denies david the position based on his long hair. since the evidence indicated that david could have been accommodated, without undue hardship, by wearing his hair in a ponytail or held up with a clip, the employer will be liable for denial of reasonable accommodation and discriminatory failure to hire. example 37 safety risk poses undue hardship patricia alleges she was terminated from her job as a steel mill laborer because of her religion (pentecostal) after she notified her supervisor that her faith prohibits her from wearing pants, as required by the mill’s dress code, and requested as an accommodation to be permitted to wear a skirt. management contends that the dress code is essential to the safe and efficient operation of the mill and has evidence that it was imposed following several accidents in which skirts worn by employees were caught in the same type of mill machinery that patricia operates. because the evidence establishes that wearing pants is truly necessary for safety reasons, the accommodation requested by patricia poses an undue hardship.[257] a proposed religious accommodation poses an undue hardship if it would deprive another employee of a job preference or other benefit guaranteed by a bona fide seniority system or collective bargaining agreement (cba).[258] of course, the mere existence of a conflict between the requested accommodation and a seniority system or cba does not relieve the employer of the duty to attempt reasonable accommodation of its employees’ religious practices; the question is whether an accommodation can be provided without violating the seniority system or cba.[259] allowing voluntary substitutes and swaps does not constitute an undue hardship to the extent the arrangements do not violate a bona fide seniority system or cba.[260] employer and employee arrangements regarding voluntary substitutes and swaps are discussed in more detail in section 12 iv c 2. example 38 schedules based on a seniority system or collectively bargained rights susan, an employee of quick corp., asks not to work on her sabbath. quick corp. and its employees’ union have negotiated a cba which provides that weekend shifts will rotate evenly among employees. if susan can find qualified coworkers voluntarily willing to swap shifts to accommodate her sincerely held religious beliefs, the employer could be found liable for denial of reasonable accommodation if it refuses to permit the swap to occur. the existence of the collectively bargained system for determining weekend shifts should not result in the denial of accommodation if a voluntary swap can be arranged by the employee without violating the system or otherwise posing an undue hardship. the result would be the same if quick corp. had a unilaterally imposed bona fide seniority system (rather than a cba) pursuant to which weekend shifts are determined. however, if other employees were unwilling to swap shifts or were otherwise harmed by not requiring susan to work on the shift in question, or the employer would be subject to other operational costs that were more than de minimis by allowing susan to swap shifts, then the employer can demonstrate undue hardship.[261] although infringing on coworkers’ abilities to perform their duties[262] or subjecting coworkers to a hostile work environment[263] will generally constitute undue hardship, the general disgruntlement, resentment, or jealousy of coworkers will not.[264] undue hardship requires more than proof that some coworkers complained or are offended by an unpopular religious belief or by alleged “special treatment” afforded to the employee requesting religious accommodation; a showing of undue hardship based on coworker interests generally requires evidence that the accommodation would actually infringe on the rights of coworkers or cause disruption of work.[265] applying this standard, it would be an undue hardship for an employer to accommodate religious expression that is unwelcome potential harassment based on race, color, sex, national origin, religion, age, disability, or genetic information, or based on its own internal anti harassment policy, and it may take action consistent with its obligations under title vii and the other eeo laws. see also §§ 12‑iii c, supra, and 12‑iv c 6, infra (discussing complaints regarding proselytizing and other forms of religious expression). if a religious practice conflicts with a legally mandated federal, state, or local security requirement, an employer need not accommodate the practice because doing so would create an undue hardship. if a security requirement has been unilaterally imposed by the employer and is not required by law or regulation, courts will engage in a fact specific inquiry to decide whether it would be an undue hardship to modify or eliminate the requirement to accommodate an employee who has a religious conflict. example 39 accommodation implicating security concerns patrick is employed as a correctional officer at a state prison, and his brother william is employed as a grocery store manager. both patrick and william seek permission from their respective employers to wear a fez at work as an act of faith on a particular holy day as part of their religious expression. both employers deny the request, citing a uniformly applied workplace policy prohibiting employees from wearing any type of head covering. the prison’s policy is based on security concerns, supported by evidence, that head coverings may be used to conceal drugs, weapons, or other contraband, and may spark internal violence among prisoners. the grocery store’s policy is based on a stated desire that all employees wear uniform clothing so that they can be readily identified by customers. if both brothers file eeoc charges challenging the denials of their accommodation requests, the eeoc likely will not find reasonable cause in patrick’s case because the prison’s denial of his request was based on legitimate, evidence based security considerations posed by the particular religious garb sought to be worn. the eeoc likely will find cause in william’s case because there is no indication it would pose an undue hardship for the grocery store to modify its policy with respect to his request.[266] example 40 kirpan harvinder, a sikh who works in a hospital, wears a small sheathed kirpan (religious article of faith resembling a knife) strapped and hidden underneath her clothing, as a symbol of her religious commitment to defend truth and moral values. when harvinder’s supervisor, bill, learned about her kirpan from a coworker, he instructed harvinder not to wear it at work because it violated the hospital policy against weapons in the workplace. harvinder explained to bill that her faith requires her to wear a kirpan in order to comply with the sikh code of conduct and gave him literature explaining that the kirpan is a religious article of faith, not a weapon. she also showed him the kirpan, allowing him to see that it was no sharper than scissors, box cutters, cake knives, paper cutters, and other secular objects in the workplace. nevertheless, bill told her that she would be terminated if she continued to wear the kirpan at work. absent evidence that allowing harvinder to wear the kirpan would pose an undue hardship in the factual circumstances of this case, the hospital is liable for denial of accommodation. under title vii, an employer or other covered entity may use a variety of methods to provide reasonable accommodations to its employees. the most common methods are: (1) flexible scheduling; (2) voluntary substitutes or swaps of shifts and assignments; (3) lateral transfers or changes in job assignment; and (4) modifying workplace practices, policies, or procedures. an employer may be able to reasonably accommodate an employee by allowing flexible arrival and departure times, floating or optional holidays, flexible work breaks, use of lunch time in exchange for early departure, staggered work hours, and other means to enable an employee to make up time lost due to the observance of religious practices.[267] however, eeoc’s position is that it is insufficient merely to eliminate part of the conflict, unless eliminating the conflict in its entirety poses an undue hardship.[268] example 41 break schedules/prayer at work rashid, a janitor, tells his employer on his first day of work that he practices islam and will need to pray at several prescribed times during the workday in order to adhere to his religious practice of praying at five times each day, for several minutes, with hand washing beforehand. the employer objects because its written policy allows one fifteen minute break in the middle of each morning and afternoon. rashid’s requested change in break schedule will not exceed the 30 minutes of total break time otherwise allotted, nor will it affect his ability to perform his duties or otherwise cause an undue hardship for his employer. thus, rashid is entitled to accommodation.[269] example 42 blanket policies prohibiting time off a large employer operating a fleet of buses had a policy of refusing to accept driver applications unless the applicant agreed that he or she was available to be scheduled to work any shift, seven days a week. this policy would violate title vii if applied to discriminate against applicants who refrain from work on certain days for religious reasons, by failing to allow for the provision of religious accommodation absent undue hardship.[270] the reasonable accommodation requirement can often be satisfied without undue hardship where a volunteer with substantially similar qualifications is available and willing to switch shifts, either for a single absence or multiple absences, including absences occurring over an extended period of time. “[t]he obligation to accommodate requires that employers and labor organizations facilitate the securing of a voluntary substitute with substantially similar qualifications. some means of doing this which [covered entities] should consider are: to publicize policies regarding accommodation and voluntary substitution; to promote an atmosphere in which such substitutions are favorably regarded; to provide a central file, [physical or electronic] bulletin board or other means for matching voluntary substitutes with positions for which substitutes are needed.”[271] the employer’s obligation is to make a good faith effort to allow voluntary substitutions and shift swaps to accommodate a religious conflict.[272] this does not require the employer itself to arrange a substitute or swap, but where it is difficult for employees to arrange shift substitutes or swaps on their own, the employer may have an obligation to do more to facilitate the search for volunteers.[273] likewise, if the employer is on notice that the employee’s religious beliefs preclude him not only from working on his sabbath but also from inducing others to do so, reasonable accommodation requires more than merely permitting the employee to swap.[274] an employer does not have to permit a substitute or swap if it would pose an undue hardship. as noted above, under the de minimis cost standard, if a swap or substitution would result in the employer having to pay premium wages (such as overtime pay), the frequency of the arrangement will be relevant to determining if it poses an undue hardship; “the commission will presume that the infrequent payment of premium wages for a substitute or the payment of premium wages while a more permanent accommodation is being sought are costs which an employer can be required to bear as a means of providing a reasonable accommodation.”[275] if it does not pose an undue hardship, an employer must make an exception to its policy of requiring all employees, regardless of seniority, to work an “equal number of weekend, holiday, and night shifts,” and instead permit voluntary shift swaps between qualified coworkers in order to accommodate a particular employee’s sincerely held religious belief that he should not work on his or her sabbath. of course, if allowing a swap or other accommodation would not provide the coverage the employer needs for its business operations or otherwise pose an undue hardship, the accommodation does not have to be granted. when an employee’s religious belief or practice conflicts with a particular task, appropriate accommodations may include relieving the employee of the task or transferring the employee to a different position or location that eliminates the conflict with the employee’s religion. whether or not such accommodations pose an undue hardship will depend on factors such as the nature or importance of the duty at issue, the nature of the employer’s business, the availability of others to perform the function, the availability of other positions, and the applicability of a collective bargaining agreement or seniority system. example 43 restaurant server excused from singing happy birthday kim, a server at a restaurant, informed her manager that she would not be able to join other waitresses in singing “happy birthday” to customers because she is a jehovah’s witness whose religious beliefs do not allow her to celebrate holidays, including birthdays. there were enough servers on duty at any given time to perform this singing without affecting service. the manager refused any accommodation. if kim files a title vii charge alleging denial of religious accommodation, the eeoc will find cause because the restaurant could have accommodated her with little or no expense or disruption. example 44 pharmacist excused from providing contraceptives neil, a pharmacist, was hired by a large corporation that operates numerous large pharmacies at which more than one pharmacist is on duty during all hours of operation. neil informed his employer that he refuses on religious grounds to participate in distributing contraceptives or answering any customer inquiries about contraceptives. the employer reasonably accommodated neil by offering to allow neil to signal discreetly to a coworker who would take over servicing any customer who telephoned, faxed, or came to the pharmacy regarding contraceptives.[276] example 45 pharmacist not permitted to turn away customers in the above example, assume that instead of facilitating the assistance of such customers by a coworker, neil leaves on hold indefinitely those who call on the phone about a contraceptive rather than transferring their calls, and walks away from in store customers who seek to fill a contraceptive prescription rather than signaling a coworker. neil refuses to signal another employee or inform the customer on the phone that he is placing them on a brief hold while he gets another employee. the employer is not required to accommodate neil’s request to remain in such a position yet avoid all situations where he might even briefly interact with customers who have requested contraceptives, or to accommodate a disruption of business operations. the employer may discipline or terminate neil if he disrupts business operations.[277] the employee should generally be accommodated in his or her current position if doing so does not pose an undue hardship.[278] for example, if a pharmacist who has a religious objection to dispensing contraceptives can be accommodated without undue hardship by allowing the pharmacist to signal a coworker to assist customers with such prescriptions, the employer should not choose instead to accommodate by transferring the pharmacist to a different position. if no such accommodation is possible, the employer needs to consider whether lateral transfer is a possible accommodation.[279] the employer cannot transfer the pharmacist to a position that entails less pay, responsibility, or opportunity for advancement unless a lateral transfer is unavailable or would otherwise pose an undue hardship.[280] example 46 lateral transfer versus transfer to a lower paying position an electrical utility lineman requests accommodation of his sabbath observance, but because the nature of his position requires being available to handle emergency problems at any time, there is no accommodation that would permit the lineman to remain in his position without posing an undue hardship. the employer can accommodate the lineman by offering a lateral transfer to another assignment at the same pay, if available. if, however, no job at the same pay is readily available, then the employer could satisfy its obligation to reasonably accommodate the lineman by offering to transfer him to a different job, even at lower pay, if one is available.[281] an employer may have to make an exception to its policies, procedures, or practices in order to grant a religious accommodation.[282] when an employer has a dress or grooming policy that conflicts with an employee’s religious beliefs or practices, the employee may ask for an exception to the policy as a reasonable accommodation.[283] religious dress may include clothes, head or face coverings, jewelry, or other items. religious grooming practices may relate, for example, to shaving or hair length. absent undue hardship, religious discrimination may be found where an employer fails to reasonably accommodate the employee’s religious dress or grooming practices.[284] example 47 facial hair prakash, who works for cutx, a surgical instrument manufacturer, does not shave or trim his facial hair because of his sikh religious observance. when he seeks a promotion to manage the division responsible for sterilizing the instruments, his employer tells him that, to work in that division, he must shave or trim his beard because otherwise his beard may contaminate the sterile field. when prakash explains that he cannot trim his beard for religious reasons, the employer offers to allow prakash to wear two face masks instead of trimming his beard. prakash thinks that wearing two masks is unreasonable (for reasons unrelated to his religious practice) and files a title vii charge. cutx will prevail because it offered a reasonable accommodation that would eliminate prakash’s religious conflict with the hygiene rule. some courts have concluded that it would pose an undue hardship if an employer was required to accommodate a religious dress or grooming practice that conflicts with the public image the employer wishes to convey to customers.[285] while there may be circumstances in which allowing a particular exception to an employer’s dress and grooming policy would pose an undue hardship, an employer’s reliance on the broad rubric of “image” to deny a requested religious accommodation may in a given case be considered disparate treatment, including because it is tantamount to reliance on customer religious bias (so called “customer preference”) in violation of title vii.[286] example 48 religious garb nasreen, a muslim ticket agent for a commercial airline, wears a hijab (headscarf) to work at the airport ticket counter. after september 11, 2001, her manager objected, telling nasreen that the customers might think she was sympathetic to terrorist hijackers. nasreen explains to her manager that wearing the hijab is her religious practice and continues to wear it. she is terminated for wearing a hijab over her manager’s objection. customer fears or prejudices do not amount to undue hardship. as a result, the airline’s refusal to accommodate her and its subsequent decision to terminate her violate title vii. in addition, if the commercial airline had denied nasreen the position due to perceptions of customer preferences about religious attire, that would also be disparate treatment based on religion in violation of title vii, because it would be the same as refusing to hire nasreen because she is a muslim. see supra § 12‑ii b.[287] there may be limited situations in which the need for uniformity of appearance is so important that modifying the dress code would pose an undue hardship.[288] this issue should be resolved on a case by case basis. if any employee needs to use a workplace facility as a reasonable accommodation, for example use of a quiet area for prayer during break time, the employer should accommodate the request under title vii unless it would pose an undue hardship. if the employer allows employees to use the facilities at issue for non religious activities not related to work, it may be difficult for the employer to demonstrate that allowing the facilities to be used in the same manner for religious activities is not a reasonable accommodation or poses an undue hardship.[289] example 49 use of employer facilities an employee whose assigned work area is a factory floor rather than an enclosed office asks his supervisor if he may use one of the company’s unoccupied conference rooms to pray during a scheduled break time. the supervisor must grant this request if it would not pose an undue hardship. an undue hardship would exist, for example, if the only conference room is used for work meetings at that time. however, the supervisor is not required to provide the employee with his choice of the available locations and can meet the accommodation obligation by making any appropriate location available that would accommodate the employee’s religious needs if this can be done absent undue hardship, for example by offering an unoccupied area of the work space rather than the conference room. an employer has an obligation to reasonably accommodate an applicant when scheduling a test or administering other selection procedures, where the applicant has informed the employer of a sincerely held religious belief that conflicts with a pre employment testing requirement, unless undue hardship would result.[290] an employer may not permit an applicant’s presumed or actual need for a religious accommodation to affect its decision whether or not to hire the applicant unless the employer can demonstrate that it cannot reasonably accommodate the applicant’s religious observance or practice without undue hardship.[291] whether it poses an undue hardship for an employer to provide an alternative means of identification for matters such as government forms, building security, or timekeeping will depend on the facts. it will typically pose an undue hardship for an employer to accommodate an applicant’s or employee’s asserted religious belief against providing or using a social security number, or identification requirements imposed by another federal law.[292] however, in cases where an alternative method of identification is feasible and does not pose an undue hardship, it may be required as a religious accommodation.[293] absent undue hardship, title vii requires employers and unions to accommodate an employee who holds religious objections to joining or financially supporting a union.[294] such an employee can be accommodated, in many cases, by allowing the equivalent of her union dues (payments by union members) or agency fees (payments often required from non union members in a unionized workplace) to be paid to a charity agreeable to the employee, the union, and the employer.[295] whether a charity substitute accommodation for payment of union dues would cause an undue hardship is an individualized determination based upon, among other things, the union’s size, operational costs, and the number of individuals who need the accommodation.[296] if an employee’s religious objection is not to joining or financially supporting the union, but rather to the union’s support of certain political or social causes, the employee may be accommodated if it would not pose an undue hardship by, for example, reducing the amount owed, allowing the employee to donate to a charitable organization the full amount the employee owes or that portion that is attributable to the union’s support of the cause to which the employee has a religious objection, or diverting the amount owed to the national, state, or local union in the event one of those entities does not engage in support of the cause to which the employee has a religious objection.[297] some employees may seek to display religious icons or messages at their workstations or use a particular religious phrase when greeting others. others may seek to proselytize by engaging in one on one discussions regarding religious beliefs or distributing literature. still others may seek to engage in prayer at their workstations or to use other areas of the workplace for either individual or group prayer, study, or meeting. in some of these situations, an employee might request accommodation in advance to permit such religious expression. in other situations, the employer will not learn of the situation or be called upon to consider any action unless it receives complaints about the religious expression from either other employees or customers. as noted in §§ 12‑ii a 3 and 12‑iii c of this document, prayer, proselytizing, and other forms of religious expression do not solely raise a religious accommodation issue but may also raise intentional discrimination or harassment issues. to determine whether allowing or continuing to permit an employee to pray, proselytize, or engage in other forms of religiously oriented expression in the workplace would pose an undue hardship, employers should consider the potential disruption, if any, that will be posed by permitting the expression of religious belief.[298] as explained below, relevant considerations may include the effect the religious expression has had, or can reasonably be expected to have, if permitted to continue, on coworkers, customers, or business operations. religious expression can create undue hardship if it disrupts the work of other employees or constitutes or threatens to constitute unlawful harassment. conduct that is disruptive can still constitute an undue hardship, even if it does not rise to the level of unlawful harassment. since an employer has a duty under title vii to protect employees from harassment, it would be an undue hardship to accommodate expression that is harassing.[299] as explained in § 12‑iii a 2 b of this document, religious expression directed toward coworkers, made in coworkers’ presence, or that a coworker learns of, might constitute unlawful harassment in some situations, for example where it is facially abusive (i.e., demeans people of other religions) or where, even if not abusive, it persists even though it is clearly unwelcome. however, as with bias from customers, if coworkers’ objections are not because the conduct is facially abusive or persistent but rather because of bias of coworkers against religious expression generally or that particular religious expression, it is unlikely that accommodating the religious expression would be an undue hardship. it is necessary to make a case by case determination regarding whether the effect on coworkers actually is an undue hardship. mere subjective offense or disagreement with unpopular religious views or practices by coworkers is not sufficient to rise to the level of unlawful harassment. however, this does not require waiting until the unwelcome behavior becomes severe or pervasive.[300] as with harassment on any basis, it is permitted and advisable for employers to take action to stop alleged harassment before it becomes severe or pervasive, because while isolated incidents of harassment generally do not violate federal law, a pattern of such incidents may be unlawful.[301] the determination of whether it is an undue hardship to allow employees to engage in religiously oriented expression toward customers is a fact specific inquiry and will depend on the nature of the expression, the nature of the employer’s business, and the extent of the impact on customer relations. for example, one court found that it was a reasonable accommodation to allow an employee to use the general religious greeting “have a blessed day” with coworkers and with customers who had not objected, rather than using it with everyone, including a customer who objected.[302] however, other courts have found undue hardship where religiously oriented expression was used in the context of a regular business interaction with a client.[303] whether or not the client objects, religiously oriented expression may create an undue hardship for an employer where the expression could be mistaken as the employer’s message, particularly in the instance of government employers.[304] where the religiously oriented expression is not limited to use of a phrase or greeting, but rather is in the manner of individualized, specific proselytizing, an employer is far more likely to be able to demonstrate that it would constitute an undue hardship to accommodate an employee’s religious expression, regardless of the length or nature of the business interaction.[305] example 50 display of religious objects by an employee susan and roger are members of the same church and are both employed at xyz corporation. susan works as an architect in a private office on an upper floor, where she occasionally interacts with coworkers, but not with clients. roger is a security guard stationed at a desk in the front lobby of the xyz building through which all employees, clients, and other visitors must enter. at a recent service at susan and roger’s church, the minister distributed posters with the message “jesus saves!” and encouraged parishioners to display the posters at their workplaces in order to “spread the word.” susan and roger each display the poster on the wall above their respective workstations. xyz orders both to remove the poster despite the fact that both explained that they felt a religious obligation to display it, and despite the fact that there have been no complaints from coworkers or clients. susan and roger file charges alleging denial of religious accommodation. the employer will probably be unable to show that allowing susan to display a religious message in her personal workspace posed an undue hardship, unless there was evidence of disruption to the business or the workplace which resulted. by contrast, because roger sits at the lobby desk and the poster is the first thing that visitors see upon entering the building, it would appear to represent xyz’s views and would therefore likely be shown to pose an undue hardship.[306] example 51 undue hardship to allow employee to discuss religion with clients helen, an employee in a mental health facility that served a religiously and ethnically diverse clientele, frequently spoke with clients about religious issues and shared religious tracts with them as a way to help solve their problems, despite being instructed not to do so. after clients complained, helen’s employer issued her a letter of reprimand stating that she should not promote her religious beliefs to clients and that she would be terminated if she persisted. helen’s belief in the need to evangelize to clients cannot be accommodated without undue hardship. the employer has the right to control speech that threatens to impede provision of effective and efficient services. clients, especially in a mental health setting, may not understand that the religious message represents helen’s beliefs rather than the facility’s view of the most beneficial treatment for the patient.[307] some employers have integrated their own religious beliefs or practices into the workplace, and they are entitled to do so.[308] however, if an employer holds religious services or programs or includes prayer in business meetings, title vii requires that the employer accommodate an employee who asks to be excused for religious reasons, including non belief, absent a showing of undue hardship.[309] excusing an employee from religious services normally does not create an undue hardship because it does not cost the employer anything and does not disrupt business operations or other workers.[310] example 52 prayer at meetings michael’s employer requires that the mandatory weekly staff meeting begin with a religious prayer. michael objects to participating because he believes it conflicts with his own sincerely held religious beliefs. he asks his supervisor to allow him to arrive at the meeting after the prayer. the supervisor must accommodate michael’s religious belief by either granting his request or offering an alternative accommodation that would remove the conflict between michael’s religious belief and the staff meeting prayer, even if other employees of michael’s religion do not object to being present for the prayer.[311] the outcome would be the same if michael sought the accommodation based on his lack of religious belief. example 53 employer holiday decorations each december, the president of xyz corporation directs that several wreaths be placed around the office building and a tree be displayed in the lobby. several employees complain that to accommodate their non christian religious beliefs, the employer should take down the wreaths and tree, or alternatively should add holiday decorations associated with other religions. title vii does not require that xyz corporation remove the wreaths and tree or add holiday decorations associated with other religions.[312] the result under title vii on these facts would be the same whether in a private or government workplace.[313] similarly, an employer is required, absent undue hardship, to excuse an employee from compulsory personal or professional development training or participation in an initiative or celebration where it conflicts with the employee’s sincerely held religious beliefs, observances, or practices.[314] there may be cases, however, where an employer can show that it would pose an undue hardship to provide an alternative training or to excuse an employee from any part of a particular training, even if the employee asserts it is contrary to his religious beliefs to attend (e.g., where the training provides information on how to perform the job, on how to comply with equal employment opportunity obligations, or on other workplace policies, procedures, or applicable legal requirements). example 54 religious objection to training program   employee must be excused as part of its effort to promote employee health and productivity, the new president of a company institutes weekly mandatory on site meditation classes led by a local spiritualist. angelina explains to her supervisor that the meditation conflicts with her sincerely held religious beliefs and asks to be excused from participating. because it would not pose an undue hardship, the company must accommodate angelina’s religious belief by excusing her from the weekly meditation classes, even if the company and other employees believe that this form of meditation does not conflict with any religious beliefs. example 55 religious objection to training program   employee need not be excused employer xyz holds an annual training for employees on a variety of personnel matters, including compliance with eeo laws and also xyz’s own internal anti discrimination policy, which includes a prohibition on sexual orientation discrimination. lucille asks to be excused from the portion of the training on sexual orientation discrimination because she believes that it “promotes the acceptance of homosexuality,” which she sincerely believes is immoral and sinful based on her religion. the training does not tell employees to value different sexual orientations but simply discusses and reinforces laws and conduct rules requiring employees not to discriminate against or harass other employees based on sexual orientation and to treat one another professionally. because an employer needs to make sure that its employees know about and comply with such laws and workplace rules, it would be an undue hardship for xyz to excuse lucille from the training.[315] while not all of the following issues will be in dispute in every charge alleging denial of religious accommodation, if cp alleges that r failed to accommodate cp’s religious beliefs, observances, or practices, the investigator should generally follow this line of inquiry, considering these steps: title vii’s prohibition against religious discrimination may overlap with title vii’s prohibitions against discrimination based on national origin, race, and color. where a given religion is strongly associated   or perceived to be associated   with a certain national origin, the same facts may state a claim of both religious and national origin discrimination.[317] all four bases might be implicated where, for example, coworkers target a dark skinned muslim employee from saudi arabia for harassment because of his color, religion, national origin, and/or race.[318] title vii prohibits retaliation by an employer, employment agency, or labor organization because an individual has engaged in protected activity.[319] protected activity consists of opposing a practice the employee reasonably believes is made unlawful by one of the employment discrimination statutes or filing a charge, testifying, assisting, or participating in any manner in an investigation, proceeding, or hearing under title vii.[320] eeoc has taken the position that requesting a religious accommodation is a protected activity under this provision of title vii.[321] retaliation in this context means taking an action against the employee because of her protected activity that “well might have dissuaded a reasonable worker from making or supporting a charge of discrimination.”[322] example 56 retaliation for requesting accommodation jenny requests that she be excused from daily employer sponsored christian prayer meetings because she is an atheist. her supervisor insists that she attend, but she persists in her request that she should be excused and explains that requiring her to attend is offensive to her religious beliefs. she takes her request to human resources and informs them that requiring her to attend these prayer meetings is offensive to her religious beliefs. despite her supervisor’s objections, the human resources department instructs the supervisor that in the circumstances no undue hardship is posed and he must grant the request. motivated by reprisal, her supervisor shortly thereafter gives her an unjustified poor performance rating and denies her requests to attend training that is approved for similarly situated employees. this retaliation violates title vii. the definition of “guidance” in executive order 13891 encompasses this interpretive guidance. see exec. order no. 13891, 84 fed. reg. 155235, 155235 (defining “guidance document”); memorandum from dominic j. mancini, acting administrator, office of information and regulatory affairs, office of management and budget, to regulatory policy officers at executive departments and agencies and managing directors of certain agencies and commissions (oct. 31, 2019), https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp content/uploads/2019/10/m 20 02 guidance memo.pdf (explaining the exclusions under e.o. 13891). because the commission is issuing this document as interpretive guidance, within the recognized constraints of its authority, the commission concludes that the guidance procedures under executive order 13891, as codified in eeoc regulations at 29 cfr 1695.01 .10, apply. accordingly, the commission states that: the contents of this document do not have the force and effect of law and are not meant to bind the public in any way. any final document is intended only to provide clarity to the public regarding existing requirements under the law or agency policies. the eeoc and the office of management and budget (omb) have determined that the guidance raises novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the president’s priorities, or the principles set forth in executive order 12866. in consequence, it is “significant guidance” within the meaning of section 2(c) of executive order 13891. pursuant to section 4(a)(iii)(d) of executive order 13891, an agency submitting a significant guidance document to oira for review should demonstrate how the guidance document complies with executive orders 12866, 13563, 13609,[323] 13771, and 13777. the eeoc has coordinated issuance of the guidance with omb. pursuant to section 3(f) of executive order 12866, the eeoc and omb have determined that the guidance will not have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more. it will not adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or state, local, or tribal governments or communities. it will not create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency, nor will they materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof. it will, however, raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the president’s priorities, or the principles set forth in executive order 12866. in consequence, it is “significant regulatory action” within the meaning of section 3(f) of executive order 12866. the guidance will maximize net benefits and reduce the burden on the public by clarifying the legal standards applicable to religious discrimination claims, presenting typical scenarios in which religious discrimination may arise, and providing guidance to employers on how to balance the needs of individuals in a diverse religious climate. the guidance is not being issued because of any retrospective review. the guidance will reduce the burden on the public by clarifying the legal standards the eeoc will apply to religious discrimination claims. the guidance will be an executive order 13771 deregulatory action. providing clear, accurate guidance that is up to date with current law is part of the commission’s regulatory reform agenda. therefore, this guidance is being issued as part of the commission’s regulatory reform agenda. pursuant to 29 c.f.r. § 1695.6(e), the commission will submit this significant guidance document to congress under the procedures described in 5 u.s.c. § 801. this guidance is not a “major rule” as defined in 5 u.s.c. § 804(2). the eeoc received 71 unique comments[324] from individuals, organizations, and members of congress on the proposed compliance manual on religious discrimination, which was posted for public input on www.regulations.gov on november 17, 2020. a number of these comments were submitted on behalf of multiple organizations or officeholders, including one on behalf of 51 organizations and another on behalf of 44 organizations. the major comments and the commission’s responses to those comments are summarized below. comment: numerous organizational and congressional commenters asserted that there was insufficient opportunity for stakeholder consultation and inadequate time allotted for commissioner and public input. these commenters requested that the commission withdraw rather than finalize the proposed guidance. several commenters also expressed concerns with listening sessions that the general counsel held and the commenters felt that they undermined the comment period. response: the commission engaged in an internal process and inter agency consultation before issuing the proposal, and then provided a standard 30 day public input period. this is the first significant guidance that the commission has issued under the regulations found at 29 cfr 1695.01 .10, which call for a public comment period and other procedural measures. in 2008, the public was not given an opportunity to comment on a proposed draft of the guidance. the comment period yielded many detailed comments from a wide range of stakeholders representing many differing perspectives. moreover, issuance of both the proposal and of the final guidance was subject to review and clearance by the office of management and budget. many public commenters noted that the update is needed and timely. regarding the general counsel’s listening sessions, these sessions were not organized to receive comments on the proposed guidance. instead, they were an opportunity for the general counsel to hear organizations’ perspectives on the commission’s enforcement efforts. the general counsel did not seek comments on the proposed guidance and instead encouraged participants to submit comments through the formal process, if they were interested. furthermore, the listening sessions in no way prevented the public from having the opportunity to comment. comment: some commenters expressed concern that the draft did not make sufficiently clear that title vii protects against discrimination based on a lack of religious faith. response: the commission has made additions to reference repeatedly that discrimination based on a lack of religious faith is prohibited. comment: various commenters took issue with the draft’s statement that it was an “open question” whether a for profit corporation can constitute a “religious corporation” within the meaning of section 702(a) of title vii, 42 u.s.c. § 2000e(1)(a). response: the final guidance has deleted this language. instead, the final guidance observes that although courts have historically relied on for profit status to indicate that an entity is not a “religious corporation” under § 702(a), the plain text of the statute does not reference for profit and nonprofit status, and that it is possible courts may be more receptive to finding a for profit corporation can qualify given language from the supreme court’s decision in hobby lobby. comment: many organizational and congressional commenters asked for clarification or revision of the proposal’s interpretation of the scope of the statutory exemption permitting employment of individuals “of a particular religion” by religious corporations under § 702(a) or religious educational institutions under § 703(e)(2). some commenters asked the commission to state that religious organizations are barred from discrimination based on race, color, sex, national origin, or other bases, even if motivated by a religious belief. by contrast, others asked for greater clarity that religious organizations are shielded from such claims by the statutory permission to hire individuals “of a particular religion.” additionally, some commenters discussed how the commission should proceed if a respondent entity invokes the religious organization exception. response: the final guidance clearly states that religious organizations are subject to the title vii prohibitions against discrimination on the basis of race, color, sex, national origin (as well as the anti discrimination provisions of the adea, ada, and gina), and related retaliation, but are permitted to assert the statutory exemption as an affirmative defense. the guidance further notes that “[c]ourts have held that the religious organization’s assertion that the challenged employment decision was made on the basis of religion is subject to a pretext inquiry, where the employee has the burden to prove pretext.” the guidance discusses a case where the court found if the religious organization presented “‘convincing evidence’ that the challenged employment practice resulted from discrimination on the basis of religion,” then the religious organization exemption “deprives the eeoc of jurisdiction to investigate further to determine whether the religious discrimination was a pretext for some other form of discrimination.” comment: some commenters objected to the nature or extent of the commission’s treatment of the ministerial exception. others discussed the draft’s handling of procedural matters relating to adjudication of the ministerial exception when asserted as a defense. response: the final guidance has streamlined the discussion of the ministerial exception and has clarified how the commission will procedurally address assertions of the defense. comment: numerous commenters asked the commission to delete or modify references to rfra as a potential defense to title vii enforcement by the government. some noted the holdings in particular title vii decisions addressing rfra defenses, and cited rfra’s legislative history stating it was not intended to modify title vii. response: the final guidance refines treatment of the cited authorities in this section, including explanations of the outcome in cases in which rfra was raised as a defense to eeo enforcement. comment: the national federation of independent business recommended insertion of language guiding eeoc staff to confer with the eeoc office of legal counsel, which may as needed consult with the department of justice’s office of legal counsel, when matters raise the interaction of the first amendment or rfra with statutes enforced by the eeoc. response: the final guidance includes this type of instruction to eeoc staff. comment: the sikh coalition requested that an example in this section be revised to illustrate a claim of unlawful segregation of those who wear religious garb, and also requested various descriptions of ritual practices in this and other sections to improve accuracy and reduce rather than reinforce bias or stereotypes. response: the final guidance incorporates these recommended changes. comment: numerous commenters asked the commission to clarify and further emphasize that consensual non harassing conversations about religious topics are not potential harassment of coworkers. response: the final guidance includes additional statements and examples illustrating instances of non harassing, non disruptive religious expression. comment: some commenters recommended that the commission address whether or when employee statements on private social media may implicate the eeo laws with respect to discrimination, including harassment, either by or against religious employees. response: the final guidance adds additional authority to the discussion of social media and harassment. comment: with respect to balancing harassment and accommodation obligations, numerous commenters asked the commission to make clear that employers are permitted to, and should, take remedial action once on notice of unwelcome potential harassment on any basis, even if the harassing conduct is not yet severe or pervasive. response: the final guidance includes additional language explicitly reiterating an employer’s rights and responsibilities under title vii with respect to coworker complaints about unwelcome harassing conduct. comment: various commenters addressed the commission’s statement in the draft that a denial of religious accommodation absent undue hardship is actionable even if there was not an additional, independent adverse employment action taken against the employee. some commenters agreed with the commission’s position and others opposed it. response: the final guidance maintains the commission’s position, which is also articulated in the existing 2008 document, and has been the subject of past and current litigation brought by the commission on behalf of applicants and employees who were unlawfully denied religious accommodation. requiring an employee to work without religious accommodation where a work rule conflicts with his religious beliefs necessarily alters the terms and conditions of his employment for the worse. comment: numerous commenters expressed concerns that the commission’s citation to laws enforced by the u.s. department of health and human services regarding rights of those with objections to participating in certain health care duties could be misleading with respect to the requirements under either those laws or title vii. response: the final guidance includes a clear statement that the commission is referencing these laws for informational purposes and is not opining on any of their requirements or whether they would require additional burdens on employers beyond title vii’s analysis for reasonable accommodation. comment: commenters offered a range of perspectives on the supreme court’s 1977 holding that the title vii undue hardship defense permits an employer to deny any religious accommodation that would impose more than a de minimis burden on the operation of the employer’s business. some commenters believed the commission’s inclusion of a citation to justice alito’s concurring opinion in the denial of certiorari in patterson v. walgreen co., 140 s. ct. 685 (2020), expressing that the court should reconsider this definition, was potentially confusing or misleading. response: the final guidance deletes this citation to ensure clarity regarding the current legal standard. [1] this document uses examples that refer to practices and beliefs of various religions. these examples are intended to clarify the legal principles for which they are used and do not purport to represent the religious beliefs or practices of all members of the cited religions. unless otherwise noted, cases are cited in this document for their holdings under title vii of the civil rights act of 1964 (title vii). in some instances, links to non eeoc internet sites are provided for the reader’s convenience in obtaining additional information; eeoc assumes no responsibility for their content and does not endorse their organizations or guarantee the accuracy of these sites. use of the term “employee” in this document should be presumed to include an applicant and, as appropriate, a former employee. [2] see 42 u.s.c. § 2000e(k) (title vii’s prohibition against sex discrimination applies to discrimination “because of or on the basis of pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions.”); bostock v. clayton cnty., 140 s. ct. 1731, 1737 (2020) (holding that title vii’s prohibition of discrimination based on sex, 42 u.s.c. § 2000e 2(a), includes a prohibition of discrimination because of sexual orientation or transgender status). [3] 42 u.s.c. § 2000e 2(a)(1), (2). [4] 42 u.s.c. § 2000e(j). [5] trans world airlines, inc. v. hardison, 432 u.s. 63, 84 (1977). [6] compare hardison, 432 u.s. at 84 (interpreting title vii “undue hardship” standard), with 42 u.s.c. § 12111(10)(a) (defining ada “undue hardship” standard). note: various state and local laws extend beyond title vii in terms of the protected bases covered, the discrimination prohibited, the accommodation required, and the legal standards and defenses that apply. [7] see, e.g., cooper v. gen. dynamics, convair aerospace div., 533 f.2d 163, 168 (5th cir. 1976) (stating “all forms and aspects of religion, however eccentric, are protected”). [8] this common formulation derives from the seminal supreme court decisions interpreting the conscience exemption in the military selective service act, 50 u.s.c. § 3806(j). see, e.g., redmond v. gaf corp., 574 f.2d 897, 901 n.12 (7th cir. 1978) (“we believe the proper test to be applied to the determination of what is ‘religious’ under § 2000e(j) can be derived from the supreme court decisions in welsh v. united states, 398 u.s. 333 (1970), and united states v. seeger, 380 u.s. 163 (1969), i.e., (1) is the ‘belief’ for which protection is sought ‘religious’ in person’s own scheme of things, and (2) is it ‘sincerely held.’” (quoting those decisions)); fallon v. mercy cath. med. ctr., 877 f.3d 487, 490 91 (3d cir. 2017) (applying same test to title vii claim of religious discrimination); davis v. fort bend cnty., 765 f.3d 480, 485 (5th cir. 2014) (same); adeyeye v. heartland sweeteners, llc, 721 f.3d 444, 448 (7th cir. 2013) (same); eeoc v. union independiente de la autoridad de acueductos, 279 f.3d 49, 56 (1st cir. 2002) (same); see also, e.g., eeoc guidelines on discrimination because of religion, 29 c.f.r. § 1605.1 (stating that eeoc has “consistently applied” this standard to title vii). [9] fallon, 877 f.3d at 491 (quoting welsh, 398 u.s. at 340 (quoting seeger, 380 u.s. at 176)). [10] see, e.g., noyes v. kelly servs., 488 f.3d 1163, 1168 (9th cir. 2007) (addressing “non adherence or reverse religious discrimination claim”); reed v. great lakes cos., 330 f.3d 931, 933 34 (7th cir. 2003) (“[f]or these purposes, . . . ‘religion’ includes antipathy to religion. and so an atheist . . . cannot be fired because his employer dislikes atheists.”); shapolia v. los alamos nat’l lab’y, 992 f.2d 1033, 1037 (10th cir. 1993) (plaintiff claimed he was fired “because he did not hold the same religious beliefs as his supervisors”); young v. sw. sav. & loan ass’n, 509 f.2d 140 (5th cir. 1975) (finding title vii violated by requiring atheist employee to attend prayer portion of business meeting). [11] masterpiece cakeshop, ltd. v. colo. civil rights comm’n, 138 s. ct. 1719, 1731‑32 (2018) (holding that a state administrative agency’s consideration of baker’s first amendment free exercise claim opposing alleged violation of public accommodations nondiscrimination law “violated the state’s duty under the first amendment not to base laws or regulations on hostility to a religion or religious viewpoint” and apply laws “in a manner that is neutral toward religion”); epperson v. ark., 393 u.s. 97, 103 04 (1968) (“government in our democracy, state and national, must be neutral in matters of religious theory, doctrine, and practice. it may not be hostile to any religion or to the advocacy of no religion; and it may not aid, foster, or promote one religion or religious theory against another or even against the militant opposite. the first amendment mandates governmental neutrality between religion and religion, and between religion and nonreligion.”); see also bd. of educ. v. grumet, 512 u.s. 687, 714 (1994) (o’connor, j., concurring) (“we have time and again held that the government generally may not treat people differently based on the god or gods they worship, or do not worship.”). [12] in fiscal year 2019, eeoc received 2,725 religious discrimination charges, accounting for 3.7% of all charges filed with the commission that year. in fiscal year 1997, eeoc received 1,709 religious discrimination charges, accounting for 2.1% of all charges filed with the commission that year. statistics regarding the number of religious discrimination charges filed with the commission and dispositions can be found at https://www.eeoc.gov/data/enforcement and litigation statistics 0. [13] in general, the principles discussed in this section apply to title vii claims against private employers as well as to federal, state, and local public sector employers, unless otherwise noted. see 42 u.s.c. §§ 2000e(a) (b), 2000e 16(a) et seq. see, e.g., infra § 12 i c 3 (“additional interaction of title vii with the first amendment and the religious freedom restoration act (rfra)”). claims under various state or local laws may be analyzed under different standards. investigators should contact the office of legal counsel if questions arise about how to appropriately analyze charges brought against government entities. [14] 42 u.s.c. § 2000e 2. to determine whether an entity is covered by title vii, see eeoc, compliance manual: threshold issues (2000), https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/guidance/section 2 threshold issues [hereinafter threshold issues]. although this document concerns title vii, employers and employees should note that there may be state and local laws in their jurisdiction prohibiting religious discrimination in employment, some of which may be parallel to title vii and some of which may afford broader coverage. [15] see, e.g., eeoc v. abercrombie & fitch stores, inc., 731 f.3d 1106, 1120 (10th cir. 2013) (“a religious accommodation claim is distinct from a disparate treatment claim.” (quoting eeoc, compliance manual: religious discrimination § 12 iv (2008)), discussing case law describing disparate treatment and reasonable accommodation as different theories of discrimination), rev’d and remanded, 575 u.s. 768, 135 s. ct. 2028 (2015). [16] abercrombie & fitch stores, inc., 135 s. ct. at 2031 32. [17] id. at 2032 33. since the abercrombie decision was issued, some lower courts have nevertheless continued to characterize denial of accommodation as a distinct cause of action. [18] 42 u.s.c. § 2000e(j); see redmond v. gaf corp., 574 f.2d 897, 900 (7th cir. 1978) (observing that “the very words of the statute . . . leave little room for such a limited interpretation”; “to restrict the act to those practices which are mandated or prohibited by a tenet of the religion, would involve the court in determining not only what are the tenets of a particular religion, which by itself perhaps would not be beyond the province of the court, but would frequently require the courts to decide whether a particular practice is or is not required by the tenets of the religion,” a determination that would be “irreconcilable with the warning issued by the supreme court” that “‘[i]t is no business of courts to say . . . what is a religious practice or activity’” (quoting fowler v. rhode island, 345 u.s. 67, 70 (1953))); see also emp’t div., dep’t of hum. res. v. smith, 494 u.s. 872, 887 (1990) (explaining in free exercise clause case that “[r]epeatedly and in many different contexts, we have warned that courts must not presume to determine the place of a particular belief in a religion or the plausibility of a religious claim”). however, as discussed in this section, title vii does not cover all beliefs; for example, social, political, or economic philosophies, and mere personal preferences, are not “religious” beliefs within the meaning of the statute. [19] see thomas v. rev. bd., 450 u.s. 707, 714 (1981) (ruling that “religious beliefs need not be acceptable, logical, consistent, or comprehensible to others in order to merit first amendment protection”); see also church of lukumi babalu aye, inc. v. city of hialeah, 508 u.s. 520, 531 (1993) (holding that although animal sacrifice may seem “abhorrent” to some, santeria belief is religious in nature and is protected by the first amendment); toronka v. cont’l airlines, 649 f. supp. 2d 608, 612 (s.d. tex. 2009) (holding in title vii case that a moral and ethical belief in the power of dreams that is based on religious convictions and traditions of african descent is a religious belief, and that this determination does not turn on veracity but rather is based on a theory of “’man’s nature or his place in the universe,’” even if considered by others to be “nonsensical” (quoting brown v. dade christian schs., inc., 556 f.2d 310, 324 (5th cir. 1977) (roney, j., dissenting))); united states v. meyers, 906 f. supp. 1494, 1499 (d. wyo. 1995) (relying on first amendment jurisprudence to observe in religious freedom restoration act case that “one man’s religion will always be another man’s heresy”). [20] welsh v. united states, 398 u.s. 333, 339 (1970) (interpreting what is now the military selective service act, 50 u.s.c. § 3806(j)); see also thomas, 450 u.s. at 716 (“[i]t is not within the judicial function and judicial competence to inquire whether the petitioner or [another practitioner] . . . more correctly perceived the commands of their common faith. courts are not arbiters of scriptural interpretation.”) (first amendment). [21] united states v. seeger, 380 u.s. 163, 166, 176 (1965). although seeger arose under what is now the military selective service act, 50 u.s.c. § 3806(j), the eeoc has “consistently applied this standard” to title vii, see commission guidelines, 29 c.f.r. § 1605.1. the courts have as well. see supra note 8. [22] thomas, 450 u.s. at 714 (“the determination of what is a ‘religious’ belief or practice is more often than not a difficult and delicate task. . . . however, the resolution of that question is not to turn upon a judicial perception of the particular belief or practice in question; religious beliefs need not be acceptable, logical, consistent, or comprehensible to others in order to merit first amendment protection.”); burwell v. hobby lobby stores, inc., 573 u.s. 682, 725 (2014) (“[i]t is not for us to say that the line [employee] drew [between work that was consistent with religious beliefs and work that was morally objectionable] was an unreasonable one.” (quoting thomas, 450 u.s. at 715)). [23] commission guidelines, 29 c.f.r. § 1605.1 (“the fact that no religious group espouses such beliefs or the fact that the religious group to which the individual professes to belong may not accept such belief will not determine whether the belief is a religious belief of the employee or prospective employee.”); welsh, 398 u.s. at 343 (finding that petitioner’s beliefs were religious in nature although the church to which he belonged did not teach those beliefs) (military selective service act); accord africa v. pennsylvania, 662 f.2d 1025, 1032 33 (3d cir. 1981) (first amendment); bushouse v. local union 2209, united auto., aerospace & agric. implement workers of am., 164 f. supp. 2d 1066, 1076 n.15 (n.d. ind. 2001) (“title vii’s intention is to provide protection and accommodation for a broad spectrum of religious practices and belief not merely those beliefs based upon organized or recognized teachings of a particular sect.”). [24] commission guidelines, 29 c.f.r. § 1605.1 (“this standard was developed in [seeger] and [welsh]. the commission has consistently applied this standard in its decisions.”); see torcaso v. watkins, 367 u.s. 488, 489 90 (1961) (ruling that government may not favor theism over pantheism or atheism) (first and fourteenth amendments); welsh, 398 u.s. at 339 340 (reiterating that a belief in god or divine beings is not necessary to qualify as a religion; nontheistic beliefs can be religious within the meaning of the statute as long as they “occupy in the life of that individual ‘a place parallel to that filled by . . . god’ in traditionally religious persons.”). [25] united states v. meyers, 906 f. supp. 1494, 1499 (d. wyo. 1995) (observing that the threshold for establishing the religious nature of beliefs is low; under the first amendment, “if there is any doubt about whether a particular set of beliefs constitutes a religion, the court will err on the side of freedom and find that the beliefs are a religion . . . [because the country’s] founders were animated in large part by a desire for religious liberty”), aff’d, 95 f.3d 1475, 1482 83 (10th cir. 1996); see also emp’t div., dep’t of human res. of or. v. smith, 494 u.s. 887, 887 (1990) (explaining in free exercise clause case that “[r]epeatedly and in many different contexts, we have warned that courts must not presume to determine the place of a particular belief in a religion or the plausibility of a religious claim”). [26] meyers, 906 f. supp. at 1502 (ruling that religions address “ultimate ideas,” i.e., “fundamental questions about life, purpose, and death,” and that single faceted worship of marijuana was not a religion for first amendment purposes), aff’d, 95 f.3d at 1483. “thus, a genuinely held belief that involves matters of the afterlife, spirituality, or the soul, among other possibilities, qualifies as religion under title vii.” adeyeye v. heartland sweeteners, llc, 721 f.3d 444, 448 (7th cir. 2013). [27] fallon v. mercy catholic med. ctr. of se. pa., 877 f.3d 487, 491 (3d cir. 2017) (quoting africa, 662 f.2d at 1032). although “religion” is often marked by external manifestations such as ceremonies, rituals or clergy, such manifestations are not required for a belief to be “religious.” see, e.g., malnak v. yogi, 592 f.2d 197, 209 10 (3d cir. 1979). [28] see fallon, 877 f.3d at 492 (employee’s objection to flu vaccine did not qualify as a religious belief protected by title vii because his beliefs that “one should not harm their own body and . . . that the flu vaccine may do more harm than good” did not “address fundamental and ultimate questions having to do with deep and imponderable matters” and were not “comprehensive in nature”). similarly, eeoc and courts have found that the ku klux klan is not a religion within the meaning of title vii because its philosophy has a narrow, temporal, and political character. see commission decision no. 79 06, cch eeoc decisions ¶ 6737 (1983); bellamy v. mason’s stores, inc., 368 f. supp. 1025, 1026 (e.d. va. 1973), aff’d, 508 f.2d 504 (4th cir. 1974); slater v. king soopers, 809 f. supp. 809, 810 (d. colo. 1992) (dismissing religious discrimination claim by a member of the ku klux klan who allegedly was fired for participating in a hitler rally because the ku klux klan is “political and social in nature” and is not a religion for title vii purposes); see also brown v. pena, 441 f. supp. 1382, 1385 (s.d. fla. 1977) (holding that plaintiff’s belief that eating cat food contributes to his well being is a personal preference and not a religion). in a related context, the supreme court has held that, unlike religious beliefs, philosophical and personal beliefs “do[] not rise to the demands of the religion clauses.” wisconsin v. yoder, 406 u.s. 205, 216 (1972). when evaluating whether the belief qualifies as religious, courts should consider whether the belief is merely focused on an “isolated moral teaching” or rather is part of a “comprehensive system of beliefs about fundamental or ultimate matters.” fallon, 877 f.3d at 492. [29] fallon, 877 f.3d at 492. see also shelton v. univ. of med. & dentistry of n.j., 223 f.3d 220, 225 (3d cir. 2000) (addressing merits of title vii religious accommodation claim based on plaintiff’s refusal to participate in medical procedures that terminate a pregnancy); cf. gadling cole v. w. chester univ., 868 f. supp. 2d 390, 396 97 (e.d. pa. 2012)(emphasizing that title vii religious discrimination claims have been held cognizable as to topics that “overlap both the religious and political spectrum, such as abortion, so long as the claims are based on a plaintiff’s bona fide religious belief”). [30] see yoder, 406 u.s. at 216 (explaining that “if the amish asserted their [free exercise] claims [against a compulsory education law] because of their subjective evaluation and rejection of the contemporary secular values accepted by the majority, much as thoreau rejected the social values of his time and isolated himself at walden pond, their claims would not rest on a religious basis”). [31] see davis v. fort bend cnty., 765 f.3d 480, 485, 486 87 (5th cir. 2014) (holding that whether a practice is religious turns not on the nature of the activity itself, but rather whether the plaintiff “sincerely believed it to be religious in her own scheme of things,” and finding the lower court erred in characterizing plaintiff’s attendance at service and event breaking ground for a new church and feeding community as “a personal commitment, not religious conviction”); redmond v. gaf corp., 574 f.2d 897, 901 (7th cir. 1978) (finding the employer liable for failing to accommodate employee’s participation in saturday bible classes pursuant to a sincerely held religious belief given that he was appointed to be lifetime leader of his church bible study class many years earlier, time of meeting was scheduled by church elders, and employee felt that his participation was at dictate of his elders and constituted a “religious obligation”); see also dachman v. shalala, 9 f. app’x 186, 191 93 (4th cir. 2003) (ruling that plaintiff’s accommodation request to be home by time of sabbath observance was covered by title vii, but time off sought for tasks that could be performed at another time, such as purchasing ritual foods, cooking, and cleaning in preparation for the observance, was a personal preference that the employer was not required to accommodate); jiglov v. hotel peabody, gp, 719 f. supp. 2d 918, 929 30 (w.d. tenn. 2010) (holding that a scheduling accommodation request could be covered by title vii where employee’s religious dictates for observance of russian orthodox easter included not only attendance at church service but also a priest’s blessing of the family meal, the sharing of the meal, and prayer with family members); duran v. select med. corp., no. 08 cv 2328 jpm tmp, 2010 wl 11493117, at *5 6 (w.d. tenn. mar. 19, 2010) (holding that a scheduling accommodation request to be able to attend christmas mass was covered by title vii, but not the family meal and gift exchange that followed). [32] cf. spies v. voinovich, 173 f.3d 398, 406 07 (6th cir. 1999) (ruling there was no obligation to accommodate a vegan diet that an individual conceded was unrelated to his zen buddhist religious beliefs); lafevers v. saffle, 936 f.2d 1117 (10th cir. 1991) (holding that although not all seventh day adventists are vegetarian, an individual adherent’s genuine religious belief in such a dietary practice warrants constitutional protection under the first amendment). [34] davis, 765 f.3d at 486 (quoting tagore v. united states, 735 f.3d 324, 328 (5th cir. 2013)); see also adeyeye v. heartland sweeteners, llc, 721 f.3d 444, 452 (7th cir. 2013) (emphasizing that title vii has a “broad and intentionally hands off definition of religion”). [35] see dettmer v. landon, 799 f.2d 929, 932 (4th cir. 1986) (rejecting argument that witchcraft was a “conglomeration” of “various aspects of the occult” rather than a religion, because religious beliefs need not be “acceptable, logical, consistent or comprehensible to others” to be protected under the first amendment); wash. ethical soc’y v. dist. of columbia, 249 f.2d 127, 128 (d.c. cir. 1957) (holding that ethical society qualifies as a “religious corporation or society” under district of columbia tax statute, and its building is entitled to tax exemption; belief in a supreme being or supernatural power is not essential to qualify for tax exemption accorded to “religious corporations,” “churches,” or “religious societies”). compare eeoc v. united health programs of am., inc., 213 f. supp. 3d 377, 402 (e.d.n.y. 2016) (holding, where plaintiff alleged harassment or denial of religious accommodation, that employer’s use of conflict resolution program known as “onionhead” or “harnessing happiness” was a “religion” within the meaning of title vii, since program’s system of beliefs and practices was more than intellectual and involved ultimate concerns signifying religiosity, including chants, prayers, and mentions of god, transcendence, and souls), with cavanaugh v. bartelt, 178 f. supp. 3d 819, 829 30 (d. neb. 2016) (ruling that allegation one is a “pastafarian,” a believer in the divine “flying spaghetti monster” who practices the religion of “fsmism,” was not a religion within the meaning of religious land use and institutionalized persons act, 42 u.s.c. § 1983, or constitution, but instead “a parody, intended to advance an argument about science, the evolution of life, and the place of religion in public education”), aff’d, no. 16 2105 (8th cir. sept. 7, 2016). [36] see eeoc v. red robin gourmet burgers, inc., no. c04 1291jlr, 2005 wl 2090677, at *3 (w.d. wash. aug. 29, 2005) (denying employer’s motion for summary judgment on religious accommodation claim arising from employee’s refusal to cover his kemetic religious tattoos to comply with employer’s dress code). [37] see fallon, 877 f.3d at 491. [38] dockery v. maryville acad., 379 f. supp. 3d 704, 718 n.18 (n.d. ill. 2019) (ruling that “while the ‘validity’ of a religious belief cannot be questioned, ‘the threshold question of sincerity . . . must be resolved in every case’” (quoting united states v. seeger, 380 u.s. 163, 185 (1965))). [39] see dediol v. best chevrolet, inc., 655 f.3d 435, 443 (5th cir. 2011) (reciting prima facie case for harassment because of religion without reference to inquiry into sincerity of religious belief); dixon v. hallmark cos., 627 f.3d 849 (11th cir. 2010) (analyzing sincerity of religious belief only with respect to failure to accommodate claim, not with respect to discriminatory termination claim). [40] cf. moussazadeh v. tx. dep’t of crim. just., 703 f.3d 781, 790 (5th cir. 2012) (case arising under religious land use and institutionalized persons act (rluipa)). [41] adeyeye v. heartland sweeteners, llc, 721 f.3d 444, 452 (7th cir. 2013) (holding that inquiring into sincerity is limited to determining if the asserted belief or practice is in fact the employee’s own religious belief; it should not entail considering any matters such as whether employee had a true conversion experience or whether the practices are embedded in his cultural and family upbringing); see also thomas v. rev. bd. of ind. emp. sec. div., 450 u.s. 707, 716 (1981) (“particularly in this sensitive area [where employee had quit job producing armaments citing religious objections and claimed that state’s denial of unemployment compensation violated the first amendment], it is not within the judicial function and judicial competence to inquire whether the petitioner or his fellow worker [another jehovah’s witness who was willing to take the same job] more correctly perceived the commands of their common faith. courts are not arbiters of scriptural interpretation.”). [42] davis v. ft. bend cnty., 765 f.3d 480, 486 (5th cir. 2014) (quoting tagore v. united states, 735 f.3d 324, 328 (5th cir. 2013)). [43] grayson v. schuler, 666 f.3d 450, 454 55 (7th cir. 2012) (finding in rluipa case that nazirite prisoner’s asserted belief in not cutting his hair was sincerely held). [44] eeoc v. union independiente de la autoridad de acueductos, 279 f.3d 49, 57 (1st cir. 2002). [45] see, e.g., id. (holding that evidence the employee had violated a number of tenets of his professed seventh day adventist faith was sufficient to create a triable issue of fact for jury); hansard v. johns manville prods. corp., no. 1902, 1973 wl 129, at *2 (e.d. tex. feb. 16, 1973) (employee’s contention that he objected to sunday work for religious reasons was undermined by his very recent history of sunday work); see also hussein v. waldorf astoria, 134 f. supp. 2d 591, 596 (s.d.n.y. 2001) (employer had a good faith basis to doubt sincerity of employee’s professed religious need to wear a beard because he had not worn a beard at any time in his fourteen years of employment, had never mentioned his religious beliefs to anyone at the hotel, and simply showed up for work one night and asked for an on the spot exception to the no‑beard policy), aff’d, 2002 wl 390437 (2d cir. mar. 13, 2002). [46] see, e.g., brown v. gen. motors corp., 601 f.2d 956, 960 (8th cir. 1979) (“[42 u.s.c.] § 2000e 2(a)(1) does not require an employer to reasonably accommodate the purely personal preferences of its employees” and thus would not have required the employer in this case to bear the costs of “excusing vast numbers of employees who wish to have friday night off for secular reasons”); dachman v. shalala, 9 f. app’x 186, 192 (4th cir. 2001) (holding that employer not required to accommodate jewish employee’s desire to leave work earlier on friday afternoon to pick up challah bread instead of doing it on thursday evening; “title vii does not protect secular preferences” (quoting tiano v. dillard dep't stores, inc., 139 f.3d 679, 682 (9th cir. 1998))). [47] see, e.g., union independiente, 279 f.3d at 57 (fact that employee initially “objected only to certain membership requirements” and “voiced his opposition to any form of union membership after uia agreed to accommodate him with respect to each practice he had identified” gave rise to jury issue on sincerity). [48] see, e.g., eeoc v. ilona of hungary, inc., 108 f.3d 1569, 1575 (7th cir. 1997) (en banc) (finding that jewish employee proved her request for leave to observe yom kippur was based on a sincerely held religious belief even though she had never in her prior eight year tenure sought leave from work for a religious observance, and conceded that she generally was not a very religious person, where the evidence showed that certain events in her life, including the birth of her son and the death of her father, had strengthened her religious beliefs over the years); cooper v. oak rubber co., 15 f.3d 1375 (6th cir. 1994) (holding that employee held sincere religious belief against working on saturdays, despite having worked the friday night shift at plant for approximately seven months after her baptism, where seventeen months intervened before employee was next required to work on saturday and employee’s undisputed testimony was that her faith and commitment to her religion grew during this time); cunningham v. city of shreveport, 407 f. supp. 3d 595, 609 10 (w.d. la. 2019) (holding that disputed material facts precluded summary judgment on sincerity where employee who previously grew beard during vacations and extended weekends asserted new religious adherence prompted wearing beard full time); eeoc v. ibp, inc., 824 f. supp. 147, 151 (c.d. ill. 1993) (holding that seventh day adventist employee’s previous absence of faith and subsequent loss of faith did not prove that his religious beliefs were insincere at the time that he refused to work on the sabbath); see also union independiente, 279 f.3d at 57 & n.8 (noting the fact that the alleged conflict between plaintiff’s beliefs and union membership kept changing might call into question the sincerity of the beliefs or “might simply reflect an evolution in plaintiff’s religious views toward a more steadfast opposition to union membership”). [49] see eeoc v. alamo rent a car, llc, 432 f. supp. 2d 1006, 1012 (d. ariz. 2006) (finding that it was muslim employee’s sincerely held religious observance to wear headscarf during ramadan, even though she did not wear it the rest of the year). [50] see eeoc v. triangle catering, llc, no. 5:15 cv 00016 fl, 2017 wl 818261, at *9 (e.d.n.c. mar. 1, 2017) (holding that reasonable factfinder could conclude employee had sincerely held religious belief in wearing religious garb if it credited his explanation for not having worn it to job interview for fear of hiring discrimination). [51] see commission guidelines, 29 c.f.r. § 1605.1; adeyeye v. heartland sweeteners, llc, 721 f.3d 444, 452 54 (7th cir. 2013) (holding that employee presented sufficient evidence to show that his request to attend his father's funeral in nigeria to perform specific rites, traditions, and customs “was borne from his own personally and sincerely held religious beliefs” because “participating in the rites and traditions identified by his father is a necessary part of [the employee’s] religious observance” even though employee’s religious practices “were not identical to the religious practices his family observes in nigeria”). [52] anderson v. u.s.f. logistics (imc), inc., 274 f.3d 470, 475 (7th cir. 2001) (finding that employee’s belief that she needed to use the phrase “have a blessed day” was a religious practice covered by title vii even though using the phrase was not a requirement of her religion); heller v. ebb auto co., 8 f.3d 1433, 1438 (9th cir. 1993); see also adeyeye, 721 f.3d at 452 (“it is not within our province to evaluate whether particular religious practices or observances are necessarily orthodox or even mandated by an organized religious hierarchy.”). [53] title 42 u.s.c. § 2000e 2(a) applies to employers with fifteen or more employees. see 42 u.s.c. § 2000e(b). section 2000e 2(b) applies to employment agencies, stating it is unlawful for employment agencies to “fail or refuse to refer for employment, or otherwise to discriminate against, any individual because of his . . . religion . . . or to classify or refer for employment any individual on the basis of his . . . religion . . . .” section 2000e 2(c) applies to unions, stating it is unlawful for unions to “(1) to exclude or expel from membership, or otherwise to discriminate against, any individual because of his . . . religion . . . ; (2) to limit, segregate or classify its membership or applicants . . . or to refuse to refer for employment any individual . . . because of such individual’s . . . religion . . . ; or (3) to cause or attempt to cause an employer to discriminate . . . in violation of this section.” [54] see threshold issues, supra note 14. [55] see, e.g., eeoc v. union independiente de la autoridad de acueductos, 279 f.3d 49 (1st cir. 2002); bushouse v. local union 2209, 164 f. supp. 2d 1066 (n.d. ind. 2001). for further discussion see infra §§ 12 ii, 12 iii, and 12 iv, including 12 iv c 5. [56] see goodman v. lukens steel co., 482 u.s. 656, 668 69 (1987) (holding that unions violated “§ 703(c)(1) [of title vii, which] makes it an unlawful practice for a union to ‘exclude or to expel from its membership, or otherwise to discriminate against, any individual’” when they “ignored [racial] discrimination claims . . . , knowing that the employer was discriminating in violation of the contract”); rainey v. town of warren, 80 f. supp. 2d 5, 17 (d.r.i. 2000) (“it is axiomatic that a union’s failure to adequately represent union members in the face of employer discrimination may subject the union to liability under either title vii or its duty of fair representation.”). to the extent it has been held that a union cannot be held liable where it knowingly acquiesces in discrimination, the eeoc disagrees. see eeoc v. pipefitters ass’n local union 597, 334 f.3d 656 (7th cir. 2003); see also burton v. freescale semiconductor, inc., 789 f.3d 222, 229 (5th cir. 2015) (“a staffing agency is liable for the discriminatory conduct of its joint employer client if it participates in the discrimination, or if it knows or should have known of the client’s discrimination and fails to take corrective measures within its control.”). [57] section 702(a) of title vii, 42 u.s.c. § 2000e 1(a), provides: [title vii] shall not apply to . . . a religious corporation, association, educational institution, or society with respect to the employment of individuals of a particular religion to perform work connected with the carrying on by such corporation, association, educational institution, or society of its activities. section 703(e)(2) of title vii, 42 u.s.c. § 2000e 2(e)(2) provides: [i]t shall not be an unlawful employment practice for a school, college, university, or educational institution or institution of learning to hire and employ employees of a particular religion if such school, college, university, or other educational institution or institution of learning is, in whole or in substantial part, owned, supported, controlled, or managed by a particular religion or by a particular religious corporation, association, or society, or if the curriculum of such school, college, university, or other educational institution or institution of learning is directed toward the propagation of a particular religion. the americans with disabilities act (ada) also provides religious entities with two defenses to claims of discrimination that arise under title i, the ada’s employment provisions. the first provides that “[t]his subchapter shall not prohibit a religious corporation, association, educational institution, or society from giving preference in employment to individuals of a particular religion to perform work connected with the carrying on by such [entity] of its activities.” 42 u.s.c. § 12113(d)(1). the second provides that “[u]nder this subchapter, a religious organization may require that all applicants and employees conform to the religious tenets of such organization.” 42 u.s.c. § 12113(d)(2). [58] hall v. baptist mem’l health care corp., 215 f.3d 618, 624 (6th cir. 2000); see also garcia v. salvation army, 918 f.3d 997, 1003 (9th cir. 2019) (“in applying the [religious organization exemption], we determine whether an institution’s ‘purpose and character are primarily religious’ by weighing ‘[a]ll significant religious and secular characteristics.’” (quoting eeoc v. townley eng’g & mfg. co., 859 f.2d 610, 618 (9th cir. 1988)) (second alteration in original)); leboon v. lancaster jewish cmty. ctr., 503 f.3d 217, 226 (3d cir. 2007) (applying similar “primarily religious” standard); killinger v. samford univ., 113 f.3d 196, 198‑99 (11th cir. 1997) (looking at specific facts to determine whether university was “religious” or “secular”). [59] leboon, 503 f.3d at 226; but see spencer v. world vision, inc., 633 f.3d 723, 730 33 (o’scannlain, j. concurring) (expressing concern that “several of the leboon factors could be constitutionally troublesome if applied to this case”). [60] in hall, 215 f.3d at 624 25, the sixth circuit, looking to “all the facts,” found that a college of health sciences was a title vii religious organization because it was an affiliated institution of a church affiliated hospital, it had a direct relationship with the baptist church, and the college atmosphere was permeated with religious overtones. in spencer v. world vision, inc., 633 f.3d 723, 724 (9th cir. 2011) (per curiam), the ninth circuit held that an entity is “eligible” for the exemption, at least, if the entity (1) is organized for a religious purpose; (2) is engaged primarily in carrying out that religious purpose; (3) holds itself out to the public as an entity for carrying out that religious purpose; and (4) does not engage primarily or substantially in the exchange of goods or services for money beyond nominal amounts. one judge in spencer took the view that the exemption is met if the entity is a non profit and satisfies the first three factors, id. at 734 (o’scannlain, j., concurring), and another judge took the view that the salvation army, for example, would satisfy the “nominal amounts” standard of the fourth factor, notwithstanding that it generates a large dollar amount of sales revenue, because it “gives its homeless shelter and soup kitchen services away, or charges nominal fees.” id. at 747 (kleinfeld, j., concurring). in garcia, 918 f.3d at 1003 04, the ninth circuit held that the salvation army is a religious organization under title vii by applying the spencer test under either judge’s formulation. in leboon, 503 f.3d at 226 29, the third circuit found that a jewish community center was a title vii religious organization where, among other factors, the center “identified itself as jewish,” relied on coreligionists for financial support, offered instructional programs with jewish content, began its board of trustees meetings with biblical readings, and involved rabbis from three local synagogues in its management). see also killinger, 113 f.3d at 199 200 (university founded as a theological institution by the alabama baptist state convention qualified as a “religious educational institution” under title vii; the court noted that all trustees must be baptist, the convention is the university’s largest single source of funding, and the school’s charter designates its chief purpose as “the promotion of the christian religion throughout the world by maintaining and operating … institutions dedicated to the development of christian character in high scholastic standing.”). [61] leboon, 503 f.3d at 229 (holding that a jewish community center was a religious organization under title vii, despite engaging in secular activities such as secular lectures and instruction with no religious content, employing overwhelmingly gentile employees, and failing to ban non kosher foods, and noting that a religiously affiliated newspaper and a religious college had also been found covered by the exemption). however, in leboon, the court did state that “the religious organization exemption would not extend to an enterprise involved in a wholly secular and for profit activity.” leboon, 503 f.3d at 229; see also townley eng’g & mfg. co., 859 f.2d at 619 (holding that evidence the company was for profit, produced a secular product, was not affiliated with a church, and did not mention a religious purpose in its formation documents, indicated that the business was not “primarily religious” and therefore did not qualify for the religious organization exemption). in garcia v. salvation army, 918 f.3d 997, 1003 (9th cir. 2019), the court cited townley as the governing precedent for defining a religious organization. [62] in hobby lobby, a case interpreting the term “person” under rfra, the supreme court briefly referenced title vii’s religious organization exemption in response to the u.s. department of health and human services’ (hhs) argument that “statutes like title vii . . . expressly exempt churches and other nonprofit religious institutions but not for profit corporations.” 573 u.s. at 716. the court did not expressly agree with hhs’s characterization but noted that other statutes “do exempt categories of entities that include for profit corporations from laws that otherwise require these entities to engage in activities to which they object on grounds of conscience.” id. “if title vii and similar laws show anything, it is that congress speaks with specificity when it intends a religious accommodation not to extend to for profit corporations.” id. at 717. it should be noted that, despite hhs’s assertion in its hobby lobby brief, section 702(a) does not expressly distinguish “religious” entities based on for profit or nonprofit status. [63] cf. id. at 702, 708 (in a non title vii case, rejecting the argument that “‘for profit, secular corporations cannot engage in religious exercise’ within the meaning of [the religious freedom restoration act (rfra)] or the first amendment,” and holding that rfra’s protections for any “person” whose religious free exercise is substantially burdened by the government is not limited to nonprofits and includes for profit closely held corporations providing secular goods or services because “no conceivable definition of the term [‘person’] includes natural persons and nonprofit corporations, but not for profit corporations”); see corp. of presiding bishop of church of jesus christ of latter day saints v. amos, 483 u.s. 327, 349 (1987) (o’connor, j., concurring) (recognizing that it is an open question regarding application of title vii’s religious organizations exemption under section 702 to for profit organizations, specifically mentioning possible establishment clause issues with respect to for profit organizations). [64] 42 u.s.c. § 2000e 1(a). the supreme court, in dicta in a case focused on religious discrimination, has characterized section 702 by stating it “exempts religious organizations from title vii’s prohibition against discrimination on the basis of religion.” amos, 483 u.s. at 329. section 703(e)(2) states, “it shall not be an unlawful employment practice” for certain schools, colleges, universities, or other educational institutions “to hire or employ employees of a particular religion.” 42 u.s.c. § 2000e 2(e)(2). [65] see kennedy v. st. joseph’s ministries, inc., 657 f.3d 189, 192 (4th cir. 2011) (holding that exemption “does not exempt religious organizations from title vii’s provisions barring discrimination on the basis of race, gender, or national origin”); boyd v. harding acad. of memphis, inc., 88 f.3d 410, 413 (6th cir. 1996) (stating that the exemption “does not … exempt religious educational institutions with respect to all discrimination”); demarco v. holy cross high sch., 4 f.3d 166, 173 (2d cir. 1993) (“religious institutions that otherwise qualify as ‘employer[s]’ are subject to title vii provisions relating to discrimination based on race, gender and national origin”); rayburn v. gen. conf. of seventh day adventists, 772 f.2d 1164, 1166 (4th cir. 1985) (“while the language of § 702 makes clear that religious institutions may base relevant hiring decisions upon religious preferences, title vii does not confer upon religious organizations a license to make those same decisions on the basis of race, sex, or national origin.”); cf. garcia, 918 f.3d at 1004 5 (holding that title vii retaliation and hostile work environment claims related to religious discrimination were barred by religious organization exception, but adjudicating disability discrimination claim on the merits). [66] 42 u.s.c. § 2000e 2(e) (“notwithstanding any other provision of [title vii], it shall not be an unlawful employment practice for [certain religious educational organizations] . . . to hire and employ employees of a particular religion . . . .”). [67] courts take varying approaches regarding the causation standard and proof frameworks to be applied in assessing this defense. see kennedy, 657 f.3d 189 at 193 94 (holding that plaintiff’s claims of discharge, harassment, and retaliation based on religion were covered by section 702(a) religious exemption and thus barred); curay cramer v. ursuline acad. of wilmington, del., inc., 450 f.3d 130, 141 (3d cir. 2006) (“thus, we will not apply title vii to [plaintiff’s sex discrimination] claim because congress has not demonstrated a clear expression of an affirmative intention that we do so in situations where it is impossible to avoid inquiry into a religious employer's religious mission or the plausibility of its religious justification for an employment decision.”); demarco, 4 f.3d at 170 71 (“[t]he [mcdonnell douglas] inquiry is directed toward determining whether the articulated purpose is the actual purpose for the challenged employment related action.”); eeoc v. miss. coll., 626 f.2d 477, 485 (5th cir. 1980) (holding race and sex discrimination claims barred by section 702 exemption where religious employer presents “convincing evidence” that employment practice was based on the employee’s religion). [68] “for the purposes of this subchapter … [t]he term “religion” includes all aspects of religious observance and practice, as well as belief.” 42 u.s.c. § 2000e(j). [69] see curay cramer, 450 f.3d at 141 (distinguishing the case “from one in which a plaintiff avers that truly comparable employees were treated differently following substantially similar conduct”); demarco, 4 f.3d at 171 (stating pretext inquiry “focuses on . . . whether the rule applied to the plaintiff has been applied uniformly”); eeoc v. fremont christian sch., 781 f.2d 1362, 1368 n.1 (9th cir. 1986) (finding that title vii’s exemption did not apply when the religious employer’s practice and justification were “conclusive[ly]” a pretext for sex discrimination). [70] see curay cramer, 450 f.3d at 141 (“[t]he existence of [section 702(a)] and our interpretation of its scope prevent us from finding a clear expression of an affirmative intention on the part of congress to have title vii apply when its application would involve the court in evaluating violations of [catholic] church doctrine.”); demarco, 4 f.3d at 170 71 (“the district court reasoned that, where employers proffered religious reasons for challenged employment actions, application of the mcdonnell douglas test would require ‘recurrent inquiry as to the value or truthfulness of church doctrine,’ thus giving rise to constitutional concerns. however, in applying the mcdonnell douglas test to determine whether an employer’s putative purpose is a pretext, a fact finder need not, and indeed should not, evaluate whether a defendant’s stated purpose is unwise or unreasonable. rather, the inquiry is directed toward determining whether the articulated purpose is the actual purpose for the challenged employment related action.” (citations omitted)); cf. burwell v. hobby lobby stores, inc., 573 u.s. 682, 725 (2014) (in determining whether an agency rule contravened a closely held corporation’s rights under the religious freedom restoration act, “it is not for the court to say that . . . religious beliefs are mistaken or unreasonable”; rather the court’s “‘narrow function . . . is to determine’ whether the plaintiffs’ asserted religious belief reflects ‘an honest conviction’”). [71] fremont christian sch., 781 f.2d at 1367 n.1; see also miss. coll., 626 f.2d at 486 (if evidence disclosed that the college “in fact” did not consider its religious preference policy in determining which applicant to hire, section 702 did not bar eeoc investigation into applicant’s sex discrimination claim). [72] fremont christian sch., 781 f.2d at 1366 (quoting miss. coll., 626 f.2d at 485). [73] see garcia v. salvation army, 918 f.3d 997, 1007 (9th cir. 2019) (holding that title vii’s religious organizations exemption is not jurisdictional and can be waived if not timely raised in litigation). “because congress did not rank the religious exemption as jurisdictional, this court will ‘treat the restriction as nonjurisdictional in character.’” smith v. angel food ministries, inc., 611 f. supp. 2d 1346, 1351 (m.d. ga. 2009) (quoting arbaugh, 546 u.s. 500, 515 (2006)). [74] see corp. of the presiding bishop of the church of jesus christ of latter day saints v. amos, 483 u.s. 327, 339 (1987) (addressing the issue of whether the § 702 exemption to the secular nonprofit activities of religious organizations violates the establishment clause of the first amendment, the court held that “as applied to the nonprofit activities of religious employers, § 702 is rationally related to the legitimate purpose of alleviating significant governmental interference with the ability of religious organizations to define and carry out their religious missions”); kennedy v. st. joseph’s ministries, inc., 657 f.3d 189, 192 (4th cir. 2011) (“the revised [religious organization exemption] provision, adopted in 1972, broadens the exemption to include any activities of religious organizations, regardless of whether those activities are religious or secular in nature.”). [75] little v. wuerl, 929 f.2d 944, 951 (3d cir. 1991) (holding religious organization exemption barred religious discrimination claim by parochial school teacher who was discharged for failing to follow church canonical procedures with respect to annulment of a first marriage before remarrying). [76] see 42 u.s.c. § 2000e(j) (defining religion to include “all aspects of religious observance and practice, as well as belief”); see also little, 929 f.2d at 951 (concluding that “the permission to employ persons ‘of a particular religion’ includes permission to employ only persons whose beliefs and conduct are consistent with the employer’s religious precepts”). [77] hall v. baptist mem’l health care corp., 215 f.3d 618, 624 (6th cir. 2000); see, e.g., killinger v. samford univ., 113 f.3d 196, 200 (11th cir. 1997) (holding that under religious organization exemption school of divinity need not employ professor who did not adhere to the theology advanced by its leadership); little, 929 f.2d at 951 (holding that religious organization exemption barred religious discrimination claim challenging parochial school’s termination of teacher who had failed to validate her second marriage by first seeking an annulment of her previous marriage through the canonical procedures of the catholic church). [78] see hall, 215 f.3d at 625 (finding that title vii’s religious organization exemption was not waived by the employer’s receipt of federal funding or holding itself out as an equal employment opportunity employer); little, 929 f.3d at 951 (finding that title vii’s religious organization exemption was not waived by catholic school knowingly hiring a lutheran teacher); see also garcia v. salvation army, 918 f.3d 997, 1007 (9th cir. 2019) (holding that title vii’s religious organization exemption is not jurisdictional and can be waived). [79] “in this context, there are circumstances, like those presented here, where a religious institution's ability to ‘create and maintain communities composed solely of individuals faithful to their doctrinal practices’ will be jeopardized by a plaintiff's claim of gender discrimination.” curay cramer, 450 f.3d at 140 42 (affirming dismissal under the religious organization exemption and first amendment grounds of catholic school teacher’s claim that her termination for signing pro choice newspaper advertisement constituted sex discrimination under title vii; evaluating the plaintiff’s claim that male employees were treated less harshly for different conduct that violated church doctrine (e.g., opposition to the iraq war) would require the court to “measure the degree of severity of various violations of church doctrine” in violation of the first amendment); see also miss. college, 626 f.2d at 485 (holding that a plaintiff is barred from proceeding with a title vii suit if a religious employer presents “convincing evidence” that the employment practice was based on a religious preference). [80] id. at 141 (“we distinguish this case from one in which a plaintiff avers that truly comparable employees were treated differently following substantially similar conduct . . . requiring a religious employer to explain why it has treated two employees who have committed essentially the same offense differently poses no threat to the employer's ability to create and maintain communities of the faithful.”) [81] 565 u.s. 171 (2012). [82] our lady of guadalupe school v. morrissey berru, 140 s. ct. 2049, 2061 (2020). [83] hosanna tabor evangelical lutheran church & sch. v. eeoc, 565 u.s. 171, 188 89 (2012). [84] our lady of guadalupe, 140 s. ct. at 2060. [85] hosanna tabor, 565 u.s, at 195 n.4 (“we conclude that the exception operates as an affirmative defense to an otherwise cognizable claim, not a jurisdictional bar.”); our lady of guadalupe, 140 s. ct. at 2055. [86] id.; see also hosanna tabor, 565 u.s. at 188 (agreeing that the ministerial exception “precludes application of such legislation to claims concerning the employment relationship between a religious institution and its ministers”). there is a split in the courts on whether ministerial employees can bring eeo harassment claims. compare elvig v. calvin presbyterian church, 375 f.3d 951, 953 (9th cir. 2004) (holding that the ministerial exception does not bar sexual harassment and retaliation claims that do not “implicate the church’s ministerial employment decisions”), and clement v. roman catholic diocese of erie, no. 16 117, 2017 wl 2619134, at *4 n.3 (w.d. pa. june 16, 2017) (ruling that sexual harassment claim by ministerial employee was not barred because hosanna tabor expressly limited its holding to employment discrimination claims based on hiring and termination decisions and left open whether the ministerial exception bars other types of claims), with skrzypczak v. roman catholic diocese of tulsa, 611 f.3d 1238, 1246 (10th cir. 2010) (holding that minister’s hostile work environment claim was barred under ministerial exception), and preece v. covenant presbyterian church, no. 8:13cv188, 2015 wl 1826231, at *7 (d. neb. apr. 22, 2015) (holding that the ministerial exception barred sexual harassment claim because it “clearly implicate[d] an internal church decision and management”). the court in our lady of guadalupe did not address this precise question. on one hand, the court emphasized that “the selection and supervision of the teachers upon whom the schools rely to do this work lie at the core of their mission.” 140 s. ct. at 2055 (emphasis added); see also id. at 2060 (“at a component of [a religious institution’s] autonomy is the selection of the individuals who play certain key roles”); id. (“a church’s independence on matters ‘of faith and doctrine’ requires the authority to select, supervise, and if necessary, remove a minister without interference by secular authorities.”). on the other hand, the court stated broadly, “[w]hen a school with a religious mission entrusts a teacher with the responsibility of educating and forming students in the faith, judicial intervention into disputes between the school and the teacher threatens the school’s independence in a way that the first amendment does not allow.” id. at 2069 (emphasis added); see also id. at 2060 (“under [the ministerial exception] rule, courts are bound to stay out of employment disputes involving those holding certain important positions with churches and other religious institutions.”). [87] id. at 2061. [88] id. [89] id. at 2060; see also hosanna tabor, 565 u.s. at 184 (“the establishment clause prevents the government from appointing ministers, and the free exercise clause prevents it from interfering with the freedom of religious groups to select their own.”). [90] our lady of guadalupe, 140 s. ct. at 2060. [91] shaliehsabou v. hebrew home of greater wash., inc., 363 f.3d 299, 310 (4th cir. 2004) (fair labor standards act (“flsa”)). [92] see conlon v. intervarsity christian fellowship, 777 f.3d 829, 834 (6th cir. 2015) (holding that to invoke the ministerial exception “an employer need not be a traditional religious organization such as a church, diocese, or synagogue, or an entity operated by a traditional religious organization”); see, e.g., penn v. n.y. methodist hosp., 884 f.3d 416, 424 25 (2d cir. 2018) (although it was a “close question,” the district court did not err in finding that hospital, which was no longer affiliated with the united methodist church and took steps to distance itself from its religious heritage, was “a ‘religious group,’ at least with respect to its department of pastoral care,” because the department’s operations were “marked by clear or obvious religious characteristics”); grussgott v. milwaukee jewish day sch., inc., 882 f.3d 655 (7th cir. 2018) (jewish day school was religious institution for purposes of applying the ministerial exception where school had a rabbi on staff and maintained its own chapel and torah scrolls, and students were taught jewish studies and hebrew and engaged in daily prayer); conlon, 777 f.3d at 829, 833 34 (parachurch campus student organization “whose purpose is to advance the understanding and practice of christianity in colleges and universities” was a religious organization); shaliehsabou, 363 f.3d 299 (hebrew nursing home is a religious institution for purposes of applying the ministerial exception to the flsa where its bylaws define it as a religious and charitable nonprofit and declare that its mission is to provide elder care to “aged of the jewish faith in accordance with the precepts of jewish law and customs”; pursuant to that mission, the nursing home maintained a rabbi on staff, employed mashgichim to ensure compliance with jewish dietary laws, and placed a mezuzah on every resident’s doorpost); yin v. columbia int’l univ., 335 f. supp. 3d 803 (d.s.c. 2018) (religious university that “trains christians for global missions, full time vocational christian ministry in a variety of strategic professions, and marketplace ministry” and “educates people from a biblical worldview” could invoke exception). [93] see our lady of guadalupe, 140 s. ct. at 2058 59 (the schools maintained that their decisions were based on “classroom performance specifically, [the teacher’s] difficulty in administering a new reading and writing program” and “poor performance namely, a failure to observe the planned curriculum and keep an orderly classroom”). [94] 140 s. ct. at 2066. [95] hosanna tabor, 565 u.s. at 190. [96] our lady of guadalupe, 140 s. ct. at 2055, 2062; hosanna tabor, 565 u.s. at 190 92 (holding that the ministerial exception applied to a parochial school teacher, because she pursued a rigorous religious course of study to become a “called” teacher, which included being ordained and receiving the title of “minister,” she held herself out as a minister of the church, she led daily prayers and occasional chapel services, and she provided religious instruction). [97] hosanna tabor, 565 u.s. at 193. [98] our lady of guadalupe, 140 s. ct. at 2064. [99] id. at 2064, 2068. [100] hosanna tabor, 565 u.s. at 193 94 (pointing out that the “heads of congregations themselves often have a mix of duties, including secular ones”). [101] 140 s. ct. at 2063. [102] id. at 2067. [103] id. at 2064; see also hosanna tabor, 565 u.s. at 194 (explaining that, while relevant, the considerations “cannot be considered in isolation, without regard to the nature of the religious functions performed”). [104] id. [105] see id. at 2056, 2060, 2067 n.26, 2068 69; hosanna tabor, 565 u.s. at 190. [106] grussgott v. milwaukee jewish day sch., inc., 882 f.3d 655, 655 (7th cir. 2018) (finding claims by parochial school hebrew and jewish studies teacher barred); fratello v. archdiocese of n.y., 863 f.3d 190 (2d cir. 2017) (finding claims by parochial school principal barred); lishu lin v. columbia int’l univ., 335 f. supp. 3d 803 (d.s.c. 2018) (finding claims by faculty member with secular titles barred where she trained christians for ministry and educated students from a biblical worldview to spread religious message). [107] sterlinski v. cath. bishop of chi., 934 f.3d 568 (7th cir. 2019) (finding claim by church organist barred); cannata v. catholic diocese of austin, 700 f.3d 169 (5th cir. 2012) (finding claims by church music director barred). [108] penn v. n.y. methodist hosp., 884 f.3d 416 (2d cir. 2018) (finding claims by hospital chaplain barred, viewing chaplaincy department as a religious organization though hospital was not); conlon, 777 f.3d 829 (finding claim by staff spiritual director of fellowship organization barred); shaliehsabou v. hebrew home of greater wash., inc., 363 f.3d 299, 309 (4th cir. 2004) (given “the importance of dietary laws to the jewish religion,” “mashgiach” (kosher supervisor) at hebrew home was ministerial employee for purposes of flsa). [109] 140 s. ct. at 2055, 2065, 2069. [110] id. at 2067 n.26. [111] id. at 2066. [112] id. [113] see conlon, 777 f.3d at 836 (explaining that “[t]he ministerial exception is a structural limitation imposed on the government by the religion clauses”). [114] see fratello v. archdiocese of n.y., 863 f.3d 190, 198 (2d cir. 2017) (stating that “the district court appropriately ordered discovery limited to whether [plaintiff] was a minister within the meaning of the exception” when it found that it could not determine whether the ministerial exception applied on a motion to dismiss). [115] see lee v. sixth mount zion baptist church, 903 f.3d 113, 118 n.4 (3d cir. 2018) (noting that although the district court first raised the ministerial exception, “the church [wa]s not deemed to have waived it because the exception is rooted in constitutional limits on judicial authority”); conlon, 777 f.3d at 836 (“the court’s clear language [in hosanna tabor] recognizes that the constitution does not permit private parties to waive the first amendment’s ministerial exception.”); but see hamilton v. southland christian school, inc., 680 f.3d 1316, 1318 (11th cir. 2012) (finding that the school had waived its ministerial exception defense on appeal by not sufficiently arguing it in its brief). [116] the first amendment religion and speech clauses provide that “congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech.” rfra, 42 u.s.c. § 2000bb 1(a) and (b), provides: “government shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability, except . . . if it demonstrates that application of the burden to the person (1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and (2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.” rfra defines “government” to include “a branch, department, agency, instrumentality, and official (or other person acting under color of law) of the united states.” id. § 2000bb 2(1). “although the claim is statutory, rfra protects first amendment free exercise rights,” korte v. sebelius, 735 f.3d 654, 666 (7th cir. 2013), because it was enacted in response to employment division v. smith, 494 u.s. 872, 887 (1990), and designed to “restore the compelling interest test as set forth in sherbert v. verner, 374 u.s. 398 (1963) and wisconsin v. yoder, 406 u.s. 205 (1972) and to guarantee its application in all cases where free exercise of religion is substantially burdened.” 42 u.s.c. § 2000bb(b)(1). the first amendment applies only to restrictions imposed by the government federal or state not by private parties. see cantwell v. connecticut, 310 u.s. 296 (1940). rfra applies only to restrictions imposed by the federal government, not by state governments or private parties. see 42 u.s.c. § 2000bb 2(1); city of boerne v. flores, 521 u.s. 507 (1997); guam v. guerrero, 290 f.3d 1210 (9th cir. 2002); kikumura v. hurley, 242 f.3d 950 (10th cir. 2001). [117] see e.g., curay cramer v. ursuline acad. of wilmington, del., inc., 450 f.3d 130, 138 (3d cir. 2006) (claim that catholic school engaged in gender discrimination in violation of title vii could raise “serious constitutional questions” because it required more than limited inquiry into pretext); cf. bostock v. clayton cnty., 140 s. ct. 1731, 1754 (2020) (“because rfra operates as a kind of super statute, displacing the normal operation of other federal laws, it might supersede title vii’s commands in appropriate cases.”). some courts have examined an employer’s defense to an eeoc action that a nondiscrimination requirement would conflict with their exercise of religion under rfra, although unsuccessfully thus far. see eeoc v. r.g. & g.r. harris funeral homes, inc., 884 f.3d 560 (6th cir. 2018) (considering but rejecting employer’s defense that application of title vii sex nondiscrimination requirement to its hiring decisions would substantially burden its exercise of religion under rfra); eeoc v. preferred mgmt. corp., 216 f. supp. 2d 763, 810 (s.d. ind. 2002) (same for title vii religious nondiscrimination and non harassment requirements). other courts have held that a rfra defense does not apply in suits involving only private parties. see, e.g., listecki v. off. comm. of unsecured creditors, 780 f.3d 731, 736 37 (7th cir. 2015) (rfra inapplicable where the government is not a party, in part because if the government is not a party, it cannot demonstrate a “compelling government interest” as rfra requires); gen. conf. corp. of seventh day adventists v. mcgill, 617 f.3d 402 (6th cir. 2010) (finding rfra inapplicable in trademark infringement case). the second circuit has held that an employer could raise rfra as defense to an employee’s age discrimination in employment act (adea) claim, because the adea is enforceable both by the eeoc and private litigants, but a number of other circuits have disagreed with that reasoning. compare hankins v. lyght, 441 f.3d 96, 103 (2d cir. 2006) with general conference corp. of seventh day adventists v. mcgill, 617 f.3d 402, 411 (6th cir. 2006) (declining to follow hankins based on the text in rfra), tomic v. catholic diocese of peoria, 442 f.3d 1036, 1042 (7th cir. 2006) (“the [hankins] decision is unsound. rfra is applicable only in suits to which the government is a party.”), abrogated on other grounds by hosanna tabor evangelical lutheran church and sch. v. eeoc, 132 s. ct. 694 (2012), and mathis v. christian heating air conditioning, inc., 158 f. supp. 3d 317, 326 (e.d. pa. 2016) (disagreeing with hankins and finding that rfra does not apply if the government is not a party). one circuit court has found that rfra’s broad definition of “government” to include any branch of the federal government might allow a court to find sufficient government involvement in lawsuits between private parties to allow for a rfra defense to apply. see in re young, 82 f.3d 1407, 1417 (8th cir. 1996) (“the bankruptcy code is federal law, the federal courts are a branch of the united states, and our decision in the present case would involve the implementation of federal bankruptcy law.”), vacated on other grounds, 117 s. ct. 2502 (1997), aff’d on remand, 141 f.3d 854 (1998). see also tanzin v. tanzir, 141 s. ct. 486, 493 (2020) (“we conclude that rfra's express remedies provision permits litigants, when appropriate, to obtain money damages against federal officials in their individual capacities.”). [118] see, e.g., brown v. polk cnty., 61 f.3d 650, 659 (8th cir. 1995) (en banc) (rejecting county employers’ argument in title vii religious discrimination case that they were allowed to prohibit religious expression altogether in the workplace to avoid establishment clause claims against them). [119] see guidelines on religious exercise and religious expression in the federal workplace (aug. 14, 1997), https://clintonwhitehouse4.archives.gov/wh/new/html/19970819 3275.html (last visited jan. 8, 2021) [hereinafter federal workplace guidelines]. although the federal workplace guidelines are directed at federal employers, they provide useful guidance for state and local government employers, as well as private employers in some circumstances. in addition, the u.s. department of justice maintains a website, www.​firstfreedom.​gov, which provides information on a variety of constitutional and statutory religious discrimination issues. [120] see, e.g., knight v. conn. dep’t of pub. health, 275 f.3d 156, 164‑65 (2d cir. 2001) (holding that state agency did not violate either title vii or the first amendment free exercise clause by refusing to allow employee to evangelize clients of state agency while performing job duties; in addition, employer would have risked first amendment establishment clause violation by permitting the accommodation); cf. fraternal order of police v. city of newark, 170 f.3d 359 (3d cir. 1999) (alito, j.) (holding that police department violated sunni muslim officer’s first amendment free exercise rights by refusing to make a religious exception to its “no beard” policy to accommodate his beliefs, while exempting other officers for medical reasons); draper v. logan cnty. pub. lib., 403 f. supp. 2d 608 (w.d. ky. 2005) (holding that public library violated an employee’s first amendment free speech and free exercise rights by prohibiting her from wearing a necklace with a cross ornament). [121] see harrell v. donahue, 638 f.3d 975, 984 (8th cir. 2011) (holding rfra claims alleging religious discrimination in federal employment are barred because “title vii provides the exclusive remedy for [] claims of religious discrimination”); francis v. mineta, 505 f.3d 266, 272 (3d cir. 2007) (stating that “[i]t is equally clear that title vii provides the exclusive remedy for job related claims of federal religious discrimination, despite [plaintiff’s] attempt to rely upon the provisions of rfra”). but see lister v. def. logistics agency, no. 2:05 cv 495, 2006 wl 162534, at *3 (s.d. ohio jan. 20, 2006) (denying defendants’ motion to dismiss as to rfra claim and finding that “title vii does not preclude plaintiff from pursuing claims under the fifth amendment to the united states constitution and rfra” because “[a]lthough the claims arise from the same factual circumstance as the title vii claim, the claims are distinct from plaintiff’s claim for employment discrimination and therefore are not precluded by title vii”). in addition, one appellate court has held that a federal employee is not preempted from bringing a rfra claim against another agency (not his employer) to challenge that agency’s action interfering with employment. see, e.g., tagore v. united states, 735 f.3d 324 (5th cir. 2013) (allowing employee’s rfra claim to proceed against agency that enforced building security regulations and denied her permission to enter building while wearing a kirpan). [122] see, e.g., hobby lobby, 573 u.s. at 733 (rejecting “the possibility that discrimination in hiring, for example on the basis of race, might be cloaked as religious practice to escape legal sanction” under rfra, and stating that the decision “provides no such shield”); eeoc v. r.g. & g.r. harris funeral homes, inc., 884 f.3d 560, 589 97 (6th cir. 2018) (holding that eeoc’s enforcement of title vii did not violate rfra), aff’d on other grounds sub nom. bostock v. clayton cnty., 140 s. ct. 1731 (2020); eeoc v. preferred mgmt. corp., 216 f. supp. 2d 763, 810 11 (s.d. ind. 2002) (holding under rfra that “even if the eeoc had substantially burdened [the employer’s] religious beliefs or practices in prosecuting this matter, its conduct still comports with the rfra’s mandates [because] [t]here is a ‘compelling government interest’ in creating such a burden [ ] the eradication of employment discrimination based on the criteria identified in title vii, including religion”   and “the intrusion is the least restrictive means that congress could have used to effectuate its purpose”); see also bostock, 140 s. ct. at 1753 54 (holding that discrimination based on sexual orientation or transgender status is actionable under title vii’s sex discrimination prohibition, but declining to address how an employer’s religious convictions about sexual orientation or transgender status are protected under title vii’s statutory religious organization exception, rfra, or the first amendment’s ministerial exception, noting that how doctrines “protecting religious liberty interact with title vii are questions for future cases”); bob jones univ. v. united states, 461 u.s. 574, 604 (1983) (holding that the compelling governmental interest in eradicating racial discrimination in education substantially outweighed the burden of denying tax exempt status under 26 u.s.c. § 501(c)(3) to a religious university that engage in race discrimination). [123] abramson v. william paterson coll. of n.j., 260 f.3d 265, 281 (3d cir. 2001) (explaining that prima facie case and evidentiary burdens of an employee alleging religious discrimination mirror those of an employee alleging race or sex discrimination). a disparate impact analysis could also apply in the religion context, particularly in the area of recruitment and hiring, or with respect to dress codes or other facially neutral rules. see, e.g., barrow v. greenville indep. sch. dist., 480 f.3d 377 (5th cir. 2007) (affirming summary judgment, citing lack of statistical evidence for employer on title vii claim brought by teacher who asserted policy favoring teachers whose children attended the public schools had a disparate impact on those whose children attended private school for religious rather than secular reasons); muhammad v. n.y. city transit auth., 52 f. supp. 3d 468, 485 88 (e.d.n.y. 2014) (holding that disparate impact religious discrimination claim could proceed where policy of transferring to non driver positions those with objections to the headwear portion of employer’s uniform policy disproportionately affected muslim employees, employer’s desire to maintain customer comfort and boost employee morale did not amount to a legitimate business necessity for its transfer practice, and availability of a less restrictive alternative could be proven from employer’s own prior practice of permitting drivers to wear khimars as long as they matched their uniforms); jenkins v. n.y. city transit auth., 646 f. supp. 2d 464, 470 71 (s.d.n.y. 2009) (holding that pentecostal employee stated a claim under title vii for disparate impact based on religion challenging dress code requiring female bus operators to wear pants rather than long skirts). however, because the reasonable accommodation/undue hardship analysis is usually used when a neutral work rule adversely affects an employee’s religious practice, see infra § 12 iv, disparate impact analysis is seldom used in religion cases. [124] see 42 u.s.c. § 2000e 3(b). [125] id.; 42 u.s.c. § 2000e 2(e)(1); see also infra §§ 12 i c, 12 ii d. [126] see, e.g., patterson v. ind. newspapers inc., 589 f.3d 357, 365 (7th cir. 2009) (ruling that plaintiff may proceed on a claim that “her supervisors, though also christian, did not like her brand of christianity,” because “[t]he issue is whether plaintiff’s specific religious beliefs were a ground for” an adverse employment action); preferred mgmt. corp., 216 f. supp. 2d at 813 (finding evidence raised a reasonable inference that failure to hire was based on religion where applicant was told “[y]ou damned humanists are ruining the world” and will “burn in hell forever”). [127] it is not an unlawful employment practice for an employment agency to comply with an employer’s request for applicants of a particular religion “in those relatively rare instances where religion . . . is a bona fide occupational qualification reasonably necessary to the normal operation of that particular business or enterprise.” 42 u.s.c. § 2000e 2(e)(1). i); see also supra §§ 12‑i‑c‑1, 12‑i‑c‑2 (discussing religious organization exemption and ministerial exception), 12‑ii‑d (discussing bfoq). [128] see eeoc v. abercrombie & fitch stores, inc., 135 s. ct. 2028, 2033 (2015) (“an employer may not make an applicant’s religious practice, confirmed or otherwise, a factor in employment decisions. . . . if the applicant actually requires an accommodation of that religious practice, and the employer’s desire to avoid the prospective accommodation is a motivating factor in his decision, the employer violates title vii” absent an available defense or exemption); see also commission guidelines, 29 c.f.r. § 1605.3. [129] see 42 u.s.c. § 2000e 3(b). [130] see abercrombie & fitch stores, inc., 135 s. ct. at 2033 (holding title vii prohibits failing to hire an applicant in order to avoid accommodating the applicant’s religious practice, whether or not the applicant informed the employer of the need for an accommodation). [131] see, e.g., muhammad v. n.y. city transit auth., 52 f. supp. 3d 468, 485 87 (e.d.n.y. 2014) (analyzing disparate impact claim arising from disproportionate effect of employer’s dress code provision on those wearing certain types of religious garb); jenkins v. n.y. city transit auth., 646 f. supp. 2d 464, 470 71 (s.d.n.y. 2009) (holding that pentecostal employee stated a claim under title vii for religion based disparate impact when challenging dress code requiring female bus operators to wear pants rather than long skirts). [132] in noyes v. kelly servs. inc., 488 f.3d 1163, 1165 (9th cir. 2007), the plaintiff alleged “reverse religious discrimination” when she was not promoted because she did not follow the religious beliefs of her supervisor and management, who were members of a small religious group and favored and promoted other members of the religious group. the court ruled that while the employee did not adhere to a particular religion, the fact that she did not share the employer’s religious beliefs was the basis for the alleged discrimination against her, and the evidence was sufficient to create an issue for trial on whether the employer’s decision to promote another employee was a pretext for religious discrimination. id. at 1168 69. [133] see, e.g., campos v. city of blue springs, 289 f.3d 546 (8th cir. 2002) (holding that evidence supported finding of religiously motivated constructive discharge based on plaintiff’s native american spiritual beliefs); eeoc v. univ. of chi. hosp., 276 f.3d 326 (7th cir. 2002) (holding that evidence was sufficient to proceed to trial in case brought on behalf of recruiter alleging constructive discharge based on her evangelical religious beliefs); altman v. minn. dep’t of corr., 251 f.3d 1199, 1203 (8th cir. 2001) (holding, in case raising both title vii and first amendment claims, that an employer may not discipline employees for conduct because it is religious in nature if it permits such conduct by other employees when not motivated by religious beliefs); tincher v. wal mart stores, 118 f.3d 1125, 1131 (7th cir. 1997) (holding a reasonable jury could conclude that employer’s articulated reason for the discharge of a seventh day adventist was pretextual and that the real reason was religious discrimination because of the inconvenience caused by employee’s inability to work on saturdays). however, not all employer decisions affect a term, condition, or privilege of employment as required to be actionable as disparate treatment. see, e.g., goldmeier v. allstate ins. co., 337 f.3d 629 (6th cir. 2003) (holding a resignation 53 days prior to the effective date of an employer’s policy that would have posed conflict with employees’ religious beliefs did not constitute constructive discharge). [134] see haji v. columbus city sch., 621 f. app’x 309 (6th cir. 2015) (in case involving a school employee who violated the employer’s attendance policy by leaving early to attend a local mosque without signing out or obtaining permission to leave, holding that the plaintiff failed to present evidence that non muslims were treated more favorably, or other evidence supporting an inference of discrimination). [135] cf. ansonia bd. of educ. v. philbrook, 479 u.s. 60, 71 (1986) (holding that a benefit “that is part and parcel of the employment relationship may not be doled out in a discriminatory fashion, even if the employer would be free . . . not to provide the benefit at all” (quoting hishon v. king & spalding, 467 u.s. 69, 75 (1984))). however, at least one court has held that a private employer providing company resources to recognized employee “affinity groups” does not violate title vii by denying this privilege to any group promoting or advocating any religious or political position, where the company excluded not only groups advocating a particular religious position but also those espousing religious indifference or opposition. see moranski v. gen. motors corp., 433 f.3d 537 (7th cir. 2005). [136] see delelegne v. kinney sys., inc., no. 02 11657 rgs, 2004 wl 1281071 (d. mass. june 10, 2004) (holding that ethiopian christian parking garage cashier could proceed to trial on claims of religious harassment and discriminatory termination where he was not allowed to bring a bible to work, pray, or display religious pictures in his booth, while somali muslim employees were permitted to take prayer breaks and to display religious materials in their booths). [137] this type of fact pattern also arises where there is no comparator. see, e.g., dixon v. hallmark cos., 627 f.3d 849 (11th cir. 2010) (ruling that apartment complex property manager could proceed to trial on claim challenging termination for violating the employer’s religious displays policy by refusing to remove a poster of flowers with the words “remember the lilies . . . matthew 6:28” she had hung in the on site management office, where the employer also terminated the manager’s husband, telling him, “you’re fired too. you’re too religious.” this fact pattern may also give rise to a denial of accommodation issue. see infra § 12 iv c 6. [138] see infra § 12 iii. [139] see infra § 12 iv. as explained above, title vii defines “religion” as “all aspects of religious observance and practice, as well as belief, unless an employer demonstrates that he is unable to reasonably accommodate to an employee’s or prospective employee’s religious observance or practice without undue hardship on the conduct of the employer’s business.” 42 u.s.c. § 2000e(j). [140] determining whether religious expression disrupts coworkers or customers is discussed in §§ 12 iii c and 12‑iv c 6, infra. additionally, in a government workplace, the first amendment free exercise clause and establishment clause may affect the employer’s or employee’s ability to restrict or engage in religious expression. see supra § 12 i c 3 (“interaction of title vii with the first amendment and the religious freedom restoration act (rfra)”); see also federal workplace guidelines, supra note 119, §§ 2 b, 2 e (noting implications of rfra for neutral rules that burden religion in the federal workplace). [141] however, there may be special circumstances where religion can be a bona fide occupational qualification for a particular position. see infra § 12 ii d (discussing when religion can be a bona fide occupational qualification). [142] cf. 42 u.s.c. § 2000e 2(g) (permitting covered entities to discharge or refuse to “hire and employ” or refer an individual who does not meet federal security requirements). see infra § 12‑iv b 5 (discussing security requirements and title vii’s accommodation obligation). [143] 42 u.s.c. § 2000e 2(e)(1). [144] compare abrams v. baylor coll. of med., 805 f.2d 528 (5th cir. 1986) (holding that being non jewish was not a bfoq for a university which had a contract to supply physicians on rotation at a saudi arabian hospital when the hospital presented no evidence to support its contention that saudi arabia would actually have refused an entry visa to a jewish faculty member), and rasul v. dist. of columbia, 680 f. supp. 436 (d.d.c. 1988) (holding that department of corrections failed to demonstrate that protestant religious affiliation was a bfoq for position as prison chaplain because chaplains were recruited and hired on a facility wide basis and were entrusted with the job of planning, directing, and maintaining a total religious program for all inmates, whatever their respective denominations), with kern v. dynalectron corp., 577 f. supp. 1196 (n.d. tex. 1983) (holding that requirement that pilot convert to islam was a bfoq, where not based on a preference of contractor performing work in saudi arabia, but on the fact that non‑muslim employees caught flying into mecca would, under saudi arabian law, be beheaded), aff’d, 746 f.2d 810 (5th cir. 1984). [145] 42 u.s.c. § 2000e 2(a)(1). [146] faragher v. boca raton, 524 u.s. 775, 786 (1998) (quotation marks and citations omitted). [147] id. [148] meritor sav. bank, fsb v. vinson, 477 u.s. 57, 65 (1986). [149] meritor sav. bank, 477 u.s. at 67 (quoting henson v. city of dundee, 682 f.2d 897, 904 (11th cir. 1982) (alteration in meritor)). [150] meritor sav. bank, 477 u.s. at 66; see also faragher, 524 u.s. at 786 88. [151] meritor sav. bank, 477 u.s. at 65. [152] id. at 66; see, e.g., venters v. city of delphi, 123 f.3d 956 (7th cir. 1997) (holding that an employee who was terminated after she disagreed with supervisor’s religious beliefs raised a triable title vii harassment claim based on two separate theories of harassment liability: that a supervisor conditioned a “tangible employment benefit” upon “adher[ing] to [her supervisor’s set of religious values,” and that the employer created a hostile work environment). [153] see martin v. stoops buick, inc., no. 1:14 cv 00298 rly dkl, 2016 wl 2989037, at *6 (s.d. ind. may 24, 2016) (denying summary judgment for employer where a reasonable juror could find that plaintiff’s termination was motivated by her refusal to continue reading the bible with her manager); scott v. montgomery cnty. sch. bd., 963 f. supp. 2d 544, 553 57 (w.d. va. 2013) (holding that a reasonable jury could find plaintiff’s rejection of her supervisor’s overtures, including declining her requests to join bible study group, attend religious retreat, or begin each day with prayer before work, resulted in negative performance evaluations and then the non renewal of her contract, even though the allegations did not establish a hostile work environment claim); rice v. city of kendallville, no. 1:07 cv 180 ts, 2009 wl 857463, at *8 9 (n.d. ind. mar. 31, 2009) (holding that discrimination could be found where plaintiff was terminated but her coworker, who engaged in same misconduct but attended their supervisor’s church, was not); see also venters, 123 f.3d at 964 (holding that employee established that she was discharged on the basis of her religion after supervisor, among other things, repeatedly called her “evil” and stated that she had to share his christian beliefs in order to be a good employee). [154] many of the example’s facts are taken from sattar v. motorola, inc., 138 f.3d 1164 (7th cir. 1998). however, in sattar the plaintiff alleged only discriminatory discharge, not harassment. the court of appeals upheld summary judgment in favor of the employer, ruling that the employer had supplied sufficient evidence that it had discharged the plaintiff for deficient performance and poor leadership skills, and that the plaintiff had not supplied evidence that these reasons were pretext for religious discrimination. [155] courts may come to different conclusions regarding whether job duties and religious beliefs conflict and, in turn, whether there is a duty to accommodate at all. compare summers v. whitis, no. 4:15 cv 00093 rly dml, 2016 wl 7242483, at *5 7 (s.d. ind. dec. 15, 2016) (holding that deputy county clerk terminated for refusing on religious grounds to process same sex marriage licenses did not prove failure to accommodate because there was no conflict between her religious beliefs and her job duties, where the duties were purely administrative, and she was not required to perform or attend marriage ceremonies, personally issue licenses or certificates, say congratulations, offer a blessing, or express religious approval), with slater v. douglas cnty., 743 f. supp. 2d 1188, 1193 95 (d. or. 2010) (holding that county clerk’s office employee could proceed with denial of accommodation and discriminatory termination claim arising from her religious refusal to process same sex domestic partnership registration paperwork). [156] see pedersen v. casey’s gen. stores, inc., 978 f. supp. 926, 929 (d. neb. 1997) (awarding relief following jury finding that employer’s refusal to accommodate employee’s need to have easter day off, while knowing that she could not compromise her religious needs and where it would not have posed an undue hardship, amounted to constructive discharge in violation of title vii); see also venters, 123 f.3d at 972 (ruling that “the accommodation framework . . . has no application when the employee alleges that he was fired because he did not share or follow his employer’s religious beliefs”). [157] harris v. forklift sys., inc., 510 u.s. 17, 21 (1993) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). [158] meritor sav. bank, fsb v. vinson, 477 u.s. 57, 67 (1986); see also dediol v. best chevrolet, inc., 655 f.3d 435, 443 (7th cir. 2011) (stating the prima facie case of hostile work environment based on religion). [159] see rivera v. p.r. aqueduct & sewers auth., 331 f.3d 183, 189 91 (1st cir. 2003) (“a constellation of factors led to the friction between rosario and her coworkers, but no reasonable fact finder could conclude on the basis of the incidents we have described or the general atmosphere in the office that one of these factors was an antipathy towards rosario”s underlying religious convictions.”); marcus v. west, no. 99 c 0261, 2002 wl 1263999, at *11 (n.d. ill. june 3, 2002) (finding that mistreatment of sanctified pentecostal christian employee was not because of religion, where supervisor mistreated all of her employees and had poor management and interpersonal skills). [160] see rasmy v. marriott int'l, inc., 952 f.3d 379, 387 88 & n.34 (2d cir. 2020); turner v. barr, 811 f. supp. 1, 3 4 (d.d.c. 1993) (finding that hostile environment was created where jewish employee was subjected to a “joke” about the holocaust, denied opportunity to work overtime, and ridiculed as a “turnkey,” even though the latter two incidents did not refer to religion, because the facts showed that he was singled out for such treatment because of his religion). [161] see eeoc v. sunbelt rentals, inc., 521 f.3d 306, 315 19 (4th cir. 2008) (reversing summary judgment for the employer and remanding the case for trial because a reasonable fact finder could conclude that a muslim employee who wore a kufi as part of his religious observance was subjected to hostile work environment religious harassment when fellow employees repeatedly called him “taliban” and “towel head,” made fun of his appearance, questioned his allegiance to the united states, suggested he was a terrorist, and made comments associating all muslims with senseless violence); eeoc v. wc&m enters., inc., 496 f.3d 393, 398 401 (5th cir. 2007) (reversing summary judgment for the employer and remanding the case for trial because a reasonable fact finder could conclude that harassment initiated after september 11, 2001, against a car salesman who was born in india and was a practicing muslim, was severe or pervasive and motivated by his national origin and religion); eeoc v. t n t carports, inc., no. 1:09 cv 27, 2011 wl 1769352, at *4 (m.d.n.c. may 9, 2011) (holding that evidence could show harassment was motivated by religious animosity where coworkers suggested employee, a devout christian, belonged to a cult and was a devil worshipper; physically intimidated her while simultaneously using derogatory words about her religion; called her “crazy” about her religious beliefs; drew devil horns, a devil tail, and a pitchfork on her christmas photo; used profanity followed by mock apologies; and cursed the bible and teased about bible reading). in sunbelt, the fourth circuit held: “we cannot regard as ‘merely offensive,’ and thus ‘beyond title vii’s purview,’ harris, 510 u.s. at 21, constant and repetitive abuse founded upon misperceptions that all muslims possess hostile designs against the united states, that all muslims support jihad, that all muslims were sympathetic to the 9/11 attack, and that all muslims are proponents of radical islam.” 521 f.3d at 318. [162] see abramson v. william paterson coll. of n.j., 260 f.3d 265, 279 (3d cir. 2001) (holding that supervisor criticizing professor’s refusal to work on her sabbath, scheduling meetings on jewish holidays, and charging her for leave on those holidays could be found to have “infected [professor’s] work experience” because of her religion). [163] chamberlin v. 101 realty, inc., 915 f.2d 777, 784 (1st cir. 1990); see mahler v. first dakota title ltd. p’ship, 931 f.3d 799, 806 (8th cir. 2019) (“harassing conduct is considered unwelcome if it was uninvited and offensive.”). [164] in harris v. forklift systems, inc., 510 u.s. 17, 21 22 (1993), the court clarified that a complainant alleging a hostile work environment must establish not only that the alleged harassment was objectively hostile but also that she subjectively viewed the conduct as hostile. some courts continue to identify unwelcomeness as a separate element of a hostile work environment claim, see, e.g., maldonado cátala v. municipality of naranjito, 876 f.3d 1, 10 (1st cir. 2017); patton v. jacobs eng’g grp., inc., 874 f.3d 437, 445 (5th cir. 2017), and other courts address unwelcomeness as part of assessing subjective hostility, stating that conduct that is subjectively hostile must also logically be unwelcome, see, e.g., johnson v. advocate health & hosps. corp., 892 f.3d 887, 904 (7th cir. 2018) (holding that because a reasonable jury could find that the conduct was unwelcome, there was an issue of material fact regarding subjective hostility); kokinchak v. postmaster gen. of the u.s., 677 f. app’x 764, 767 (3d cir. 2017) (treating unwelcomeness and subjective hostility as the same issue). [165] see wc&m enters., 496 f.3d at 400 01 (finding religious and national origin harassment claim could be based on having been referred to as a “muslim extremist” and constantly called “taliban,” among other terms); khan v. united recovery sys., inc., no. h 03 2292, 2005 wl 469603, at *16 17 (s.d. tex. feb. 28, 2005) (finding religious harassment claim could be based on (1) alleged comments by coworker that court characterized as “malicious and vitriolic,” including that all muslims are terrorists who should be killed, that he wished “all these muslims were wiped off the face of the earth,” and that plaintiff might get shot for wearing an “allah” pendant; (2) additional comments questioning plaintiff about what was being taught at her mosque and whether it was “connected with terrorists”; and (3) allegation that plaintiff’s supervisor placed newspaper articles on her desk about mosques in afghanistan that taught terrorism, along with a note telling her to come into his office and justify such activity). [166] see venters v. city of delphi, 123 f.3d 956, 976 (7th cir. 1997) (holding that employee established comments were unwelcome where she made clear her objection to the comments once she told her supervisor he had “crossed the line”). complaints to family, friends, or coworkers may also indicate subjective hostility. see, e.g., dey v. colt constr. & dev. co., 28 f.3d 1446, 1454 (7th cir. 1994). [167] see venters, 123 f.3d at 976. [168] see faragher, 524 u.s. at 787 88; oncale v. sundowner offshore servs., 523 u.s. 75, 82 83 (1998) (“the real social impact of workplace behavior often depends on a constellation of surrounding circumstances, expectations, and relationships which are not fully captured by a simple recitation of the words used or the physical acts performed.”); harris, 510 u.s. at 23; see also eeoc v. sunbelt rentals, inc., 521 f.3d 306, 315 (4th cir. 2008) (evidence that coworkers repeatedly called the employee “taliban” and “towel head” and made other negative comments related to being a muslim was enough to overcome summary judgment on both the objective and subjective elements of the severe or pervasive test). [169] aulicino v. n.y.c. dep’t of homeless servs., 580 f.3d 73, 83 (2d cir. 2009). [170] harris, 510 u.s. at 23. [171] id.; see also rasmy v. marriott int'l, inc., 952 f.3d 379, 390 (2d cir. 2020) (“although the presence of physical threats or impact on job performance are relevant to finding a hostile work environment, their absence is by no means dispositive.”). [172] see johnson v. spencer press of me., inc., 364 f.3d 368 (1st cir. 2004) (ruling that jury properly found hostile work environment where supervisor repeatedly insulted plaintiff, mocked his religious beliefs, and threatened him with violence); cf. sattar v. motorola, inc., 138 f.3d 1164, 1167 (7th cir. 1998) (muslim supervisor barraged former muslim employee with e mails containing dire warnings of the divine punishments that awaited those who refuse to follow islam). [173] harris, 510 u.s. at 21; meritor sav. bank, fsb v. vinson, 477 u.s. 57, 64 (1986). [174] harris, 510 u.s. at 22 (“[e]ven without regard to these tangible effects, the very fact that the discriminatory conduct was so severe or pervasive that it created a work environment abusive to employees because of their race, gender, religion, or national origin offends title vii’s broad rule of workplace equality . . . . certainly title vii bars conduct that would seriously affect a reasonable person’s psychological well being, but the statute is not limited to such conduct.”); see also dey v. colt constr. & dev. co., 28 f.3d 1446, 1454‑55 (7th cir. 1994) (“[t]he mention in harris of an unreasonable interference with work performance was not intended to penalize the employee who possesses the dedication and fortitude to complete her assigned tasks even in the face of offensive and abusive [conduct] . . . . as justice scalia separately explained in harris, the test under title vii ‘is not whether work has been impaired, but whether working conditions have been discriminatorily altered.’”). [175] see harris, 510 u.s. at 23 (“whether an environment is ‘hostile’ or ‘abusive’ can be determined only by looking at all the circumstances . . . . [n]o single factor is required.”). [176] faragher v. boca raton, 524 u.s. 775, 788 (1998) (citing oncale, 523 u.s. at 80); see also (finding coworker’s conduct did not create a hostile work environment where coworker sang religious songs, quoted religious scripture, preached and spoke about church and the bible, referred to plaintiff as the devil an unspecified number of times over a six month period, and informed plaintiff that she would go to hell for not believing in jesus christ); walker v. mccarthy, 582 f. app’x 6 (d.c. cir. 2014) (ruling that plaintiff did not state a hostile work environment religion claim based on receipt of an invitation and emails regarding a coworker’s same sex marriage); sheikh v. indep. sch. dist. 535, no. 00 1896dwfsrn, 2001 wl 1636504 (d. minn. oct. 18, 2001) (holding that a muslim employee who was ostracized by colleagues because he refused to shake hands with female colleagues did not suffer a materially adverse change in the terms and conditions of employment). [177] compare garcimonde fisher v. area203 marketing, llc, 105 f. supp. 3d 825, 838 41 (e.d. tenn. 2015) (ruling that owner’s cumulative actions may have amounted to “[o]verwhelming pressure to conform to a particular religion or sect,” where he decorated walls with judeo christian artwork, biblical posters and ten commandments placards; distributed to employees materials with religious messages and solicitations for donations to overtly religious charities; played christian movies on breakroom tv all day; employed a staff chaplain who hosted prayer meetings and bible studies during work; and made comments to one plaintiff that being catholic was not “the right kind of christian”), with alansari v. tropic star seafood inc., 388 f. app’x 902, 905 (11th cir. 2010) (per curiam) (finding that solicitations to go to church because “jesus would save” plaintiff, other comments about the plaintiff's muslim religion, and the playing of christian music on the radio did not amount to hostile work environment), defrietas v. horizon inv. & mgmt. corp., no. 2:06 cv 926, 2008 wl 204473, at *6 (d. utah jan. 24, 2008) (“sporadic invitations to attend church with a coworker, while uncomfortable, do not constitute a hostile work environment.”), aff’d in part and rev’d in part on other grounds, 577 f.3d 1151 (10th cir. 2009), marcus v. west, no. 99 c 0261, 2002 wl 1263999, at *11 (n.d. ill. june 3, 2002) (finding that asking a very religious employee to swear on a bible to resolve differences with a colleague and telling her that people did not like her “church lady act” were isolated incidents that were not severe or pervasive enough to create a hostile work environment), and sublett v. edgewood universal cabling sys., inc., 194 f. supp. 2d 692, 703 (s.d. ohio 2002) (finding supervisor’s single comment to rastafarian employee that those “dread things” made him look too “radical” was not sufficiently severe to create a hostile environment). [178] cf. tessler v. khow radio, inc., no. 95 b 2414, 1997 wl 458489, at *8 (d. colo. apr. 21, 1997). [179] cf. brown v. polk cnty., 61 f.3d 650, 656‑57 (8th cir. 1995) (en banc) (holding that it did not pose an undue hardship for employer to accommodate supervisor’s sporadic and voluntary prayers during workplace meetings). [180] see, e.g., eeoc v. prospect airport servs., inc., 621 f.3d 991, 1000 (9th cir. 2010) (explaining that “[t]he “required level of severity or seriousness varies inversely with the pervasiveness or frequency of the conduct” (alteration in original)); pucino v. verizon wireless commc’ns, inc., 618 f.3d 112, 119 (2d cir. 2010) (“[a] plaintiff need not show that her [work] environment was both severe and pervasive; only that it was sufficiently severe or sufficiently pervasive, or a sufficient combination of these elements, to have altered her working conditions.”); williams v. gen. motors corp., 187 f.3d 553, 563 (6th cir. 1999) (explaining that in determining whether the alleged conduct rises to the level of severe or pervasive, a court should consider the factual “totality of the circumstances,” and that using a “holistic perspective is necessary, keeping in mind that each successive episode has its predecessors, the impact of the separate incidents may accumulate, and the work environment created thereby may exceed the sum of the individual episodes”); see also, e.g., shanoff v. ill. dep’t of hum. servs., 258 f.3d 696, 705 (7th cir. 2001) (six instances of “rather severe” harassment over four months were sufficient to allow a reasonable jury to rule in favor of plaintiff). [181] see hall v. city of chi., 713 f.3d 325, 330 (7th cir. 2013) (stating that “one extremely serious act of harassment could rise to an actionable level as could a series of less severe acts” (quoting haugerud v. amery sch. dist., 259 f.3d 678, 693 (7th cir. 2001)); cf. johnson v. spencer press of me., inc., 364 f.3d 368 (1st cir. 2004) (in affirming the jury verdict for plaintiff on a religious harassment claim, court noted plaintiff’s testimony that a supervisor who made ongoing derogatory remarks about plaintiff’s religion also once put the point of a knife under plaintiff’s chin, in addition to threatening to kill him with a hand grenade, run him over with a car, and shoot him with a bow and arrow). [182] ayissi etoh v. fannie mae, 712 f.3d 572, 580 (d.c. cir. 2013) (kavanaugh, j., concurring) (“as several courts have recognized, . . . a single verbal (or visual) incident can . . . be sufficiently severe to justify a finding of a hostile work environment.”). [183] see peters v. renaissance hotel operating co., 307 f.3d 535, 552 (7th cir. 2002) (holding that the combined impact of the comments directed at the employee and at others was not severe or pervasive enough to create a hostile work environment; “[m]any of the actions that [the employee] identifies were not directed at him . . . . as ‘second hand’ harassment, the impact of these incidents are ‘obviously not as great as the impact of harassment directed at the plaintiff.’” (quoting russell v. bd. of trs. of univ. of ill. at chi., 243 f.3d 336, 343 (7th cir. 2001))). [184] see, e.g., rasmy v. marriott int’l, inc., 952 f.3d 379, 389 & n.44 (2d cir. 2020) (reaching this conclusion and noting that the eeoc has long taken this position); ellis v. houston, 742 f.3d 307, 320 21 (8th cir. 2014) (explaining that when offensive comments not directly made to plaintiff become known to plaintiff, “their relevance to claims of a hostile work environment is clear”); reeves v. c.h. robinson worldwide, inc., 594 f.3d 798, 811 (11th cir. 2010) (en banc) (“[w]ords and conduct . . . may state a claim of a hostile work environment, even if the words are not directed specifically at the plaintiff.”); williams v. gen. motors corp., 187 f.3d 553, 563 (6th cir. 1999) (overhearing “i’m sick and tired of these fucking women” could be “humiliating and fundamentally offensive to any woman in that work environment”). [185] cf. hawkins v. pepsico, inc., 203 f.3d 274, 276 (4th cir. 2000) (stating that “a routine difference of opinion” cannot support a hostile work environment claim); sunbelt rentals, inc., 521 f.3d at 315 (4th cir. 2008) (“[e]ven incidents that would objectively give rise to bruised or wounded feelings will not on that account satisfy the severe or pervasive standard.”); see also chinery v. american airlines, 778 f. app’x 142, 145 46 (3d cir. 2019) (examining whether social media posts about workplace issues and the plaintiff created a hostile work environment, but determined that the conduct was not objectively severe or pervasive). social media posts that do involve the workplace can become part of a hostile work environment claim. see roy v. correct care sols., llc, 914 f.3d 52, 63 n.4 (1st cir. 2019) (“furthermore, it is not clear at all that facebook messages should be considered non workplace conduct where, as here, they were about workplace conduct, including dever's reports and rumors, and were sent over social media by an officer who worked in roy's workplace.”). in addition, an employee’s wearing religious garb in the workplace, or workplace religious decorations that do not demean or degrade other employees, or their religious views generally, would not, standing alone, constitute a hostile work environment. [186] see faragher v. boca raton, 524 u.s. 775, 802 03 (1998); burlington indus., inc. v. ellerth, 524 u.s. 742, 759 60 (1998). [187] ellerth, 524 u.s. at 758. [188] faragher, 524 u.s. at 789 90. [189] for strict liability to apply to a constructive discharge claim, a supervisor’s tangible employment action must have precipitated the decision to quit. otherwise, the employer is entitled to raise the affirmative defense described above. see pa. state police v. suders, 542 u.s. 129, 146 50 (2004). [190] ellerth, 524 u.s. at 765; faragher, 524 u.s. at 807. [191] see, e.g., chavez v. colo. dep’t of educ., 244 f. supp. 3d 1106, 1128 (d. colo. 2017) (ruling that because employer took adequate action to address plaintiff’s complaints that she was being pressured and treated unfairly by her supervisor for refusing to continue attending the supervisor’s bible study and other church activities, plaintiff could not prevail on harassment claim). [192] see vance v. ball state univ., 570 u.s. 421, 448 49 (2013) (noting that a complainant can establish employer liability, even when “a harasser is not a supervisor,” “by showing that [the] employer was negligent in failing to prevent harassment from taking place”). [193] see ellerth, 524 u.s. at 762; faragher, 524 u.s. at 788; hafford v. seidner, 183 f.3d 506, 513 (6th cir. 1999); cf. guidelines on discrimination because of national origin, 29 c.f.r. § 1606.8(d) (stating employer is liable for coworker harassment on the basis of national origin when it knew or should have known of the conduct and failed to take immediate and appropriate corrective action); id. § 1604.11(e) (sexual harassment). [194] cf. powell v. yellow book usa, inc., 445 f.3d 1074, 1078 (8th cir. 2006) (finding that employer was not liable for religious harassment of plaintiff because, upon learning of her complaints about a coworker’s proselytizing, the employer promptly held a meeting and told the coworker to stop discussing religion matters with plaintiff, and there was evidence that the company continued to monitor the situation to ensure that the coworker did not resume her proselytizing). [195] compare erickson v. wisconsin dep’t of corr., 469 f.3d 600, 608 (7th cir. 2006) (discussing female employee’s title vii action against prison employer based on harassment by male inmates; ruling that “a reasonable jury could have found that, after [the employee’s] discussion with her supervisors . . . , [prison] had enough information to make a reasonable employer think there was some probability that [the employee] was being sexually harassed, yet took no remedial action as it was obligated to do under title vii” (quotation marks and citations omitted)), with berry v. delta airlines, inc., 260 f.3d 803 (7th cir. 2001) (finding that employer was not liable for alleged sexual harassment of its female employee by a male contractor because it promptly investigated the allegations, requested a change in the contractor’s shift so that he would not have contact with the employee, and asked that all contractors be required to view sexual harassment training video). cf. commission guidelines, 29 c.f.r. § 1604.11(e), 1606.8(e). [196] see eeoc v. townley eng’g & mfg. co., 859 f.2d 610, 621 (9th cir. 1988) (“where the religious practices of employers . . . and employees conflict, title vii does not, and could not, require individual employers to abandon their religion. rather, title vii attempts to reach a mutual accommodation of the conflicting religious practices.”); cf. burwell v. hobby lobby, stores, inc., 573 u.s. 682, 702 (2014) (rejecting court’s holding below that, unlike nonprofit corporations, “for profit, secular corporations cannot engage in religious exercise”) (rfra). [197] see peterson v. hewlett packard co., 358 f.3d 599, 607 (9th cir. 2004) (“[a]n employer need not accommodate an employee’s religious beliefs if doing so would result in discrimination against his coworkers or deprive them of contractual or other statutory rights.”). [198] id. [199] see ervington v. ltd commodities, llc, 555 f. app’x 615, 618 (7th cir. 2014) (upholding discharge for employee’s continuing, after warning, to violate company’s anti harassment policy by distributing religious pamphlets that denigrated other religions); bodett v. coxcom, inc., 366 f.3d 736, 745 46 (9th cir. 2004) (ruling that supervisor’s harassment of subordinate in violation of employer’s anti harassment policy was a legitimate nondiscriminatory reason for termination, even if the violations were motivated by the supervisor’s religious beliefs). [200] smith v. city of phila., 285 f. supp. 3d 846, 854 (e.d. pa. 2018). [201] see cloutier v. costco wholesale corp., 390 f.3d 126, 133 (1st cir. 2004) (“under title vii, an employer must offer a reasonable accommodation to resolve a conflict between an employee's sincerely held religious belief and a condition of employment, unless such an accommodation would create an undue hardship for the employer’s business.”); weathers v. fedex corp. servs., inc., no. 09 c 5493, 2011 wl 5184406, at *11 (n.d. ill. nov. 1, 2011) (ruling that employee’s request for clarification of an employer “letter of counseling” instructing that his discussions of religion with coworkers “must cease” was a request for accommodation, and holding that an ongoing broad instruction not to discuss religion could be found to be an adverse action, because it left him “unable to exercise his religious belief and unable to discuss a subject of broad scope and of great importance to him” even if the conversation was initiated by others). [202] cf. eeoc v. abercrombie & fitch stores, inc., 135 s. ct. 2028, 2034 (2015) (“title vii does not demand mere neutrality with regard to religious practices   that they be treated no worse than other practices. rather, it gives them favored treatment, affirmatively obligating employers not ‘to fail or refuse to hire or discharge any individual. . . because of such individual’s’ ‘religious observance and practice.’” (alteration in original)). [203] 42 u.s.c. § 2000e(j); commission guidelines, 29 c.f.r. § 1605.2(b). [204] compare trans world airlines, inc. v. hardison, 432 u.s. 63, 84 (1977) (interpreting title vii “undue hardship” standard), with 42 u.s.c. § 12111(10)(a) (defining ada “undue hardship” standard). see infra § 12‑iv‑b. [205] abercrombie & fitch stores, inc., 135 s. ct. at 2034. [206] see id. (“an employer is surely entitled to have, for example, a no headwear policy as an ordinary matter. but when an applicant requires an accommodation as an ‘aspec[t] of religious . . . practice,’ it is no response that the subsequent ‘fail[ure] . . . to hire’ was due to an otherwise neutral policy.” (alterations in original)). [207] protos v. volkswagen of am., inc., 797 f.2d 129, 136 (3d cir. 1986) (citation omitted); see also id. (“this is . . . part of our ‘happy tradition’ of avoiding unnecessary clashes with the dictates of conscience.”) (citation omitted); cf. hobbie v. unemployment appeals comm’n of fla., 480 u.s. 136, 146 (1987) (explaining that, under the free exercise clause of the first amendment, the government “may not force an employee ‘to choose between following the precepts of her religion and forfeiting benefits, . . . and abandoning one of the precepts of her religion in order to accept work’” (citation omitted) (alteration in original)). [208] hardison, 432 u.s. at 84. [209] furthermore, if companies are interested in expressing their views on social issues and having their employees convey the company’s views, the issue of religious accommodation could arise to the extent an employee believes that a message the employer would like the employee to convey violates the employee’s religious beliefs. for example, if a company has a policy that all employees in its retail stores must wear shirts conveying messages celebrating lgbtq pride in the month of june, or that requires employees to say “jesus is our savior” when answering the phone during the christmas season, the company may have an obligation to accommodate employees who cannot convey these messages because of religious beliefs. [210] see ansonia bd. of educ. v. philbrook, 479 u.s. 60, 68 (1980) (“the employer violates the statute unless it ‘demonstrates that [it] is unable to reasonably accommodate . . . an employee’s . . . religious observance or practice without undue hardship on the conduct of the employer’s business.’”); hardison, 432 u.s. at 74 (“[t]he employer’s statutory obligation to make reasonable accommodation for the religious observances of its employees, short of incurring an undue hardship, is clear.” ); cf. abercrombie & fitch stores, inc., 135 s. ct. at 2033 34 (“[r]eligious practice is one of the protected characteristics that cannot be accorded disparate treatment and must be accommodated.”). [211] see 42 u.s.c. § 2000e 2(a)(1) (making it unlawful “to discriminate against any individual with respect to his. . . terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s . . . religion”). [212] compare storey v. burns int’l sec. servs., 390 f.3d 760, 765 (3d cir. 2004) (“an employer’s failure to reasonably accommodate an employee’s sincerely held religious belief that conflicts with a job requirement can also amount to an adverse employment action unless the employer can demonstrate that such an accommodation would result in ‘undue hardship.’”), eeoc v. townley eng’g & mfg. co., 859 f.2d 610, 614 n.5 (9th cir. 1988) (“the threat of discharge (or other adverse employment practices) is a sufficient penalty. an employee does not cease to be discriminated against because he temporarily gives up his religious practice and submits to the employment policy.” (internal citation omitted)), and rodriguez v. city of chi., no. 95 c 5371, 1996 wl 22964, at *3 (n.d. ill. jan. 12, 1986) (“it is nonsensical to suggest that an employee who, when forced by his employer to choose between his job and his faith, elects to avoid potential financial and/or professional damage by acceding to his employer’s religiously objectionable demands has not been the victim of religious discrimination.”), with brooks v. city of utica, 275 f. supp. 3d 370, 378 (n.d.n.y. 2017) (“[u]nrealized threats do not constitute adverse employment actions.”). see generally reed v. uaw, 569 f.3d 576, 580 (6th cir. 2009) (stating that because plaintiff has not shown any material adverse action, his reasonable accommodation claim fails, however, “an employee who believes that he is being treated less favorably because of his religion or some other protected ground has the right to bring a disparate treatment claim.”); mohammed v. schneider nat’l carriers, inc., no. 18 0642, 2018 wl 5634897, at *2 4 (w.d. pa. oct. 12, 2018) (magistrate judge report and recommendation) (reviewing cases), adopted, 2018 wl 5633994 (w.d. pa. oct. 31, 2018). [213] see chalmers v. tulon co. of richmond, 101 f.3d 1012, 1019 (4th cir. 1996) (“[a] prima facie case under the accommodation theory requires evidence that [the employee] informed her employer that her religious needs conflicted with an employment requirement and asked the employer to accommodate her religious needs.”); redmond v. gaf corp., 574 f.2d 897, 901 (7th cir. 1978) (“implicit within plaintiff’s prima facie case is the requirement that plaintiff inform his employer of both his religious needs and his need for an accommodation.”). [214] see, e.g., dixon v. hallmark cos., 627 f.3d 849, 856 (11th cir. 2010) (holding that employer was incorrect in arguing that employees’ accommodation claim failed because they did not expressly tell employer that they did not want to take down religious artwork because of their religion, reasoning that evidence of the employer’s awareness of the tension between its order to remove the artwork and the employees’ religious beliefs was sufficient to establish notice); brown v. polk cnty., 61 f.3d 650, 654 (8th cir. 1995) (en banc) (where plaintiff alleged that he was terminated based on his known religious activities, court held that employer had obligation to accommodate absent undue hardship even though plaintiff had never explicitly asked for a religious accommodation because employer’s “first reprimand related directly to religious activities by” plaintiff); id. (“an employer need have only enough information about an employee’s religious needs to permit the employer to understand the existence of a conflict between the employee’s religious practices and the employer’s job requirements.” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)); hellinger v. eckerd corp., 67 f. supp. 2d 1359, 1363 64 (s.d. fla. 1999) (ruling that notice was sufficient where employer learned of applicant’s religious objection to a particular practice when he contacted applicant’s former supervisor for a reference). [215] see supra note 210. [216] abercrombie & fitch stores, inc., 135 s. ct. at 2033‑34 (holding that decision not to hire muslim applicant because of assumed conflict between headscarf and company “look policy” violated title vii’s prohibition that actions are not taken “with the motive of avoiding the need for accommodating a religious practice”). [217] see xodus v. wackenhut corp., 619 f.3d 683, 686 87 (7th cir. 2010) (finding that district court did not clearly err in determining that employee had failed to put employer on sufficient notice because he only referenced his “beliefs” but did not say they were religious); heller v. ebb auto co., 8 f.3d 1433, 1439 (9th cir. 1993) (employee’s request for leave to participate in his wife’s religious conversion ceremony was sufficient to place employer on notice that this was pursuant to a religious practice or belief; an employer need have “only enough information about an employee’s religious needs to permit the employer to understand the existence of a conflict between the employee’s religious practices and the employer’s job requirements”). [218] cf. lafevers v. saffle, 936 f.2d 1117 (10th cir. 1991) (holding that although not all seventh day adventists are vegetarian, an individual adherent’s genuine religious belief in such a dietary practice warrants constitutional protection under the first amendment); see seshadri v. kasraian, 130 f.3d 798, 800 (7th cir. 1997) (holding that employee who seeks accommodation need not belong to an established church, “but a person who seeks to obtain a privileged legal status by virtue of his religion cannot preclude inquiry designed to determine whether he has in fact a religion”); chrysler corp. v. mann, 561 f.2d 1282, 1285 (8th cir. 1977) (observing that the plaintiff “did little to acquaint chrysler with his religion and its potential impact upon his ability to perform his job”); see also redmond, 574 f.2d at 902 (noting that “an employee who is disinterested in informing his employer of his religious needs ‘may forego the right to have his beliefs accommodated by his employer’” (citation omitted)). [219] see, e.g., toronka v. cont’l airlines, inc., 649 f. supp. 2d 608, 611 12 (s.d. tex. 2009) (holding in title vii case that a moral and ethical belief in the power of dreams that is based on religious convictions and traditions of african descent is a religious belief, and that this determination does not turn on veracity but rather is based on a theory of “‘man’s nature or his place in the universe,’” even if considered by others to be “eccentric” (quoting brown v. dade christian schs., inc., 556 f.2d 310, 324 (5th cir. 1977) (roney, j., dissenting); cooper v. gen. dynamics, 533 f.2d 163, 168 69 (5th cir. 1976))); cf. church of lukumi babalu aye, inc. v. city of hialeah, 508 u.s. 520, 531 (1993) (holding that although animal sacrifice may seem “abhorrent” to some, santeria is religious in nature and is protected by the first amendment); thomas v. rev. bd. of ind. emp’t sec. div., 450 u.s. 707, 714 (1981) (ruling that “religious beliefs need not be acceptable, logical, consistent, or comprehensible to others in order to merit first amendment protection”); united states v. meyers, 906 f. supp. 1494, 1499 (d. wyo. 1995) (relying on first amendment jurisprudence to observe in religious freedom restoration act case that “one man’s religion will always be another man’s heresy”). [220] see cary v. carmichael, 908 f. supp. 1334, 1344 (e.d. va. 1995) (holding no religious discrimination where employee failed to give employer proper notice so that it could attempt an accommodation of his religious objection to signing consent form for a drug test), aff’d sub nom, 116 f.3d 472 (4th cir. 1997) (unpublished table decision); see also elmenayer v. abf freight sys., no. 98 cv 4061 (jg), 2001 wl 1152815, at *5 (e.d.n.y. sept. 20, 2001) (holding that employer was not liable for disciplining an employee for tardiness where the employee failed   until after his discharge   to explain that tardiness was because he attended a prayer service), aff’d on other grounds, 318 f.3d 130 (2d cir. 2003). [221] notwithstanding the different legal standards for determining when a failure to accommodate poses an undue hardship under title vii and the ada, see supra notes 5 and 6, courts have endorsed a cooperative information sharing process between employer and employee for religious accommodation requests, similar to the “interactive process” used for disability accommodation requests under the ada. see ansonia bd. of educ. v. philbrook, 479 u.s. 60, 69 (1986) (explaining that “bilateral cooperation is appropriate in the search for an acceptable reconciliation of the needs of the employee’s religion and the exigencies of the employer’s business.” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)); see also thomas v. nat’l ass’n of letter carriers, 225 f.3d 1149, 1155 n.5 (10th cir. 2000) (stating that “[t]he [ada] ‘interactive process’ rationale is equally applicable to the obligation to offer a reasonable accommodation to an individual whose religious beliefs conflict with an employment requirement”). [222] see, e.g., eeoc v. arlington transit mix, inc., 957 f.2d 219, 222 (6th cir. 1991) (“after failing to pursue [a voluntary waiver of seniority rights] or any other reasonable accommodation, the company is in no position to argue that it was unable to accommodate reasonably [plaintiff’s] religious needs without undue hardship on the conduct of its business.”); eeoc v. ithaca indus., inc., 849 f.2d 116, 118 19 (4th cir. 1988) (finding that employer’s failure to attempt to accommodate, absent any showing of undue hardship, violated title vii). [223] ansonia bd. of educ., 479 u.s. at 68 69 (holding that an employer could satisfy its obligation by offering an alternative reasonable accommodation to the particular one proposed by the employee); brener v. diagnostic ctr. hosp., 671 f.2d 141, 146 (5th cir. 1982) (explaining that an “employee has a correlative duty to make a good faith attempt to satisfy his needs through means offered by the employer” and that a “reasonable accommodation need not be on the employee’s terms only” before concluding that the employee failed to fully explore shift swaps proposed by his employer); chrysler corp. v. mann, 561 f.2d 1282, 1286 (8th cir. 1977) (where employee “will not attempt to accommodate his own beliefs through the means already available to him or cooperate with his employer in its conciliatory efforts, he may forego the right to have his beliefs accommodated”). [224] see supra §§ 12‑i‑a‑2 (“sincerely held”), 12‑i‑a‑3 (“employer inquiries into religious nature or sincerity of belief”); see also adeyeye v. heartland sweeteners, llc, 721 f.3d 444, 451 (7th cir. 2013) (“if the managers who considered the request had questions about whether the request was religious, nothing would have prevented them from asking [the employee] to explain a little more about the nature of his request . . . . [the] law leaves ample room for dialogue on these matters.”); vinning el v. evans, 657 f.3d 591, 594 (7th cir. 2011) (noting, in a prison religious accommodation case, that where asserted religious belief differed significantly “from the orthodox beliefs of [prisoner’s] faith, . . . [s]uch a belief isn’t impossible, but it is sufficiently rare that a prison’s chaplain could be skeptical and conduct an inquiry to determine whether the claim was nonetheless sincere”); dockery v. maryville acad., 379 f. supp. 3d 704, 718 19 (n.d. ill. 2019) (holding that employer had objective basis for questioning whether employee sincerely believed that it was against his religion to work during sabbath, where employee previously was willing to do so, employee himself testified that he told employer he could not work on friday and saturdays “because he was ‘used to’ and ‘accustomed to’ having those days off ‘to be able to worship with [his] family and do different things with [his] family,’” and employee failed to explain or provide more information to employer as requested). [225] see bushouse v. loc. union 2209, 164 f. supp. 2d 1066, 1078 & n.18 (n.d. ind. 2001) (holding that union’s refusal to provide accommodation unless employee produced independent corroboration that his accommodation request was motivated by a sincerely held religious belief did not violate title vii’s religious accommodation provision, but cautioning that the holding was limited to “the facts and circumstances of the present case” and that “[t]he inquiry [into sincerity] and the scope of that inquiry will necessarily vary based upon the individual requesting corroboration and the facts and circumstances of the request”). [226] see united states v. broyles, 423 f.2d 1299, 1302 (4th cir. 1970) (letter from retired army officer who had known conscientious objector for more than twenty years, and letter from college president who had known him for more than ten years, were “[i]mpressive backing” for his claims of sincere religious belief). [227] see ansonia bd. of educ., 479 u.s. at 70 (referring to reasonable accommodation as one that “eliminates the conflict between employment requirements and religious practices”); see also, e.g., eeoc v. ilona of hungary, inc., 108 f.3d 1569 (7th cir. 1997) (ruling that employer did not satisfy reasonable accommodation requirement by offering to let jewish employees take off a day other than yom kippur, because that would not eliminate the conflict between religion and work); opuku boateng v. california, 95 f.3d 1461, 1467 (9th cir. 1996) (if negotiations between employer and employee “do not produce a proposal by the employer that would eliminate the religious conflict, the employer must either accept the employee’s proposal or demonstrate that it would cause undue hardship were it to do so”); cooper v. oak rubber co., 15 f.3d 1375, 1378 (6th cir. 1994) (“if the employer’s efforts fail to eliminate the employee’s religious conflict, the burden remains on the employer to establish that it is unable to reasonably accommodate the employee’s beliefs without incurring undue hardship.”); eeoc v. universal mfg. corp., 914 f.2d 71, 72 (5th cir. 1990) (per curiam) (district court “erred in ruling that, absent a showing of undue hardship by an employer, accommodating only one of the two practices of the employee’s religion, both of which conflicted with the employee’s work duties, satisfied as a matter of law the duty of ‘reasonable accommodation’”); baker v. home depot, 445 f.3d 541, 547 48 (2d cir. 2006) (“[t]he shift change offered to baker was no accommodation at all because, although it would allow him to attend morning church services, it would not permit him to observe his religious requirement to abstain from work totally on sundays.”); cf. us airways, inc. v. barnett, 535 u.s. 391, 400 (2002) (in context of americans with disabilities act, “the word ‘accommodation’ . . . conveys the need for effectiveness”). some courts of appeals have appeared to suggest that a reasonable accommodation need only lessen the conflict between religion and work, even in the absence of a showing that other accommodations would impose undue hardship. but, in practice, even those courts have not applied a standard that is materially different from the one described above, and they take into account facts that the commission and other courts would analyze as relevant only to undue hardship. see, e.g., eeoc v. firestone fibers & textiles co., 515 f.3d 307 (4th cir. 2008) (analyzing reasonableness of proposed accommodation based in part on facts typically considered as part of undue hardship analysis); sturgill v. united parcel serv., inc., 512 f.3d 1024, 1030 33 (8th cir. 2008) (rejecting jury instruction that described a reasonable accommodation as one must eliminate any work religion conflict because “[w]hat is reasonable depends on the totality of the circumstances and therefore might, or might not, require elimination of a particular, fact specific conflict”). the commission believes its approach to this issue is straightforward and in keeping with the purpose of title vii’s accommodation requirement. concerns about issues such as conflicts with a union contract or burdens on other employees’ settled expectations can and should be addressed in the context of evaluating whether an accommodation would impose an undue hardship. moreover, the employer need not grant an employee’s requested accommodation if the employer wishes instead to offer an alternative reasonable accommodation of its own choosing that also would eliminate the work religion conflict and would not adversely affect the employee’s terms, conditions, or privileges of employment. [228] see, e.g., knight v. conn. dep’t of pub. health, 275 f.3d 156, 168 (2d cir. 2001) (holding that employer complied with title vii when it granted partial accommodation allowing proselytizing at certain times, not at all times, as requested where employer could not allow additional proselytizing without “jeopardiz[ing] the state’s ability to provide services in a religion neutral manner,” which the court apparently concluded would pose an undue hardship); ilona of hungary, inc., 108 f.3d at 1576 (suggesting that if employer would suffer undue hardship from eliminating a religious conflict by granting a full day of leave to observe a religious holiday, the employer should still “offer a partial day off”).; [229] see ansonia bd. of educ., 479 u.s. at 70 (explaining that the accommodation of unpaid leave generally has “no direct effect upon either employment opportunities or job status” in the course of concluding that it would generally be reasonable, but emphasizing that “unpaid leave is not a reasonable accommodation when paid leave is provided for all purposes except religious ones” (first emphasis added) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)); adeyeye, 721 f.3d at 455 (not a reasonable accommodation to offer “voluntary self termination with the possibility of being rehired”); cosme v. henderson, 287 f.3d 152, 160 (2d cir. 2002) (stating that “an accommodation might be unreasonable if it imposes a significant work related burden on the employee without justification”); wright v. runyon, 2 f.3d 214, 217 (7th cir. 1993) (explaining that the question whether an accommodation is reasonable requires a “more searching inquiry” if an employee, “in order to accommodate his religious practices, had to accept a reduction in pay or some other loss of benefits”); am. postal workers union v. postmaster gen., 781 f.2d 772, 776 77 (9th cir. 1986) (holding employers must offer accommodations that “reasonably preserve th[e] employee’s . . . compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment”); draper v. u.s. pipe & foundry co., 527 f.2d 515, 519 20 (6th cir. 1975) (ruling that where a transfer would adversely affect employee because, inter alia, it would involve a substantial reduction in pay, employer “first must attempt to accommodate the employee within his current job classification,” and transfer may be considered “as a last resort” only if “no such accommodation is possible, or if it would impose an undue hardship upon the employer”); see also commission guidelines, 29 c.f.r. § 1605.2(c)(2)(ii) (“[w]hen there is more than one means of accommodation which would not cause undue hardship, the employer or labor organization must offer the alternative which least disadvantages the individual with respect to his or her employment opportunities.”). [230] see ansonia bd. of educ., 479 u.s. at 68 (“[w]here the employer has already reasonably accommodated the employee’s religious needs, the statutory inquiry is at an end. the employer need not further show that each of the employee’s alternative accommodations would result in undue hardship.”); rodriguez v. city of chi., 156 f.3d 771, 776 (7th cir. 1998) (employee is not entitled to his choice of reasonable accommodation); smith v. pyro mining co., 827 f.2d 1081, 1085 (6th cir. 1987) (same); cf. opuku‑boateng, 95 f.3d at 1475 (ruling that employer violated title vii because it offered no accommodation, such as employee’s suggestions of scheduling him instead for other equally undesirable shifts, and employer did not show undue hardship). [231] see ansonia bd. of educ., 479 u.s. at 70 71 (“unpaid leave is not a reasonable accommodation when paid leave is provided for all purposes except religious ones . . . [because] [s]uch an arrangement would display a discrimination against religious practices that is the antithesis of reasonableness”). in cases involving requests for leave as an accommodation, an employer does not have to provide paid leave as an accommodation beyond that otherwise available to the employee but may have to provide unpaid leave as an accommodation if doing so would not pose an undue hardship. [232] see commission guidelines, 29 c.f.r. § 1605.2(c)(2)(ii) (“[w]hen there is more than one means of accommodation which would not cause undue hardship, the employer or labor organization must offer the alternative which least disadvantages the individual with respect to his or her employment opportunities.”). this principle is consistent with the supreme court’s holding in ansonia board of education that an employer discharges its accommodation obligation by offering any accommodation that is reasonable. 479 u.s. at 68 69. in reaching this conclusion, the court observed that the eeoc guideline calling for employers to offer the accommodation that least disadvantages an individual’s employment opportunities (without undue hardship) is different from requiring an “employer to accept any alternative favored by the employee short of undue hardship.” see id. at 69 n.6 (referring to 29 c.f.r. § 1605.2(c)(2)(ii)). the court emphasized that the guideline “contains a significant limitation,” calling for comparative analysis of accommodations only when an accommodation offered by an employer disadvantages employment opportunities. id. in the wake of ansonia, many courts have, consistent with the commission’s guidelines, evaluated whether employer accommodations had a negative impact on the individual’s employment opportunities as part of the analysis into whether the accommodations were “reasonable.” see supra note 229 (citing cases). [233] pyro mining co., 827 f.2d at 1085 (quoting redmond v. gaf corp., 574 f.2d 897, 902‑03 (7th cir. 1978)). [234] cf. baker v. home depot, 445 f.3d 541, 547 48 (2d cir. 2006) (finding that employer’s offer to schedule employee to work in the afternoon or evenings on sundays, rather than the mornings, was not a “reasonable” accommodation under title vii where employee’s religious views required not only attending sunday church services but also refraining from work on sundays). [235] see ansonia, 479 u.s. at 69 (employer is not required to offer employee’s preferred reasonable accommodation); porter v. city of chi., 700 f.3d 944, 951 (7th cir. 2012) (same). [236] see infra note 278. [237] see shelton v. univ. of med. & dentistry of n.j., 223 f.3d 220, 226 (3d cir. 2000) (finding that state hospital’s offer to transfer nurse laterally to newborn intensive care unit was reasonable accommodation for her religious beliefs which prevented her from assisting in emergency abortions of live fetuses,” where hospital had staffing cuts and concerns about risks to patients’ safety and nurse presented no evidence that transfer would affect her salary or benefits); see also rodriguez v. city of chi., 156 f.3d 771, 774 (7th cir. 1998) (holding that city’s offer to allow police officer to exercise his right under collective bargaining agreement to transfer to a district with no abortion clinics, which would resolve his religious objection to being assigned to guard such facilities and would result in “no reduction in pay or benefits,” was a reasonable accommodation and observing that title vii did not compel the employer to grant the officer’s preferred accommodation of remaining in his district but being relieved of such assignments); wright v. runyon, 2 f.3d 214, 217 (7th cir. 1993) (finding that employer reasonably accommodated employee by suggesting he exercise his rights under collective bargaining agreement to bid on jobs that he would have been entitled to, that were “essentially equivalent” to his current position, and that would have eliminated the conflict between work and religion). [238] federal conscience laws provide protections related to abortion and sterilization and include the church amendments (42 u.s.c. § 300a 7 et seq.), the coats snowe amendment (section 245 of the public health service act, 42 u.s.c. § 238n), the weldon amendment (part of every hhs appropriations act since 2005), and section 1553 of the affordable care act (42 u.s.c. § 18113). these laws are enforced by the department of health and human services (hhs). for example, in 2019, hhs found that a university hospital violated the church amendments by discriminating against health care personnel who have religious or moral objections to participating in abortions when it scheduled and pressured them to assist with elective abortions despite specific and repeated requests not to be assigned to those procedures due to religious and moral objections. see letter from roger t. severino, dir., off. of civ. rts., dep’t of health & hum. svcs. & luis e. perez, deputy dir., off. of civ. rts., dep’t of health & hum. svcs. (aug. 28, 2019), (finding that the university of vermont medical center unlawfully forced health care personnel, including nurses, to assist in abortions), https://www.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/uvmmc nov letter_508.pdf. the commission is referencing these laws for informational purposes and is not opining on any of their requirements or whether they would require additional burdens on employers beyond title vii’s analysis for reasonable accommodation. [239] lawson v. washington, 296 f.3d 799, 805 n.5 (9th cir. 2002). [240] see supra notes 210 212 and accompanying text. [241] see cooper v. oak rubber co., 15 f.3d 1375, 1379 (6th cir. 1994) (holding that employer was obligated to accommodate a seventh day adventist employee whose need for accommodation to observe sabbath had changed in the 17 months since employer had last scheduled her to work on a friday night or saturday, where her “undisputed testimony was that her faith and commitment to her religion grew during this time”). [242] trans world airlines, inc. v. hardison, 432 u.s. 63, 84 (1977). the “more than a de minimis cost” title vii undue hardship standard is lower than the ada undue hardship standard, which requires employers to show that the accommodation would cause “significant difficulty or expense,” 42 u.s.c. § 12111(10)(a). [243] the statute, at 42 u.s.c. § 2000e(j), and the commission guidelines, at 29 c.f.r. § 1605.2(b), require an employer to reasonably accommodate an employee’s or applicant’s religious beliefs and practices unless the “employer demonstrates” that doing so would pose an undue hardship. even when courts have focused on reasonableness before looking at undue hardship, the employer still has the burden of persuasion on the undue hardship issue. see, e.g., eeoc v. firestone fibers & textiles co., 515 f.3d 307, 315 (4th cir. 2008); sturgill v. united parcel serv., inc., 512 f.3d 1024, 1033 n.4 (8th cir. 2008). [244] tooley v. martin marietta corp., 648 f.2d 1239, 1243 (9th cir. 1981) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). [245] see commission guidelines, 29 c.f.r. § 1605.2(e). [246] compare cooper, 15 f.3d at 1380 (finding that employee’s request not to be scheduled for saturday work due to sabbath observance posed undue hardship for employer because it would have required either hiring an additional worker or risking the loss of production), and beadle v. tampa, 42 f.3d 633, 637 38 (11th cir. 1995) (finding that requiring police department to alter training program schedule to accommodate employee’s religious needs amounted to more than de minimis cost and thus an undue hardship because employee “would not have experienced the educational benefits of working with different training officers”), with protos v. volkswagen of am., inc., 797 f.2d 129, 133 34 (3d cir. 1986) (finding that employee’s request not to be scheduled for saturday work due to sabbath observance did not pose undue hardship where district court found that that efficiency, production, and quality would be not affected and entire assembly line remained intact notwithstanding employee’s saturday absences). [247] see tabura v. kellogg usa, 880 f.3d 544, 558 (10th cir. 2018) (reversing summary judgment for employer where it “did not . . . cite to any evidence to support its assertions” that accommodating plaintiffs’ need to observe their sabbath would impose an undue hardship “in the form of unauthorized overtime, quality control issues, and even forcing entire lines to shut down”); brown v. gen. motors corp., 601 f.2d 956, 960 (8th cir. 1979) (holding that “projected ‘theoretical’ future effects cannot outweigh the undisputed fact that no monetary costs and de minimis efficiency problems were actually incurred during the three month period in which [employee] was accommodated”); tooley v. martin marietta corp., 648 f.2d 1239, 1243 (9th cir. 1981) (undue hardship requires “proof of actual imposition on coworkers or disruption of the work routine” rather than “conceivable or hypothetical hardships” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)); toledo v. nobel sysco, inc., 892 f.2d 1481, 1492 (10th cir. 1989) (“any proffered hardship . . . must be actual,” not speculative). [248] trans world airlines, inc. v. hardison, 432 u.s. 63, 84 (1977); see also commission guidelines, 29 c.f.r. § 1605.2(e)(1). [249] eeoc v. townley eng’g & mfg. co., 859 f.2d 610, 616 (9th cir. 1988) (quoting anderson v. gen. dynamic, 589 f.2d 397, 402 (9th cir. 1978)) (alteration in original). [250] commission guidelines, 29 c.f.r. § 1605.2(e)(1). [251] id. for example, in hardison, the payment of overtime (or premium pay) to another employee so that plaintiff could be off for weekly religious observance was an undue hardship. 432 u.s. at 68 69, 84. by contrast, infrequent payment of premium wages for an occasional religious observance is not “more than de minimis.” see, e.g., eeoc v. sw. bell tel. lp, no. 3:06cv00176 jlh, 2007 wl 2891379, at *4 (e.d. ark. oct. 3, 2007) (denying summary judgment for employer on claim by two employees that they were improperly denied leave for annual religious observance that would have required company to pay overtime wages of approximately $220 each to two replacements, where facility routinely paid technicians overtime, employer failed to contact union about possible accommodation, and policy providing for only one technician on leave per day was not always observed, and there was no evidence that customer service needs actually went unmet on day at issue) (jury verdict for plaintiffs subsequently entered), appeal dismissed, 550 f.3d 704 (8th cir. 2008); see also redmond v. gaf corp., 574 f.2d 897, 904 (7th cir. 1987) (ruling that employer could not demonstrate that paying replacement worker premium wages would cause undue hardship because plaintiff would have been paid premium wages for hours at issue). [252] see, e.g., brown v. polk cnty., 61 f.3d 650, 655 (8th cir. 1995) (en banc) (holding that allowing employee to assign secretary to type his bible study notes posed more than de minimis cost because secretary would otherwise have been performing employer’s work during that time); see also protos v. volkswagen of am., inc., 797 f.2d 129, 134‑35 (3d cir. 1986) (no undue hardship where “efficiency, production, quality and morale … remained intact during [employee’s] absence”). [253] see peterson v. hewlett packard co., 358 f.3d 599, 607 (9th cir. 2004) (“[a]n employer need not accommodate an employee’s religious beliefs if doing so would result in discrimination against his coworkers or deprive them of contractual or other statutory rights.”); virts v. consol. freightways corp. of del., 285 f.3d 508, 517 18 (6th cir. 2002) (holding that trucking firm had no obligation under title vii to accommodate a driver’s religious request for only male driving partners, where making assignments in this manner would have violated collective bargaining agreement). [254] see, e.g., eeoc v. geo grp., inc., 616 f.3d 265, 273 (3d cir. 2010) (“a religious accommodation that creates a genuine safety or security risk can undoubtedly constitute an undue hardship for an employer prison.”). however, an employer should not assume that it would pose an undue hardship to accommodate a religious practice that appears to conflict with a generally applicable safety requirement, but rather should assess whether an undue hardship is actually posed. for example, there are existing religious exemptions to the government enforcement procedures of some safety requirements. see, e.g., occupational safety & health admin., u.s. dep’t of lab., std 1 6.5: exemption for religious reason from wearing hard hats (june 20, 1994), https://www.osha.gov/enforcement/directives/std 01 06 005 (exempting employers from citations for certain violations based on religious objection of employee, but providing for various reporting requirements). [255] see, e.g., bruff v. n. miss. health serv., inc., 244 f.3d 495, 501 (5th cir. 2001) (requiring coworkers of plaintiff mental health counselor to assume disproportionate workload to accommodate plaintiff’s request not to counsel certain clients on religious grounds would involve more than de minimis cost); bhatia v. chevron usa, inc., 734 f.2d 1382, 1384 (9th cir. 1984) (per curiam) (holding that it would be undue hardship to reassign plaintiff’s share of potentially hazardous work to coworkers); eeoc v. bj servs. co., 921 f. supp. 1509, 1514 (n.d. tex. 1995) (stating employer “was not required to deny other employees their vacation days so that they could work in place of [plaintiff]” and that cost of hiring an additional worker was more than de minimis). [256] see, e.g., sutton v. providence st. joseph med. ctr., 192 f.3d 826, 830 31 (9th cir. 1999) (holding that employer was not required to accommodate job applicant’s religiously based refusal to provide his social security number where employer sought it to comply with internal revenue service and immigration and naturalization service requirements). [257] see infra note 266. [258] trans world airlines, inc. v. hardison, 432 u.s. 63, 83 (1977) (holding employer “was not required by title vii to carve out a special exception to its seniority system in order to help [employee] to meet his religious obligations” of observing the sabbath and not working on certain specified religious holidays); virts, 285 f.3d at 517 18 (holding trucking firm had no obligation under title vii to accommodate a driver’s religious request for only male driving partners, where making assignments in this manner would have violated cba); thomas v. nat’l ass’n of letter carriers, 225 f.3d 1149, 1153, 1156 (10th cir. 2000) (holding that because seniority system in the cba gave more senior employees first choice for job assignments, it would be an undue hardship for employer to grant employee’s accommodation request not to be scheduled to work on saturdays); mann v. frank, 7 f.3d 1365, 1369 70 (8th cir. 1993) (finding no violation of the duty to accommodate where the union refused the employer’s request to assign another worker to take plaintiff’s saturday shift, which would have violated cba’s provisions governing overtime). [259] see balint v. carson city, 180 f.3d 1047, 1054 (9th cir. 1999) (holding that “the existence of a neutral seniority system does not relieve the employer of its duty to reasonably accommodate the religious beliefs of its employees, so long as the accommodation can be accomplished without disruption of the seniority system and without more than a de minimis cost to the employer”); eeoc v. arlington transit mix, inc., 957 f.2d 219, 222 (6th cir. 1991) (“at a minimum, arlington had an obligation to explore a voluntary waiver of seniority rights before terminating taylor. after failing to pursue this or any other reasonable accommodation, the company is in no position to argue that it was unable to accommodate reasonably his religious needs without undue hardship on the conduct of its business.”). [260] see commission guidelines, 29 c.f.r. § 1605.2(e)(2); antoine v. first student, inc., 713 f.3d 824, 840 (5th cir. 2013) (holding that allowing employee to voluntarily swap shifts was not an undue hardship where cba authorized employer facilitated voluntary route changes). [261] lee v. abf freight sys., inc., 22 f.3d 1019, 1023 24 (10th cir. 1994) (holding that the employer satisfied its title vii obligation when it suggested method by which driver would usually be able to work the number of trips each week required under the union contract prior to the sabbath, and could often use vacation time on other occasions; employer was not required to grant driver’s request to skip assignments, which would then have to be worked by other drivers; his request to work less than other full time drivers and reimburse employer for additional costs; or his request to transfer with no loss of seniority, which would violate its cba, where the employer had sought but could not obtain a waiver from the union). [262] see brown v. polk cnty., 61 f.3d 650, 655 (8th cir. 1995) (en banc) (holding that allowing employee to assign secretary to type his bible study notes posed more than de minimis cost because secretary would otherwise have been performing employer’s work during that time); see also protos v. volkswagen of am., inc., 797 f.2d 129, 134‑35 (3d cir. 1986) (no undue hardship where “efficiency, production, quality and morale . . . remained intact during [employee’s] absence”). [263] see peterson v. hewlett packard co., 358 f.3d 599, 607‑08 (9th cir. 2004) (undue hardship for employer to accommodate employee’s religiously motivated posting of large signs in his cubicle which he “intended to be hurtful” and to demean and harass his coworkers); chalmers v. tulon co. of richmond, 101 f.3d 1012, 1021 (4th cir. 1996) (undue hardship to accommodate “religious need” to send “personal, disturbing letters to [coworkers] accusing them of immorality”). [264] see opuku boateng v. california, 95 f.3d 1461, 1473 (9th cir. 1996) (holding that mere complaints by other employees did not constitute undue hardship where employer failed to establish that accommodating employee’s religious holidays would have required more than de minimis cost or burden on coworkers). [265] brown, 61 f.3d at 655 (“undue hardship requires more than proof of some fellow worker’s grumbling. . . . an employer . . . would have to show . . . actual imposition on coworkers or disruption of the work routine.” (quoting burns v. s. pac. transp. co., 589 f.2d 403, 407 (9th cir. 1978) (alterations in original)). [266] there may be different results depending on the specific setting and the religious garb at issue. see, e.g., united states v. essex cnty., no. 09 2772 (ksh), 2010 wl 551393 (d.n.j. feb. 16, 2010) (denying motion to dismiss, the court allowed the united states to proceed with denial of accommodation claim on behalf of muslim employee of essex county department of corrections who was denied accommodation of wearing her religious headscarf and terminated). but see eeoc v. geo group, inc., 616 f.3d 265, 273 (3d cir. 2010) (rejecting eeoc’s claim that prison officials should have accommodated female muslim employees by granting an exception to the dress code that would permit them to wear their khimars, but agreeing that there is no “per se rule of law about religious head coverings or safety,” even for police or paramilitary groups); webb v. city of phila., 562 f.3d 256, 260‑62 (3d cir. 2009) (ruling that it would have posed an undue hardship to allow accommodation for a police officer who sought dress code exception to wear khimar); finnie v. lee cnty., 907 f. supp. 2d 750, 780‑81 (n.d. miss. 2012) (ruling that evidence supported safety concerns met burden of proving undue hardship would be posed by allowing religious exception to pants only uniform policy for detention officers). [267] the commission guidelines, 29 c.f.r. § 1605.2(d), set forth suggested methods of accommodating scheduling conflicts, but those methods are not intended to comprise an exhaustive list. different factual circumstances will require different solutions. state wage and hour laws may provide certain limitations that affect an employer’s potential flexibility. [268] see supra notes 227 229 and accompanying text. [269] see eeoc v. jbs usa, llc, 339 f. supp. 3d 1135, 1182 83 (d. colo. 2018) (not undue hardship to allow short unscheduled prayer breaks because “the preponderance of the evidence showed that allowing unscheduled prayer breaks would not have more than a de minimis effect on productivity or safety”); mohamed v. 1st class staffing, llc, 286 f. supp. 3d 884, 910 (s.d. ohio 2017) (suggesting that allowing employees to take break either 15 minutes early or 15 minutes late so that they could have the break room to themselves to pray would not be an undue hardship). [270] cf. protos v. volkswagen of am., inc., 797 f.2d 129, 135 (3d cir. 1986) (employer would not incur undue hardship from granting exception to mandatory saturday overtime work for employee whose religious beliefs prevented her from working on her sabbath, because employer did not have to pay higher wages to fill the vacancy). [271] commission guidelines, 29 c.f.r. 1605.2(d)(i), [272] see, e.g., beadle v. hillsborough cty. sheriff’s dep’t, 29 f.3d 589, 593 (11th cir. 1994) (finding that employer satisfied its accommodation obligation by providing employee a roster with his coworkers’ schedules and allowing employee to make announcement on bulletin board and at employee meeting to seek out coworkers willing to swap). [273] see tabura v. kellogg usa, 880 f.3d 544, 555 57 (10th cir. 2018) (remanding to determine whether employer satisfied its accommodation obligation by allowing employees to use paid leave and to seek volunteers to swap shifts to avoid working on their sabbath, where employees had insufficient paid leave and plaintiffs had difficulty arranging voluntary swaps); mcguire v. gen. motors corp., 956 f.2d 607, 608 10 (6th cir. 1992) (per curiam) (remanding to determine whether employer satisfied its accommodation obligation by allowing employee to swap shifts to avoid working on his sabbath where employee found it “virtually impossible” to arrange voluntary swaps). [274] see, e.g., smith v. pyro mining co., 827 f.2d 1081, 1088‑89 (6th cir. 1987) (where plaintiff believed it was morally wrong to work on the sabbath and that it was a sin to induce another employee to do so, it was not a reasonable accommodation for employer simply to be amenable to a shift swap; employer would not have incurred undue hardship by soliciting a replacement). [275] commission guidelines, 29 c.f.r. § 1605.2(e)(1); see also redmond v. gaf corp., 574 f.2d 897, 904 (7th cir. 1978) (holding that employer could not demonstrate paying replacement worker premium wages would cause undue hardship because plaintiff would have been paid premium wages for the hours at issue); eeoc v. sw. bell tel. lp, no. 3:06cv00176 jlh, 2007 wl 2891379, at *4 (e.d. ark. oct. 3, 2007) (finding that payment of premium wages for one day to allow two employees to attend yearly jehovah’s witness convention as part of their religious practice, at alleged cost of $220.72 per person in facility that routinely paid overtime, was not an undue hardship as a matter of law, where there was no evidence that customer service needs actually went unmet on the day at issue) (jury verdict for plaintiffs subsequently entered), appeal dismissed, 550 f.3d 704 (8th cir. 2008). [276] see noesen v. med. staffing network, inc., 232 f. app’x 581, 584 85 (7th cir. 2007) (holding that employee’s proposed accommodation of assigning responsibility for all initial customer contact to lower paid technicians, even if it could be done, would impose an undue hardship because it would divert technicians from their assigned data input and insurance verification duties, resulting in uncompleted data work); see also supra note 238 (discussing potential application of federal conscience protection laws to health care employees). [277] see noesen, 232 f. app’x at 584. [278] commission guidelines, 29 c.f.r. § 1605.2(d)(iii) (“when an employee cannot be accommodated either as to his or her entire job or an assignment within the job, employers and labor organizations should consider whether or not it is possible to change the job assignment or give the employee a lateral transfer.”); see draper v. u.s. pipe & foundry co., 527 f.2d 515, 519‑20 (6th cir. 1975) (holding that transfer involving substantial reduction in pay and that would have “wasted [plaintiff’s] skills” would not be reasonable accommodation where plaintiff could have been accommodated in his original position without undue hardship). but see rodriguez v. city of chi., 156 f.3d 771, 775 (7th cir. 1998) (city’s offer of lateral transfer was a reasonable accommodation, and therefore court need not consider whether it would have been an undue hardship for city to accommodate plaintiff in his original position). [279] commission guidelines, 29 c.f.r. § 1605.2(d)(iii). [280] see cook v. lindsay olive growers, 911 f.2d 233, 241 (9th cir. 1990) (holding, under state law parallel to title vii, that transfer of employee to a lower level position was reasonable where no equivalent position was available after employer attempted to find one and where employee would make more money overall because employee would work five shifts rather than four); draper, 527 f.2d at 519‑20 (holding that transfer involving substantial reduction in pay and that would have “wasted [plaintiff’s] skills” would not be reasonable accommodation where plaintiff could have been accommodated in his original position without undue hardship). [281] see cassidy v. detroit edison co., 138 f.3d 629, 634 (6th cir. 1998) (“an employer may reassign an employee to a lower grade and paid position if the employee cannot be accommodated in the current position and a comparable position is not available.”) (ada). at least one court has ruled that it is unreasonable for public protectors such as police officers or fire fighters to seek to be relieved from certain assignments as a religious accommodation. see endres v. ind. state police, 349 f.3d 922, 927 (7th cir. 2003) (holding that state police officer’s requested religious accommodation not to be assigned to full time, permanent work at a casino was unreasonable, because police and fire departments “need the cooperation of all members” and need them to perform their duties “without favoritism”). however, title vii does not distinguish between public protectors and other employees; it is not per se unreasonable for public protectors to obtain changes in job assignments, schedule changes, or transfers in situations where a conflict between their job duties and their religious beliefs could be eliminated or reduced. title vii requires a fact specific inquiry to determine whether granting a particular accommodation request would pose an undue hardship. see rodriguez, 156 f.3d at 775 (city provided reasonable accommodation by giving police officer with religious objection to guarding abortion clinic opportunity to seek lateral transfer to district without abortion clinics); . [282] see, e.g., anderson v. u.s.f. logistics (imc), inc., 274 f.3d 470, 477 (7th cir. 2001) (“in many cases, a company must modify its stated policies in practice to reasonably accommodate a religious practice.” (citing minkus v. metro. sanitary dist., 600 f.2d 80 (7th cir. 1979) (holding that municipal employer failed to accommodate a jewish applicant when it followed its stated policy and scheduled civil service examinations only on saturdays)). [283] see, e.g., eeoc v. united parcel serv., 94 f.3d 314, 320 (7th cir. 1996) (reversing grant of summary judgment for employer because genuine issue of material fact existed regarding whether employer reasonably accommodated employee’s religious practice of wearing beard). see generally eeoc, religious garb and grooming in the workplace: rights and responsibilities (2014), www.​eeoc.​gov/​eeoc/​publications/​qa_religious_garb_grooming.​cfm. [284] see united parcel serv., 94 f.3d at 318‑20; cf. daniels v. city of arlington, 246 f.3d 500, 505 06 (5th cir. 2001) (finding no title vii violations when it would be an unreasonable accommodation and undue hardship for the police to be forced to let individual officers add religious symbols to their uniforms, and the plaintiff failed to respond to reasonable offers of accommodation). [285] see cloutier v. costco wholesale corp., 390 f.3d 126, 136 (1st cir. 2004) (holding that it would pose an undue hardship to require costco to grant an exemption “because it would adversely affect the employer’s public image,” given costco’s “determination that facial piercings . . . detract from the ‘neat, clean and professional image’ that it aims to cultivate”); cf. brown v. f.l. roberts & co., 419 f. supp. 2d 7, 17 (d. mass. 2006) (stating it was bound to follow cloutier as the law of the circuit and holding that no title vii violation occurred when employer transferred lube technician whose rastafarian religious beliefs prohibited him from shaving or cutting his hair to a location with limited customer contact because he could not comply with a new grooming policy, but observing in dicta: “if cloutier’s language approving employer prerogatives regarding ‘public image’ is read broadly, the implications for persons asserting claims for religious discrimination in the workplace may be grave. one has to wonder how often an employer will be inclined to cite this expansive language to terminate or restrict from customer contact, on image grounds, an employee wearing a yarmulke, a veil, or the mark on the forehead that denotes ash wednesday for many catholics. more likely, and more ominously, considerations of ‘public image’ might persuade an employer to tolerate the religious practices of predominant groups, while arguing ‘undue hardship’ and ‘image’ in forbidding practices that are less widespread or well known.”). [286] see eeoc v. abercrombie & fitch stores, inc., 135 s. ct. 2028, 2031, 2034 (2015) (recognizing, in case where the employer’s grooming policy prohibited “caps” as “too informal for [its] desired image,” that “title vii requires otherwise neutral policies,” such as a no headwear dress code, “to give way to the need for an accommodation”). denying the employer’s motion for summary judgment in eeoc v. red robin gourmet burgers, inc., no. c04 1291jlr, 2005 wl 2090677, at *5 (w.d. wash. aug. 29, 2005), the court ruled that notwithstanding the employer’s purported reliance on a company profile and customer study suggesting that it seeks to present a family oriented and kid friendly image, the company failed to demonstrate that allowing an employee to have visible religious tattoos was inconsistent with these goals. “hypothetical hardships based on unproven assumptions typically fail to constitute undue hardship. . . . [the employer] must provide evidence of ‘actual imposition on coworkers or disruption of the work routine’ to demonstrate undue hardship.” id. [287] see united states v. n.y. city trans. auth., no. 04 cv 4237, 2010 wl 3855191, at *22 (e.d.n.y. sept. 28, 2010) (holding that pattern or practice claim could proceed on behalf of muslim and sikh bus drivers, train operators, and subway station agents alleging selective enforcement of city’s headwear policies and failure to accommodate muslim and sikh employees who could not comply for religious reasons); see also eeoc v. am. airlines, civil action no. 02 c 6172 (n.d. ill.) (order of resolution filed september 3, 2002) (resolving claim on behalf of employee who was not hired as passenger service agent because she wore a hijab for religious reasons in violation of the airline’s since changed uniform policy; the airline’s current uniform policy specifically contemplates exceptions for religious accommodation of employees); see also eeoc v. alamo rent a car, llc, 432 f. supp. 2d 1006, 1015 17 (d. ariz. 2006) (holding employer violated title vii by instructing employee she would have to remove her religious garb whenever interacting with customers, and work in the back office when she wore it). [288] see webb v. city of phila., 562 f.3d 256, 260 62 (3d cir. 2009) (holding that municipal employer established as a matter of law that it would pose an undue hardship to accommodate wearing of traditional religious headpiece called a khimar by muslim police officer while in uniform, in contravention of the department’s dress code directive). but cf. fraternal order of police v. city of newark, 170 f.3d 359, 366 (3d cir. 1999) (explaining that police department’s interests in “fostering a uniform appearance through its ‘no beard’ policy” and in security were undermined when it allowed officers to wear beards for medical reasons and holding that department’s refusal to allow officers also to wear beards for religious reasons violated the free exercise clause). [289] cf. federal workplace guidelines, supra note 119 § 1.c (“accommodation of religious exercise”), example (d) (government workplaces that allow employees to use facilities for non work related secular activities generally are required to allow the privilege on equal terms for employee religious activities). [290] see, e.g., minkus v. metro. sanitary dist., 600 f.2d 80, 81 82 (7th cir. 1979); cary v. carmichael, 908 f. supp. 1334, 1343 46 (e.d. va. 1995) (holding that employee failed to give employer proper notice so that it could attempt an accommodation of his religious objection to signing consent form for a drug test), aff’d sub nom, 116 f.3d 472 (4th cir. 1997). [291] see, e.g., minkus, 600 f.2d at 82 84 (holding that employer must demonstrate it would pose undue hardship to allow applicant to take exam at different time than others as a religious accommodation). [292] see, e.g., yeager v. firstenergy generation corp., 777 f.3d 362, 363 64 (6th cir. 2015) (per curiam) (holding that excusing employee from providing social security number was not required under title vii because it would require employer to violate another federal law, without reaching issue of whether it constituted an undue hardship); sutton v. providence st. joseph med. ctr., 192 f.3d 826, 830 31 (9th cir. 1999) (holding that excusing employee from providing social security number would cause undue hardship because it would require violation of another federal law); cherry v. sunoco, inc., no. 07 cv 2235, 2009 wl 2518221, at *7 (e.d. pa. aug. 17, 2009) (holding that it would have posed undue hardship on refinery operator to excuse photo identification requirement imposed on employer by u.s. coast guard regulations after exemption was denied); cf. lizalek v. invivo corp., 314 f. app’x 881, 882 (7th cir. 2009) (holding that it would pose an undue hardship to accommodate employee’s religious belief that he was exempt from any tax liability and could use multiple names on forms, in part because it would expose employer to potential irs issues). [293] see, e.g., eeoc v. consol energy, inc., 860 f.3d 131, 143 (4th cir. 2017) (affirming judgment against employer that denied coal mine employee’s requested religious accommodation of alternative means to clock in and out when the company adopted a “biometric hand scanner” system that conflicted with his christian faith, where the evidence showed employer had available an alternative clock in system for miners who were physically incapable of scanning their hands, but failed to provide it as a religious accommodation), cert. denied, 138 s. ct. 976 (2018). [294] see commission guidelines, 29 c.f.r. § 1605.2(d)(2); tooley v. martin marietta corp., 648 f.2d 1239, 1242‑44 (9th cir. 1981) (holding that a union could not force an employer, under a contractual union security clause, to terminate three seventh day adventists who offered to pay an amount equivalent to dues to a nonreligious charity because union failed to show that such an accommodation would deprive it of funds needed for its maintenance and operation); eeoc v. univ. of detroit, 904 f.2d 331 (6th cir. 1990) (remanding for determination whether employer could reasonably accommodate without undue hardship employee’s religious objection to associating with certain organizations); burns v. s. pac. transp. co., 589 f.2d 403, 406‑07 (9th cir. 1978) (holding that allowing an equivalent charitable contribution in lieu of dues did not constitute undue hardship notwithstanding administrative cost to union and “grumblings” by other employees); cooper v. gen. dynamics, 533 f.2d 163 (5th cir. 1976) (holding that religious belief that supporting labor union violated the precept “to love” one’s neighbor, i.e., employers, was subject to reasonable accommodation absent undue hardship). [295] see mcdaniel v. essex int’l, inc., 696 f.2d 34, 37 38 (6th cir. 1982) (finding that employee’s proposal to donate amount equivalent to dues to a “mutually agreeable” charity was reasonable accommodation that would not have posed undue hardship); eeoc v. am. fed’n of state, cty. & mun. e’ees, 937 f. supp. 166, 168 (n.d.n.y. 1996) (holding that donation of shop fee to agreed upon charity was reasonable accommodation for employee’s religious belief). some collective bargaining agreements have charities listed in them, pursuant to the requirements of section 19 of the national labor relations act. see 29 u.s.c. § 169. at least one court has held that it may be inappropriate to require the religious objector to pay the full amount of the union dues to a charitable organization, however, if non religious objectors are permitted to pay a reduced amount. see o’brien v. city of springfield, 319 f. supp. 2d 90 (d. mass. 2003) (holding, in part, it was not a reasonable accommodation to require religious objector to pay full union dues where state statute permitted non union members to pay a lower amount in form of agency fee). but see madsen v. associated chino teachers, 317 f. supp. 2d 1175, 1179 (c.d. cal. 2004) (holding it was not disparate treatment under title vii to require religious objectors to pay full amount of dues to charity where non religious objectors were only paying agency fee to union). [296] see commission guidelines, 29 c.f.r. § 1605.2(e); nottelson v. smith steel workers d.a.l.u. 19806, 643 f.2d 445, 450 51 (7th cir. 1981) (holding that charity substitute religious accommodation for union dues did not pose undue hardship to union where loss of plaintiff’s dues represented only .02% of union’s annual budget, and union presented no evidence that the loss of receipts from plaintiff would necessitate an increase in dues of his coworkers, that other workers would seem similar accommodations, or that the accommodation would lead to labor strife); see also burns, 589 f.2d at 407 (holding that excusing employee from paying his monthly $19 union dues did not pose undue hardship, where one union officer testified that the loss “wouldn’t affect us at all” and union’s asserted fear of many religious objectors was based on mere speculation, but noting that if “in the future, the expressed fear of widespread refusal to pay union dues on religious grounds should become a reality, undue hardship could be proved”). [297] see univ. of detroit, 904 f.2d at 335. [298] see wilson v. u.s. w. commc’ns, 58 f.3d 1337, 1341‑42 (8th cir. 1995) (given disruption actually caused among coworkers in workplace, employer reasonably accommodated employee’s request to wear at all times a button containing a graphic photograph of a fetus with anti abortion message by requiring her to cover up the photograph portion when she was at work); cf. eeoc v. red robin gourmet burgers, inc., no. c04 1291jlr, 2005 wl 2090677, at *4‑5 (w.d. wash. aug. 29, 2005) (denying employer’s motion for summary judgment because issue of whether employee’s kemetic religious wrist tattoos would disrupt work or otherwise pose an undue hardship raised a disputed factual question to be decided by jury). [299] faragher v. boca raton, 524 u.s. 775, 802 03 (1998); burlington indus., inc. v. ellerth, 524 u.s. 742, 759 60 (1998); see peterson v. hewlett packard co., 358 f.3d 599, 607 (9th cir. 2004) (“[a]n employer need not accommodate an employee’s religious beliefs if doing so would result in discrimination against his coworkers or deprive them of contractual or other statutory rights.”). [300] see ervington v. ltd commodities, llc, 555 f. app’x 615, 616 18 (7th cir. 2014) (in suit challenging discharge where plaintiff’s proselytizing violated the company’s anti harassment policy because the religious pamphlets she distributed were offensive to her coworkers, ruling that the employer was not required to accommodate distribution of pamphlets that were offensive to other employees, and rejecting plaintiff’s argument that the harassment was not “unlawful” by noting that the statute “does not prohibit employers from enforcing an antiharassment policy that defines harassment more broadly than does title vii”); wilson, 58 f.3d at 1341 42 (holding that employer did not violate title vii when it fired employee who refused to cover up a “graphic anti abortion button” while at work; the court reasoned that plaintiff’s requested accommodation that the employer “simply instruct [her] coworkers that they must accept [the plaintiff]’s insistence on wearing a particular depiction of a fetus as part of her religious beliefs is antithetical to the concept of reasonable accommodation” denied certain accommodation options because of demonstrated disruption to coworkers because it had provided a reasonable option that would not be disruptive); brown v. polk cnty., 61 f.3d 650, 656 57 (8th cir. 1995) (en banc) (ruling employer did not establish that supervisor’s “occasional spontaneous prayers and isolated references to christian beliefs” posed an undue hardship because, although the employer asserted that the supervisor’s conduct had polarized employees along religious lines, it provided no evidence of “actual imposition on coworkers or disruption of the work routine”); rightnour v. tiffany & co., 354 f. supp. 3d 511, 525 (s.d.n.y. 2019) (in suit challenging the plaintiff’s termination for poor performance and offensive religion related comments she had made, explaining that “it does not constitute discrimination to discipline employees for making offensive comments in the workplace, even when those comments are tied to religion”); averett v. honda of am. mfg., inc., no. 2:07 cv 1167, 2010 wl 522826, at *8‑10 (s.d. ohio feb. 9, 2010) (in suit challenging discipline and eventual termination of plaintiff for repeatedly making written and oral statements that her coworkers were sinful and evil people whom god would punish, explaining “title vii does not require employer to allow an employee to impose her religious views on others” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)). [301] see ellerth, 524 u.s. at 765; faragher, 524 u.s. at 807. [302] see anderson v. u.s.f. logistics (imc), inc., 274 f.3d 470, 476 (7th cir. 2001) (holding that employer reasonably accommodated plaintiff’s religious practice of sporadically using the phrase “have a blessed day” when it permitted her to use the phrase with coworkers and supervisors who did not object, but prohibited her from using the phrase with customers where at least one regular client objected; allowing her to use the phrase with customers who objected would have posed an undue hardship); see also banks v. serv. am. corp., 952 f. supp. 703, 710 11 (d. kan. 1996) (holding that plaintiff food service employees at company cafeteria, who were terminated when they refused to stop greeting customers with phrases such as “god bless you” and “praise the lord,” presented a triable issue of fact regarding whether they could have been accommodated without undue hardship, because in the absence of employer proof that permitting the statements was disruptive or that it had any legitimate reason to fear losing business, a reasonable jury could conclude that no undue hardship was posed). [303] see, e.g., lizalek v. invivo corp., 314 f. app’x 881, at *2 (7th cir. 2009) (holding that it would have posed undue hardship to accommodate employee’s need to alternate among different identities pursuant to his religious belief that he was three separate beings, where evidence showed employee’s practice of alternating between identities in e mail correspondence endangered the company’s customer relationships and made it difficult for him to communicate with coworkers, and required management to devote “an inordinate amount of time to [the plaintiff’s] various requests”); johnson v. halls merch., inc., no. 87 1042 cv w 9, 1989 wl 23201 (w.d. mo. jan. 17, 1989) (holding that it would have posed undue hardship on employer to permit retail employee’s regular statement to customers “in the name of jesus christ of nazareth,” because it offended the beliefs of some customers and therefore cost the company business); see also infra notes 304 07. [304] see mial v. foxhoven, 305 f. supp. 3d 984 (n.d. iowa 2018) (holding that employer had not presented sufficient evidence to show as a mater of law that it would suffer undue hardship if required to accommodate employee who began signing internal business emails to coworkers “in christ,” because fact issues existed regarding whether the communications would cause anyone to perceive that the employer government agency was endorsing christianity, or that the communications caused disruption in the workplace or violated any neutral, generally applicable rules or procedures). [305] see knight v. conn. dep’t of pub. health, 275 f.3d 156, 164‑65 (2d cir. 2001) (holding that allowing an employee to evangelize clients would not be reasonable because it would jeopardize the state employer’s ability to provide services in a religion neutral manner); rivera v. choice courier sys., inc., no. 01 civ.2096 (cbm), 2004 wl 1444852, at *10 (s.d.n.y. june 25, 2004) (holding that genuine issue of material fact existed as to whether courier was denied reasonable accommodation where courier alleged that employer could have accommodated courier’s need to evangelize by transferring him to a position with a less stringent dress code that would have allowed employee to continue wearing a patch stating “jesus is lord”). [306] cf. dixon v. hallmark cos., 627 f.3d 849, 855 56 (11th cir. 2010) (ruling that apartment complex property manager could proceed to trial on claim challenging termination for violating the employer’s religious displays policy by refusing to remove a poster of flowers with the words “remember the lilies . . . matthew 6:28” she had hung in the on site management office, where the employer also terminated the plaintiff’s husband, telling him, “you’re fired too. you’re too religious.”); johnson, 1989 wl 23201 (holding that it would have posed undue hardship on employer to permit retail employee’s regular statement to customers “in the name of jesus christ of nazareth,” because it offended the beliefs of some customers). moreover, a private employer’s own rights under the first amendment free speech clause may provide a defense to a title vii accommodation claim, if the proposed accommodation would require the private employer involuntarily to display a religious message that could be construed as its own. see also infra § 12‑iv c 7. [307] see knight, 275 f.3d at 168; grant v. fairview hosp. & healthcare servs., 02 4232jnejgl, 2004 wl 326694, at *5 (d. minn. feb. 18, 2004) (finding that an ultrasound technician whose religious beliefs required him to dissuade women from having abortions was offered a reasonable accommodation when hospital restricted him from doing so but gave permission for him to be excused from performing ultrasounds on women it knew were contemplating abortions); see also grossman v. s. shore pub. sch. dist., 507 f.3d 1097, 1100 (7th cir. 2007) (affirming summary judgment for school district on terminated guidance counselor’s first amendment free exercise and title vii claims, the court ruled that the school district was permitted to terminate counselor for conduct, even if her actions of praying with students who approached her for guidance and throwing away school contraceptive education materials were motivated by her religious beliefs; there was insufficient evidence that her termination was based on her religious views alone as opposed to these actions, which the school district was entitled to prohibit. [308] see townley, 859 f.2d at 619 21 (noting private employer has first amendment free exercise right to express its religion in the workplace). cf., e.g., burwell v. hobby lobby stores, inc., 573 u.s. 682, 703 (2014) (describing how family owned company has statement of purpose to “[h]onor[] the lord in all [they] do by operating the company in a manner consistent with biblical principles”; “[e]ach family member has signed a pledge to run the businesses in accordance with the family’s religious beliefs and to use the family assets to support christian ministries”; their stores are closed on sundays, despite the loss of millions in sales annually; “[t]he businesses refuse to engage in profitable transactions that facilitate or promote alcohol use; they contribute profits to christian missionaries and ministries; and they buy hundreds of full page newspaper ads inviting people to ‘know jesus as lord and savior’” (first and third alteration in original)). [309] see young v. sw. sav. & loan ass’n, 509 f.2d 140, 144 45 (5th cir. 1975); see, e.g., eeoc v. united health programs of am., inc., 350 f. supp. 3d 199, 240 41 (e.d.n.y. 2018) (awarding attorney’s fees, injunctive relief, and costs in addition to the jury’s award of compensatory and punitive damages to plaintiff where the employer coerced employees to engage in religious practices at work, creating a hostile work environment based on religion, and terminated an employee who opposed those practices). alternatively, an employee may argue simply that mandating attendance in a religious service, without exception, adversely affects the terms and conditions of employment based on religion. [310] see mathis v. christian heating & air conditioning, inc., 158 f. supp. 3d 317, 333 (e.d. pa. 2016) (denying summary judgment for the employer where plaintiff, an atheist, sought to refrain from wearing an employee id badge with the employer’s christian message, because although the employer’s message was intended to communicate “what we believe and how we want to be perceived by the public,” a reasonable jury could find no harm to the company if its message was not displayed on plaintiff’s badge); eeoc v. townley eng’g & mfg. co., 859 f.2d 610, 614 21 (9th cir. 1988) (employer must accommodate an employee’s atheism; no undue hardship because excusing employee from services would not have cost anything nor caused a disruption). [311] see young, 509 f.2d at 144 45 (ruling that employee was constructively discharged based on her religion in violation of title vii where her superior advised her that she had obligation to attend monthly staff meetings in their entirety and advised her that she could simply “close her ears” during religious exercises with which meetings began). [312] see garry h. v. dep’t of transp., eeoc appeal no. 0120181570, 2019 wl 4945081, at *2 (sept. 24, 2019) (recognizing that holiday decorations such as a sign stating “santa claus[] is coming in [x number] of days” and christmas lights are “secular symbols rather than an expression of a religion,” and concluding that “displaying them in the federal workplace does not violate the establishment clause of the first amendment,” and does not constitute disparate treatment or hostile work environment harassment based on religion; noting the employer is not required by title vii either to take them down or to add decorations representing other religions); see also federal workplace guidelines, supra note 119 at section d, example (b) (a government workplace does not violate the establishment clause by hanging a wreath or other secular christmas decorations). [313] although it is beyond the scope of title vii enforcement, we note for the sake of completeness that the u.s. supreme court has held that wreaths and christmas trees are “secular” symbols, akin to items such as lights, santa claus, and reindeer, and thus that government display of these items does not violate the establishment clause of the first amendment. see cnty. of allegheny v. aclu, 492 u.s. 573, 616 17 (1989) (holding that stand alone crèche on county courthouse steps violated establishment clause, but display elsewhere of christmas tree next to a menorah and a sign proclaiming “liberty” did not), abrogated on other grounds town of greece v. galloway, 572 u.s. 565 (2014); cf. lynch v. donnelly, 465 u.s. 668, 670, 683 87 (1984) (holding that government sponsored display of crèche did not violate establishment clause because it was surrounded by various secular symbols as part of holiday display) ; federal workplace guidelines, supra note 119 at section d (example (b)). for a discussion of both title vii and establishment clause claims arising from holiday decorations in federal government employment context, see, e.g., spohn v. west, no. 00 civ. 0735 ajp, 2000 wl 1459981, at *4 5 (s.d.n.y. oct. 2, 2000). in the private sector, establishment clause constraints would not apply. [314] an employer may accommodate the employee’s religious belief by substituting an alternative technique or method that does not conflict with the employee’s religious belief or by excusing the employee from that part of the training program that poses a conflict, if doing so would not pose an undue hardship. [315] many employers have policies that require employees to treat each other with “courtesy, dignity and respect.” this terminology fits within the ambit of treating others “professionally” as used in the example. see peterson v. hewlett packard co., 358 f.3d 599, 606‑08 (9th cir. 2004) (holding that it would have constituted undue hardship for employer to accommodate employee by eliminating portions of its diversity program to which employee raised religious objections; to do so would have “infringed upon the company’s right to promote diversity and encourage tolerance and good will among its workforce”). if training conflicts with an employee’s religious beliefs, the content of the training materials may be determinative in deciding whether it would pose an undue hardship to accommodate an employee by excusing him or her from the training or a portion thereof. if the training required or encouraged employees to affirmatively support or agree with conduct that conflicts with the employee’s religious beliefs, or signal their support of certain values that conflict with the employee’s religious beliefs, it would be more difficult for an employer to establish that it would pose an undue hardship to accommodate an employee who objects to participating on religious grounds. see buonanno v. at&t broadband, llc, 313 f. supp. 2d 1069, 1081 83 (d. colo. 2004) (holding that a company could require and instruct employees to treat coworkers with respect in accordance with corporate diversity policy, but that a violation of title vii occurred where the company did not accommodate employee’s refusal on religious grounds to sign diversity policy asking him to “value the differences among all of us,” which he believed required him to ascribe worth to a certain behaviors or beliefs he believed were repudiated by scripture rather than simply agree to treat his coworkers appropriately). [316] see commission guidelines, 29 c.f.r. § 1605.2(c). [317] see eeoc v. wc&m enters., inc., 496 f.3d 393, 401 02 (5th cir. 2007) (holding that evidence was sufficient for employee to proceed to trial on claim that he was subjected to hostile work environment harassment based on both religion and national origin where harassment was motivated both by his being a practicing muslim and by his having been born in india); vitug v. multistate tax comm’n, 88 f.3d 506, 515 (7th cir. 1996) (holding that catholic filipino employee made out a prima facie case of national origin and religious discrimination). [318] see raad v. fairbanks n. star borough sch. dist., 323 f.3d 1185, 1196 (9th cir. 2003) (denying employer’s summary judgment motion on lebanese muslim substitute school teacher’s discrimination claim because a reasonable jury could conclude that preconceptions about her religion and national origin caused school officials to misinterpret her comment that she was angry but did not want to “blow up”); tolani v. upper southampton twp., 158 f. supp. 2d 593, 596 97 (e.d. pa. 2001) (ruling that employee from india who was asian stated a claim of discriminatory discharge based on race, religion, and national origin sufficient to survive summary judgment because employer mocked the way indian people worship). [319] 42 u.s.c. § 2000e 3(a); see also burlington n. v. santa fe ry. co. v. white, 548 u.s. 53 (2006). [320] 42 u.s.c. § 2000e 3(a); see, e.g., magden v. easterday farms, no. 2:16 cv 00068 jlq, 2017 wl 1731705, at *8 (e.d. wash. may 3, 2017) (holding plaintiff could proceed with retaliatory termination claim when he was fired for alleged poor performance two days after he complained to management about supervisor’s proselytizing, management took no steps to investigate, and supervisor confronted him about complaint). [321] see eeoc, enforcement guidance on retaliation & related issues ii.a.2(e) (aug. 25, 2016), https://​www.​eeoc.​gov/​laws/​guidance/​enforcement guidance retaliation and related issues. in a related context, most courts have assumed or held that requests for disability accommodation are protected activity. see solomon v. vilsack, 763 f.3d 1, 15 n.6 (d.c. cir. 2014) (collecting cases); see also 9 lex k. larson, employment discrimination § 154.10, at 154 105 & n.25 (2d ed. 2014) (“in addition to the activities specifically protected by the statute, courts have found that requesting reasonable accommodation is a protected activity.”). one circuit has held that requesting a religious accommodation, in contrast to opposing the denial of such a request, is not a protected activity under 42 u.s.c. § 2000e 3(a), and thus that a claim that a prospective employer had wrongfully denied a seventh day adventist’s request not to work during her sabbath (friday sundown to saturday sundown) should have been brought as a disparate treatment claim under 42 u.s.c. § 2000e 2(a) instead. see eeoc v. n. mem’l health care, 908 f.3d 1098, 1102 04 (8th cir. 2019). the commission disagrees with that decision and believes the better interpretation of title vii’s antiretaliation provision is that requests for religious accommodations are protected activity under that provision as well. [322] burlington n., 548 u.s. at 68 (quotations omitted). [323] executive order 13609 is inapplicable because the interpretive guidelines are nonbinding and have no impact on international regulatory cooperation or on interactions with other countries. [324] although www.regulations.gov numbers comments received as 74, the numbering excludes one and ten, and document number 54 is a duplicate. therefore, there were 71 unique comments. 131 m street, newashington, dc 205071 800 669 6820 (tty)1 844 234 5122 (asl video phone) call 1 800 669 4000for deaf/hard of hearing callers:1 800 669 6820 (tty)1 844 234 5122 (asl video phone)info@eeoc.govfind your nearest eeoc office

an official website of the united states government here’s how you know official websites use .gov a .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the united states. secure .gov websites use https a lock ( locka locked padlock ) or https:// means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. share sensitive information only on official, secure websites. about eeoc news and information laws and enforcement programs and performance data and analytics inside eeoc employees & applicants filing a charge of discrimination discrimination by type employers / small business small business resource center discrimination by type federal agencies federal employees & job applicants resources in other languages this document was issued prior to the supreme court’s decision in groff v. dejoy, 143 s. ct. 2279 (2023). the groff opinion clarified that “showing ‘more than a de minimis cost’…does not suffice to establish undue hardship under title vii.” instead, the supreme court held that “undue hardship is shown when a burden is substantial in the overall context of an employer’s business,” “tak[ing] into account all relevant factors in the case at hand, including the particular accommodations at issue and their practical impact in light of the nature, size and operating cost of an employer.” groff supersedes any contrary information on this webpage. for more information about the eeoc’s resources on religious discrimination, please see https://www.eeoc.gov/religious discrimination. technical assistance questions and answers   updated on may 15, 2023. throughout this pandemic, it has been critical for employers and employees to monitor current medical and public health guidance. the centers for disease control and prevention (cdc), the food and drug administration (fda), and other medical and public health authorities have issued new guidance and updated some existing guidance as circumstances have evolved. guidance from medical and public health authorities may be relevant to making certain legal determinations under one or more eeo laws (e.g., “direct threat” under the ada). because changes in such guidance may impact the legal assessments made under title i of the ada and other eeo laws, as discussed below, the eeoc recommends that employers and employees routinely check for guidance updates from cdc, fda, and other medical and public health authorities. the ada has restrictions on when and how much medical information an employer may obtain from any applicant or employee. prior to making a conditional job offer to an applicant, disability related inquiries and medical exams are generally prohibited. they are permitted between the time of the offer and when the applicant begins work, provided they are required for everyone in the same job category. for more information on the timing of disability related inquiries and medical examinations for applicants, see section c. under the ada (which is applicable to the federal sector through the rehabilitation act of 1973), once an employee begins work, any disability related inquiries or medical exams must be "job related and consistent with business necessity." one way inquiries and medical examinations meet this “business necessity” standard is if they are necessary to determine whether a specific employee has a medical condition that would pose a “direct threat” to health or safety (a significant risk of substantial harm to self or others that cannot be addressed with reasonable accommodation). for more information on reasonable accommodation, see section d. where met, the “business necessity” standard allows for consideration of whether a person may have covid 19, and thus might pose a “direct threat.” for information on disability related questions and covid 19 vaccinations, see k.7.  k.9. cdc has updated its guidance over the course of the pandemic and may continue to do so as the pandemic evolves and as cdc acquires more information about the virus and different variants. the ada “business necessity” standard requires that employers utilize the most current medical and public health information to determine what inquiries/medical examinations are appropriate. a.1. if an employee calls in sick, how much information may an employer request from the employee in order to protect the rest of its workforce and others (e.g., customers) from infection with covid 19? (updated 5/15/23) if an employee calls in sick, an employer may ask whether the employee has covid 19 or common symptoms of covid 19 as identified by cdc. if the employee has covid 19 or symptoms of the disease, the employer may follow any cdc recommended period of isolation with respect to when an employee may return to the workplace or otherwise work in close proximity to others. see a.4., which also addresses following a cdc recommended period of isolation. employers must maintain all information about employee illness as a confidential medical record in compliance with the ada. a.2. where can employers obtain current information on symptoms associated with covid 19? (updated 5/15/23) the list of symptoms commonly associated with the disease may change as public health authorities and doctors learn more and as different variants emerge . employers should rely on cdc for guidance on symptoms currently associated with the disease. these sources may guide employers when choosing questions to ask employees. see also a.8., addressing the ability of an employer to ask employees if they have been diagnosed with or tested for covid 19. a.3. when may an ada covered employer take the body temperature of employees in an effort to screen for covid 19? (updated 5/15/23) measuring an employee's body temperature is a medical examination. see a.6. for a discussion of the type of assessment an employer must do to justify requiring a medical examination (or requiring employees to answer disability related questions) under the ada’s “business necessity” standard. employers may wish to consult cdc guidance or guidance from other public health authorities to determine if an elevated temperature is a possible indication of infection. if it is, then taking the temperature of employees will meet the ada standard. a.4. does the ada allow employers to require employees to stay home if they have covid 19 or symptoms of covid 19? (updated 5/15/23) employers should consult current cdc guidance to clarify when and for how long it recommends someone with covid 19, or symptoms of covid 19 should stay home. the ada does not prevent employers from following cdc advice. see also a.1., which addresses the information an employer may request when an employee calls in sick. a.5. when an employee returns to the workplace after being out with covid 19, does the ada allow employers to require a note from a qualified medical professional explaining that it is safe for the employee to return (i.e., no risk of transmission) and that the employee is able to perform the job duties? (updated 7/12/22) yes. alternatively, employers may follow cdc guidance to determine whether it is safe to allow an employee to return to the workplace without confirmation from a medical professional. when an employee returns to the workplace after being out with covid 19, the ada allows an employer to require confirmation from a qualified medical professional explaining that the individual is able to safely return. such a request is permitted under the ada. first, because covid 19 is not always a disability, a request for confirmation may not be a disability related inquiry. alternatively, if the request is considered a disability related inquiry, it would be justified under the ada standard requiring that such employee inquiries be job related and consistent with business necessity. here, the request meets the “business necessity” standard because it is related to the possibility of transmission and/or related to an employer’s objective concern about the employee’s ability to resume working. for example, an employer may require confirmation from a medical professional addressing whether an employee may resume specific job duties requiring physical exertion. as a practical matter, employers may wish to consider other ways to determine the safety of allowing an employee to return to work if doctors and other healthcare professionals are unable to provide such documentation either in a timely manner or at all. this might include reliance on local clinics to provide a form, a stamp, or an e mail to confirm that an individual is no longer infectious and is able to resume working. a.6. under the ada, may an employer, as a mandatory screening measure, administer a covid 19 viral test (a test to detect the presence of the covid 19 virus) when evaluating an employee’s initial or continued presence in the workplace? (updated 7/12/22) yes, if the employer can show it is job related and consistent with business necessity. a covid 19 viral test is a medical examination within the meaning of the ada. therefore, if an employer implements screening protocols that include covid 19 viral testing, the ada requires that any mandatory medical test of employees be “job related and consistent with business necessity.” employer use of a covid 19 viral test to screen employees who are or will be in the workplace will meet the “business necessity” standard when it is consistent with guidance from centers for disease control and prevention (cdc), food and drug administration (fda), and/or state/local public health authorities that is current at the time of testing. be aware that cdc and other public health authorities periodically update and revise their recommendations about covid 19 testing, and fda may revise its guidance or emergency use authorizations, based on new information and changing conditions. a positive viral test result means that the test detected sars cov 2, the virus that causes covid 19, at the time of testing, and that the individual most likely has a current infection and may be able to transmit the virus to others. a negative test result means the test did not detect sars cov 2 at the time of testing. however, a negative test does not mean the employee does not have any virus, or will not later get the virus. it means only that the virus causing sars cov 2 was not detected by the test. if an employer seeks to implement screening testing for employees such testing must meet the “business necessity” standard based on relevant facts. possible considerations in making the “business necessity” assessment may include the level of community transmission, the vaccination status of employees, the accuracy and speed of processing for different types of covid 19 viral tests, the degree to which breakthrough infections are possible for employees who are “up to date” on vaccinations, the ease of transmissibility of the current variant(s), the possible severity of illness from the current variant, what types of contacts employees may have with others in the workplace or elsewhere that they are required to work (e.g., working with medically vulnerable individuals), and the potential impact on operations if an employee enters the workplace with covid 19. in making these assessments, employers should check the latest cdc guidance (and any other relevant sources) to determine whether screening testing is appropriate for these employees. note: question a.6. and a.8. address screening of employees generally. see question a.9. regarding decisions to test only individual employees. a.7. under the ada, may an employer require antibody testing before permitting employees to re enter the workplace? (updated 7/12/22) no. an antibody test, as a medical examination under the ada, must be job related and consistent with business necessity. as of july 2022, cdc guidance explains that antibody testing may not show whether an employee has a current infection, nor establish that an employee is immune to infection; as a result, it should not be used to determine whether an employee may enter the workplace. based on this cdc guidance, at this time such testing does not meet the ada’s “business necessity” standard for medical examinations or inquiries for employees. therefore, requiring antibody testing before allowing employees to re enter the workplace is not allowed under the ada. an antibody test is different from a test to determine if someone has evidence of infection with sars cov 2 or has covid 19 (i.e., a viral test). the eeoc addresses covid 19 viral screening tests in a.6. a.8. may employers ask all employees physically entering the workplace if they have been diagnosed with or tested for covid 19? (updated 5/15/23) yes. employers may ask all employees who will be physically entering the workplace (or otherwise working in close proximity with others, such as clients) if they have covid 19 or common symptoms associated with covid 19 as identified by cdc. employers also may ask if these employees have been tested for covid 19 (and if so, ask about the result). an employer may exclude those with covid 19, or symptoms associated with covid 19, from the workplace if consistent with cdc recommended isolation protocols. see also a.2. a.9. may a manager require that a particular employee have a temperature reading or undergo covid 19 viral testing, as opposed to imposing these medical examinations on all employees? (updated 5/15/23) whether an employer wishes to require a particular employee, or all employees, to have a temperature reading or to undergo covid 19 viral testing, the ada requires that the employer meet the “business necessity” standard because these are medical examinations. therefore, it is important for the employer to consider why it wishes to require a medical examination. the ada does not prevent employers from following recommendations by cdc regarding whether, when, and for whom testing (or other medical screening) is appropriate, because following cdc recommendations will meet the ada “business necessity” standard. for a discussion of screening testing for employees generally, see a.6. for a discussion of taking temperature as a screening mechanism, see a.3. employers should not engage in unlawful disparate treatment based on protected characteristics in deciding who is subject to medical examinations. a.10. may an employer ask an employee who is physically coming into the workplace whether they have family members who have covid 19 or symptoms associated with covid 19? (updated 5/15/23) no. the genetic information nondiscrimination act (gina) prohibits employers from asking employees medical questions about family members. for example, gina prohibits employers from asking employees to provide their family members’ medical examination results, including covid 19 test results. gina, however, does not prohibit an employer from asking employees whether they have had contact with “anyone” diagnosed with covid 19 or who may have symptoms associated with the disease. moreover, from a public health perspective, only asking about an employee’s contact with family members would unnecessarily limit the information obtained about an employee’s potential exposure to covid 19. employers should not engage in unlawful disparate treatment based on protected characteristics in deciding who is asked about possible exposure to persons with covid 19. a.11. what may an employer do under the ada if an employee refuses to permit the employer to take the employee’s temperature or refuses to answer questions about whether the employee has covid 19, has symptoms associated with covid 19, or has been tested for covid 19? (updated 5/15/23) an employer may ask employees if they have covid 19, common symptoms of covid 19 as identified by cdc, or have been tested for covid 19 (and if so, ask about the result). see a.1. and a.8. an employer also may take an employee’s temperature or require a covid 19 viral test as long as these medical examinations meet the ada’s “business necessity” standard. see a.3., a.6., and a.9. if an employee refuses to cooperate by answering these questions or taking these medical examinations, an employer may take whatever action it deems appropriate, consistent with its applicable policies or procedures (e.g., barring an employee from physical presence in the workplace or otherwise working closely with others). to gain the cooperation of employees, however, employers may wish to ask the reasons for the employee’s refusal. for example, the employer may be able to provide information or reassurance that they are taking these steps to ensure the safety of everyone in the workplace, and that these steps are consistent with health screening recommendations from cdc. sometimes, employees are reluctant to provide medical information because they fear an employer may widely spread such personal medical information throughout the workplace. the employer may reassure the employee that the ada prohibits disclosure of employee medical information with limited exceptions. alternatively, if an employee requests reasonable accommodation with respect to screening, the usual accommodation process should be followed; this is discussed in question g.7. a.12. may an employer request information from an employee who reports feeling ill while on the job with symptoms associated with covid 19, in order to protect the rest of its workforce and others (e.g., customers) with covid 19? (updated 5/15/23) yes. if an employee who works on site (or otherwise works in close proximity to others), reports feeling ill while on the job, an employer may ask whether the employee has covid 19 or common symptoms of covid 19 as identified by cdc. if the employee has covid 19 or symptoms of the disease, the employer may follow any cdc recommended period of isolation with respect to when an employee may return to the workplace or otherwise work in close proximity to others. see a.4., which also addresses following a cdc recommended period of isolation. employers must maintain all information about an employee’s illness as a confidential medical record in compliance with the ada. a.13. may an employer ask an employee why the employee has been absent from work? (9/8/20; adapted from pandemic preparedness question 15) yes. asking why an individual did not report to work is not a disability related inquiry. an employer is always entitled to know why an employee has not reported for work. a.14. when an employee returns from travel during the covid 19 pandemic, must an employer wait until the employee develops covid 19 symptoms to ask questions about where the person has traveled? (updated 5/15/23) no. questions about where a person traveled would not be disability related inquiries. employers may wish to consult current cdc guidance regarding domestic or international travel for recommendations on what precautions, if any, are advisable after returning from certain destinations. if an employer wishes to require a medical examination (e.g., requiring a covid 19 viral test), it must meet the ada’s “business necessity” standard. see a.6. and a.9. with limited exceptions, the ada requires employers to keep confidential any medical information they learn about any applicant or employee. medical information includes not only a diagnosis or treatments, but also the fact that an individual has requested or is receiving a reasonable accommodation. b.1. may an employer store in existing medical files information it obtains related to covid 19, including the results of taking an employee's temperature or the employee's self identification as having this disease, or must the employer create a new medical file system solely for this information? (updated 5/15/23) the ada requires that all medical information about a particular employee be stored separately from the employee's personnel file, thus limiting access to this confidential information. an employer may store all medical information related to covid 19 in existing medical files. this includes an employee's statement that the employee has the disease or suspects so, or the employer's notes or other documentation from questioning an employee about symptoms. similarly, information about an employee having long covid must also be treated as confidential. for information on confidentiality and covid 19 vaccinations, see k.4. b.2. if an employer requires all employees to have a daily temperature check before entering the workplace, may the employer maintain a log of the results? (4/9/20) yes. the employer needs to maintain the confidentiality of this information. b.3. may an employer disclose the name of an employee to a public health agency when it learns that the employee has covid 19? (4/9/20) yes. b.4. may a temporary staffing agency or a contractor that places an employee in an employer's workplace notify the employer if it learns the employee has covid 19? (4/9/20) yes. the staffing agency or contractor may notify the employer and disclose the name of the employee, because the employer may need to determine if this employee had contact with anyone in the workplace. b.5. suppose a manager learns that an employee has covid 19, or has symptoms associated with the disease. the manager knows it must be reported but is worried about violating ada confidentiality. what should the manager do? (9/8/20; adapted from 3/27/20 webinar question 5) the ada requires that an employer keep all medical information about employees confidential, even if that information is not about a disability. clearly, the information that an employee has symptoms of, or a diagnosis of, covid 19, is medical information. but the fact that this is medical information does not prevent the manager from reporting to appropriate employer officials so that they can take actions consistent with guidance from the cdc and other public health authorities. the question is really what information to report: is it the fact that an employee unnamed has symptoms of covid 19 or a diagnosis, or is it the identity of that employee? who in the organization needs to know the identity of the employee will depend on each workplace and why a specific official needs this information. employers should make every effort to limit the number of people who get to know the name of the employee. the ada does not interfere with a designated representative of the employer interviewing the employee to get a list of people with whom the employee possibly had contact through the workplace, so that the employer can then take action to notify those who may have come into contact with the employee, without revealing the employee’s identity. for example, using a generic descriptor, such as telling employees that “someone at this location” or “someone on the fourth floor” has covid 19, provides notice and does not violate the ada’s prohibition of disclosure of confidential medical information. for small employers, coworkers might be able to figure out who the employee is, but employers in that situation are still prohibited from confirming or revealing the employee’s identity. also, all employer officials who are designated as needing to know the identity of an employee should be specifically instructed that they must maintain the confidentiality of this information. employers may want to plan in advance what supervisors and managers should do if this situation arises and determine who will be responsible for receiving information and taking next steps. b.6. an employee who must report to the workplace knows that a coworker who reports to the same workplace has symptoms associated with covid 19. does ada confidentiality prevent the first employee from disclosing the coworker's symptoms to a supervisor? (9/8/20; adapted from 3/27/20 webinar question 6) no. ada confidentiality does not prevent this employee from communicating to the employee’s supervisor about a coworker’s symptoms. in other words, it is not an ada confidentiality violation for this employee to inform the supervisor about a coworker’s symptoms. after learning about this situation, the supervisor should contact appropriate management officials to report this information and discuss next steps. b.7. an employer knows that an employee is teleworking because the person has covid 19 or symptoms associated with the disease, and is in self quarantine. may the employer tell staff that this particular employee is teleworking without saying why? (9/8/20; adapted from 3/27/20 webinar question 7) yes. if staff need to know how to contact the employee, and that the employee is working even if not present in the workplace, then disclosure that the employee is teleworking without saying why is permissible. also, if the employee was on leave rather than teleworking because the employee has covid 19 or symptoms associated with the disease, or any other medical condition, then an employer cannot disclose the reason for the leave, just the fact that the fact that the individual is on leave. b.8. many employees, including managers and supervisors, are now teleworking as a result of covid 19. how are they supposed to keep medical information of employees confidential while working remotely? (9/8/20; adapted from 3/27/20 webinar question 9) the ada requirement that medical information be kept confidential includes a requirement that it be stored separately from regular personnel files. if a manager or supervisor receives medical information involving covid 19, or any other medical information, while teleworking, and is able to follow an employer’s existing confidentiality protocols while working remotely, the supervisor has to do so. but to the extent that is not feasible, the supervisor still must safeguard this information to the greatest extent possible until the supervisor can properly store it. this means that paper notepads, laptops, or other devices should not be left where others can access the protected information. similarly, documentation must not be stored electronically where others would have access. a manager may even wish to use initials or another code to further ensure confidentiality of the name of an employee. under the ada, prior to making a conditional job offer to an applicant, disability related inquiries and medical exams are generally prohibited. they are permitted between the time of the offer and when the applicant begins work, provided they are required for everyone in the same job category. c.1. if an employer is hiring, may it screen applicants for symptoms of covid 19? (updated 5/15/23) yes. an employer may screen job applicants for symptoms of covid 19 after making a conditional job offer, as long as it does so for all entering employees in the same type of job. this ada rule applies whether or not the applicant has a disability. in addition, if an employer screens everyone for covid 19 (i.e., screens all applicants, employees, contractors, and visitors because anyone potentially might have covid 19) before permitting entry to the worksite, then an applicant in the pre offer stage who needs to be in the workplace as part of the application process (e.g., for a job interview) may likewise be screened for covid 19. it is also permissible to screen a subset of applicants pre offer if they fall into a specific category of individuals (including employees and others) that are subject to covid 19 screening. for example, if everyone entering a particular building on campus must undergo covid 19 screening, an employer also may subject an applicant entering this building to the same screening, even though such screening is not routinely done when entering other buildings. but note, an employer should not use this covid 19 screening as an opportunity, pre offer, to also ask applicants disability related questions and/or to conduct medical examinations that may only be done post offer. for information on the ada rules governing such inquiries and examination, see section a. c.2. may an employer take an applicant's temperature as part of a post offer, pre employment medical exam? (3/18/20) yes. any medical exams are permitted after an employer has made a conditional offer of employment. however, employers should be aware that some people with covid 19 do not have a fever. c.3. may an employer delay the start date of an applicant who has covid 19 or symptoms associated with it? (3/18/20) yes. according to cdc guidance, an individual who has covid 19 or symptoms associated with it should not be in the workplace. c.4. may an employer withdraw a job offer when it needs an applicant to start working immediately, whether at the worksite or in the physical presence of others outside of the worksite, because the individual has tested positive for the virus that causes covid 19, has symptoms of covid 19, or has been exposed recently to someone with covid 19? (updated 7/12/22) an employer should consult and follow current cdc guidance that explains when and how it would be safe for an individual who currently has covid 19, symptoms of covid 19, or has been exposed recently to someone with covid 19, to end isolation or quarantine and thus safely enter a workplace or otherwise work in the physical presence of others. an employer who follows current cdc guidance addressing the individual’s situation may withdraw the job offer if (1) the job requires an immediate start date, (2) cdc guidance recommends the person not be in proximity to others, and (3) the job requires such proximity to others, whether at the workplace or elsewhere. given that for some individuals there may only be a short period of time required for isolation or quarantine, employers may be able to adjust a start date or permit telework (if job duties can be performed remotely). c.5. may an employer postpone the start date or withdraw a job offer because of the employer’s concern that the individual is older, pregnant, or has an underlying medical condition that puts the individual at increased risk from covid 19? (updated 7/12/22) no. an employer’s concern for an applicant’s well being    an intent to protect them from what it perceives as a risk of illness from covid 19    does not excuse an action that is otherwise unlawful discrimination. the fact that cdc has noted that older adults, people with certain medical conditions, or pregnant and recently pregnant people may be at greater risk of severe illness from covid 19 does not justify unilaterally postponing the start date or withdrawing a job offer. therefore, an employer may not discriminate based on age (40 or older) or pregnancy and related conditions. if an underlying medical condition is a disability, an employer must determine whether the individual’s disability poses a “direct threat” by starting work immediately and, if so, whether reasonable accommodation can be provided to sufficiently lessen or eliminate any risks without causing an undue hardship. for more information on assessing direct threat and reasonable accommodation in this situation, see g.4. and g.5. for more information on potential issues regarding discrimination based on age or pregnancy, see sections h and j. under the ada, reasonable accommodations are adjustments or modifications provided by an employer to enable people with disabilities to enjoy equal employment opportunities. if a reasonable accommodation is needed and requested by an individual with a disability to apply for a job, perform a job, or enjoy benefits and privileges of employment, the employer must provide it unless it would pose an undue hardship, meaning significant difficulty or expense. an employer has the discretion to choose among effective accommodations. where a requested accommodation would result in undue hardship, the employer must offer an alternative accommodation if one is available absent undue hardship. in discussing accommodation requests, employers and employees may find it helpful to consult the job accommodation network (jan) website for types of accommodations, www.askjan.org. jan's materials specific to covid 19 are at https://askjan.org/topics/covid 19.cfm. for more information on reasonable accommodation issues that may arise when employees return to the workplace, see section g. for more information on reasonable accommodation and pregnancy related disabilities, see section j. for more information on reasonable accommodation and covid 19 vaccinations, see k.1., k.2., k.5., k.6., and k.11. d.1. if a job may only be performed at the workplace, are there reasonable accommodations for individuals with disabilities, absent undue hardship, that could offer protection to an employee who, due to a preexisting disability, is at higher risk from covid 19? (4/9/20) there may be reasonable accommodations that could offer protection to an individual whose disability puts that person at greater risk from covid 19 and who therefore requests such actions to eliminate possible exposure. even with the constraints imposed by a pandemic, some accommodations may meet an employee's needs on a temporary basis without causing undue hardship on the employer. low cost solutions achieved with materials already on hand or easily obtained may be effective. if not already implemented for all employees, accommodations for those who request reduced contact with others due to a disability may include changes to the work environment such as designating one way aisles; using plexiglass, tables, or other barriers to ensure minimum distances between customers and coworkers whenever feasible per accommodations that reduce chances of exposure. flexibility by employers and employees is important in determining if some accommodation is possible in the circumstances. temporary job restructuring of marginal job duties, temporary transfers to a different position, or modifying a work schedule or shift assignment may also permit an individual with a disability to perform safely the essential functions of the job while reducing exposure to others in the workplace or while commuting. d.2. if an employee has a preexisting mental illness or disorder that has been exacerbated by the covid 19 pandemic, may the employee now be entitled to a reasonable accommodation (absent undue hardship)? (4/9/20) although many people feel significant stress due to the covid 19 pandemic, employees with certain preexisting mental health conditions, for example, anxiety disorder, obsessive compulsive disorder, or post traumatic stress disorder, may have more difficulty handling the disruption to daily life that has accompanied the covid 19 pandemic. as with any accommodation request, employers may: ask questions to determine whether the condition is a disability; discuss with the employee how the requested accommodation would assist the employee and enable the employee to keep working; explore alternative accommodations that may effectively meet the employee’s needs; and request medical documentation if needed. d.3. in a workplace where employees are required to telework due to the covid 19 pandemic, should an employer postpone discussing a request from an employee with a disability for an accommodation that will not be needed until the employee returns to the workplace when mandatory telework ends? (updated 5/15/23) not necessarily. an employer may give higher priority to discussing requests for reasonable accommodations that are needed while teleworking, but the employer may begin discussing this request now. the employer may be able to acquire all the information it needs to make a decision. if a reasonable accommodation is granted, the employer also may be able to make some arrangements for the accommodation in advance. d.4. what if an employee was already receiving a reasonable accommodation prior to the covid 19 pandemic and now requests an additional or altered accommodation? (4/9/20) an employee who was already receiving a reasonable accommodation prior to the covid 19 pandemic may be entitled to an additional or altered accommodation, absent undue hardship. for example, an employee who is teleworking because of the pandemic may need a different type of accommodation than what the employee uses in the workplace. the employer may discuss with the employee whether the same or a different disability is the basis for this new request and why an additional or altered accommodation is needed. d.5. during the pandemic, if an employee requests an accommodation for a medical condition either at home or in the workplace, may an employer still request information to determine if the condition is a disability? (4/17/20) yes, if it is not obvious or already known, an employer may ask questions or request medical documentation to determine whether the employee has a "disability" as defined by the ada (a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits a major life activity, or a history of a substantially limiting impairment). d.6. during the pandemic, may an employer still engage in the interactive process and request information from an employee about why an accommodation is needed? (4/17/20) yes, if it is not obvious or already known, an employer may ask questions or request medical documentation to determine whether the employee's disability necessitates an accommodation, either the one the employee requested or any other. possible questions for the employee may include: (1) how the disability creates a limitation, (2) how the requested accommodation will effectively address the limitation, (3) whether another form of accommodation could effectively address the issue, and (4) how a proposed accommodation will enable the employee to continue performing the "essential functions" of the employee’s position (that is, the fundamental job duties). d.7. if there is some urgency to providing an accommodation, may an employer provide a temporary accommodation? (updated 5/15/23) yes. given the pandemic, some employers may choose to forgo or shorten the exchange of information between an employer and employee known as the "interactive process" (discussed in d.5 and d.6., above) and grant the request. in addition, changes in government restrictions may affect the need for accommodations. changes in how an employer conducts the interactive process may be necessary to suit changing circumstances based on current public health directives. whatever the reason for shortening or adapting the interactive process, an employer may also choose to place an end date on the temporary accommodation (for example, a specific date such as “may 30”). employers may also opt to provide a requested accommodation on an interim or trial basis, with an end date, while awaiting receipt of medical documentation. choosing one of these alternatives may be particularly helpful where the requested accommodation would provide protection that an employee may need because of a disability that puts the employee at greater risk during this pandemic. this could also apply to employees who have disabilities exacerbated by the pandemic. if an employee requests an extension of a temporary accommodation, the employer must consider it. the employer may take into account current circumstances, including the employee’s current disability related needs and any applicable government restrictions or public health directives). d.8. may an employer invite employees to ask for reasonable accommodations they may need in the future in advance of a return to the workplace? (updated 5/15/23) yes. employers may inform the entire workforce that employees with disabilities may request accommodations in advance that they believe they may need when returning to the workplace either part time or full time. this is discussed in greater detail in question g.6. if advance requests are received, employers may begin the "interactive process" the discussion between the employer and employee focused on whether the impairment is a disability and the reasons that an accommodation is needed. if an employee chooses not to request accommodation in advance, and instead requests it at a later time, the employer must still consider the request at that time. d.9. are the circumstances of the pandemic relevant to whether a requested accommodation can be denied because it poses an undue hardship? (4/17/20) yes. an employer does not have to provide a particular reasonable accommodation if it poses an "undue hardship," which means "significant difficulty or expense." as described in the two questions that follow, in some instances, an accommodation that would not have posed an undue hardship prior to the pandemic may pose one now. d.10. may an employer consider circumstances related to the covid 19 pandemic when determining if a requested accommodation poses "significant difficulty" (and therefore would be an undue hardship)? (updated 5/15/23) an employer may consider whether current circumstances related to the covid 19 pandemic create "significant difficulty" in acquiring or providing certain accommodations, considering the facts of the particular job and workplace. for example, it may be significantly more difficult to conduct a needs assessment or to acquire certain items, and delivery may be impacted, particularly for employees who may be teleworking. or, it may be significantly more difficult to provide employees with temporary assignments, to remove marginal functions, or to readily hire temporary workers for specialized positions. if a particular accommodation poses an undue hardship due to circumstances related to the pandemic, employers and employees should work together to determine if there may be an alternative that could be provided that does not pose such problems. d.11. may an employer consider circumstances related to the covid 19 pandemic when determining if a requested accommodation poses "significant expense" (and therefore would be an undue hardship)? (updated 5/15/23) prior to the covid 19 pandemic, most accommodations did not pose a significant expense when considered against an employer's overall budget and resources (always considering the budget/resources of the entire entity and not just its components). current pandemic conditions make it less likely that they would be the foundation for finding “significant expense,” although an employer may consider any pandemic related circumstances that could be relevant at the time the employer is making an undue hardship assessment. but, consideration of any relevant pandemic related reasons does not mean that an employer can reject any accommodation that costs money; an employer must weigh the cost of an accommodation against its current budget while taking into account any constraints created by this pandemic. even under pandemic related circumstances, there may be many no cost or very low cost accommodations that effectively meet the employee’s disability related needs. d.12. do the ada and the rehabilitation act apply to applicants or employees who are classified as “critical infrastructure workers” or “essential critical workers” by the cdc? (4/23/20) yes. these cdc designations, or any other designations of certain employees, do not eliminate coverage under the ada or the rehabilitation act, or any other equal employment opportunity law. therefore, employers receiving requests for reasonable accommodation under the ada or the rehabilitation act from employees falling in these categories of jobs must accept and process the requests as they would for any other employee. whether the request is granted will depend on whether the worker is an individual with a disability, and whether there is a reasonable accommodation that can be provided absent undue hardship. d.13. is an employee entitled to an accommodation under the ada in order to avoid exposing a family member who is at higher risk of severe illness from covid 19 due to an underlying medical condition? (6/11/20) no. although the ada prohibits discrimination based on association with an individual with a disability, that protection is limited to disparate treatment or harassment. the ada does not require that an employer accommodate an employee without a disability based on the disability related needs of a family member or other person with whom the employee is associated. d.14. when an employer requires some or all of its employees to telework because of covid 19 or government officials require employers to shut down their facilities and have workers telework, is the employer required to provide a teleworking employee with the same reasonable accommodations for disability under the ada or the rehabilitation act that it provides to this individual in the workplace? (9/8/20; adapted from 3/27/20 webinar question 20) if such a request is made, the employer and employee should discuss what the employee needs and why, and whether the same or a different accommodation could suffice in the home setting. for example, an employee may already have certain things in their home to enable them to do their job so that they do not need to have all of the accommodations that are provided in the workplace. also, the undue hardship considerations might be different when evaluating a request for accommodation when teleworking rather than working in the workplace. a reasonable accommodation that is feasible and does not pose an undue hardship in the workplace might pose one when considering circumstances, such as the place where it is needed and the reason for telework. for example, the fact that the period of telework may be of a temporary or unknown duration may render certain accommodations either not feasible or an undue hardship. there may also be constraints on the normal availability of items or on the ability of an employer to conduct a necessary assessment. as a practical matter, and in light of the circumstances that led to the need for telework, employers and employees should both be creative and flexible about what can be done when an employee needs a reasonable accommodation for telework at home. if possible, providing interim accommodations might be appropriate while an employer discusses a request with the employee or is waiting for additional information. d.15. assume that an employer grants telework to employees for the purpose of slowing or stopping the spread of covid 19. when an employer reopens the workplace and recalls employees to the worksite, does the employer automatically have to grant telework as a reasonable accommodation to every employee with a disability who requests to continue this arrangement as an ada/rehabilitation act accommodation? (9/8/20; adapted from 3/27/20 webinar question 21) no. any time an employee requests a reasonable accommodation, the employer is entitled to understand the disability related limitation that necessitates an accommodation. if there is no disability related limitation that requires teleworking, then the employer does not have to provide telework as an accommodation. or, if there is a disability related limitation but the employer can effectively address the need with another form of reasonable accommodation at the workplace, then the employer can choose that alternative to telework. to the extent that an employer is permitting telework to employees because of covid 19 and is choosing to excuse an employee from performing one or more essential functions, then a request after the workplace reopens to continue telework as a reasonable accommodation does not have to be granted if it requires continuing to excuse the employee from performing an essential function. the ada never requires an employer to eliminate an essential function as an accommodation for an individual with a disability. the fact that an employer temporarily excused performance of one or more essential functions when it closed the workplace and enabled employees to telework for the purpose of protecting their safety from covid 19, or otherwise chose to permit telework, does not mean that the employer permanently changed a job’s essential functions, that telework is always a feasible accommodation, or that it does not pose an undue hardship. these are fact specific determinations. the employer has no obligation under the ada to refrain from restoring all of an employee’s essential duties at such time as it chooses to restore the prior work arrangement, and then evaluating any requests for continued or new accommodations under the usual ada rules. d.16. assume that prior to the emergence of the covid 19 pandemic, an employee with a disability had requested telework as a reasonable accommodation. the employee had shown a disability related need for this accommodation, but the employer denied it because of concerns that the employee would not be able to perform the essential functions remotely. in the past, the employee therefore continued to come to the workplace. however, after the covid 19 crisis has subsided and temporary telework ends, the employee renews the request for telework as a reasonable accommodation. can the employer again refuse the request? (9/8/20; adapted from 3/27/20 webinar question 22) assuming all the requirements for such a reasonable accommodation are satisfied, the temporary telework experience could be relevant to considering the renewed request. in this situation, for example, the period of providing telework because of the covid 19 pandemic could serve as a trial period that showed whether or not this employee with a disability could satisfactorily perform all essential functions while working remotely, and the employer should consider any new requests in light of this information. as with all accommodation requests, the employee and the employer should engage in a flexible, cooperative interactive process going forward if this issue does arise. d.17. might the pandemic result in excusable delays during the interactive process? (updated 7/12/22) yes. some of the issues initially created by the pandemic that delayed engaging in an interactive process and/or providing reasonable accommodation may no longer exist. but, as the pandemic continues to evolve and new issues arise, it is possible that an employer may face new challenges that interfere with responding expeditiously to a request for accommodation. similarly, reopening a workplace may bring a higher number of requests for reasonable accommodation. in all these situations, an employer must show specific pandemic related circumstances justified the delay in providing a reasonable accommodation to which the employee was legally entitled. to the extent that evolving circumstances created by the pandemic cause a justifiable delay in the interactive process thereby delaying a decision on a request employers and employees are encouraged to use interim solutions to enable employees to keep working as much as possible. d.18. federal agencies are required to have timelines in their written reasonable accommodation procedures governing how quickly they will process requests and provide reasonable accommodations. what happens if circumstances created by the pandemic prevent an agency from meeting this timeline? (updated 7/12/22) situations created by the current covid 19 pandemic may constitute an “extenuating circumstance” something beyond a federal agency’s control that may justify exceeding the normal timeline that an agency has adopted in its internal reasonable accommodation procedures. some of the issues initially created by the pandemic that delayed engaging in an interactive process and/or providing reasonable accommodation may no longer exist. but, as the pandemic continues to evolve and new issues arise, it is possible that an agency may face new challenges that interfere with responding to a request for accommodation within an agency’s timeline. similarly, reopening a workplace may bring a higher number of requests for reasonable accommodation. in all these situations, an agency must show specific pandemic related circumstances that constitute an “extenuating circumstance.” to the extent that there is an extenuating circumstance, agencies and employees are encouraged to use interim solutions to enable employees to keep working as much as possible. d.19. what are examples of reasonable accommodations that may assist employees with long covid? (5/15/23) the possible types of reasonable accommodations to address various symptoms of long covid vary, depending on a number of factors, including the nature of the symptoms, the job duties, and the design of the workplace. some common reasonable accommodations include: a quiet workspace, use of noise cancelling or white noise devices, and uninterrupted worktime to address brain fog; alternative lighting and reducing glare to address headaches; rest breaks to address joint pain or shortness of breath; a flexible schedule or telework to address fatigue; and removal of “marginal functions” that involve physical exertion to address shortness of breath. the job accommodation network has information on a variety of possible reasonable accommodations to address specific symptoms of long covid. d.20. as a result of the end of the covid 19 public health emergency on may 11, 2023, may employers automatically terminate reasonable accommodations that were provided due to pandemic related circumstances? (5/15/23) no. this emergency declaration dealt with issues involving health care coverage and access to treatment. it did not address the ada and rehabilitation act requirements regarding provision of reasonable accommodation. therefore, the end of this public health emergency declaration does not automatically provide grounds to terminate reasonable accommodations that continue to be needed to address on going pandemic related circumstances (e.g., continued high risk to individuals with certain disabilities if they contract covid 19). however, an employer may evaluate accommodations granted during the public health emergency and, in consultation with the employee, assess whether there continues to be a need for reasonable accommodation based on individualized circumstances. consistent with the ada’s “business necessity” standard, this evaluation may include a request for documentation that addresses why there may be an ongoing need for accommodation and whether alternative accommodations might meet those needs. e.1. what practical tools are available to employers to reduce and address workplace harassment that may arise as a result of the covid 19 pandemic? (4/9/20) employers can help reduce the chance of harassment by explicitly communicating to the workforce that fear of the covid 19 pandemic should not be misdirected against individuals because of a protected characteristic, including their national origin, race, or other prohibited bases. practical anti harassment tools provided by the eeoc for small businesses can be found here: e.2. are there steps an employer should take to address possible harassment and discrimination against employees in connection with the pandemic? (updated 5/15/23) yes. an employer may remind all employees that it is against the federal eeo laws to harass or otherwise discriminate against coworkers based on race, national origin, color, sex (including sexual orientation, gender identity, and pregnancy), religion, age (40 or over), disability, or genetic information. it may be particularly helpful for employers to advise supervisors and managers of their roles in watching for, stopping, and reporting any harassment or other discrimination. an employer may want to provide illustrations of pandemic related harassment for supervisors, managers, and all other employees to help them understand what actions may violate the eeo laws. for example, one illustration might show a supervisor or coworker violating the ada/rehabilitation act by harassing an employee with a disability related need to wear a mask or take other covid 19 precautions. another illustration might show a supervisor or coworker violating title vii by harassing an employee who is receiving a religious accommodation to forgo mandatory vaccination. (see e.3. for an additional example of pandemic related harassment.) finally, an employer may also make clear that it will immediately review any allegations of harassment or discrimination and take appropriate action. e.3. how may employers respond to pandemic related harassment, in particular against employees who are or are perceived to be asian? (6/11/20) managers should be alert to demeaning, derogatory, or hostile remarks directed to employees who are or are perceived to be of chinese or other asian national origin, including about the coronavirus or its origins. all employers covered by title vii should ensure that management understands in advance how to recognize such harassment. harassment may occur using electronic communication tools regardless of whether employees are in the workplace, teleworking, or on leave and also in person between employees at the worksite. harassment of employees at the worksite may also originate with contractors, customers or clients, or, for example, with patients or their family members at health care facilities, assisted living facilities, and nursing homes. managers should know their legal obligations and be instructed to quickly identify and resolve potential problems, before they rise to the level of unlawful discrimination. employers may choose to send a reminder to the entire workforce noting title vii’s prohibitions on harassment, reminding employees that harassment will not be tolerated, and inviting anyone who experiences or witnesses workplace harassment to report it to management. employers may remind employees that harassment can result in disciplinary action up to and including termination. e.4. an employer learns that an employee who is teleworking due to the pandemic is sending harassing emails to another worker. what actions should the employer take? (6/11/20) the employer should take the same actions it would take if the employee was in the workplace. employees may not harass other employees through, for example, emails, calls, or platforms for video or chat communication and collaboration. f.1. under the eeoc's laws, what waiver responsibilities apply when an employer is conducting layoffs? (4/9/20) special rules apply when an employer is offering employees severance packages in exchange for a general release of all discrimination claims against the employer. more information is available in eeoc's technical assistance document on severance agreements. f.2. what are additional eeo considerations in planning furloughs or layoffs? (9/8/20; adapted from 3/27/20 webinar question 13) the laws enforced by the eeoc prohibit covered employers from selecting people for furlough or layoff because of that individual’s race, color, religion, national origin, sex, age, disability, protected genetic information, or in retaliation for protected eeo activity. g.1. as government restrictions are imposed, lifted, or modified during the course of the pandemic, how will employers know what steps they can take consistent with the ada to screen employees for the virus that causes covid 19 when entering the workplace? (updated 5/15/23) the ada permits employers to make disability related inquiries and conduct medical exams to screen employees for covid 19 when entering the workplace if such screening is “job related and consistent with business necessity.” for more information on disability related inquiries and medical examinations, see section a. for information on reasonable accommodation requests related to screening protocols, see g.7. employers should make sure not to engage in unlawful disparate treatment based on protected characteristics in decisions related to screening and exclusion. g.2. an employer requires workers to wear personal protective equipment and engage in other infection control practices. some employees ask for accommodations due to a disability or a sincerely held religious belief, practice, or observance that affects the ability to wear personal protective equipment and/or engage in other infection control practices. how should an employer respond? (updated 7/12/22) in most instances, federal eeo laws permit an employer to require employees to wear personal protective equipment (ppe) (for example, masks and/or gloves) and observe other infection control practices (for example, regular hand washing or physical distancing protocols). some employers may need to comply with regulations issued by the occupational safety and health administration (osha) that require the use of ppe. osha regulations do not prohibit the use of reasonable accommodations under the eeo laws as long as those accommodations do not violate osha requirements. employers also may follow current cdc guidance about who should wear masks. regardless of the reason an employer requires ppe (or other infection control measures), when an employee with a disability needs a reasonable accommodation under the ada to comply with an employer’s requirement to wear ppe (e.g., non latex gloves, modified face masks for interpreters or others who communicate with an employee who uses lip reading, or gowns designed for individuals who use wheelchairs), or when an employee requires a religious accommodation under title vii (such as modified or alternative equipment due to religious attire or grooming practices), the employer should discuss the request and provide accommodation (either what is requested by the employee or an alternative that is effective in meeting the employee’s needs) if it does not cause an undue hardship on the operation of the employer's business under the ada or title vii. for general information on reasonable accommodation under the ada, see section d. g.3. what does an employee need to do in order to request reasonable accommodation from an employer because the employee has one of the medical conditions that cdc says may put a person at higher risk for severe illness from covid 19? (updated 7/12/22) an employee or a third party, such as an employee’s doctor must let the employer know that the employee needs a change for a reason related to a medical condition . individuals may request accommodation orally or in writing. while the employee (or third party) does not need to use the term “reasonable accommodation” or reference the ada, the employee may do so. the employee or the employee’s representative should communicate that the employee has a medical condition necessitating a change to meet a medical need. after receiving a request, the employer may ask questions or seek medical documentation to help decide if the individual has a disability not all medical conditions meet the ada’s definition of “disability” and if there is a reasonable accommodation, barring undue hardship, that can be provided. for additional information on reasonable accommodation under the ada, see section d. for information on pregnancy related disabilities covered under the ada, see j.2. for general information on reasonable accommodation requests related to a sincerely held religious belief, practice, or observance, see k.12. g.4. cdc identifies a number of medical conditions that are more likely to cause people to get severely ill if they get covid 19. an employer knows that an employee has one of these conditions and is concerned that the employee’s health will be jeopardized upon returning to the workplace, but the employee has not requested accommodation. how does the ada apply to this situation? (updated 7/12/22) the ada does not mandate that the employer take action in this situation if the employee has not requested reasonable accommodation. also, an employer’s duty to provide reasonable accommodation applies only if an employee has an actual disability or a record of a disability, as defined in the ada; this means not every individual with one of the medical conditions that might place them at higher risk of covid 19 complications will automatically satisfy these ada definitions of disability. assuming the employee has a “disability” as discussed above, if the employer is concerned that the health of an employee with a disability may be jeopardized upon returning to the workplace, the ada generally does not allow the employer to exclude the employee or take any other adverse action because the employee has a disability that cdc identifies as potentially placing the employee at higher risk for severe illness if the employee gets covid 19. under the ada, such an adverse action is not allowed unless the employee’s disability poses a “direct threat” to the employee’s health or safety that cannot be eliminated or reduced by reasonable accommodation. the ada direct threat requirement is a high standard. as an affirmative defense for the employer, direct threat requires an employer to show that the individual has a disability that poses a “significant risk of substantial harm” to the employee’s own health or safety, or that of others in the workplace under 29 c.f.r. section 1630.2(r) (regulation addressing direct threat to health or safety of self or others). a direct threat assessment cannot be based solely on the disability being identified in cdc’s guidance; the determination must be an individualized assessment based on a reasonable medical judgment about this employee’s disability not the disability in general using the most current medical knowledge and/or on the best available objective evidence. thus, an employer analyzing a potential direct threat must consider the duration of the risk, the nature and severity of the potential harm, the likelihood that the potential harm will occur, and the imminence of the potential harm. analysis of these factors will likely include considerations based on the severity of the pandemic in a particular area and the employee’s own health (for example, is the employee’s disability well controlled), and the employee’s particular job duties. a determination of direct threat also would include whether the employee is up to date on vaccinations and the likelihood that an individual may be exposed to the virus at the worksite. measures that an employer may be taking in general to protect all workers, such as mandatory physical distancing, also would be relevant. even if an employer determines that an employee’s disability poses a “significant risk of substantial harm” to the employee’s own health or safety, the employer still cannot exclude the employee from the workplace or take any other adverse action unless there is no way to provide a reasonable accommodation (absent undue hardship). the ada regulations require an employer to consider whether there are reasonable accommodations that would eliminate or sufficiently reduce the risk so that it would be safe for the employee to return to the workplace, while still permitting the employee to perform the essential functions of the job. an employer’s consideration of a possible reasonable accommodation should involve an interactive process with the employee. if there are no accommodations in an employee’s current position that sufficiently reduce or eliminate direct threat in the workplace, then an employer must consider accommodations such as telework, leave, or as a last resort reassignment (perhaps to a different job in a place where it may be safer for the employee to work or that permits telework). an employer may only bar an employee from working based on the direct threat analysis if, after going through all these steps, the facts support the conclusion that the employee poses a significant risk of substantial harm to the employee’s own health or safety that cannot be reduced or eliminated by reasonable accommodation. for general information on reasonable accommodation under the ada (i.e., where an individual’s request for reasonable accommodation has nothing to do with potential direct threat concerns), see section d. g.5. what are examples of reasonable accommodation that, absent undue hardship, may eliminate (or reduce to an acceptable level) a direct threat to self or others? (updated 7/12/22) reasonable accommodations that may eliminate (or reduce to an acceptable level) a direct threat to self or others may include additional or enhanced protective gowns, masks, gloves, or other gear beyond what the employer may generally provide to, or require from, employees returning to its workplace. reasonable accommodations also may include additional or enhanced protective measures, such as high efficiency particulate air (hepa) filtration systems/units or other enhanced air filtration measures, erecting a barrier that provides separation between an employee with a disability and coworkers/the public, or increasing the space between an employee with a disability and others. another possible reasonable accommodation may be elimination or substitution of particular “marginal” functions (less critical or incidental job duties as distinguished from the “essential” functions of a particular position). in addition, accommodations may include telework, modification of work schedules (if that decreases contact with coworkers and/or the public when on duty or commuting), or moving the location of where one performs work (for example, moving a person to the end of a production line rather than in the middle of it if that provides more physical distancing). these are only a few ideas. identifying an effective accommodation depends, among other things, on an employee’s job duties and the design of the workspace. an employer and employee should discuss possible ideas; the job accommodation network (www.askjan.org) also may be able to assist in helping identify possible accommodations. as with all discussions of reasonable accommodation during this pandemic, employers and employees are encouraged to be creative and flexible. for general information on reasonable accommodation under the ada, see section d. g.6. as a best practice, and in advance of having some or all employees return to the workplace, are there ways for an employer to invite employees to request flexibility in work arrangements? (updated 7/12/22) yes. the ada, the rehabilitation act, and title vii of the civil rights act do not prohibit employers from making information available in advance to all employees about whom to contact if they wish to request reasonable accommodation that they may need for a disability or a sincerely held religious belief, practice or observance upon return to the workplace. once requests are received, the employer may begin the interactive process. an employer may choose to include in such a notice all medical conditions identified in cdc guidance that may place people at higher risk of serious illness if they contract covid 19, provide instructions about whom to contact, and explain that the employer is willing to consider on a case by case basis any requests from employees who have these or other medical conditions which may qualify as disabilities. alternatively, an employer may send a general notice explaining that the employer is willing to consider employee requests for reasonable accommodation for employees with a disability or a sincerely held religious belief, practice, or observance, or to consider flexibility on an individualized basis for employees not eligible for reasonable accommodation (e.g., employees who request flexibility due to age). the employer should specify if the point of contact is different depending on whether the request is based on disability, sincerely held religious beliefs, pregnancy, age, or child care responsibilities. either approach is consistent with the age discrimination in employment act (adea), the ada, the rehabilitation act, and title vii. regardless of the approach, employers should ensure that those employees who receive, review, or process these requests are sufficiently trained in how to handle them in accordance with the federal employment nondiscrimination laws that may apply, for instance, with respect to accommodations due to a disability or a sincerely held religious belief, observance, or practice; or a request related to pregnancy. for additional information on reasonable accommodation under the ada/rehabilitation act, see section d. g.7. what should an employer do if an employee entering the worksite requests an alternative method of screening due to a medical condition? (6/11/20) this is a request for reasonable accommodation, and an employer should proceed as it would for any other request for accommodation under the ada or the rehabilitation act. if the requested change is easy to provide and inexpensive, the employer might voluntarily choose to make it available to anyone who asks, without going through an interactive process. alternatively, if a disability is not obvious or already known, an employer may ask the employee for information to establish that the condition is a disability and what specific limitations require an accommodation. if necessary, an employer also may request medical documentation to support the employee’s request, and then determine if that accommodation or an alternative effective accommodation can be provided, absent undue hardship. similarly, if an employee requested an alternative method of screening as a religious accommodation, the employer should determine if accommodation is available under title vii. h.1. cdc has explained that the risk for severe illness with covid 19 increases with age, with older adults at the highest risk. do older adults have protections under the federal employment discrimination laws? (updated 7/12/22) yes. the age discrimination in employment act (adea) prohibits employment discrimination against individuals age 40 and older. the adea would prohibit a covered employer from excluding an individual involuntarily from the workplace based on being older, even if the employer acted for benevolent reasons such as protecting the employee due to higher risk of severe illness from covid 19. for more information on postponing a start date or withdrawing a job offer due to older age, see c.5. unlike the ada, the adea does not include a right to reasonable accommodation for workers due to age. however, employers are free to provide flexibility to older workers; the adea does not prohibit this, even if it results in younger workers being treated less favorably based on age in comparison. older workers also may have medical conditions that bring them under the protection of the ada as individuals with disabilities. as such, they may request reasonable accommodation for their disability. h.2. if an employer is choosing to offer flexibilities to other workers, may older comparable workers be treated less favorably based on age? (9/8/20; adapted from 3/27/20 webinar question 12) no. if an employer is allowing other comparable workers to telework, it should make sure it is not treating older workers less favorably based on their age. for additional information about pandemic related caregiver discrimination under the laws enforced by the eeoc, see the eeoc’s technical assistance document, the covid 19 pandemic and caregiver discrimination under federal employment discrimination laws. i.1. if an employer provides telework, modified schedules, or other benefits to employees with school age children due to school closures or distance learning during the pandemic, are there sex discrimination considerations? (3/14/22) employers may provide any flexibilities as long as they are not treating employees differently based on sex or other eeo protected characteristics. for example, under title vii, female employees cannot be given more favorable treatment than male employees because of a gender based assumption about who may have caregiving responsibilities for children. i.2. how might unlawful caregiver discrimination related to the covid 19 pandemic arise under the laws enforced by the eeoc? (3/14/22) caregiver discrimination violates the laws enforced by the eeoc if it is based on an applicant’s or employee’s sex (including pregnancy, sexual orientation, or gender identity), race, national origin, disability, age (40 or older), or another characteristic covered by federal employment discrimination laws. caregiver discrimination also is unlawful if it is based on the caregiver’s association with an individual with a disability, or on the race, ethnicity, or other protected characteristic of the individual receiving care. caregiver discrimination related to the pandemic may arise in a variety of ways. for instance, under title vii, employers may not discriminate against employees with pandemic related caregiving responsibilities based on their sex, including gender stereotypes associated with caregiving responsibilities or roles. for example, employers may not decline to assign female employees with caregiving responsibilities demanding or high profile projects that increase employees’ advancement potential but require significant overtime or travel. likewise, employers may not reassign such projects to other employees based on assumptions that female caregivers cannot, should not, or would not want to work extra hours or be away from their families if a family member is infected with or exposed to covid 19. employers also may not deny male employees permission to telework or to adjust their schedules to enable them to perform pandemic related caregiving obligations, such as caring for young children or parents, while granting such requests when made by similarly situated female employees. title vii also prohibits employers from discriminating against employees with pandemic related caregiving duties based on their race or national origin. for example, employers may not require more burdensome processes for employees of a certain race or national origin who are requesting schedule changes or leave related to covid 19 caregiving. employers also may not deny such requests more frequently, or penalize employees for requesting or receiving schedule changes or leave for caregiving purposes, based on employees’ race or national origin. discrimination based on citizenship or immigration status against workers with caregiving responsibilities also can be unlawful under a law enforced by the department of justice. under the ada, employers may not discriminate against workers based on stereotypes or assumptions about workers’ caregiving responsibilities for an individual with a disability, such as a child, spouse, or parent with a disability. for example, if an applicant is the primary caregiver of an individual with a disability who is at higher risk of complications from covid 19, an employer may not refuse to hire the applicant out of fear that the care recipient will increase the employer’s healthcare costs. if the applicant is hired, the employer may not refuse to allow the care recipient to be added as a dependent on the employer’s health insurance because of that individual’s disability. an employer also may not refuse to promote employees with caregiving responsibilities for an individual with a disability based on the assumption that they will take a significant amount of leave for caregiving purposes. i.3. are these legal protections available only to workers caring for children, or are they also available to workers with other caregiving obligations? (3/14/22) this response includes hyperlinks to non governmental sources. the eeoc includes these resources solely for informational purposes. the eeoc does not endorse these resources or the entities responsible for them, and it does not vouch for the accuracy of the information provided by referencing the non governmental sources in this response. employers may not discriminate against applicants or employees with caregiving responsibilities based on characteristics protected by the laws enforced by the eeoc, including caregivers’ sex (including pregnancy, sexual orientation, or gender identity), race, color, religion, national origin, age (40 or older), disability, association with an individual with a disability, or genetic information (including family medical history). these protections are available to workers with any type of caregiving responsibilities, including care for children, spouses, partners, relatives, individuals with disabilities, or others. state or local laws may provide additional protections for workers with caregiving responsibilities. employees with caregiving responsibilities also may have rights under other laws, including the family and medical leave act or similar state or local laws. i.4. should employers and employees be aware of any other pandemic related caregiver discrimination issues? (3/14/22) yes. in this what you should know document, the eeoc addresses several different types of potential pandemic related caregiver discrimination. for example: for general information about caregiver discrimination and federal employment discrimination laws, see the eeoc’s policy guidance, associated fact sheet, and best practices document. j.1. due to the pandemic, may an employer exclude an employee from the workplace involuntarily due to pregnancy? (6/11/20) no. sex discrimination under title vii of the civil rights act includes discrimination based on pregnancy. even if motivated by benevolent concern, an employer is not permitted to single out workers on the basis of pregnancy for adverse employment actions, including involuntary leave, layoff, or furlough. for more information on postponing a start date or withdrawing a job offer due to pregnancy, see c.5. j.2. is there a right to accommodation based on pregnancy during the pandemic? (6/11/20) this document was issued prior to enactment of the pregnant workers fairness act (pwfa), which took effect on june 27, 2023. the pwfa expands the rights of workers affected by pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions to receive reasonable accommodations, absent undue hardship. to learn about protections under the pwfa, visit what you should know about the pregnant workers fairness act. there are two federal employment discrimination laws that may trigger accommodation for employees based on pregnancy. first, pregnancy related medical conditions may themselves be disabilities under the ada, even though pregnancy itself is not an ada disability. if an employee makes a request for reasonable accommodation due to a pregnancy related medical condition, the employer must consider it under the usual ada rules. second, title vii as amended by the pregnancy discrimination act specifically requires that women affected by pregnancy, childbirth, and related medical conditions be treated the same as others who are similar in their ability or inability to work. this means that a pregnant employee may be entitled to job modifications, including telework, changes to work schedules or assignments, and leave to the extent provided for other employees who are similar in their ability or inability to work. employers should ensure that supervisors, managers, and human resources personnel know how to handle such requests to avoid disparate treatment in violation of title vii. for information on pregnancy and covid 19 vaccination, see k.13. note: court decisions upholding or rejecting federal vaccination requirements do not affect any statements made in this publication regarding employer and employee rights and responsibilities under the equal employment opportunity laws with respect to employers that require covid 19 vaccinations. the availability of covid 19 vaccinations raises questions under the federal equal employment opportunity (eeo) laws, including the americans with disabilities act (ada), the rehabilitation act, the genetic information nondiscrimination act (gina), and title vii of the civil rights act, as amended, inter alia, by the pregnancy discrimination act (title vii) (see also section j, eeo rights relating to pregnancy and section l, vaccinations   title vii religious objections to covid 19 vaccine requirements.) this section was originally issued on december 16, 2020, and was updated on october 25, 2021, july 12, 2022, and 5/15/23. the eeoc has received many inquiries from employers and employees about the type of authorization granted by the u.s. department of health and human services (hhs) food and drug administration (fda) for the administration of covid 19 vaccines. on august 23, 2021, the fda approved the biologics license application for the pfizer biontech covid 19 vaccine for use in individuals 16 years of age and older. previously, the fda granted emergency use authorizations (euas) for the two other vaccines one made by moderna and the other by janssen/johnson & johnson authorizing them for use in the united states for individuals 18 years of age and older. for the current status of vaccines authorized or approved by the fda, please visit: https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/covid 19/clinical considerations/covid 19 vaccines us.html also of note, on july 6, 2021, the u.s. department of justice’s office of legal counsel issued a memorandum opinion concluding that section 564 of the federal food, drug, and cosmetic act does not prohibit public or private entities from imposing vaccination requirements for a vaccine that is subject to an eua. other federal, state, and local laws and regulations govern covid 19 vaccination of employees, including requirements for the federal government as an employer. the federal government as an employer is subject to the eeo laws. federal departments and agencies should consult the website of the safer federal workforce task force for the latest guidance on federal agency operations during the covid 19 pandemic. this technical assistance on vaccinations was written to help employees and employers better understand how federal laws related to workplace discrimination apply during the covid 19 pandemic. the eeoc questions and answers provided here set forth applicable eeo legal standards consistent with the federal civil rights laws enforced by the eeoc and with eeoc regulations, guidance, and technical assistance, unless another source is expressly cited. in addition, whether an employer meets the eeo standards will depend on the application of these standards to particular factual situations. k.1. under the ada, title vii, and other federal employment nondiscrimination laws, may an employer require all employees to be vaccinated against covid 19? (updated 7/12/22) the federal eeo laws do not prevent an employer from requiring all employees to be vaccinated against covid 19, subject to the reasonable accommodation provisions of title vii and the ada and other eeo considerations discussed below. (see also section l, vaccinations   title vii religious objections to covid 19 vaccine requirements). if there is such an employer requirement, the eeo laws do not prevent employers from requiring documentation or other confirmation that employees are up to date on their vaccinations (see k.9.), but the eeo laws may require employers to make exceptions to a vaccination requirement for some employees. the ada and title vii require an employer to provide reasonable accommodations for employees who, because of a disability or a sincerely held religious belief, practice, or observance, do not get vaccinated against covid 19, unless providing an accommodation would pose an undue hardship on the operation of the employer’s business. the analysis for undue hardship depends on whether the accommodation is for a disability (including pregnancy related conditions that constitute a disability) (see k.6.) or for religion (see k.12.). as with any employment policy, employers that have a vaccination requirement may need to respond to allegations that the requirement has a disparate impact on or disproportionately excludes employees based on their race, color, religion, sex, or national origin under title vii (or age under the age discrimination in employment act [40+]). employers should keep in mind that because some individuals or demographic groups may face barriers to receiving a covid 19 vaccination, some employees may be more likely to be negatively impacted by a vaccination requirement. it would also be unlawful to apply a vaccination requirement to employees in a way that treats employees differently based on disability, race, color, religion, sex (including pregnancy, sexual orientation, and gender identity), national origin, age, or genetic information, unless there is a legitimate non discriminatory reason. k.2. what are some examples of reasonable accommodations or modifications that employers may have to provide to employees who do not get vaccinated due to disability; religious beliefs, practices, or observance; or pregnancy? (updated 5/15/23) an employee who does not get vaccinated due to a disability (covered by the ada) or a sincerely held religious belief, practice, or observance (covered by title vii) may be entitled to a reasonable accommodation that does not pose an undue hardship on the operation of the employer’s business. for example, as a reasonable accommodation, an unvaccinated employee entering the workplace might wear a face mask, work at a social distance from coworkers or non employees, work a modified shift, get periodic tests for covid 19 (provided testing is consistent with the ada “business necessity” standard for medical examinations; see a.6.), be given the opportunity to telework, or finally, accept a reassignment. employees who choose not to be vaccinated because of pregnancy may be entitled (under title vii) to adjustments to keep working, if the employer makes modifications or exceptions for other employees. these modifications may be the same as the accommodations made for an employee based on disability or religion. k.3. how can employers encourage employees and their family members to be vaccinated against covid 19 without violating the eeo laws, especially the ada and gina? (updated 10/13/21) employers may provide employees and their family members with information to educate them about covid 19 vaccines, raise awareness about the benefits of vaccination, and address common questions and concerns. employers also may work with local public health authorities, medical providers, or pharmacies to make vaccinations available for unvaccinated workers in the workplace. also, under certain circumstances employers may offer incentives to employees who receive covid 19 vaccinations, as discussed in k.16   k.21. the federal government is providing covid 19 vaccines at no cost to everyone 5 years of age and older. there are many resources available to employees seeking more information about how to get vaccinated against covid 19: k.4. is information about an employee’s covid 19 vaccination confidential medical information under the ada? (updated 7/12/22) yes. the ada requires an employer to maintain the confidentiality of employee medical information. although the eeo laws do not prevent employers from requiring employees to provide documentation or other confirmation of vaccination, this information, like all medical information, must be kept confidential and stored separately from the employee’s personnel files under the ada. an employer may share confidential medical information, such as confirmation of employee vaccinations (or covid 19 test results), with employees who need it to perform their job duties. however, such employees also must keep the information confidential. some possible scenarios include: k.5. may an employer require an employee to comply with a covid 19 vaccination requirement applicable to all employees entering the workplace if that employee has sought an exemption based on disability? (updated 7/12/22) under the ada, an employer may require an individual with a disability to meet a qualification standard applied to all employees, such as a safety related standard requiring covid 19 vaccination, if the standard is job related and consistent with business necessity as applied to that employee. an employer does not have to show that a qualification standard in general (i.e., as applied to all employees) meets the “business necessity” standard. under the ada it must satisfy this standard only as applied to an employee who informs the employer that a disability prevents compliance. if a particular employee cannot meet such a safety related qualification standard because of a disability, the employer may not require compliance for that employee unless it can demonstrate that the individual would pose a “direct threat” to the health or safety of the employee or others while performing their job. a “direct threat” is a “significant risk of substantial harm” that cannot be eliminated or reduced by reasonable accommodation. 29 c.f.r. 1630.2(r). this determination can be broken down into two steps: determining if there is a “significant risk of substantial harm” and, if there is, assessing whether a reasonable accommodation would reduce or eliminate the threat. to determine if an employee who is not vaccinated due to a disability poses a “direct threat” in the workplace, an employer first must make an individualized assessment of the employee’s present ability to safely perform the essential functions of the job. the factors that make up this assessment are: (1) the duration of the risk; (2) the nature and severity of the potential harm; (3) the likelihood that the potential harm will occur; and (4) the imminence of the potential harm. the determination that a particular employee poses a direct threat should be based on a reasonable medical judgment that relies on the most current medical knowledge about covid 19. such medical knowledge may include, for example, the level of community spread at the time of the assessment. statements from the cdc provide an important source of current medical knowledge about covid 19, and the employee’s health care provider, with the employee’s consent, also may provide useful information about the employee. additionally, the assessment of direct threat should take account of the type of work environment, such as: whether the employee works alone or with others or works inside or outside; the available ventilation; the frequency and duration of direct interaction the employee typically will have with other employees and/or non employees; the number of partially or fully vaccinated individuals already in the workplace; whether other employees are wearing masks or undergoing routine screening testing; and the space available for social distancing. if the assessment demonstrates that an employee with a disability who is not vaccinated would pose a direct threat to self or others, the employer must consider whether providing a reasonable accommodation, absent undue hardship, would reduce or eliminate that threat. potential reasonable accommodations could include requiring the employee to wear a mask, work a staggered shift, making changes in the work environment (such as improving ventilation systems or limiting contact with other employees and non employees), permitting telework if feasible, or reassigning the employee to a vacant position in a different workspace. as a best practice, an employer introducing a covid 19 vaccination policy and requiring documentation or other confirmation of vaccination should notify all employees that the employer will consider requests for reasonable accommodation based on disability on an individualized basis. (see also k.12 recommending the same best practice for religious accommodations.) k.6. under the ada, if an employer requires covid 19 vaccinations for employees physically entering the workplace, how should an employee who does not get a covid 19 vaccination because of a disability inform the employer, and what should the employer do? (updated 5/28/21) an employee with a disability who does not get vaccinated for covid 19 because of a disability must let the employer know that the employee needs an exemption from the requirement or a change at work, known as a reasonable accommodation. to request an accommodation, an individual does not need to mention the ada or use the phrase “reasonable accommodation.” managers and supervisors responsible for communicating with employees about compliance with the employer’s vaccination requirement should know how to recognize an accommodation request from an employee with a disability and know to whom to refer the request for full consideration. as a best practice, before instituting a mandatory vaccination policy, employers should provide managers, supervisors, and those responsible for implementing the policy with clear information about how to handle accommodation requests related to the policy. employers and employees typically engage in a flexible, interactive process to identify workplace accommodation options that do not impose an undue hardship (significant difficulty or expense) on the employer. this process may include determining whether it is necessary to obtain supporting medical documentation about the employee’s disability. in discussing accommodation requests, employers and employees may find it helpful to consult the job accommodation network (jan) website as a resource for different types of accommodations. jan’s materials about covid 19 are available at https://askjan.org/topics/covid 19.cfm. employers also may consult applicable occupational safety and health administration (osha) covid specific resources. even if there is no reasonable accommodation that will allow the unvaccinated employee to be physically present to perform the employee’s current job without posing a direct threat, the employer must consider if telework is an option for that particular job as an accommodation and, as a last resort, whether reassignment to another position is possible. the ada requires that employers offer an available accommodation if one exists that does not pose an undue hardship, meaning a significant difficulty or expense. see 29 c.f.r. 1630.2(p). employers are advised to consider all the options before denying an accommodation request. the proportion of employees in the workplace who already are partially or fully vaccinated against covid 19 and the extent of employee contact with non employees, who may be ineligible for a vaccination or whose vaccination status may be unknown, can impact the ada undue hardship consideration. employers may rely on cdc recommendations when deciding whether an effective accommodation is available that would not pose an undue hardship. under the ada, it is unlawful for an employer to disclose that an employee is receiving a reasonable accommodation or to retaliate against an employee for requesting an accommodation. k.7. if an employer requires employees to get a covid 19 vaccination from the employer or its agent, do the ada’s restrictions on an employer making disability related inquiries or medical examinations of its employees apply to any part of the vaccination process? (updated 5/28/21) yes. the ada’s restrictions apply to the screening questions that must be asked immediately prior to administering the vaccine if the vaccine is administered by the employer or its agent. an employer’s agent is an individual or entity having the authority to act on behalf of, or at the direction of, the employer. the ada generally restricts when employers may require medical examinations (procedures or tests that seek information about an individual’s physical or mental impairments or health) or make disability related inquiries (questions that are likely to elicit information about an individual’s disability). the act of administering the vaccine is not a “medical examination” under the ada because it does not seek information about the employee’s physical or mental health. however, because the pre vaccination screening questions are likely to elicit information about a disability, the ada requires that they must be “job related and consistent with business necessity” when an employer or its agent administers the covid 19 vaccine. to meet this standard, an employer would need to have a reasonable belief, based on objective evidence, that an employee who does not answer the questions and, therefore, cannot be vaccinated, will pose a direct threat to the employee’s own health or safety or to the health and safety of others in the workplace. (see general discussion in question k.5.) therefore, when an employer requires that employees be vaccinated by the employer or its agent, the employer should be aware that an employee may challenge the mandatory pre vaccination inquiries, and an employer would have to justify them under the ada. the ada also requires employers to keep any employee medical information obtained in the course of an employer vaccination program confidential. k.8. under the ada, are there circumstances in which an employer or its agent may ask disability related screening questions before administering a covid 19 vaccine without needing to satisfy the “job related and consistent with business necessity” standard? (updated 5/28/21) yes. if the employer offers to vaccinate its employees on a voluntary basis, meaning that employees can choose whether or not to get the covid 19 vaccine from the employer or its agent, the employer does not have to show that the pre vaccination screening questions are job related and consistent with business necessity. however, the employee’s decision to answer the questions must be voluntary. (see also questions k.16   17.) the ada prohibits taking an adverse action against an employee, including harassing the employee, for refusing to participate in a voluntary employer administered vaccination program. an employer also must keep any medical information it obtains from any voluntary vaccination program confidential. k.9. does the ada prevent an employer from inquiring about or requesting documentation or other confirmation that an employee obtained a covid 19 vaccination? (updated 10/13/21) no. when an employer asks employees whether they obtained a covid 19 vaccination, the employer is not asking the employee a question that is likely to disclose the existence of a disability; there are many reasons an employee may not show documentation or other confirmation of vaccination besides having a disability. therefore, requesting documentation or other confirmation of vaccination is not a disability related inquiry under the ada, and the ada’s rules about making such inquiries do not apply. however, documentation or other confirmation of vaccination provided by the employee to the employer is medical information about the employee and must be kept confidential, as discussed in k.4. k.10. may an employer offer voluntary vaccinations only to certain groups of employees? (5/28/21) if an employer or its agent offers voluntary vaccinations to employees, the employer must comply with federal employment nondiscrimination laws. for example, not offering voluntary vaccinations to certain employees based on national origin or another protected basis under the eeo laws would not be permissible. k.11. what should an employer do if an employee who is fully vaccinated for covid 19 requests accommodation for an underlying disability because of a continuing concern that the employee faces a heightened risk of severe illness from a covid 19 infection, despite being vaccinated? (5/28/21) employers who receive a reasonable accommodation request from an employee should process the request in accordance with applicable ada standards. when an employee asks for a reasonable accommodation, whether the employee is fully vaccinated or not, the employer should engage in an interactive process to determine if there is a disability related need for reasonable accommodation. this process typically includes seeking information from the employee's health care provider with the employee’s consent explaining why an accommodation is needed. for example, some individuals who are immunocompromised might still need reasonable accommodations because their conditions may mean that the vaccines may not offer them the same measure of protection as other vaccinated individuals. if there is a disability related need for accommodation, an employer must explore potential reasonable accommodations that may be provided absent undue hardship. k.12. under title vii, how should an employer respond to employees who communicate that they are unable to be vaccinated for covid 19 (or provide documentation or other confirmation of vaccination) because of a sincerely held religious belief, practice, or observance? (updated 5/28/21) once an employer is on notice that an employee’s sincerely held religious belief, practice, or observance prevents the employee from getting a covid 19 vaccine, the employer must provide a reasonable accommodation unless it would pose an undue hardship. employers also may receive religious accommodation requests from individuals who wish to wait until an alternative version or specific brand of covid 19 vaccine is available to the employee. such requests should be processed according to the same standards that apply to other accommodation requests. for more information on requests for religious accommodations related to covid 19 vaccination requirements, see section l, vaccinations   title vii religious objections to covid 19 vaccine requirements. eeoc guidance explains that the definition of religion is broad and protects beliefs, practices, and observances with which the employer may be unfamiliar. therefore, the employer should ordinarily assume that an employee’s request for religious accommodation is based on a sincerely held religious belief, practice, or observance. however, if an employee requests a religious accommodation, and an employer is aware of facts that provide an objective basis for questioning either the religious nature or the sincerity of a particular belief, practice, or observance, the employer would be justified in requesting additional supporting information. see also 29 cfr 1605. under title vii, an employer should thoroughly consider all possible reasonable accommodations, including telework and reassignment. for suggestions about types of reasonable accommodation for unvaccinated employees, see question and answer k.2., above. in many circumstances, it may be possible to accommodate those seeking reasonable accommodations for their religious beliefs, practices, or observances. under title vii, courts define “undue hardship” as having more than minimal cost or burden on the employer. this is an easier standard for employers to meet than the ada’s undue hardship standard, which applies to requests for accommodations due to a disability. considerations relevant to undue hardship can include, among other things, the proportion of employees in the workplace who already are partially or fully vaccinated against covid 19 and the extent of employee contact with non employees, whose vaccination status could be unknown or who may be ineligible for the vaccine. ultimately, if an employee cannot be accommodated, employers should determine if any other rights apply under the eeo laws or other federal, state, and local authorities before taking adverse employment action against an unvaccinated employee k.13. under title vii, what should an employer do if an employee chooses not to receive a covid 19 vaccination due to pregnancy? (updated 10/13/21) cdc recommends covid 19 vaccinations for everyone aged 12 years and older, including people who are pregnant, breastfeeding, trying to get pregnant now, or planning to become pregnant in the future. despite these recommendations, some pregnant employees may seek job adjustments or may request exemption from a covid 19 vaccination requirement. if an employee seeks an exemption from a vaccination requirement due to pregnancy, the employer must ensure that the employee is not being discriminated against compared to other employees similar in their ability or inability to work. this means that a pregnant employee may be entitled to job modifications, including telework, changes to work schedules or assignments, and leave to the extent such modifications are provided for other employees who are similar in their ability or inability to work. employers should ensure that supervisors, managers, and human resources personnel know how to handle such requests to avoid disparate treatment in violation of title vii. title ii of gina prohibits covered employers from using the genetic information of employees to make employment decisions. it also restricts employers from requesting, requiring, purchasing, or disclosing genetic information of employees. under title ii of gina, genetic information includes information about the manifestation of disease or disorder in a family member (which is referred to as “family medical history”) and information from genetic tests of the individual employee or a family member, among other things. k.14. is title ii of gina implicated if an employer requires an employee to receive a covid 19 vaccine administered by the employer or its agent? (updated 5/28/21) no. requiring an employee to receive a covid 19 vaccination administered by the employer or its agent would not implicate title ii of gina unless the pre vaccination medical screening questions include questions about the employee’s genetic information, such as asking about the employee’s family medical history. as of may 27, 2021, the pre vaccination medical screening questions for the first three covid 19 vaccines to receive emergency use authorization (eua) from the fda do not seek family medical history or any other type of genetic information. see cdc’s pre vaccination checklist (last visited may 27, 2021). therefore, an employer or its agent may ask these questions without violating title ii of gina. the act of administering a covid 19 vaccine does not involve the use of the employee’s genetic information to make employment decisions or the acquisition or disclosure of genetic information and, therefore, does not implicate title ii of gina. k.15. is title ii of gina implicated when an employer requires employees to provide documentation or other confirmation that they received a vaccination from a health care provider that is not affiliated with their employer (such as from the employee’s personal physician or other health care provider, a pharmacy, or a public health department)? (updated 10/13/21) no. an employer requiring an employee to show documentation or other confirmation of vaccination from a health care provider unaffiliated with the employer, such as the employee’s personal physician or other health care provider, a pharmacy, or a public health department, is not using, acquiring, or disclosing genetic information and, therefore, is not implicating title ii of gina. this is the case even if the medical screening questions that must be asked before vaccination include questions about genetic information, because documentation or other confirmation of vaccination would not reveal genetic information. title ii of gina does not prohibit an employee’s own health care provider from asking questions about genetic information. this gina title ii prohibition only applies to the employer or its agent. k.16. does the ada limit the value of the incentive employers may offer to employees for receiving a covid 19 vaccination from a health care provider that is not affiliated with their employer (such as the employee’s personal physician or other health care provider, a pharmacy, or a public health department)? (updated 5/15/23) no. if the health care provider administering a covid 19 vaccine is not the employer or its agent the ada does not limit the incentives (which includes both rewards and penalties) an employer may offer to encourage employees to receive a covid 19 vaccination, or to provide confirmation of vaccination. this is because the ada’s rules about when disability related inquiries may be asked and medical examinations required only apply when it is the employer or its agent asking the questions or requiring the medical exam. see k.9. by contrast, if an employer offers an incentive to employees to voluntarily receive a vaccination administered by the employer or its agent, the ada’s rules on disability related inquiries apply and the value of the incentive may not be so substantial as to be coercive. see k.17. even if an employer requires employees to receive vaccination or provide confirmation of vaccination, as long as it is not required to be administered by the employer or its agent, the ada does not limit the value of incentives offered, whether rewards or penalties. as noted in k 4., the employer is required to keep vaccination information confidential under the ada. k.17. under the ada, are there limits on the value of the incentive employers may offer to employees for voluntarily receiving a covid 19 vaccination administered by the employer or its agent? (updated 10/13/21) yes. when the employer or its agent administers a covid 19 vaccine, the value of the incentive (which includes both rewards and penalties) may not be so substantial as to be coercive. because vaccinations require employees to answer pre vaccination disability related screening questions, a very large incentive could make employees feel pressured to disclose protected medical information to their employers or their agents. as explained in k.16., however, this incentive limit does not apply if an employer offers an incentive to encourage employees to be voluntarily vaccinated by a health care provider that is not their employer or an agent of their employer. k.18. does gina limit the value of the incentive employers may offer employees if employees or their family members get a covid 19 vaccination from a health care provider that is not affiliated with the employer (such as the employee’s personal physician or other health care provider, a pharmacy, or a public health department)? (updated 10/13/21) no. gina does not limit the incentives an employer may offer to employees to encourage them or their family members to get a covid 19 vaccine or provide confirmation of vaccination if the health care provider administering the vaccine is not the employer or its agent. if an employer asks an employee to show documentation or other confirmation that the employee or a family member has been vaccinated, it is not an unlawful request for genetic information under gina because the fact that someone received a vaccination is not information about the manifestation of a disease or disorder in a family member (known as “family medical history” under gina), nor is it any other form of genetic information. gina’s restrictions on employers acquiring genetic information (including those prohibiting incentives in exchange for genetic information), therefore, do not apply. k.19. under gina, may an employer offer an incentive to employees in exchange for the employee getting vaccinated by the employer or its agent? (5/28/21) yes. under gina, as long as an employer does not acquire genetic information while administering the vaccines, employers may offer incentives to employees for getting vaccinated. because the pre vaccination medical screening questions for the three covid 19 vaccines now available do not inquire about genetic information, employers may offer incentives to their employees for getting vaccinated. see k.14 for more about gina and pre vaccination medical screening questions. k.20. under gina, may an employer offer an incentive to an employee in return for an employee’s family member getting vaccinated by the employer or its agent? (5/28/21) no. under gina’s title ii health and genetic services provision, an employer may not offer any incentives to an employee in exchange for a family member’s receipt of a vaccination from an employer or its agent. providing such an incentive to an employee because a family member was vaccinated by the employer or its agent would require the vaccinator to ask the family member the pre vaccination medical screening questions, which include medical questions about the family member. asking these medical questions would lead to the employer’s receipt of genetic information in the form of family medical history of the employee. the regulations implementing title ii of gina prohibit employers from providing incentives in exchange for genetic information. therefore, the employer may not offer incentives in exchange for the family member getting vaccinated. however, employers may still offer an employee’s family member the opportunity to be vaccinated by the employer or its agent, if they take certain steps to ensure gina compliance. k.21. under gina, may an employer offer an employee’s family member an opportunity to be vaccinated without offering the employee an incentive? (5/28/21) yes. gina permits an employer to offer vaccinations to an employee’s family members if it takes certain steps to comply with gina. employers must not require employees to have their family members get vaccinated and must not penalize employees if their family members decide not to get vaccinated. employers must also ensure that all medical information obtained from family members during the screening process is only used for the purpose of providing the vaccination, is kept confidential, and is not provided to any managers, supervisors, or others who make employment decisions for the employees. in addition, employers need to ensure that they obtain prior, knowing, voluntary, and written authorization from the family member before the family member is asked any questions about the family member’s medical conditions. if these requirements are met, gina permits the collection of genetic information. the eeoc enforces title vii of the civil rights act of 1964 (title vii), which prohibits employment discrimination based on religion. this includes a right for job applicants and employees to request an exception, called a religious or reasonable accommodation, from an employer requirement that conflicts with their sincerely held religious beliefs, practices, or observances. if an employer shows that it cannot reasonably accommodate an employee’s religious beliefs, practices, or observances without undue hardship on its operations, the employer is not required to grant the accommodation. see generally section 12: religious discrimination; eeoc guidelines on discrimination because of religion. although other laws, such as the religious freedom restoration act, also may protect religious freedom in some circumstances, this technical assistance only describes employment rights and obligations under title vii. l.1. do employees who have a religious objection to receiving a covid 19 vaccination need to tell their employer? if so, is there specific language that must be used under title vii? (3/1/22) employees must tell their employer if they are requesting an exception to a covid 19 vaccination requirement because of a conflict between that requirement and their sincerely held religious beliefs, practices, or observances. under title vii, this is called a request for a “religious accommodation” or a “reasonable accommodation.” when making the request, employees do not need to use any “magic words,” such as “religious accommodation” or “title vii.” however, they need to explain the conflict and the religious basis for it. the same principles apply if employees have a religious conflict with getting a particular vaccine and wish to wait until an alternative version or specific brand of covid 19 vaccine is available to them. see introduction to section k, above. as a best practice, an employer should provide employees and applicants with information about whom to contact and the proper procedures for requesting a religious accommodation. as an example, here is how eeoc designed its own form for its own workplace. although the eeoc’s internal forms typically are not made public, it is included here given the extraordinary circumstances facing employers and employees due to the covid 19 pandemic. (note: individuals not employed by the eeoc should not submit this form to the eeoc to request a religious accommodation.) l.2. does an employer have to accept an employee’s assertion of a religious objection to a covid 19 vaccination at face value? may the employer ask for additional information? (3/1/22) generally, under title vii, an employer should proceed on the assumption that a request for religious accommodation is based on sincerely held religious beliefs, practices, or observances. however, if an employer has an objective basis for questioning either the religious nature or the sincerity of a particular belief, the employer would be justified in making a limited factual inquiry and seeking additional supporting information. an employee who fails to cooperate with an employer’s reasonable requests for verification of the sincerity or religious nature of a professed belief, practice, or observance risks losing any subsequent claim that the employer improperly denied an accommodation. see generally section 12 iv.a.2: religious discrimination. the definition of “religion” under title vii protects both traditional and nontraditional religious beliefs, practices, or observances, including those that may be unfamiliar to employers. while the employer should not assume that a request is invalid simply because it is based on unfamiliar religious beliefs, practices, or observances, employees may be asked to explain the religious nature of their belief, practice, or observance and should not assume that the employer already knows or understands it. title vii does not protect social, political, or economic views or personal preferences. thus, objections to a covid 19 vaccination requirement that are purely based on social, political, or economic views or personal preferences, or any other nonreligious concerns (including about the possible effects of the vaccine), do not qualify as religious beliefs, practices, or observances under title vii. however, overlap between a religious and political view does not place it outside the scope of title vii’s religious protections, as long as the view is part of a comprehensive religious belief system and is not simply an isolated teaching. see generally section 12 i.a.1: religious discrimination (definition of religion); see also discussion of “sincerity” below. the sincerity of an employee’s stated religious beliefs, practices, or observances is usually not in dispute. the employee’s sincerity in holding a religious belief is “largely a matter of individual credibility.” section 12 i.a.2: religious discrimination (credibility and sincerity). factors that either alone or in combination might undermine an employee’s credibility include: whether the employee has acted in a manner inconsistent with the professed belief (although employees need not be scrupulous in their observance); whether the accommodation sought is a particularly desirable benefit that is likely to be sought for nonreligious reasons; whether the timing of the request renders it suspect (for example, it follows an earlier request by the employee for the same benefit for secular reasons); and whether the employer otherwise has reason to believe the accommodation is not sought for religious reasons. the employer may ask for an explanation of how the employee’s religious beliefs, practices, or observances conflict with the employer’s covid 19 vaccination requirement. although prior inconsistent conduct is relevant to the question of sincerity, an individual’s beliefs or degree of adherence may change over time and, therefore, an employee’s newly adopted or inconsistently observed practices may nevertheless be sincerely held. an employer should not assume that an employee is insincere simply because some of the employee’s practices deviate from the commonly followed tenets of the employee’s religion, or because the employee adheres to some common practices but not others. no one factor or consideration is determinative, and employers should evaluate religious objections on an individual basis. if an employee’s objection to a covid 19 vaccination requirement is not religious in nature, or is not sincerely held, title vii does not require the employer to provide an exception to the vaccination requirement as a religious accommodation. l.3. how does an employer show that it would be an “undue hardship” to accommodate an employee’s request for religious accommodation? (3/1/22) under title vii, an employer should thoroughly consider all possible reasonable accommodations, including telework and reassignment. for suggestions about types of reasonable accommodations for unvaccinated employees, see k.2, k.6, and k.12, above. in many circumstances, it may be possible to accommodate those seeking reasonable accommodations for their religious beliefs, practices, or observances without imposing an undue hardship. if an employer demonstrates that it is unable to reasonably accommodate an employee’s religious belief, practice, or observance without an “undue hardship” on its operations, then title vii does not require the employer to provide the accommodation. 42 u.s.c. § 2000e(j). the supreme court has held that requiring an employer to bear more than a “de minimis,” or a minimal, cost to accommodate an employee’s religious belief is an undue hardship. costs to be considered include not only direct monetary costs but also the burden on the conduct of the employer’s business including, in this instance, the risk of the spread of covid 19 to other employees or to the public. courts have found title vii undue hardship where, for example, the religious accommodation would violate federal law, impair workplace safety, diminish efficiency in other jobs, or cause coworkers to carry the accommodated employee’s share of potentially hazardous or burdensome work. for a more detailed discussion, see section 12 iv.b: religious discrimination (discussing undue hardship).. an employer will need to assess undue hardship by considering the particular facts of each situation and will need to demonstrate how much cost or disruption the employee’s proposed accommodation would involve. an employer cannot rely on speculative or hypothetical hardship when faced with an employee’s religious objection but, rather, should rely on objective information. certain common and relevant considerations during the covid 19 pandemic include, for example, whether the employee requesting a religious accommodation to a covid 19 vaccination requirement works outdoors or indoors, works in a solitary or group work setting, or has close contact with other employees or members of the public (especially medically vulnerable individuals). another relevant consideration is the number of employees who are seeking a similar accommodation, i.e., the cumulative cost or burden on the employer. see k.12 for additional considerations relevant to the undue hardship analysis. l.4. if an employer grants some employees a religious accommodation from a covid 19 vaccination requirement because of sincerely held religious beliefs, practices, or observances, does it have to grant all such requests? (3/1/22) no. the determination of whether a particular proposed accommodation imposes an undue hardship on the conduct of the employer’s business depends on its specific factual context. when an employer is assessing whether exempting employees from getting a vaccination would impair workplace safety, it may consider, for example, the type of workplace, the nature of the employees’ duties, the location in which the employees must or can perform their duties, the number of employees who are fully vaccinated, how many employees and nonemployees physically enter the workplace, and the number of employees who will in fact need a particular accommodation. a mere assumption that many more employees might seek a religious accommodation or the same accommodation to the vaccination requirement in the future is not evidence of undue hardship, but the employer may consider the cumulative cost or burden of granting accommodations to other employees. l.5. must an employer provide the religious accommodation preferred by an employee if there are other possible accommodations that also are effective in eliminating the religious conflict and do not cause an undue hardship under title vii? (3/1/22) if there is more than one reasonable accommodation that would resolve the conflict between the vaccination requirement and the sincerely held religious belief, practice, or observance without causing an undue hardship under title vii, the employer may choose which accommodation to offer. if more than one accommodation would be effective in eliminating the religious conflict, the employer should consider the employee’s preference but is not obligated to provide the reasonable accommodation preferred by the employee. however, an employer’s proposed accommodation will not be “reasonable” if the accommodation requires the employee to accept a reduction in pay or some other loss of a benefit or privilege of employment (for example, if unpaid leave is the employer’s proposed accommodation) and there is a reasonable alternative accommodation that does not require that and would not impose undue hardship on the employer’s business. see section 12 iv.a.3: religious discrimination (reasonable accommodation). if the employer denies the employee’s proposed accommodation, the employer should explain to the employee why the preferred accommodation is not being granted. an employer should consider all possible alternatives to determine whether exempting an employee from a vaccination requirement would impose an undue hardship. see, e.g., k.2. employers may rely on cdc recommendations when deciding whether an effective accommodation is available that would not pose an undue hardship. l.6. if an employer grants a religious accommodation to an employee, can the employer later reconsider it? (3/1/22) the obligation to provide religious accommodations absent undue hardship is a continuing obligation that allows for changing circumstances. employees’ sincerely held religious beliefs, practices, or observances may evolve or change over time and may result in requests for additional or different religious accommodations. similarly, an employer has the right to discontinue a previously granted accommodation if it is no longer utilized for religious purposes, or if a provided accommodation subsequently poses an undue hardship on the employer’s operations due to changed circumstances. employers must consider whether there are alternative accommodations that would not impose an undue hardship. as a best practice, an employer should discuss with the employee any concerns it has about continuing a religious accommodation before revoking it. the anti retaliation protections discussed here only apply to the exercise of rights under the federal equal employment opportunity (eeo) laws. information about similar protections under other federal workplace laws, such as the family and medical leave act or the occupational safety and health act, is available from the u.s. department of labor. information about similar protections under the immigration and nationality act’s anti discrimination provision, which prohibits some types of workplace discrimination based on citizenship status, immigration status, or national origin, and protects against retaliation for asserting those rights, is available from the civil rights division of the u.s. department of justice. m.1. do job applicants and employees (including former employees) have protections from retaliation for exercising equal employment opportunity (eeo) rights in connection with covid 19? (11/17/21) yes. job applicants and current and former employees are protected from retaliation by employers for asserting their rights under any of the federal eeo laws. the eeo laws prohibit workplace discrimination based on race, color, sex (including pregnancy, sexual orientation, and gender identity), national origin, religion, age (40 or over), disability, or genetic information. speaking out about or exercising rights related to workplace discrimination is called “protected activity.” protected activity can take many forms. for example, an employee complaining to a supervisor about coworker harassment based on race or national origin is protected activity. witnesses to discrimination who seek to assist individuals affected by discrimination are also protected. engaging in protected activity, however, does not shield an employee from discipline, discharge, or other employer actions taken for reasons unrelated to the protected activity. m.2. what are some examples of employee activities that are protected from employer retaliation? (11/17/21) m.3. who is protected from retaliation? (11/17/21) retaliation protections apply to current employees, whether they are full time, part time, probationary, seasonal, or temporary. retaliation protections also apply to job applicants and to former employees (such as when an employer provides a job reference). in addition, these protections apply regardless of an applicant’s or employee’s citizenship or work authorization status. m.4. when do retaliation protections apply? (11/17/21) participating in an eeo complaint process is protected from retaliation under all circumstances. other acts by a current, prospective, or former employee to oppose discrimination are protected as long as the employee is acting on a reasonable good faith belief that something in the workplace may violate eeo laws, and expresses those beliefs in a reasonable manner. an employee is still protected from retaliation for making a complaint about workplace discrimination even if the employee does not use legal terminology to describe the situation. m.5. when is an employer action based on an employee’s eeo activity serious enough to be unlawful retaliation? (11/17/21) retaliation includes any employer action in response to eeo activity that could deter a reasonable person from engaging in protected eeo activity. depending on the facts, this might include actions such as denial of promotion or job benefits, non hire, suspension, discharge, work related threats, warnings, negative or lowered evaluations, or transfers to less desirable work or work locations. retaliation could also include an action that has no tangible effect on employment, or even an action that takes place only outside of work, if it might deter a reasonable person from exercising eeo rights. the fact that an individual is not actually deterred from opposing discrimination or participating in an eeo complaint related process or activity does not preclude an employer’s action from being considered retaliatory. however, depending on the specific situation, retaliation likely would not include a petty slight, minor annoyance, or a trivial punishment. m.6. does this mean that an employer can never take action against someone who has engaged in eeo activity? (11/17/21) no. engaging in protected eeo activity does not prevent discipline of an employee for legitimate reasons. employers are permitted to act based on non retaliatory and non discriminatory reasons that would otherwise result in discipline. for example, if an employee performs poorly, has low productivity, or engages in misconduct, an employer may respond as it normally would, even if the employee has engaged in protected activity. similarly, an employer may take non retaliatory, non discriminatory action to enforce covid 19 health and safety protocols, even if such actions follow eeo activity (e.g., an accommodation request). m.7. does the law provide any additional protections to safeguard ada rights? (11/17/21) yes. the ada prohibits not only retaliation for protected eeo activity, but also “interference” with an individual’s exercise of ada rights. under the ada, employers may not coerce, intimidate, threaten, or otherwise interfere with the exercise of ada rights by job applicants or current or former employees. for instance, it is unlawful for an employer to use threats to discourage someone from asking for a reasonable accommodation. it is also unlawful for an employer to pressure an employee not to file a disability discrimination complaint. the ada also prohibits employers from interfering with employees helping others to exercise their ada rights. the employer’s actions may still violate the ada’s interference provision even if an employer does not actually carry out a threat, and even if the employee is not deterred from exercising ada rights. employees and employers alike have asked when covid 19 is a “disability” under title i of the ada, which includes reasonable accommodation and nondiscrimination requirements in the employment context. these questions and answers clarify circumstances in which covid 19 may or may not cause effects sufficient to meet the definition of “actual” or “record of” a disability for various purposes under title i, as well as section 501 of the rehabilitation act, both of which are enforced by the eeoc. other topics covered in this section include long covid as a disability and other disabilities arising from conditions that were caused or worsened by covid 19. this section also addresses the ada’s “regarded as” definition of disability with respect to covid 19. on july 26, 2021, the department of justice (doj) and the department of health and human services (hhs) issued “guidance on ‘long covid’ as a disability under the ada, section 504, and section 1557” (doj/hhs guidance). more recently, hhs issued a report addressing various aspects of living with long covid. cdc uses the term “long covid” to describe a chronic condition that occurs after a sars cov 2 infection. prior to the universal adoption of the term long covid, this medical condition was called a number of different names, including “long haul covid,” “post acute covid 19,” “long term effects of covid,” or “chronic covid.” the ada’s three part definition of disability applies to covid related conditions in the same way it applies to any other medical condition. the doj/hhs guidance focuses solely on long covid in the context of titles ii and iii of the ada, section 504 of the rehabilitation act of 1973, and section 1557 of the patient protection and affordable care act. these eeoc questions and answers focus more broadly on covid 19 and do so in the context of title i of the ada and section 501 of the rehabilitation act, which cover employment. this discussion does not pertain to other contexts, such as eligibility determinations for federal benefit programs. n.1. how does the ada define disability, and how does the definition apply to covid 19 and long covid? (updated 5/15/23) the ada’s three part definition of disability applies to covid 19 and long covid in the same way it applies to any other medical condition. a person can be an individual with a “disability” for purposes of the ada in one of three ways: the definition of disability is construed broadly in favor of expansive coverage, to the maximum extent permitted by the law. nonetheless, not every impairment will constitute a disability under the ada. the ada uses a case by case approach to determine if an applicant or employee meets any one of the three above definitions of “disability.” covid 19, long covid, and the ada “actual” disability n.2. when is covid 19 or long covid an actual disability under the ada? (updated 5/15/23) applying the ada rules stated in n.1. and depending on the specific facts involved in an individual employee’s condition, a person with covid 19 or long covid has an actual disability if the person’s medical condition or any of its symptoms is a “physical or mental” impairment that “substantially limits one or more major life activities.” an individualized assessment is necessary to determine whether the effects of a person’s covid 19 or long covid substantially limit a major life activity. this will always be a case by case determination that applies existing legal standards to the facts of a particular individual’s circumstances. a person infected with the virus causing covid 19 who is asymptomatic or a person whose covid 19 results in mild symptoms similar to those of the common cold or flu that resolve in a matter of weeks with no other consequences will not have an actual disability within the meaning of the ada. however, depending on the specific facts involved in a particular employee’s medical condition, an individual with covid 19 might have an actual disability, as illustrated below. physical or mental impairment: under the ada, a physical impairment includes any physiological disorder or condition affecting one or more body systems. a mental impairment includes any mental or psychological disorder. covid 19 and long covid are physiological conditions affecting one or more body systems. as a result, they are each a “physical or mental impairment” under the ada. major life activities: “major life activities” include both major bodily functions, such as respiratory, lung, or heart function, and major activities in which someone engages, such as walking or concentrating. covid 19 or long covid may affect major bodily functions, such as functions of the immune system, special sense organs (such as for smell and taste), digestive, neurological, brain, respiratory, circulatory, or cardiovascular functions, or the operation of an individual organ. in some instances, covid 19 or long covid also may affect other major life activities, such as caring for oneself, eating, walking, breathing, concentrating, thinking, or interacting with others. an impairment need only substantially limit one major bodily function or other major life activity to be substantially limiting. however, limitations in more than one major life activity may combine to meet the standard. substantially limiting: “substantially limits” is construed broadly and should not demand extensive analysis. covid 19 or long covid need not prevent, or significantly or severely restrict, a person from performing a major life activity to be considered substantially limiting under title i of the ada. the limitations from covid 19 or long covid do not necessarily have to last any particular length of time to be substantially limiting. they also need not be long term. for example, in discussing a hypothetical physical impairment resulting in a 20 pound lifting restriction that lasts or is expected to last several months, the eeoc has said that such an impairment is substantially limiting. app. to 29 c.f.r. § 1630.2(j)(1)(ix). by contrast, “[i]mpairments that last only for a short period of time are typically not covered, although they may be covered if sufficiently severe.” id. mitigating measures: whether covid 19 or long covid substantially limit a major life activity is determined based on how limited the individual would have been without the benefit of any mitigating measures i.e., any medical treatment received or other step used to lessen or prevent symptoms or other negative effects of an impairment. at the same time, in determining whether covid 19 or long covid substantially limits a major life activity, any negative side effects of a mitigating measure are taken into account. some examples of mitigating measures for covid 19 include medication or medical devices or treatments, such as antiviral drugs, supplemental oxygen, inhaled steroids and other asthma related medicines, breathing exercises and respiratory therapy, physical or occupational therapy, or other steps to address complications of covid 19. examples of mitigating measures for long covid include medication or treatment, respiratory therapy, physical therapy, and mental health therapy. episodic conditions: even if the symptoms related to covid 19 or long covid come and go, covid 19 or long covid is an actual disability if it substantially limits a major life activity when active. n.3. is covid 19 always an actual disability under the ada? (12/14/21) no. determining whether a specific employee’s covid 19 is an actual disability always requires an individualized assessment, and such assessments cannot be made categorically. see 29 c.f.r. § 1630.2 for further information on the ada’s requirements relating to individualized assessment. n.4. what are some examples of ways in which an individual with covid 19 might or might not be substantially limited in a major life activity? how can long covid substantially limit a major life activity? (updated 5/15/23) as noted above, while covid 19 may substantially limit a major life activity in some circumstances, someone infected with the virus causing covid 19 who is asymptomatic or a person whose covid 19 results in mild symptoms similar to the common cold or flu that resolve in a matter of weeks with no other consequences will not be substantially limited in a major life activity for purposes of the ada. based on an individualized assessment in each instance, examples of fact patterns include: examples of individuals with an impairment that substantially limits a major life activity: examples of individuals with an impairment that does not substantially limit a major life activity: as noted above, even if the symptoms of covid 19 occur intermittently, they will be deemed to substantially limit a major life activity if they are substantially limiting when active, based on an individualized assessment. for information on possible services and supports for individuals with long covid, see the report issued by the u.s. dept. of health and human services. “record of” disability n.5. can a person who has or had covid 19 or long covid be an individual with a “record of” a disability? (updated 5/15/23) yes, depending on the facts. a person who has or had covid 19 or long covid can be an individual with a “record of” a disability if the person has “a history of, or has been misclassified as having,” 29 c.f.r. § 1630.2(k)(2) , an impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities, based on an individualized assessment. “regarded as” disability n.6. can a person be “regarded as” an individual with a disability if the person has covid 19 or long covid, or the person’s employer mistakenly believes the person has covid 19 or long covid? (updated 5/15/23) yes, depending on the facts. a person is “regarded as” an individual with a disability if the person is subjected to an adverse action (e.g., being fired, not hired, or harassed) because the person has an impairment, such as covid 19 or long covid, or the employer mistakenly believes the person has such an impairment, unless the actual or perceived impairment is objectively both transitory (lasting or expected to last six months or less) and minor. for this definition of disability, whether the actual or perceived impairment substantially limits or is perceived to substantially limit a major life activity is irrelevant. n.7. what are some examples of an employer regarding a person with covid 19 as an individual with a disability? (12/14/21) the situations in which an employer might “regard” an applicant or employee with covid 19 as an individual with a disability are varied. some examples include: n.8. if an employer regards a person as having a disability, for example by taking an adverse action because the person has covid 19 that is not both transitory and minor, does that automatically mean the employer has discriminated for purposes of the ada? (12/14/21) no. it is possible that an employer may not have engaged in unlawful discrimination under the ada even if the employer took an adverse action based on an impairment. for example, an individual still needs to be qualified for the job held or desired. additionally, in some instances, an employer may have a defense to an action taken on the basis of the impairment. for example, the ada’s “direct threat” defense could permit an employer to require an employee with covid 19 or its symptoms to refrain from physically entering the workplace during the cdc recommended period of isolation, due to the significant risk of substantial harm to the health of others. see wysk question a.8. of course, an employer risks violating the ada if it relies on myths, fears, or stereotypes about a condition to disallow the employee’s return to work once the employee is no longer infectious and, therefore, medically able to return without posing a direct threat to others. other conditions caused or worsened by covid 19 and the ada n.9. can a condition caused or worsened by covid 19 be a disability under the ada? (12/14/21) yes. in some cases, regardless of whether an individual’s initial case of covid 19 itself constitutes an actual disability, an individual’s covid 19 may end up causing impairments that are themselves disabilities under the ada. for example: in some cases, an individual’s covid 19 may also worsen the individual’s pre existing condition that was not previously substantially limiting, making that impairment now substantially limiting. for example: definition of disability and requests for reasonable accommodation n.10. does an individual have to establish coverage under a particular definition of disability to be eligible for a reasonable accommodation? (12/14/21) yes. individuals must meet either the “actual” or “record of” definitions of disability to be eligible for a reasonable accommodation. individuals who only meet the “regarded as” definition are not entitled to receive reasonable accommodation. of course, coverage under the “actual” or “record of” definitions does not, alone, entitle a person to a reasonable accommodation. individuals are not entitled to an accommodation unless their disability requires it, and an employer is not obligated to provide an accommodation that would pose an undue hardship. see wysk section d, and enforcement guidance on reasonable accommodation and undue hardship under the ada for more information. n.11. when an employee requests a reasonable accommodation related to covid 19 or long covid under the ada, may the employer request supporting medical documentation before granting the request? (updated 5/15/23) yes. as with employment accommodation requests under the ada for any other potential disability, when the disability or need for accommodation is not obvious or already known, an employer may ask the employee to provide reasonable documentation about disability and/or need for reasonable accommodation. often, the only information needed will be the individual’s diagnosis and any restrictions or limitations. the employer also may ask about whether alternative accommodations would be effective in meeting the disability related needs of the individual. see wysk questions d.5. and d.6. for more information. the employer may either ask the employee to obtain the requested information or request that the employee sign a limited release allowing the employer to contact the employee’s health care provider directly. if the employee does not cooperate in providing the requested reasonable supporting medical information, the employer can lawfully deny the accommodation request. n.12. may an employer voluntarily provide accommodations requested by an applicant or employee due to covid 19 or long covid, even if not required to do so under the ada? (updated 5/15/23) yes. employers may choose to provide accommodations beyond what the ada mandates. of course, employers must provide a reasonable accommodation under the ada, absent undue hardship, if the applicant or employee meets the definition of disability, requires an accommodation for the disability, and is qualified for the job with the accommodation. accommodations might consist of schedule changes, physical modifications to the workplace, telework, or special or modified equipment. see, e.g., wysk section d or u.s. department of labor blog, workers with long covid 19: you may be entitled to workplace accommodations for more information. applicability of definition of disability n.13. if an employer subjected an applicant or employee to an adverse action, and the applicant or employee is covered under any one of the three ada definitions of disability, does that mean the employer violated the ada? (12/14/21) no. having a disability, alone, does not mean an individual was subjected to an unlawful employment action under the ada. for example, the fact that an applicant or employee has a current disability, or a record of disability, does not mean that an employer violated the ada by not providing an individual with a reasonable accommodation. as discussed in section d., there are several considerations in making reasonable accommodation determinations, including the employee’s need for the accommodation due to a disability and whether there is an accommodation that does not pose an undue hardship to the employer. similarly, the fact that an employer regarded an applicant or employee as an individual with a disability does not necessarily mean that the employer engaged in unlawful discrimination. for example, the ada does not require an employer to hire anyone who is not qualified for the job. moreover, in some instances, an employer may have a defense to an employment action taken based on an actual impairment, such as where the individual poses a direct threat to the health or safety of themselves or others in the workplace. n.14. do any ada protections apply to applicants or employees who do not meet an ada definition of disability? (12/14/21) yes. the ada’s requirements about disability related inquiries and medical exams, medical confidentiality, retaliation, and interference apply to all applicants and employees, regardless of whether they have an ada disability. by contrast, an individual must have a “disability” to challenge employment decisions based on disability, denial of reasonable accommodation (see n.10), or disability based harassment. introduction a. disability related inquiries and medical exams b. confidentiality of medical information c. hiring and onboarding d. disability and reasonable accommodation e. pandemic related harassment due to national origin, race, or other protected characteristics f. furloughs and layoffs g. return to work h. age i. caregivers/family responsibilities j. pregnancy k. vaccinations   overview, ada, title vii, and gina l. vaccinations   title vii religious objections to covid 19 vaccine requirements m. retaliation and interference n. covid 19 and the definition of “disability” under the ada/rehabilitation act 131 m street, newashington, dc 205071 800 669 6820 (tty)1 844 234 5122 (asl video phone) call 1 800 669 4000for deaf/hard of hearing callers:1 800 669 6820 (tty)1 844 234 5122 (asl video phone)info@eeoc.govfind your nearest eeoc office

patrick joseph quinn (born december 16, 1948) is an american politician who served as the 41st governor of illinois from 2009 to 2015. a democrat, quinn began his career as an activist by founding the coalition for political honesty, which used citizen initiated referendum questions to advocate for political reforms,[1] and later served as a commissioner on the cook county board of (property) tax appeals from 1982 to 1986, illinois state treasurer from 1991 to 1995, and lieutenant governor of illinois from 2003 to 2009. born in chicago, illinois, quinn is a graduate of georgetown university and northwestern university school of law. quinn began his political career working as an aide to then illinois governor dan walker before launching a series of citizen led petition drives, most notably the 1980 cutback amendment, which reduced the size of the illinois house of representatives from 177 to 118. it marked the first and only time in state history that illinois voters had used initiative petition and binding referendum to enact a constitutional amendment or law. after the passage of the cutback amendment, quinn continued to organize petition drives and was elected as a commissioner on the cook county board of (property) tax appeals in 1982; he later served as revenue director in the administration of chicago mayor harold washington. he was elected treasurer of illinois in 1990 and ran for secretary of state in 1994, united states senator in 1996, lieutenant governor in 1998, and attorney general in 2018.[2] in illinois' 2002 gubernatorial election, quinn won the democratic nomination for lieutenant governor of illinois in the primary and was paired with then u.s. representative rod blagojevich in the general election. he was sworn into office as lieutenant governor in 2003, becoming the first democrat to hold the office since 1977. both quinn and blagojevich were reelected in 2006. quinn assumed the governorship on january 29, 2009, after governor blagojevich was impeached and removed from office on corruption charges, with the contrast between the two men prompting the new york times to call quinn "the anti blagojevich."[3] quinn secured a full term in office in the 2010 gubernatorial election, defeating republican state senator bill brady by a margin of less than 1% out of about 3.5 million votes cast. the election was ranked by politico as one of the top upsets that year.[4] while in office, quinn worked to provide voters the power to recall a sitting governor, passed a $31 billion capital construction plan,[5] legalized civil unions and same sex marriage (prior to the 2015 obergefell v. hodges decision by the united states supreme court),[6] expanded access to healthcare with the affordable care act, and abolished the death penalty.[7] quinn was narrowly defeated in 2014 by republican candidate bruce rauner.[8] quinn was born december 16, 1948, in the south shore neighborhood of chicago, the son of patrick joseph "p. j." quinn and the former eileen prindiville. quinn's father, p. j., enlisted in the u.s. navy at the outbreak of world war ii, serving in the pacific theater aboard several ships including the uss bon homme richard. he served for three years, one month, and 15 days. in a commendation letter from his commanding officer, quinn is described as “one of the finest men with whom i have ever worked. extremely capable in his work, he was at all times cheerful, earnest, cooperative, frank, and honest.”[9] p. j. later worked for the archdiocese of chicago.[10][11][12][13] eileen prindiville was born before american women had the right to vote under the nineteenth amendment to the united states constitution in 1920 and graduated from the academy of our lady in 1935. eileen worked for decades as an assistant to the principal of the hinsdale public middle school. p. j. and eileen quinn raised three sons in a single family home in hinsdale, illinois, thanks to a mortgage secured by the veterans administration. quinn attended st. isaac jogues in hinsdale for elementary school before attending fenwick high school in oak park. quinn was the cross country team captain and sports editor of the school newspaper. quinn then on to graduate from georgetown university in 1971 with a bachelor of science in foreign service (bsfs) degree from the edmund a. walsh school of foreign service, where he was a student of professor jan karski and a sports editor for the hoya. after serving in state government and spearheading two major petition drives, quinn earned a juris doctor degree from northwestern university school of law in 1980, during the fight for the cutback amendment. quinn is the eldest of three boys. tom quinn has been an attorney since 1979 and his proudest moment in the courtroom was winning a legal settlement in a major case that targeted housing discrimination in the south suburbs of chicago. john quinn was an american history teacher at fenwick since 1980 and is an illinois hall of fame basketball coach. he has also received the golden apple award for excellence in teaching. p. j., eileen, tom, and john always played energetic roles in their son’s petition and referendum drives and political campaigns. quinn's relatives railed from county mayo in ireland, where the term boycott was termed following action against unpopular land agent charles boycott. quinn’s grandparents left ireland in the late 1800s and early 1900s to move to the united states. his paternal grandfather, also named patrick quinn, had a stint as a copper miner in butte, montana, then came to chicago’s south side. in 1915, he opened “quinn’s groceries, meats & vegetables” in chicago. his motto was “quinn for quality, quantity and service.”[14] quinn’s father, p. j. quinn, worked in the family store and graduated from de la salle high school in 1932. before running for public office, quinn worked as an organizer for dan walker in the 1972 illinois gubernatorial election, working statewide on college campuses (1972 being the first election in which 18 year olds could vote) before organizing the metro east and southwestern illinois in the general. from january 1973 to july 1975, quinn served as an ombudsman and assistant to the governor for labor and worker safety.[15] from july 1975 to december 1982, quinn served as the executive director of the coalition for political honesty, a volunteer initiative, petition, and referendum organization. from october 1975 to 1976, the coalition collected signatures and advocated for the political honesty initiative, which called for referendums on three reforms: ending double dipping, conflict of interest voting by illinois legislators, and the practice of advance pay, wherein legislators could collect their entire annual salary on their first day in office. radio host wally phillips of wgn am was among the political honesty initiative petition signers and one of its greatest supporters. petitions containing 635,128 signatures (an all time record) were filed with the illinois secretary of state at the state capitol on april 30, 1976, leading the general assembly to quickly pass a bill in may 1976, ending the 100 year old advance pay practice once and for all by requiring legislators to be paid monthly after doing their work.[1] the question did not appear on the 1976 ballot following the case of coalition for political honesty v. state board of elections, which hinged on whether the word "and" in the 1970 illinois constitution was "conjunctive" or "disjunctive."[16] in 1977, quinn led a statewide petition drive for open primaries in illinois, and in 1978, a statewide petition drive for a property tax freeze. on december 16, 1978, the anniversary of the boston tea party, quinn led a campaign to send 40,000 tea bags to the office of governor james r. thompson to protest a 40% pay raise for legislators and the governor.[17] beginning in 1979, quinn and the coalition for political honesty began a petition drive for what became known as the cutback amendment, a provision to reduce the size of the illinois house of representatives from 177 to 118 and abolish cumulative voting, requiring house members to run in single member districts. the proposal was supported by the league of women voters. the illinois general assembly quickly passed legislation to make it more difficult to pass initiative petitions. after submitting 477,112 signatures, a court struck the question from the ballot, citing the new law, resulting in a lawsuit, coalition for political honesty v. state board of elections (ii) (1980), the first illinois supreme court case that found that strict scrutiny applied to initiative powers in the illinois constitution and which placed the question back on the 1980 ballot.[18] illinois voters approved the cutback amendment by a 68.7 percent margin (2,112,224 to 962,325) on november 4, 1980.[19][20][21] it marked the first and only time in state history that illinois voters had used initiative petition and binding referendum to enact a constitutional amendment or law. in 1981 and 1982, quinn led a petition to amend the 1970 illinois constitution with the "illinois initiative". this amendment was intended to increase the power of petition and binding referendums in the political process.[22] the petition drive was successful, but the illinois appellate court ruled in lousin v. state board of elections (1982) that it could not appear on the ballot.[23] in 1982, quinn and the coalition placed a question on the chicago ballot calling for a citizens utility board to protect consumers. in 1983, 110 towns in illinois placed the question on their ballots. on september 20, 1983, gov. james thompson signed the citizens utility board (cub) law (public act 83 945) to provide “effective and democratic representation of utility consumers before the illinois commerce commission, the general assembly, the courts and other public bodies, and by providing consumer education on utility services prices and methods of energy conservation.” in july 1984, the first cub membership inserts were included in 3.5 million phone bills. some 30,000 consumers quickly sent back $5 to join the new group. the next month, 2.3 million gas customers received the cub insert along with 5 million electric customers in september 1984. within six months, cub had grown to 100,000 dues paying members from all 102 counties in illinois.[24] in 1982, quinn won the democratic primary to serve as a commissioner on the cook county board of appeals, now known as the cook county board of review.[22] in a three way primary for two spots, quinn was able to beat one of the incumbents who had presided over a scandal in which 37 people were convicted for fixing property tax appeal cases. quinn was regarded as a positive reforming figure on the board of appeals, which had long been regarded to be plagued by corruption. in his term in office, the board resisted awarding excessive tax rebates to politically connected wealthy individuals, as the board had long done. during his first year, this largely resulted in tax rebates awarded by the board decreasing from $444 million in the preceding year to $75 million. this had an effect of increasing the county's tax revenue.[25] during his time on the board, quinn was also instrumental in the creation of the "citizens utility board", a consumer watchdog organization.[26] quinn did not seek re election to the board, and was succeeded by chicago alderman wilson frost. in 1986, quinn chose to run in the democratic primary for illinois treasurer in a four way primary that also included incumbent treasurer james donnewald, former treasurer jerome cosentino, and larouche movement member robert d. hart (who had the formal backing of lyndon larouche's ndpc).[27] in the march 18, 1986, democratic primary, donnelwald lost to his predecessor, cosentino, 29.47% to 30.22%, with quinn coming in a close third with 26.18%.[28][29] quinn served in the administration of chicago mayor harold washington as revenue director, being appointed by mayor washington in early 1987.[26][30][31] while in the middle of his 1987 re election campaign, washington appointed quinn to oversee a revenue department which had become scandal ridden. however, quinn did not last long in the position, and was dismissed by washington from this position in june 1987. quinn alleged that washington's administration had fought against his efforts to reform the troubled department.[32] around this time, quinn served on the local school council of sayre magnet school on chicago's west side.[33] quinn after the death in office of cook county board of appeals commissioner harry h. semrow, quinn considered running in the special election (held in 1988) to fill semrow's seat.[32] quinn won the 1990 election for illinois treasurer, defeating peg mcdonnell breslin in the democratic primary and greg baise in the general election.[34][35] quinn campaigned as a populist reformer in opposition to big government.[33] he pledged during his campaign that he would seek to transform the office into a consumer advocate style position.[33] as a candidate, he refused to take campaign contributions from banking officials.[33] he also pledged as a candidate to modernize the office and maximize returns on state deposits through use of electronic fund transfers and through expanding linked deposit programs.[33] he released an "invest in illinois" plan which proposed competitive bidding from financial institutions wanting to be state depositories.[33] he also promised that he would not deposit or invest assets used to pay employee retirement benefits in junk bonds.[33] he also pledged to implement a professional code of ethics for the office's employees.[33] he served in the position of illinois treasurer from 1991 to 1995. during this period, he was publicly critical of illinois secretary of state and future governor, george ryan. specifically, he drew attention to special vanity license plates that ryan's office provided for cronies and the politically connected. this rivalry led quinn to unsuccessfully challenge ryan in the 1994 general election for secretary of state, winning the democratic primary but losing in the general.[36][37] quinn then took his aspirations to the national stage. when united states senator paul simon chose not to seek re election in 1996, quinn entered the race. however dick durbin won the democratic primary and eventually the senate seat.[38] quinn sought the democratic nomination for lieutenant governor in 1998, but was narrowly defeated by mary lou kearns. quinn did not initially accept the count and charged fraud, but several weeks after the election he declined to ask the illinois supreme court for a recount and endorsed kearns. in 1998, quinn protested an increase in state legislators' salaries by urging citizens to send tea bags to the governor, jim edgar. the tactic was a reference to the boston tea party.[39] as lieutenant governor, he would later repeat this tactic in 2006, urging consumers to include a tea bag when paying their electricity bills, to protest rate hikes by commonwealth edison.[40] quinn won the democratic nomination for lieutenant governor in march 2002, and subsequently won the general election on the democratic ticket alongside gubernatorial nominee, rod blagojevich. in illinois, candidates for lieutenant governor and governor at that time ran in separate primary elections, but were conjoined as a single ticket for the general election.[22] this same ticket won re election in 2006, where quinn was unopposed in the primary.[23] while lieutenant governor, according to his official biography, his priorities were consumer advocacy, environmental protection, health care, broadband deployment, and veterans' affairs.[41] on december 14, 2008, when quinn was asked about his relationship with blagojevich, he said, "well, he's a bit isolated. i tried to talk to the governor, but the last time i spoke to him was in august of 2007. i think one of the problems is the governor did sort of seal himself off from all the statewide officials ... attorney general madigan and myself and many others."[42] blagojevich had announced in 2006 that quinn was not to be considered part of his administration.[43] on january 29, 2009, rod blagojevich was removed from office by a vote of 59 0 by the illinois state senate.[44] quinn became governor of illinois.[45] in the democratic primary for governor in 2010, quinn defeated state comptroller daniel hynes with 50.4% of the vote.[46] on march 27, 2010, illinois democratic leaders selected sheila simon to replace scott lee cohen on the ballot, after cohen won the february 2010 democratic primary to be illinois' lieutenant governor, but later withdrew amid controversies involving his personal life.[47] in the general election quinn's campaign aired television ads produced by joe slade white that repeatedly asked the question of his opponent, "who is this guy?"[48] ben nuckels was the general election campaign manager and was named a "rising star of politics" by campaigns & elections magazine for his efforts with quinn.[49] quinn won the general election on november 2, 2010, by a narrow margin against republican candidate bill brady. 47% to 46% [50] quinn's victory was named by realclearpolitics.com as the no. 5 general election upset in the country; politico said it was the 7th closest gubernatorial in american history.[51] quinn declared a run for re election for 2014.[52] in the summer of 2013, former white house chief of staff and former united states secretary of commerce william m. daley declared a run for governor in the democratic primary against quinn, but later dropped out.[53][54] quinn chose paul vallas, the former chicago public schools ceo, as his running mate.[55] quinn was challenged in the democratic primary by tio hardiman, the former director of ceasefire, but won 72% to 28% and faced republican businessman bruce rauner for the general election. the majority of major illinois newspapers endorsed rauner,[56] but quinn was endorsed by the chicago defender,[57] the rockford register star,[58] and the southern illinoisan.[59] quinn was defeated by rauner in the general election, 50% to 46%. he lost every county except cook county. his term as governor ended on january 12, 2015. as governor, quinn faced a state with a reputation for corruption the two previous governors both went to federal prison and after two years polls showed quinn himself was the "nation's most unpopular governor."[60] the main issue was a fiscal crisis in meeting the state's budget and its long term debt as the national economic slump continued and illinois did poorly in terms of creating jobs. quinn spoke often to the public and met regularly with state leaders, in stark contrast to rod blagojevich's seclusion from others. on august 20, 2013 quinn signed a bill into law that raised the rural interstate speed limit in illinois to 70 mph. it was previously 65 mph. the bill also raised the speed limit on the illinois toll road. the law became effective at midnight january 1, 2014. quinn announced several "belt tightening" programs to help curb the state deficit. in july 2009, quinn signed a $29 billion capital bill to provide construction and repair funds for illinois roads, mass transit, schools, and other public works projects. the capital bill, known as "illinois jobs now!", was the first since governor george h. ryan's illinois first plan, which was enacted in the late 1990s.[61] on july 7, 2009, he for the second time in a week vetoed a budget bill, calling it "out of balance", his plan being to more significantly fix the budget gap in illinois.[62] in march 2009, quinn called for a 1.5 percentage point increase in the personal income tax rate. to help offset the increased rate, he also sought to triple the amount shielded from taxation (or the "personal exemption")   from $2,000 per person to $6,000.[63] however, the bill that eventually passed increased the personal income tax by 2%. with the state budget deficit projected to hit $15 billion in 2011, the legislature in early 2011 raised the personal income tax from 3% to 5%, and the corporation profits tax 4.8% to 7%. governor quinn's office projected the new taxes will generate $6.8 billion a year, enough to balance the annual budget and begin reducing the state's backlog of about $8.5 billion in unpaid bills.[64] a report from the civic federation in september 2011 projected a $8.3 billion deficit to end the budget year.[65] after three years of tax increases for workers and businesses, ending with an increase in corporate taxes in 2011 from 5% to 7%, the national recession left the economy in trouble. during an annual budget address on february 22, 2012 to the illinois legislature, quinn warned that the state's financial system was nearing collapse.[66][67] the associated press reported that quinn feared illinois was "on the verge of a financial meltdown because of pension systems eating up every new dollar and health care costs climbing through the roof."[68] according to the civic federation, illinois is only able to remain solvent by not paying its bills on time.[67] quinn advocated medicaid and healthcare cuts totaling $1.6 billion in 2012; critics including democratic state representative mary e. flowers stated the cuts would remove hundreds of thousands of the poor and elderly from public health programs.[69] the unprecedented cuts were too small to resolve the long term issue according to rating agencies that downgraded illinois to the lowest credit rating of any us state in 2012. as of november 2012, unpaid pension obligations totaled $85 billion with a backlog of $8 billion.[70] in an effort to reduce the state's financial obligations, in november 2012 quinn cancelled contracts with the american federation of state, county and municipal employees. union officials contended that "quinn wanted concessions so deep that they are an insult to every state employee," while the administration contended that the state is paying salaries and benefits at levels that "exceed the salaries and benefits of other unionized state workers across the country."[70] as of december 2012, illinois had the fifth highest unemployment rate in the united states, and by march 2013, illinois public employee pension liability reached $100 billion.[71][72] pat quinn has been a major supporter of the controversial illiana expressway.[73] in 2009, quinn signed into law the video gaming act which legalized the use of video gambling machines in illinois. quinn had previously denounced video gambling as a "bad bet". quinn said the legislation was necessary to make up revenue due to the recession. a 2019 propublica investigation found that illinois gambling regulators were underfunded and understaffed, and the gambling failed to meet projected revenues for the state's public coffers.[74] on january 5, 2009, quinn appointed patrick m. collins to chair the illinois reform commission, which was tasked with making recommendations for ethical reform for illinois government.[75][76] on february 20, 2009, quinn called for the resignation of us senator roland burris, the man appointed to the united states senate by blagojevich to fill the vacant seat created by the resignation of barack obama. he changed his position, however, following pressure from prominent african americans who threatened electoral repercussions.[77] on march 3, 2009, the associated press reported that quinn had "paid his own expenses" many times as lieutenant governor, contradicting blagojevich's accusations against quinn.[78][79] as a rule, he either paid his own way, or stayed at "cut rate hotels" (such as super 8), and never charged the state for his meals.[79][80] in june 2009, quinn launched a panel, chaired by abner mikva, to investigate unethical practices at the university of illinois amid fears that a prior investigation would be ineffective in instituting necessary reforms. the panel was charged with searching the admissions practices, amid reports that the public university was a victim of corruption.[81] the panel found evidence of favoritism and its investigation culminated in the resignation of all but two university trustees.[82] in spring 2014, federal prosecutors and the illinois legislative audit commission launched an investigation into quinn's $55 million neighborhood recovery initiative, a program launched weeks before 2010 election.[83][84] on october 22, a federal judge appointed an independent monitor to oversee hiring at the illinois department of transportation. this followed a three year investigation by the illinois executive inspector general that uncovered politically motivated hiring at idot, which started under gov. blagojevich.[85][86] quinn won generally high praise for his leadership on environmental issues, going back at least as far as when he was lieutenant governor, where he helped develop annual statewide conferences on green building, created a state day to celebrate and defend rivers,[87] and promoted measures such as rain gardens for water conservation. as governor, quinn helped pass measures on solar and wind energy,[88] including sourcing electricity for the state capitol from wind power, and helped secure funding for high speed rail in the midwest corridor. as governor and lt. governor, quinn co chaired the illinois green government council, a council that focused on greening state government and reducing waste. the illinois green government council produced public annual sustainability reports tracking overall state government energy usage, fuel usage, water usage, and waste [89] in 2010 and 2014, the sierra club, illinois's largest environmental group, endorsed quinn, calling him "the green governor."[90][91] quinn faced protests and strong opposition from environmentalists after his support for a controversial law to regulate and launch fracking. on march 9, 2011, quinn signed the bill which abolished the death penalty in illinois.[92] on signing the bill, quinn stated, "it is impossible to create a perfect system, one that is free of all mistakes, free of all discrimination with respect to race or economic circumstance or geography. to have a consistent, perfect death penalty system, i have concluded, after looking at everything i've been given, that that's impossible in our state. i think it's the right and just thing to abolish the death penalty."[93] in an interview with the new york times, quinn attributed his decision to the late cardinal joseph bernardin who had argued until the end of his life for a “consistent ethic of life" that included opposing capital punishment. to date, capital punishment is still outlawed in illinois.[94] in 2011, quinn received the courageous leadership award from death penalty focus.[95] on may 17, 2012, quinn appointed brandon bodor to be executive director of the serve illinois commission. on september 11, 2012, the two announced that the corporation for national and community service (cncs) had awarded $8.4 million to enable 1,200 volunteers in 29 americorps programs to better serve illinois communities.[96] quinn is an advocate for gun control, supporting an assault weapons ban, high capacity magazine ban and universal background checks for illinois.[97] quinn has also been known for criticizing concealed carry legislation in illinois (which would allow a person to have a concealed handgun on their person in public), and the national rifle association of america.[98] despite this opposition, the illinois general assembly legalized concealed carry in the state on july 9, 2013, overriding quinn's veto. this made illinois the last state in the u.s. to enact this type of legislation.[99] in quinn's 2013 state of the state address, he declared his commitment to the legalization of same sex marriage.[100] after a months long battle in the legislature, quinn signed the religious freedom and marriage fairness act into law[101] on november 20, 2013, before a crowd of thousands, making illinois the 16th state in the nation to legalize same sex marriage.[102] he had previously signed a bill legalizing civil unions on january 31, 2011.[103] quinn has kept a low profile since leaving office, volunteering for causes like veterans' affairs and consumer protection.[104] quinn has been critical of his successor, bruce rauner, calling him "anti worker" and "dishonest." he has stated that he is interested in grassroots petitions.[105] on june 12, 2016, quinn announced a new petition drive called take charge chicago to put a binding referendum on the chicago ballot to place a two term limit on the mayor of chicago and create a new elected position called the consumer advocate.[106][107] as of mid 2017, that is still ongoing. on october 27, 2017, quinn announced he would run for illinois attorney general in the 2018 election.[2] quinn was generally regarded as the most well known candidate in the race,[108] however he narrowly lost the nomination to state senator kwame raoul on march 20, 2018. for the 2020 election cycle, quinn championed a citizens initiated ballot item which would ask voters in evanston whether they believed that the city should adopt a system under which binding citizen initiated referendums to create city ordinances would be allowed. this ballot question was rejected by the city's election board, a decision subsequently upheld in the circuit court of cook county and the illinois appeals court.[109][110] during the 2023 chicago mayoral election, quinn flirted with the idea of running for chicago mayor, going as far as collecting signatures to appear on the ballot.[111] however, he declined to run in the election and subsequently endorsed u.s. representative chuy garcia's candidacy in the first round of voting,[112] and then his former running mate paul vallas in the run off.[113]

an official website of the united states government here’s how you know the .gov means it’s official. federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site. the site is secure. the https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely. the u.s. department of the treasury’s office of foreign assets control (ofac) administers and enforces economic and trade sanctions against targeted foreign jurisdictions and regimes, as well as individuals and entities engaging in harmful activity, such as terrorists, international narcotics traffickers, weapons of mass destruction proliferators, and other malign actors, in response to threats to the national security, foreign policy, or economy of the united states. ofac sanctions take various forms, from blocking the property of specific individuals and entities to broadly prohibiting transactions involving an entire country or geographic region, such as through a trade embargo or prohibitions related to particular sectors of a country’s economy. read more about ofac’s history on the about ofac page on ofac’s website. date updated: august 21, 2024. each ofac sanctions program is based on different foreign policy and national security goals, so the prohibitions imposed may vary between programs. many sanctions programs require blocking the property and interests in property of specific individuals and entities and prohibit dealing in such blocked property. (for more information, see faq 9.) ofac sanctions prohibitions may also take many other forms that do not require blocking but prohibit u.s. persons from engaging in certain trade or financial transactions and other dealings unless authorized by ofac or exempted by statute. non u.s. persons are also subject to certain ofac prohibitions. for example, non u.s. persons are prohibited from causing or conspiring to cause u.s. persons to violate u.s. sanctions, as well as engaging in conduct that evades u.s. sanctions. for information on specific prohibitions, authorizations, or exemptions under a particular ofac sanctions program, please see the relevant ofac implementing regulations and the sanctions programs and country information page on ofac’s website. date updated: august 21, 2024. yes. there may be exceptions to sanctions prohibitions. exceptions may take the form of authorizations, such as general licenses and specific licenses, or exemptions. ofac issues general licenses in most of its sanctions programs to authorize certain transactions that would otherwise be prohibited, such as transactions related to humanitarian activities or official business of the u.s. government. general licenses are self executing, meaning they allow persons to engage in certain transactions involving the united states or u.s. persons without needing to apply for a specific license provided the transactions meet certain terms and conditions as described in the general license. ofac may also issue specific licenses on a case by case basis. in contrast to general licenses, which authorize certain transactions for all persons who meet the conditions described in the license, specific licenses only authorize the licensee(s) to engage in certain transactions that would otherwise be prohibited. for guidance on how to request and apply for a specific license, please see 31 cfr § 501.801 and the license application page on ofac’s website. exceptions may also take the form of exemptions, meaning certain types of transactions are exempt from sanctions and therefore not prohibited. for example, in certain sanctions programs transactions involving personal communications, humanitarian donations, information or informational materials, and travel are exempt from relevant prohibitions. most ofac sanctions programs have certain exceptions, but exceptions may vary in type and scope across different sanctions programs. for information on the authorizations or exemptions under a particular ofac sanctions program, please see the relevant ofac implementing regulations and the sanctions programs and country information page on ofac’s website. date updated: august 21, 2024. references to relevant statutes, executive orders, regulations, guidance, general licenses, and sanctions actions for each sanctions program may be found in the sanctions programs and country information page on ofac’s website. the ofac legal library page on ofac’s website also contains links to the relevant legal authorities, including statutes, executive orders, and the code of federal regulations, where specific ofac sanctions regulations can be found. date updated: august 21, 2024. ofac issues general licenses to authorize certain transactions that would otherwise be prohibited pursuant to a particular sanctions program. these general licenses are self executing, meaning they allow persons to engage in certain transactions involving the united states or u.s. persons without needing to apply for a specific license, provided the transactions meet certain terms and conditions as described in the general license. in addition, some categories of activities, such as personal communications and transactions ordinarily incident to travel, may be exempt from sanctions in certain programs. subject to sanctions program specific considerations, non u.s. persons do not generally risk being sanctioned for engaging in or facilitating transactions for which a u.s. person would not require a specific license. if you seek to engage in a prohibited transaction involving a u.s. person or blocked property and there is no applicable general license or exemption, you may apply for a specific license from ofac by submitting a license application. ofac may grant, on a case by case basis, a specific license to authorize a person to engage in a transaction, or series of transactions, that otherwise would be prohibited by sanctions. for guidance on how to request and apply for a specific license, please see 31 cfr § 501.801 and the license application page on ofac’s website. date updated: august 21, 2024. "blocking" refers to freezing assets or other property. blocking immediately imposes an across the board prohibition against transfers or dealings of any kind with regard to the property. ofac authorities may require u.s. persons to block all property and interests in property of certain persons, known as "blocked persons." when this is the case, any property and interests in property of a blocked person that are within the united states or within the possession or control of a u.s. person must be blocked (i.e., "frozen") not seized and may not be transferred, withdrawn, or otherwise dealt in. title to the blocked property remains with the blocked person, but the exercise of powers and privileges normally associated with ownership is prohibited without authorization from ofac. in addition, parties must report blocked property to ofac within 10 business days of the property becoming blocked. blocked persons include persons that appear on ofac’s list of specially designated nationals and blocked persons (sdn list), foreign governments subject to blocking, and persons blocked pursuant to ofac’s “50 percent rule.” for further information, see faq 401 and ofac guidance on the "50 percent rule." the term "property," as defined in various ofac regulations, includes financial property (e.g., money, checks, savings accounts, stocks, bonds, debt, or any other financial instruments), real, tangible, and intangible assets (e.g., goods, merchandise, ships, land contracts, and real estate), and any other property or interests therein present, future, or contingent. for information on how ofac defines property in a particular sanctions program, please see the relevant ofac implementing regulations and the sanctions programs and country information page on ofac’s website. date updated: august 21, 2024. ofac implements, administers, and enforces u.s. sanctions across many jurisdictions. some of these sanctions are comprehensive in nature and broadly prohibit most transactions involving the particular jurisdiction and may also include blocking restrictions on the government of such jurisdiction. these jurisdictions include both countries and certain geographic regions. other sanctions programs impose targeted sanctions on specific persons in relation to a particular jurisdiction or activity. for example, persons appearing on ofac’s list of specially designated nationals and blocked persons (sdn list) are blocked pursuant to ofac regulations and authorities. u.s. persons are prohibited from engaging in transactions involving blocked persons wherever blocked persons are located, and all property of blocked persons within u.s. jurisdiction must also be blocked. for example, a person may be designated for engaging in malign activity, such as narcotics trafficking or terrorism. the names, and often aliases, of such designated persons are added to the sdn list, along with other identifying information. with limited exceptions, entities owned by a person on the sdn list (defined as a direct or indirect ownership interest of 50 percent or more) are also blocked, regardless of whether that entity is separately named on the sdn list. for further information, see faq 401 and ofac guidance on the "50 percent rule." aside from the sdn list, ofac publishes and maintains other sanctions lists that have different prohibitions associated with them. for example, ofac’s sectoral sanctions identification (ssi) list identifies persons operating in certain sectors that are subject to restrictions other than blocking. note that the ssi list is not part of the sdn list; however, persons on the ssi list may also appear on the sdn list. sanctions programs may change frequently. it is important to check ofac’s website on a regular basis to ensure that you have the most up to date information on ofac prohibitions across sanctions programs, including ofac’s various sanctions lists. ofac’s sanctions list search tool can be used to search both the sdn list and all other ofac sanctions lists. the ofac basics videos series provides further information on how to use ofac’s sanctions list search tool. please see the sanctions programs and country information page on ofac’s website for information on specific ofac sanctions programs. date updated: august 21, 2024. all u.s. persons must comply with ofac sanctions, including all u.s. citizens and permanent residents regardless of where they are located, all individuals and entities within the united states, and all u.s. incorporated entities and their foreign branches. terms such as "u.s. person" and "person subject to u.s. jurisdiction" are defined in the implementing regulations for a particular sanctions program in 31 cfr chapter v. (see e.g., 31 cfr § 560.314 (iranian transactions and sanctions regulations (itsr)); 31 cfr § 598.318 (foreign narcotics kingpin sanctions regulations). in the case of certain programs, foreign subsidiaries owned or controlled by u.s. persons also must comply. (see e.g., 31 cfr § 560.215 (itsr); 31 cfr § 510.214 (north korea sanctions regulations)). non u.s. persons are also subject to certain sanctions prohibitions. for example, non u.s. persons are prohibited from causing or conspiring to cause u.s. persons to violate u.s. sanctions, as well as engaging in conduct that evades u.s. sanctions. certain programs also require foreign persons reexporting certain goods, technology, or services from the united states to comply with u.s. sanctions, even if no u.s. persons are involved in the reexport. date updated: august 21, 2024. violations of ofac administered sanctions programs may result in civil and, in some cases, criminal penalties. penalties for violations can be substantial. civil penalties vary by sanctions program, and the federal civil penalties inflation adjustment act of 1990, as amended by the federal civil penalty inflation adjustment act improvements act of 2015, requires ofac to adjust civil monetary penalty amounts annually. for current penalty amounts, see appendix a to 31 cfr part 501 economic sanctions enforcement guidelines. for a list of select ofac enforcement actions, organized by year, please see the civil penalties and enforcement information page on ofac’s website. date updated: august 21, 2024. ofac encourages anyone who may have violated ofac administered sanctions programs, or anyone who is aware of potential violations, to disclose the apparent or potential violation to ofac. voluntary self disclosure to ofac is considered a mitigating factor by ofac in enforcement actions, and pursuant to ofac’s economic sanctions enforcement guidelines, will result in a reduction in the base amount of any proposed civil penalty. please submit all voluntary self disclosures electronically to ofacdisclosures@treasury.gov. ofac’s economic sanctions enforcement guidelines explain what constitutes a voluntary self disclosure for purposes of receiving mitigation. among other factors, the guidelines state that in addition to notification of an apparent violation, a voluntary self disclosure must include, or be followed within a reasonable period of time by, a report of sufficient detail to afford ofac a complete understanding of an apparent violation’s circumstances. when such a report is not included with an initial notification, ofac will generally expect such a report within 180 days after the initial notification. please review ofac’s production submission standards, which detail ofac’s preferred technical standards for formatting electronic document productions. ofac does not have an "amnesty" program. ofac does, however, review the totality of the circumstances surrounding any apparent violation, including whether a matter was voluntarily self disclosed to ofac. such disclosure may also support credit for cooperation. ofac will also consider the existence, nature, and adequacy of a subject person’s risk based ofac compliance program at the time of the apparent violation. please see ofac’s economic sanctions enforcement guidelines and ofac’s framework for ofac compliance commitments for additional information regarding voluntary self disclosures and other mitigating factors, as well as ofac’s general framework for the enforcement of its sanctions programs. for more information on ofac’s enforcement process and self disclosing violations, please see the civil penalties and enforcement information page on ofac’s website. other u.s. government agencies, including the u.s. department of justice (doj) and the u.s. department of commerce’s bureau of industry and security (bis) have their own disclosure procedures for voluntarily self disclosing violations of u.s. sanctions and export control laws. moreover, the u.s. department of the treasury’s financial crimes enforcement network (fincen) maintains a whistleblower incentive program for violations of ofac administered sanctions, in addition to violations of the bank secrecy act. individuals located in the united states or abroad who provide information may be eligible for awards, if the information they provide leads to a successful enforcement action that results in monetary penalties exceeding $1,000,000. date updated: august 21, 2024. great care should be taken when placing reliance on such materials to ensure that the transactions in question fully conform to the letter and spirit of the published materials and that the materials have not been superseded. yes. ofac, therefore, strongly encourages parties to exercise due diligence when their business activities may touch on an ofac administered program and to contact ofac if they have any questions about their transactions. ofac publishes lists of individuals and entities that are subject to ofac administered sanctions. one such list is known as the list of specially designated nationals and blocked persons list, or "sdn list," which is available on ofac’s website. property and interests in property of the individuals and entities on the sdn list, that is within the united states or within the possession or control of u.s. persons are blocked. additionally, u.s. persons are generally prohibited from dealing with the individuals and entities on the sdn list. it is important to note that some ofac sanctions block categories of persons even if those persons do not appear on the sdn list, including most cuban nationals, blocked foreign governments, or persons blocked pursuant to ofac’s "50 percent rule" (i.e., any entity owned individually or in the aggregate, directly or indirectly, 50 percent or more by one or more blocked persons). the property and interests in property of such an entity are blocked regardless of whether the entity itself is listed on the sdn list. in addition, ofac maintains other sanctions lists of persons that are subject to non blocking sanctions. these lists are also available on ofac’s website. for information on specific prohibitions under a particular ofac sanctions program, please see the relevant ofac implementing regulations and the sanctions programs and country information page on ofac’s website. date updated: august 21, 2024. a package may be blocked or rejected for multiple reasons. u.s. persons, including shipping companies, are required to "block" packages in which a person blocked by ofac administered sanctions has an interest. when a package is required to be "blocked" due to sanctions, the shipper must retain the package rather than return it to the sender. in other circumstances, sanctions may not require that the package be blocked, but a shipping company may have to return your package, or "reject" it. for example, if the package was destined for a location under a u.s. trade embargo and was not otherwise eligible to be shipped in accordance with an existing exemption or ofac authorization, the shipping company may reject and return your package. if your package was blocked due to ofac sanctions, you may request authorization from ofac for the blocked package to be released by submitting a license application that includes a detailed description of the package’s contents and an explanation of the package’s air waybill or customs declaration and dispatch form. please see the sanctions programs and country information page on ofac’s website for more information on the restrictions on shipments to sanctioned jurisdictions. date updated: august 21, 2024. if you have questions about the authenticity of an ofac issued document that is not publicly posted on ofac’s website, you may contact ofac and reference the specific case id or fac number that is included on the document. date updated: august 21, 2024. no. ofac does not issue non inclusion certificates to show an entity or individual is not listed on one of ofac’s sanctions lists, nor does ofac publish a “safe list.” for questions regarding whether a specific entity or individual may be a positive match to an entry on one of ofac’s sanctions lists, please see faq 5 or the ofac basics videos series. date updated: august 21, 2024. ofac does not sanction persons for their engagement in activities subject to u.s. constitutional protection, such as protected speech or religious practice or for their religious beliefs; nor do u.s. persons violate ofac sanctions for engaging in such constitutionally protected activity. furthermore, additional limitations and authorizations are in place to ensure that u.s. sanctions do not restrict the exchange of information or informational materials, or personal communication. the majority of ofac sanctions programs are promulgated pursuant to the international emergency economic powers act, 50 u.s.c. 1701 et seq., which limits the authority to “regulate or prohibit, directly or indirectly . . . any postal, telegraphic, telephonic, or other personal communication, which does not involve a transfer of anything of value . . . or, the importation from any country, or the exportation to any country, whether commercial or otherwise, . . . of any information or informational materials.” 50 u.s.c. § 1702(b)(1), (3). no authorization is necessary for u.s. persons to engage in activities that are not prohibited by or are otherwise exempt from sanctions. if you are concerned that potential sanctions may interfere with constitutionally protected activities, please reach out to ofac for further guidance as described here. with respect to blocked funds transfers, you are encouraged to file an electronic application to have blocked funds released. you may also submit an application for the release of blocked funds which is available on ofac's website under "forms." you should print this form, complete the required information, attach payment instructions, and mail it to: office of foreign assets control u.s. department of the treasury treasury annex 1500 pennsylvania avenue, nw washington, dc 20220 attn: licensing division it is extremely important that the underlying transaction be described in detail and copies of supporting documentation be included in the package. each application is reviewed on a case by case basis and often requires interagency consultation. although we cannot predict how long this review might take, following existing application guidelines will help to expedite your determination. most ofac sanctions programs provide exemptions to their prohibitions for certain donated goods, such as articles to relieve human suffering. this is not the case for all programs, however. you should refer to the legal section of ofac's website for the regulations applicable to the specific target or target country of your donation. a license is an authorization from ofac to engage in a transaction that otherwise would be prohibited. there are two types of licenses: general licenses and specific licenses. a general license authorizes a particular type of transaction for a class of persons without the need to apply for a license. a specific license is a written document issued by ofac to a particular person or entity, authorizing a particular transaction in response to a written license application. persons engaging in transactions pursuant to general or specific licenses must make sure that all conditions of the licenses are strictly observed. ofac's regulations may contain statements of ofac's specific licensing policy with respect to particular types of transactions. click here to apply for a license. most license applications do not have to be submitted on a particular form. however, it is essential to include in the request all necessary information as required in the application guidelines or the regulations pertaining to the particular embargo program. when applying for a license, provide a detailed description of the proposed transaction, including the names and addresses of any individuals/companies involved. the mailing address for license applications is: office of foreign assets control u.s. department of the treasury treasury annex 1500 pennsylvania avenue, nw washington, dc 20220 attn: licensing division in order to apply for a specific license to release blocked funds, you are encouraged to file an electronic application to have blocked funds released by visiting the following link: https://ofac.treasury.gov/ofac license application page. you may also submit an application for the release of blocked funds which is available on ofac's website under "forms." you should print this form, complete the required information, attach payment instructions, and mail it to the address listed above. depending upon the transaction, there may be specific guidance available on ofac's website under relevant "guidance on licensing policy" on ofac's various sanctions program web pages. a denial by ofac of a license application constitutes final agency action. the regulations do not provide for a formal process of appeal. however, ofac will reconsider its determinations for good cause, for example, where the applicant can demonstrate changed circumstances or submit additional relevant information not previously made available to ofac. ofac will notify applicants in writing as soon as a determination has been made on their application. the length of time for determinations to be reached will vary depending on the complexity of the transactions under consideration, the scope and detail of interagency coordination, and the volume of similar applications awaiting consideration. applicants are encouraged to use ofac’s website (accessible at ofac   check application status) or automated license application status hotline (accessible at 202 622 2480) to check on the status of applications. many of ofac's licensing determinations are guided by u.s. foreign policy and national security concerns. numerous issues often must be coordinated with the u.s. department of state and other government agencies, such as the u.s. department of commerce. please note that the need to comply with other provisions of 31 c.f.r. chapter v, and with other applicable provisions of law, including any aviation, financial, or trade requirements of agencies other than the department of treasury’s office of foreign assets control. such requirements include the export administration regulations, 15 c.f.r. parts 730 et seq., administered by the department of commerce, and the international traffic in arms regulations, 22 c.f.r. parts 120 130, administered by the department of state. ofac permits two format options for submitting tsra license applications: online or hard copy, though we highly recommend the use of ofac’s online application portal. applications submitted via mail must be accompanied by a cover letter that includes some essential information: the purpose of the application and the applicant’s full contact information. if either the cover letter or the pertinent information is missing, the application is considered incomplete and risks delay or rejection. applicants should clearly enumerate in a table format all pertinent information related to their proposed transactions, including: a) full names and addresses of all parties involved in the transactions and their roles, including financial institutions and any iranian broker (identify company principals), purchasing agent (identify company principals), end user(s) (full contact name), or other participants involved in the purchase of the proposed export items; and b) if applicable, the commodity classification numbers that are associated with the proposed export items. ofac requires applicants to submit each individual application separately; regardless of if you are completing the online application or sending in a hard copy application through the mail. if an applicant is submitting a hard copy, each application should be in a separate envelope, accompanied by a separate cover letter. applicants should not submit multiple applications in a single envelope with a single cover letter. if you submit applications in that manner, you may encounter some delay in the processing of your applications. therefore, in order to prevent such delay, submit one application with one cover letter per envelope. no. ofac does not require samples of proposed export products to be sent as attachments to any application. ofac does not need to examine samples of the actual product in making its final determination. therefore, please do not include any samples with your application. this language is in the general license at section 560.532(a)(4) of the itsr because it is contrary to u.s. foreign policy to allow u.s. financial institutions to maintain active correspondent relationships with iranian banks. the language, however, does not preclude a u.s. financial institution or an entity owned or controlled by a united states person and established or maintained outside the united states (“u.s. owned or  controlled foreign entity”) from being a second advising bank (i.e. receiving and passing forward advice from a third country bank that the credit has been issued), nor does it preclude the u.s. financial institution or a u.s. owned or  controlled foreign entity from receiving funds in payment for the licensed export from a third country bank. you should also note that the iranian transactions and sanctions regulations authorize u.s. financial institutions and u.s. owned or  controlled foreign entities to directly advise or confirm letters of credit issued by third country banks for authorized shipments. the third country bank may not be an overseas branch of a u.s. financial institution, a u.s. owned or  controlled foreign entity, an iranian financial institution, or the government of iran, unless otherwise authorized by ofac. in none of these circumstances, however, may there be any direct or indirect involvement of entities the property and interests in property of which have been blocked under any of the programs administered by ofac, except for persons whose property and interests in property are blocked solely pursuant to executive order 13599 and the iranian transactions and sanctions regulations. no. as of december 14, 2020, no license from ofac is required to export or reexport agricultural commodities, medicines, or medical devices to sudan. yes. ofac has multiple e mail subscription services available. please visit the following link to sign up for these services: date updated: november 22, 2024 failure to receive a confirmation e mail is typically (though not always) the result of a configuration problem on the user’s end. the user should follow these steps to ensure that he or she is using the system properly. credit bureaus and agencies in particular have adopted new measures to ensure compliance with ofac regulations. before issuing a credit report, they use screening software to determine if a credit applicant is on ofac's specially designated nationals (sdn) list or one of ofac's other sanctions lists. this software matches the credit applicant's name and other information to the names on ofac's sanctions lists. if there is a potential match, the credit bureaus may place a "red flag" or alert on the report. this does not necessarily mean that someone is illegally using your social security number or that you have bad credit. it is merely a reminder to the person checking your credit that he or she should verify whether you are the individual on one of ofac's sanctions lists by comparing your information to the ofac information. if you are not the individual on the sanctions list, the person checking your credit should disregard the ofac alert, and there is no need to contact ofac. however, if the person checking your credit believes you are the person on one of ofac's sanctions lists, then he or she should call the ofac hotline to verify and report it. a consumer has the right under the fair credit reporting act (fcra), 15 u.s.c. 1681 et seq., to request the removal of incorrect information on his/her credit report. to accomplish this, consumers should contact the credit reporting agency or bureau that issued the credit report. for more information on consumers' rights under the fcra, visit the federal trade commission's website or the consumer financial protection bureau at 855 411 2372. no. ofac’s 50 percent rule speaks only to ownership and not to control. an entity that is controlled (but not owned 50 percent or more) by one or more blocked persons is not considered automatically blocked pursuant to ofac’s 50 percent rule. ofac may, however, designate the entity under an available sanctions criteria or otherwise identify the entity as blocked property if determined to be controlled by one or more designated persons and add the entity to ofac’s list of specially designated nationals and blocked persons (sdn list). ofac urges caution when considering a transaction with an entity that is not a blocked person (a non blocked entity) in which one or more blocked persons have a significant ownership interest that is less than 50 percent or which one or more blocked persons may control by means other than a majority ownership interest. such non blocked entities may become the subject of future designations or enforcement actions by ofac. in addition, persons should be cautious in dealing with such a non blocked entity to ensure that they are not, for example, dealing with a blocked person representing the non blocked entity, such as entering into a contract that is signed by a blocked person. please also note that some sanctions programs (e.g., the crimea region of ukraine, cuba, iran, north korea, syria, and venezuela) block certain persons without an ofac designation; these blockings are based on criteria separate from ofac’s 50 percent rule, such as the blocking of persons that meet the definition of a blocked government. yes. on august 13, 2014, ofac indicated in its revised 50 percent rule guidance that ofac's 50 percent rule applies to entities owned 50 percent or more in the aggregate by one or more blocked persons. accordingly, if blocked person x owns 25 percent of entity a, and blocked person y owns another 25 percent of entity a, entity a is considered to be blocked. this is so because entity a is owned 50 percent or more in the aggregate by one or more blocked persons. for the purpose of calculating aggregate ownership, the ownership interests of persons blocked under different ofac sanctions programs are aggregated. no. ofac sanctions generally prohibit transactions involving, directly or indirectly, a blocked person, absent authorization from ofac, even if the blocked person is acting on behalf of a non blocked entity. therefore, u.s. persons should be careful when conducting business with non blocked entities in which blocked individuals are involved; u.s. persons may not, for example, enter into contracts that are signed by a blocked individual. "indirectly," as used in ofac’s 50 percent rule, refers to one or more blocked persons' ownership of shares of an entity through another entity or entities that are 50 percent or more owned in the aggregate by the blocked person(s). ofac urges persons considering a potential transaction to conduct appropriate due diligence on entities that are party to or involved with the transaction or with which account relationships are maintained in order to determine relevant ownership stakes. please see faq 116 for additional guidance on due diligence standards for intermediary parties to wire transfers. please refer to the examples below for further guidance on determining whether an entity is blocked pursuant to ofac's 50 percent rule. example 1: blocked person x owns 50 percent of entity a, and entity a owns 50 percent of entity b. entity b is considered to be blocked. this is so because blocked person x owns, indirectly, 50% of entity b. in addition, blocked person x's 50 percent ownership of entity a makes entity a a blocked person. entity a's 50 percent ownership of entity b in turn makes entity b a blocked person. example 2: blocked person x owns 50 percent of entity a and 50 percent of entity b. entities a and b each own 25 percent of entity c. entity c is considered to be blocked. this is so because, through its 50 percent ownership of entity a, blocked person x is considered to indirectly own 25 percent of entity c; and through its 50 percent ownership of entity b, blocked person x is considered to indirectly own another 25 percent of entity c. when blocked person x's indirect ownership of entity c through entity a and entity b is totaled, it equals 50 percent. entity c is also considered to be blocked due to the 50 percent aggregate ownership by entities a and b, which are themselves blocked entities due to blocked person x's 50 percent ownership of each. example 3: blocked person x owns 50 percent of entity a and 10 percent of entity b. entity a also owns 40 percent of entity b. entity b is considered to be blocked. this is so because, through its 50 percent ownership of entity a, blocked person x is considered to indirectly own 40 percent of entity b. when added to blocked person x's direct 10 percent ownership of entity b, blocked person x's total ownership (direct and indirect) of entity b is 50 percent. entity b is also blocked due to the 50 percent aggregate ownership by blocked person x and entity a, which are themselves both blocked persons. example 4: blocked person x owns 50 percent of entity a and 25 percent of entity b. entities a and b each own 25 percent of entity c. entity c is not considered to be blocked. this is so because, even though blocked person x is considered to indirectly own 25 percent of entity c through its 50 percent ownership of entity a, entity b is not 50 percent or more owned by blocked person x, and therefore blocked person x is not considered to indirectly own any of entity c through its part ownership of entity b. blocked person x's total ownership (direct and indirect) of entity c therefore does not equal or exceed 50 percent. entity a is itself a blocked person, but its ownership of entity c also does not equal or exceed 50 percent. example 5: blocked person x owns 25 percent of entity a and 25 percent of entity b. entities a and b each own 50 percent of entity c. entity c is not considered to be blocked. this is so because blocked person x's 25 percent ownership of each of entity a and entity b falls short of 50 percent. accordingly, neither entity a nor entity b is blocked and blocked person x is not considered to indirectly own any of entity c through its part ownership of entities a or b. according to ofac's 50 percent rule, entities are considered blocked if they are owned 50 percent or more (directly or indirectly) in the aggregate by one or more blocked persons. if one or more blocked persons divest their ownership stake such that the resulting combined ownership by blocked persons is less than 50 percent, the entity is no longer considered automatically to be a blocked entity. any such divestment transactions must occur entirely outside of u.s. jurisdiction and must not involve u.s. persons, as any blocked property or interests in property that come into the possession or control of a u.s. person must be blocked and reported to ofac, and ofac does not recognize any subsequent unlicensed transfers, through changes in ownership or otherwise, of such property. entities in which the aggregate of one or more blocked persons' ownership stakes has fallen below 50 percent are not considered blocked pursuant to ofac's 50 percent rule, and therefore property of such entities that comes into the united states or the possession or control of a u.s. person while the aggregate of one or more blocked persons' ownership stakes is below 50 percent is not considered blocked by ofac's 50 percent rule. ofac urges caution when dealing with or processing transactions involving such entities, as those entities may become the subject of future designations or enforcement actions by ofac. sufficient due diligence should be conducted to determine that any purported divestment in fact occurred and that the transfer of ownership interests was not merely a sham transaction. when the property of an entity owned 50 percent or more by a single blocked person comes within the united states or within the possession or control of a u.s. person and is blocked, the property remains blocked unless and until (1) ofac authorizes the unblocking of or other dealings in the property or (2) ofac removes the blocked person from the sdn list. the property remains blocked even if the blocked person's ownership of the entity subsequently falls below 50 percent. this is so because the blocked person is considered to have an interest in the blocked property, and ofac does not recognize the unlicensed transfer of the blocked person’s interest after the property becomes blocked in the united states or in the possession or control of a u.s. person. persons holding such property may request authorization from ofac's licensing division to transfer or otherwise deal in that property (the electronic application can be found on ofac's website), and ofac will evaluate such requests on a case by case basis. similarly, when the property of an entity owned 50 percent or more in the aggregate by more than one blocked person comes within the united states or in the possession or control of a u.s. person and is blocked, the property remains blocked unless and until (1) ofac authorizes the unblocking of or other dealings in the property or (2) ofac removes from the sdn list one or more of the blocked persons such that the aggregate ownership by blocked persons falls below 50 percent. if the aggregate ownership of the entity by blocked persons falls below 50 percent not due to sdn list removal actions by ofac but instead due to actions by one or more of the blocked persons, including the entity itself, the property remains blocked. this is so because the group of blocked persons is considered to have an interest in the blocked property, and ofac does not recognize the unlicensed transfer of any of the blocked persons' interests after the property becomes blocked in the united states or in the possession or control of a u.s. person. persons holding such property may request authorization from ofac's licensing division to transfer or otherwise deal in that property (the electronic application can be found on ofac's website), and ofac will evaluate such requests on a case by case basis. ofac has received numerous inquiries, many from foreign companies at outreach events, regarding whether u.s. persons may provide, and whether u.s. persons have been able to provide in the past, certain types of legal and compliance services to covered persons. the compliance services guidance provides clarity in response to those inquiries. for purposes of the compliance services guidance, “covered persons” means u.s. persons and foreign persons other than any person (i) whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to any part of 31 c.f.r. chapter v, including persons listed on ofac’s list of specially designated nationals and blocked persons (sdn list), or (ii) to whom a u.s. person is prohibited from exporting services or from whom a u.s. person is prohibited from importing services pursuant to any part of 31 c.f.r. chapter v. the compliance services guidance does not describe every allowable service relating to the requirements of u.s. sanctions laws. no. the compliance services guidance does not reflect a change in ofac’s policy with respect to the provision of these types of legal and compliance services. ofac is issuing the compliance services guidance in response to numerous inquiries to ensure that both u.s. and foreign individuals and entities understand that u.s. persons may provide services consistent with the compliance services guidance. yes. in providing services to a foreign covered person, a u.s. person may opine on the legality of a transaction under u.s. sanctions laws, including by providing a legal opinion, certification, or other clearance as to the legality of such transaction, where it would be prohibited for a u.s. person to engage in the transaction. u.s. persons may not provide such services to persons who are subject to certain restrictions under ofac’s regulations, such as persons listed on ofac’s sdn list. u.s. persons, wherever located, may not otherwise approve, finance, facilitate, or guarantee any transaction by a foreign person, including one that meets the definition of a covered person, as defined in faq #495, where the transaction by that foreign person would be prohibited by 31 c.f.r. chapter v if performed by a u.s. person or within the united states. for example, u.s. persons could not vote on a transaction (e.g., as a board member), or execute transaction documents (other than as to the legality of the transaction, as specified above), where the transaction would be prohibited if performed by a u.s. person or within the united states. u.s. persons may conduct research using the internet, including searches of commercial databases, as well as published reference materials for the purpose of determining the legality of transactions under u.s. sanctions laws. in addition, u.s. persons may solicit information regarding a transaction from covered persons, such as, for example, the currency involved; any involvement of u.s. persons, directly or indirectly; and the identity of the covered person’s counterparty. a u.s. person may not conduct research that otherwise involves the importation or exportation of services where such transactions are prohibited by any part of 31 c.f.r. chapter v, unless such transactions are authorized by ofac. on december 9, 2022, the united nations (un) security council adopted unscr 2664, which establishes a humanitarian carveout to the asset freeze measure across united nations sanctions regimes. the carveout enables the flow of legitimate humanitarian assistance and activities supporting the basic human needs of vulnerable populations while continuing to deny resources to malicious actors. on december 20, 2022, ofac announced the issuance or amendment of four categories of general licenses (gls) that support the conduct of u.s. government and humanitarian related activities across a number of sanctions programs, including in ofac sanctions programs that implement un sanctions regimes. specifically, across a number of sanctions programs, ofac issued or amended four categories of gls authorizing the following activities: for more information on the sanctions programs covered by these new or amended gls, please see the federal register here and here. for information on specific exemptions or authorizations under a particular ofac sanctions program, please see the relevant ofac implementing regulations and ofac’s sanctions programs and country information page. for humanitarian related activity that may fall outside the scope of these authorizations, ofac considers specific license requests on a case by case basis and prioritizes license applications and other requests for guidance that are related to humanitarian activity. please see ofac’s license application page for additional details regarding the specific licensing process. if individuals, nongovernmental organizations, international organizations, or other entities, including financial institutions, have questions about engaging in or processing transactions related to these authorizations, they may contact the ofac compliance hotline. as with specific license requests, ofac prioritizes responding to questions related to humanitarian activity. u.s. financial institutions may operate accounts, including processing funds transfers, for persons engaging in activities authorized by the gls related to: (i) the official business of the u.s. government, (ii) official business of certain international organizations and entities, (iii) certain humanitarian and other specified activities by nongovernmental organizations (ngos), and (iv) the provision of agricultural commodities, medicine, medical devices, replacement parts and components, or software updates for medical devices for personal, non commercial use. in assessing whether a particular transaction is in compliance with such gls, financial institutions may reasonably rely upon the information available to them in the ordinary course of business, provided that the financial institution does not know or have reason to know that the transaction is outside the scope of the applicable gl. separately, non u.s. persons, including ngos and other entities, as well as foreign financial institutions facilitating or assisting these activities, do not risk exposure to u.s. sanctions for engaging in or facilitating transactions that are otherwise exempt or authorized for u.s. persons pursuant to these gls. for general information on ofac's due diligence expectations and compliance programs, please see a framework for ofac compliance commitments and faq 819. if financial institutions have questions about engaging in or processing transactions related to these authorizations, they may contact the ofac compliance hotline. ofac prioritizes responding to questions related to humanitarian activity. for an organizational chart of the united nations (un), which lists the un programmes, funds, and other entities and bodies, as well as its specialized agencies and related organizations, including the world bank, please see this page on the un website. the io gls also authorize the activities of the fund entities administered or established by the foregoing un organizations, as well as the activities of the international organizations and entities themselves, in addition to the activities of their employees, contractors, and grantees. no. ofac’s action of december 20, 2022 does not restrict the scope of any existing exemptions or ofac authorizations for humanitarian activities, including existing general licenses authorizing certain ngo activities in sanctioned jurisdictions such as the crimea region of ukraine, iran, and syria, which have not been amended by this action, and pre existing web general licenses that have been incorporated into the relevant program regulations, such as venezuela gl 20b. persons conducting humanitarian activities pursuant to these programs may continue to rely on existing exemptions and ofac authorizations, subject to the applicable conditions and limitations, which may differ by sanctions program. for information on specific exemptions or authorizations under a particular ofac sanctions program, please see the relevant ofac implementing regulations and ofac’s sanctions programs and country information page. pending ofac enforcement matters will proceed irrespective of the termination of ofac administered sanctions on burma, and ofac will continue to review app​arent violations of the bsr, whether they came to the agency’s attention before or after the burma sanctions program was terminated. under longstanding practice, apparent sanctions violations are analyzed in light of the laws and regulations that were in place at the time of the underlying activities, and civil and criminal enforcement authorities are applied accordingly. current or future investigations regarding apparent violations of the bsr will not be impacted by its termination and may result in ofac enforcement actions after the termination of the bsr. burma general license (gl) 4 authorizes, subject to certain conditions, all transactions and activities prohibited by executive order (e.o.) 14014, that are ordinarily incident and necessary to the wind down of transactions involving, directly or indirectly, myanmar economic corporation limited (mec) or myanma economic holdings public company limited (mehl), or any entity in which mec or mehl owns, directly or indirectly, a 50 percent or greater interest, through 12:01 a.m., eastern daylight time, june 22, 2021. persons unable to wind down transactions prohibited by e.o. 14014 in which such blocked persons have an interest before that time are encouraged to seek formal guidance from ofac. for the duration of gl 4, non u.s. persons may wind down transactions involving, directly or indirectly, mec or mehl, or any entity in which mec or mehl owns, directly or indirectly, a 50 percent or greater interest, without exposure to sanctions under e.o. 14014, provided that such wind down activity is consistent with gl 4. while gl 4 is in effect, wind down transactions may be processed through the u.s. financial system or involve u.s. persons, as long as the transactions comply with the terms and conditions in gl 4. no. the ofac director, in consultation with the department of state, has issued a determination pursuant to e.o. 14014 that authorizes the imposition of economic sanctions on any foreign person determined to operate in the jet fuel sector of the burmese economy. a sector determination pursuant to e.o. 14014 exposes persons that operate in an identified sector to sanctions risk; however, a sector determination does not automatically impose sanctions on all persons who operate in the sector. only foreign persons determined, pursuant to e.o. 14014, by the secretary of the treasury in consultation with the secretary of state, to operate in the jet fuel sector of the burmese economy are subject to sanctions. persons determined to operate in the jet fuel sector of the burmese economy will be added to the specially designated nationals and blocked persons list (sdn list). for the purposes of the determination of august 23, 2023 made pursuant to e.o. 14014, ofac interprets the term “jet fuel sector of the burmese economy” to include activities related to the importation, exportation, reexportation, sale, supply, or transport, directly or indirectly, of jet fuel in or involving burma. ofac does not intend to target persons for engaging in activities related to civil aviation, including the sale, provision, or purchase of jet fuel to or for commercial airlines for air transport to and from burma. rather, ofac intends to target activities for or related to military regime end users in burma, wherever situated (e.g., jet fuel used for military resupply aircraft, state owned aircraft used by members of the military regime, and combat vehicles, including jets and attack helicopters, used in both offensive and defensive military operations inside burma). anyone supplying jet fuel to individuals or entities in burma should exercise extreme caution to ensure jet fuel is provided only for use in civil aviation and not to military regime users. pursuant to the moge financial services directive, the following activities by a u.s. person are prohibited on or after december 15, 2023: the provision, exportation, or rexportation, directly or indirectly, of financial services to or for the benefit of myanma oil and gas enterprise (moge). further, except to the extent otherwise provided by law or unless authorized by ofac, the following are also prohibited pursuant to the moge financial services directive: (1) any transaction that evades or avoids, has the purpose of evading or avoiding, causes a violation of, or attempts to violate any of the prohibitions of the moge financial services directive; and (2) any conspiracy formed to violate any of the prohibitions of the moge financial services directive. ofac considers the term “financial services” for purposes of the moge financial services directive to include loans, transfers, accounts, insurance, investments, securities, guarantees, foreign exchange, letters of credit, and commodity futures or options. yes. the prohibitions in the moge financial services directive apply to moge “or its property or interests in property,” including any entity, such as a subsidiary or joint venture, that is 50 percent or more owned, directly or indirectly, by moge, except to the extent otherwise provided by law or unless authorized by ofac. travel related transactions are permitted by general or specific licenses for certain travel related to the 12 categories of activities identified in 31 cfr § 515.560(a). those travel related transactions permitted by general license, subject to specified criteria and conditions, include: family visits; official business of the u.s. government, foreign governments, and certain intergovernmental organizations; journalistic activity; professional research and professional meetings; educational activities; religious activities; athletic competitions by amateur or semi professional athletes or athletic teams; support for the cuban people; humanitarian projects; activities of private foundations or research or educational institutes; exportation, importation, or transmission of information or information materials; and certain authorized export transactions. each person relying on a certain general authorization must retain specific records related to the authorized travel transactions. see §§ 501.601 and 501.602 of the reporting, procedures and penalties regulations for applicable recordkeeping and reporting requirements. effective june 9, 2022, ofac amended § 515.564(a) to include a general license authorizing, subject to conditions, persons subject to u.s. jurisdiction to travel to cuba for purposes of attending or organizing professional meetings or conferences in cuba. ofac also amended § 515.565 to remove certain restrictions on authorized academic educational activities (§ 515.565(a)) and to authorize group people to people educational travel conducted under the auspices of an organization that is subject to u.s. jurisdiction and that sponsors such exchanges to promote people to people contact, provided such travelers are accompanied by an employee, paid consultant, or agent of the sponsoring organization (§ 515.565(b)). travel related transactions authorized pursuant to § 515.565(b) must be for the purpose of engaging, while in cuba, in a full time schedule of activities that are intended to enhance contact with the cuban people, support civil society in cuba, or promote the cuban people’s independence from cuban authorities; and will result in meaningful interactions with individuals in cuba. this amendment does not authorize individual people to people travel. travel for tourist activities is not permitted. the cacr continue to include the prohibition added on november 9, 2017 that restricts certain direct financial transactions with entities and subentities identified on the state department’s cuba restricted list. for a description of the scope of the prohibition on direct financial transactions and the restrictions and exceptions that apply, see § 515.209. also, the cacr continue to include a prohibition added on september 24, 2020 at § 515.210, which prohibits any person subject to u.s. jurisdiction from lodging, paying for lodging, or making any reservation for or on behalf of a third party to lodge, at any property that the secretary of state has identified as a property in cuba that is owned or controlled by: the cuban government; a prohibited official of the government of cuba, as defined in § 515.337; a prohibited member of the cuban communist party, as defined in § 515.338; a close relative, as defined in § 515.339, of a prohibited official of the government of cuba, or a close relative of a prohibited member of the cuban communist party, when the terms of the general or specific license expressly exclude such a transaction. the state department maintains the cuba prohibited accommodations list, which identifies the names, addresses, or other identifying details, as relevant, of properties identified as meeting such criteria. updated: june 08, 2022 consistent with the administration’s interest in avoiding negative impacts on americans for arranging lawful travel to cuba, any travel related arrangements that include direct financial transactions with entities and subentities that appear on the state department’s cuba restricted list will continue to be permitted, provided that those travel arrangements were initiated prior to the state department’s addition of the entity or subentity to the list. once the state department adds an entity or subentity to the cuba restricted list, new direct financial transactions with the entity or subentity are prohibited, unless authorized by ofac or exempt. for a complete description of the scope of the prohibition on direct financial transactions and the restrictions and exceptions that apply, see 31 cfr § 515.209. no. no further permission from ofac is required to engage in transactions by a person who meets all criteria in a general license. individuals wishing to engage in activities that may fall within the scope of a general license should review the relevant general licenses contained in the cacr to determine whether their travel related transactions are covered by such general licenses. persons subject to u.s. jurisdiction who wish to engage in any travel within the 12 categories of activities specified in the cacr that does not meet the requirements of a general license will need to apply for a specific license from ofac. no. consistent with the trade sanctions reform and export enhancement act of 2000 (tsra), travel related transactions involving cuba are only permitted for the 12 categories of activities identified in the cacr. travel related transactions for other purposes remain prohibited. ofac regulations generally authorize persons subject to u.s. jurisdiction and those sharing a dwelling with them as a family to visit a close relative in cuba, including a close relative who is a cuban national or a person ordinarily resident in cuba, or to visit or accompany a close relative who is located in or traveling to cuba pursuant to the authorizations in § 515.562 (official government business), § 515.563 (journalistic activity), § 515.564(a) (professional research), § 515.565(a)(1)(i) through (iv) and (vi) (educational activities), § 515.566 (religious activities), § 515.575 (humanitarian projects), or § 515.576 (activities of private foundations or research or educational institutes). a close relative is defined as any individual related to a person “by blood, marriage, or adoption who is no more than three generations removed from that person or from a common ancestor with that person.” for a complete description of what this general license authorizes and the restrictions that apply, see 31 cfr § 515.339 and § 515.561. in accordance with nspm 5, ofac amended the general license in § 515.561 to exclude direct financial transactions with entities and subentities identified on the state department’s cuba restricted list from the authorizations. for a description of the scope of the prohibition on direct financial transactions and the restrictions and exceptions that apply, see 31 cfr § 515.209 section 515.563 of the cacr contains a general license that authorizes, subject to conditions, travel related transactions and other transactions that are directly incident to journalistic activities in cuba. among other things, this general license authorizes, subject to conditions, full time journalists, supporting broadcast or technical personnel, and freelance journalists to travel to cuba. the traveler’s schedule of activities must not include free time or recreation in excess of that consistent with a full time schedule. an entire group does not qualify for the general license merely because some members of the group qualify individually. also, and effective september 24, 2020, ofac amended this general license to exclude from the authorization lodging, paying for lodging, or making any reservation for or on behalf of a third party to lodge, at any property in cuba on the cuba prohibited accommodations list to the extent prohibited by § 515.210. for a complete description of the scope of this prohibition, see 31 cfr § 515.210. for a complete description of what this general license authorizes and the restrictions that apply, see 31 cfr § 515.563. 31 cfr § 515.564 (a)(1) contains a general license that authorizes, subject to conditions, travel related transactions and other transactions that are directly incident to professional research in cuba. among other things, this general license authorizes, subject to conditions, professional research in cuba relating to a traveler’s profession, professional background, or area of expertise. effective june 9, 2022, ofac amended § 515.564(a) to include a general license authorizing, subject to conditions, travel related and other transactions incident to attendance at or organization of professional meetings or conferences in cuba. this general license authorizes persons subject to u.s. jurisdiction to travel to cuba for purposes of attending or organizing professional meetings or conferences, such as meetings or conferences to support expanded internet access and remittance processing companies and to provide additional support and training to independent cuban entrepreneurs. please note that these general licenses exclude from the authorization lodging, paying for lodging, or making any reservation for or on behalf of a third party to lodge, at any property in cuba on the cuba prohibited accommodations list to the extent prohibited by § 515.210. for a complete description of the scope of this prohibition, see § 515.210. the traveler’s schedule of activities must not include free time or recreation in excess of that consistent with a full time schedule of professional research or a full time schedule of attendance at, or organization of, professional meetings or conferences, respectively. an entire group does not qualify for the general license merely because some members of the group qualify individually. for a complete description of what these general licenses authorize and the restrictions that apply, see § 515.564. updated: june 08, 2022 persons subject to u.s. jurisdiction, including u.s. academic institutions and their faculty, staff, and students, are authorized to engage in the travel related transactions set forth in 31 cfr § 515.560(c) and such additional transactions as are directly incident to the 12 categories of educational activities, as described in § 515.565(a). among other things, this general license authorizes, subject to conditions, faculty, staff, and students at u.s. academic institutions and secondary schools to engage in certain educational activities, including study abroad programs, in cuba, cuban scholars to engage in certain educational activities in the united states, and certain activities to facilitate licensed educational programs. u.s. and cuban universities may engage in academic exchanges and joint non commercial academic research under the general license. this provision also authorizes persons subject to u.s. jurisdiction to provide standardized testing services and certain internet based courses to cuban nationals. for a complete description of what this general license authorizes and the restrictions that apply, see § 515.565. in addition, a general license at § 515.565(b) authorizes, subject to conditions, group people to people educational travel conducted under the auspices of an organization that is subject to u.s. jurisdiction and that sponsors such exchanges to promote people to people contact, provided such travelers are accompanied by an employee, paid consultant, or agent of the sponsoring organization. see faq 704. please note that this general license excludes direct financial transactions with entities and subentities identified on the state department’s cuba restricted list. for a description of the scope of the prohibition on direct financial transactions and the restrictions and exceptions that apply, see § 515.209. this general license also excludes from the authorization lodging, paying for lodging, or making any reservation for or on behalf of a third party to lodge, at any property in cuba on the cuba prohibited accommodations list to the extent prohibited by § 515.210. updated: june 08, 2022 yes. educational exchanges, including study abroad programs, sponsored by cuban or u.s. secondary schools involving secondary school students’ participation in a formal course of study or in a structured educational program offered by a secondary school or other academic institution, and led by a teacher or other secondary school official are authorized. such exchanges must take place under the auspices of an organization that is a person subject to u.s. jurisdiction, and a person subject to u.s. jurisdiction who is an employee, paid consultant, agent, or other representative of the sponsoring organization (including the leading teacher or secondary school official) must accompany each group traveling to cuba. also, and effective september 24, 2020, ofac amended this general license to exclude from the authorization lodging, paying for lodging, or making any reservation for or on behalf of a third party to lodge, at any property in cuba on the cuba prohibited accommodations list to the extent prohibited by § 515.210. for a complete description of the scope of this prohibition, see 31 cfr § 515.210. persons subject to u.s. jurisdiction may not travel to cuba to engage in “people to people” educational exchanges on an individual basis. however, group people to people travel is generally authorized for educational activities, subject to certain conditions. effective june 9, 2022, ofac amended 31 cfr § 515.565(b) to authorize group people to people educational travel conducted under the auspices of an organization that is subject to u.s. jurisdiction and that sponsors such exchanges to promote people to people contact, provided such travelers are accompanied by an employee, paid consultant, or agent of the sponsoring organization. travel related transactions authorized pursuant to § 515.565(b) must be for the purpose of engaging, while in cuba, in a full time schedule of activities that are intended to enhance contact with the cuban people, support civil society in cuba, or promote the cuban people’s independence from cuban authorities; and will result in meaningful interactions with individuals in cuba. for a complete description of what this general license authorizes and the restrictions that apply, see § 515.565. the export or reexport to cuba of items subject to the export administration regulations (15 cfr parts 730 through 774), including vessels and aircraft used to provide carrier services, may require separate authorization from the department of commerce, bureau of industry and security (bis). see § 515.533. for additional information regarding bis’s export controls, see bis’s cuba webpage. updated: june 08, 2022 section 515.566 of the cacr contains a general license that authorizes, subject to conditions, travel related transactions and other transactions that are directly incident to religious activities in cuba. all persons subject to u.s. jurisdiction, including religious organizations located in the united states and members and staff of such organizations, are generally authorized to engage in travel related transactions that are directly incident to engaging in religious activities in cuba provided, among other things, that the travel must be for the purpose of engaging in a program of religious activities. in accordance with nspm 5, ofac amended this general license to exclude from the authorization direct financial transactions with entities and subentities identified on the state department’s cuba restricted list. also, and effective september 24, 2020, ofac amended this general license to exclude from the authorization lodging, paying for lodging, or making any reservation for or on behalf of a third party to lodge, at any property in cuba on the cuba prohibited accommodations list to the extent prohibited by § 515.210. for a complete description of the scope of this prohibition, see 31 cfr § 515.210. the traveler’s schedule of activities must not include free time or recreation in excess of that consistent with a full time schedule in cuba. for a complete description of what this general license authorizes and the restrictions that apply, see 31 cfr § 515.566. section 515.567(a) of the cacr contains a general license that authorizes, subject to conditions, travel related transactions and other transactions that are directly incident to organization of and participation in amateur and semi professional international sports federation competitions. transactions incident to the organization of such competitions include marketing related to those specific events in cuba. effective september 24, 2020, ofac amended section 515.567 to remove a general authorization related to public performances, clinics, workshops, other athletic or non athletic competitions, and exhibitions previously found at § 515.567(b). ofac will consider issuing specific licenses, on a case by case basis, for travel related transactions and other transactions that are directly incident to participation in or organization of a public performance, clinic, workshop, athletic competition not covered by the general license in § 515.567(a), non athletic competition, or exhibition in cuba, subject to certain conditions. as a result of these amendments, effective september 24, 2020, the only remaining general license in section 515.567 for participation in and organization of athletic competitions in cuba will be the general license in § 515.567(a) for athletic competitions by amateur or semi professional athletes or athletic teams. in accordance with nspm 5, ofac amended this general license to exclude from the authorization direct financial transactions with entities and subentities identified on the cuba restricted list. also effective september 24, 2020, ofac amended this general license to exclude from the authorization lodging, paying for lodging, or making any reservation for or on behalf of a third party to lodge, at any property in cuba on the cuba prohibited accommodations list to the extent prohibited by § 515.210. for a complete description of the scope of this prohibition, see 31 cfr § 515.210. for a complete description of what this general license authorizes and the restrictions that apply, see 31 cfr § 515.567. section 515.574 of the cacr contains a general license that authorizes, subject to conditions, travel related transactions and other transactions that are intended to provide support for the cuban people, which include activities of recognized human rights organizations; independent organizations designed to promote a rapid, peaceful transition to democracy; and individuals and non governmental organizations that promote independent activity intended to strengthen civil society in cuba. in accordance with nspm 5, ofac amended this general license on november 8, 2017 to require that each traveler utilizing this authorization engage in a full time schedule of activities that enhance contact with the cuban people, support civil society in cuba, or promote the cuban people’s independence from cuban authorities and that result in meaningful interactions with individuals in cuba. ofac also amended this general license to exclude from the authorization certain direct financial transactions with entities and subentities identified on the state department’s cuba restricted list. also, and effective september 24, 2020, ofac amended this general license to exclude from the authorization lodging, paying for lodging, or making any reservation for or on behalf of a third party to lodge, at any property in cuba on the cuba prohibited accommodations list to the extent prohibited by § 515.210. for a complete description of the scope of this prohibition, see 31 cfr § 515.210. the traveler’s schedule of activities must not include free time or recreation in excess of that consistent with a full time schedule in cuba. an entire group does not qualify for this general license merely because some members of the group qualify individually. for a complete description of what this general license authorizes and the restrictions that apply, see 31 cfr § 515.574. section 515.575 of the cacr contains a general license that authorizes, subject to conditions, transactions, including travel related transactions, that are related to humanitarian projects in or related to cuba. these authorized humanitarian projects are: medical and health related projects; construction projects intended to benefit legitimately independent civil society groups; disaster preparedness, relief, and response; historical preservation; environmental projects; projects involving formal or non formal educational training, within cuba or off island, on the following topics: entrepreneurship and business, civil education, journalism, advocacy and organizing, adult literacy, or vocational skills; community based grassroots projects; projects suitable to the development of small scale private enterprise; projects that are related to agricultural and rural development that promote independent activity; microfinancing projects, except for loans, extensions of credit, or other financing prohibited by 31 cfr § 515.208; and projects to meet basic human needs. also, and effective september 24, 2020, ofac amended this general license to exclude from the authorization lodging, paying for lodging, or making any reservation for or on behalf of a third party to lodge, at any property in cuba on the cuba prohibited accommodations list to the extent prohibited by § 515.210. for a complete description of the scope of this prohibition, see 31 cfr § 515.210. for persons traveling pursuant to this authorization, the traveler’s schedule of activities must not include free time or recreation in excess of that consistent with a full time schedule in cuba. an entire group does not qualify for this general license merely because some members of the group qualify individually. for a complete description of what this general license authorizes and the restrictions that apply, see 31 cfr § 515.575 section 515.576 of the cacr contains a general license that authorizes, subject to conditions, travel related transactions and other transactions that are directly incident to activities by private foundations or research or educational institutes with an established interest in international relations to collect information related to cuba for noncommercial purposes, among other things. in accordance with nspm 5, ofac amended this general license to exclude from the authorization direct financial transactions with entities and subentities identified on the state department’s cuba restricted list. also, and effective september 24, 2020, ofac amended this general license to exclude from the authorization lodging, paying for lodging, or making any reservation for or on behalf of a third party to lodge, at any property in cuba on the cuba prohibited accommodations list to the extent prohibited by § 515.210. for a complete description of the scope of this prohibition, see 31 cfr § 515.210. the traveler’s schedule of activities must not include free time or recreation in excess of that consistent with a full time schedule in cuba. for a complete description of what this general license authorizes and the restrictions that apply, see 31 cfr § 515.576. additionally, 31 cfr § 515.573(d) authorizes private foundations or research or educational institutes engaging in transactions authorized by § 515.576 to establish a physical presence in cuba, such as an office. for a complete description of what this general license authorizes and the restrictions that apply, see 31 cfr § 515.573(a). the general license at 31 cfr § 515.545(b)(1) authorizes, subject to conditions, travel related transactions and other transactions that are directly incident to the exportation, importation, or transmission of information or informational materials. in accordance with nspm 5, ofac amended this general license to exclude from the authorization direct financial transactions with entities and subentities identified on the state department’s cuba restricted list. also, and effective september 24, 2020, ofac amended this general license to exclude from the authorization lodging, paying for lodging, or making any reservation for or on behalf of a third party to lodge, at any property in cuba on the cuba prohibited accommodations list to the extent prohibited by § 515.210. for a complete description of the scope of this prohibition, see 31 cfr § 515.210. the traveler’s schedule of activities must not include free time or recreation in excess of that consistent with a full  time schedule in cuba. for a complete description of what this general license authorizes and the restrictions that apply, see 31 cfr § 515.545(b)(1). the general license at 31 cfr §515.545(b)(2) authorizes, subject to conditions, travel related transactions and other transactions that are directly incident to professional media or artistic productions of information or informational materials for exportation, importation, or transmission, including the filming or production of media programs (such as movies and television programs), the recording of music, and the creation of artworks in cuba, provided that the traveler is regularly employed in or has demonstrated professional experience in a field relevant to such professional media or artistic productions. in accordance with nspm 5, ofac amended this general license to exclude from the authorization direct financial transactions with entities and subentities identified on the state department’s cuba restricted list. also, and effective september 24, 2020, ofac amended this general license to exclude from the authorization lodging, paying for lodging, or making any reservation for or on behalf of a third party to lodge, at any property in cuba on the cuba prohibited accommodations list to the extent prohibited by § 515.210. for a complete description of the scope of this prohibition, see 31 cfr § 515.210. the traveler’s schedule of activities must not include free time or recreation in excess of that consistent with a full time schedule. for a complete description of what this general license authorizes and the restrictions that apply, see 31 cfr § 515.545(b)(2). the definition of “information and informational materials” may be found at 31 cfr § 515.332. authorized travelers to cuba pursuant to most general license categories are expected to maintain a full time schedule of activities consistent with the terms of the general license(s) pursuant to which they are traveling. for example: yes, provided that you are authorized to travel to cuba pursuant to an ofac general or specific license. airlines and travelers are responsible for maintaining records of their cuba related transactions for at least five years. yes. the export or reexport to cuba of items subject to the ear, including commercial vessels used to provide carrier services and private vessels, requires separate authorization from the department of commerce. see 31 cfr § 515.533. for a complete description of bis’s regulatory requirements, see bis’s cuba webpage. while 31 cfr § 515.572 generally authorizes the provision of carrier services, ofac amended its regulations effective june 5, 2019 to highlight the separate bis requirements. for a complete description of what the ofac general license authorizes and the restrictions that apply, see 31 cfr § 515.572. the export or reexport to cuba of items subject to the ear, including commercial vessels used to provide carrier services and private vessels, requires separate authorization from the department of commerce. see 31 cfr § 515.533. for a complete description of bis’s regulatory requirements, see bis’s cuba webpage. while 31 cfr § 515.572 generally authorizes the provision of carrier services, and 31 cfr § 515.572(a)(4) generally authorizes the provision of lodging services by persons subject to u.s. jurisdiction who are authorized to provide carrier services, ofac amended its regulations effective june 5, 2019 to highlight the bis requirements. for a complete description of what the ofac general license authorizes and the restrictions that apply, see 31 cfr § 515.572. travel onboard a vessel in cuba is permitted for authorized travel. there is no specific dollar limit on authorized expenses; however, in accordance with national security presidential memorandum 5 on strengthening the policy of the united states toward cuba, ofac amended the cuban assets control regulations to restrict persons subject to u.s. jurisdiction from engaging in direct financial transactions with entities or subentities identified on the state department’s cuba restricted list, with certain exceptions. see 31 cfr §§ 515.209 and 515.421. consistent with these authorizations and restrictions, authorized travelers may engage in transactions ordinarily incident to travel within cuba, including payment of living expenses and the acquisition in cuba of goods for personal consumption there. ofac amended 31 cfr § 515.421 to exclude from the authorization lodging, paying for lodging, or making any reservation for or on behalf of a third party to lodge, at any property in cuba on the state department’s cuba prohibited accommodations list to the extent prohibited by 31 cfr § 515.210. for a complete description of the scope of this prohibition, see 31 cfr § 515.210. in addition, travelers are authorized to acquire in cuba and import as accompanied baggage into the united states merchandise for personal use only; effective september 24, 2020, this authorization excludes imports into the united states of cuban origin alcohol or tobacco products. ofac considers “personal use” of an imported item to include giving the item to another individual as a personal gift, but not the transfer of the item to another person for payment or other consideration. value imports remain subject to the normal limits on duty and tax exemptions for merchandise imported as accompanied baggage and for personal use. a non u.s. person (i.e., not a u.s. citizen or resident) arriving in the united states is authorized to import cuban origin merchandise as accompanied baggage provided the merchandise is not in commercial quantities, is not imported for resale, and does not include cuban origin alcohol or tobacco products. see 31 cfr § 515.569. persons authorized to travel to cuba may purchase alcohol and tobacco products while in cuba for personal consumption in cuba. please note that effective september 24, 2020, authorized travelers may no longer return to the united states with alcohol and/or tobacco products acquired in cuba as accompanied baggage for personal use. persons subject to u.s. jurisdiction may purchase or acquire cuban origin merchandise, including alcohol and tobacco products, while in a third country for personal consumption outside the united states. please note that effective september 24, 2020, authorized travelers may no longer import such products into the united states. for a complete description of what this general license authorizes and the restrictions that apply, see 31 cfr § 515.585(c) and (d). yes, a person subject to u.s. jurisdiction engaging in authorized travel related transactions may travel to cuba from a third country or to a third country from cuba. persons subject to u.s. jurisdiction traveling to and from cuba via a third country may only do so if their travel related transactions are authorized by a general or specific license issued by ofac, and such travelers are subject to the same restrictions and requirements as persons traveling directly from the united states. the general license authorizing travel related transactions incident to the exportation or reexportation of authorized goods includes travel related and such other transactions directly incident to the facilitation of the temporary sojourn of aircraft authorized by the department of commerce for travel between the united states and cuba and that are transporting other authorized travelers. this authorization includes travel related transactions by persons subject to u.s. jurisdiction who are required for normal operation and service on board an aircraft or who are required to provide services to an aircraft on the ground. travel related transactions by such persons must be limited to the duration and scope of their duties in relation to the particular authorized temporary sojourn. for a complete description of what the ofac general license authorizes and the restrictions that apply, see 31 cfr § 515.533(c)(2). for a complete description of bis’s regulatory requirements, see bis’s cuba webpage. no. a general license authorizes persons subject to u.s. jurisdiction to provide carrier services by vessel or aircraft to, from, or within cuba, in connection with authorized travel, without the need for a specific license from ofac. for a complete description of what the ofac general license authorizes and the restrictions that apply, see 31 cfr § 515.572(a)(2). however, while no additional license is required from ofac, the export or reexport of certain vessels or aircraft providing carrier services under § 515.572(a)(2) requires separate authorization from bis. for a complete description of bis’s regulatory requirements, see bis’s cuba webpage. in addition, persons providing carrier services may still need to secure regulatory approvals from other concerned u.s. government agencies, including the department of transportation’s office of the secretary and the federal aviation administration, and the department of homeland security. no. a general license authorizes persons subject to u.s. jurisdiction, including travel agents and tour group operators, to provide travel services in connection with authorized travel without the need for specific licenses from ofac. for a complete description of what this general license authorizes and the restrictions that apply, see 31 cfr § 515.572(a)(1). in accordance with nspm 5, ofac amended this general license to exclude from the authorization certain direct financial transactions with entities and subentities identified on the state department’s cuba restricted list. also, effective september 24, 2020, ofac amended this general license to exclude from the authorization lodging, paying for lodging, or making any reservation for or on behalf of a third party to lodge, at any property in cuba on the cuba prohibited accommodations list to the extent prohibited by § 515.210. for a complete description of the scope of this prohibition, see 31 cfr § 515.210. the provision of services related to travel for tourist activities or other unauthorized travel to cuba remains prohibited. persons subject to u.s. jurisdiction are authorized to provide carrier services either directly or indirectly between the united states and cuba for authorized travelers, provided that they hold any additional authorizations required by other u.s. government agencies. for a complete description of what the ofac general license authorizes and the restrictions that apply, see 31 cfr § 515.572(a)(2). the export or reexport of vessels or aircraft providing carrier services under 31 cfr § 515.572(a)(2) requires separate authorization from bis. for a complete description of bis’s regulatory requirements, see bis’s cuba webpage. yes. ofac allows persons subject to u.s. jurisdiction providing authorized carrier or travel services to a customer traveling under a specific license to maintain either the specific license number or a copy of the license on file. see 31 cfr § 515.572(b)(1) persons subject to u.s. jurisdiction providing authorized carrier or travel services that choose to collect the specific license number in lieu of the license must maintain a record of that number, as well as the other required information set forth in § 515.572(b), for at least five years. persons subject to u.s. jurisdiction providing authorized carrier or travel services must retain for at least five years from the date of the transaction a certification from each customer indicating the provision of the cacr that authorizes the person to travel to cuba. in the case of a customer traveling under a specific license, a copy of the license or the license number must be maintained on file. the names and addresses of individual travelers must also be maintained on file for at least five years. see 31 cfr § 515.572(b). this information, including certifications and copies of licenses or license numbers, may be collected and maintained in any form, including electronically. the entry into blocked space, code sharing, or leasing agreements to facilitate the provision of carrier services by air is authorized. for a complete description of what the ofac general license authorizes and the restrictions that apply, see 31 cfr § 515.572(a)(2)(ii). transactions, including the remittance of payments, ordinarily incident to such arrangements are also authorized (see 31 cfr § 515.421).further, ofac amended this general license to exclude from the authorization lodging, paying for lodging, or making any reservation for or on behalf of a third party to lodge, at any property in cuba on the state department’s cuba prohibited accommodations list to the extent prohibited by 31 cfr § 515.210. for a complete description of the scope of this prohibition, see 31 cfr § 515.210. certain transactions ordinarily incident to such arrangements are also authorized (see 31 cfr § 515.421 for additional information and restrictions). section 515.572 of the cacr authorizes persons subject to u.s. jurisdiction to provide carrier services to, from, or within cuba, in connection with travel and transportation of individuals between the united states and cuba, directly or indirectly, authorized pursuant to the cacr. bis regulates the temporary sojourn to cuba of both aircraft and vessels, which in some cases is authorized by license exception aircraft, vessels and spacecraft (avs) but may require separate authorization by bis. persons engaging in carrier services may require additional authorizations by other u.s. government agencies. persons subject to u.s. jurisdiction providing travel or carrier services are required to retain for at least five years from the date of the transaction a certification from each customer indicating the section of the cacr, or a copy of the specific license or the specific license number, that authorizes the person to travel to cuba. certifications may be collected and maintained in any form, including electronically, and must be retained for at least five years from the date of the transaction. section 515.533 of the cacr authorizes all transactions ordinarily incident to the export to cuba of items licensed or otherwise authorized by bis. accordingly, a person providing carrier services for authorized travelers going from the united states to cuba may transport cargo and baggage accompanying an authorized traveler provided that the export of the cargo and baggage is authorized by bis. additionally, a person providing carrier services for authorized travelers going from the united states to cuba may transport other cargo or unaccompanied baggage whose export to cuba is authorized by bis. the exportation of information and informational materials, as defined in section 515.332 of the cacr, to cuba from the united states is exempt from the prohibitions of the cacr. under the cacr, an authorized traveler departing cuba for the united states may carry as accompanied baggage: additionally, persons authorized to provide carrier services may transport from cuba to the united states cargo, other than accompanied baggage, the importation of which has been authorized by general or specific license from ofac, subject to obtaining any additional authorization(s) that may be required by any other relevant u.s. government agency. the importation of cuban origin information and informational materials, as defined in section 515.332 of the cacr, is exempt from the prohibitions of the cacr. imports authorized by ofac would still be subject to other u.s. laws, such as import duties. ofac currently authorizes a number of categories of remittances from persons subject to u.s. jurisdiction to persons in cuba pursuant to 31 cfr § 515.570. section 515.570 excludes from the scope of the authorization any transaction relating to the collection, forwarding, or receipt of remittances involving any entity or subentity identified on the state department’s cuba restricted list. authorized remittance categories include: family remittances: persons subject to the jurisdiction of the united states who are 18 years of age or older are authorized to make remittances to nationals of cuba who are close relatives, as defined in § 515.339, of the remitter, provided that the recipient is not a prohibited official of the government of cuba, a prohibited member of the cuban communist party, or a close relative of a prohibited official of the government of cuba or prohibited member of the cuban communist party, and provided that the remittances are not made for emigration purposes. see §§ 515.337, 515.338, and 515.339 for relevant definitions. donative remittances: effective june 9, 2022, ofac amended § 515.570(b) to authorize donative remittances to cuban nationals who are not prohibited officials of the government of cuba, prohibited members of the cuban communist party, or close relatives of a prohibited official of the government of cuba or prohibited member of the cuban communist party. remittances to certain individuals and independent non governmental organizations in cuba: persons subject to the jurisdiction of the united states are authorized to make remittances to certain individuals and independent non governmental organizations in cuba, including remittances that encourage the development of private businesses and operation of economic activity in the non state sector by independent private sector entrepreneurs. please see faq 1179 for more information on the definition of an independent private sector entrepreneur. this general license also authorizes persons subject to u.s. jurisdiction to make remittances to pro democracy groups and civil society groups in cuba, and to members of such groups or organizations, to support: humanitarian projects in or related to cuba that are designed to directly benefit the cuban people and to support the cuban people through activities of recognized human rights organizations, independent organizations designed to promote a rapid, peaceful transition to democracy, and activities of individuals and non governmental organizations that promote independent activity intended to strengthen civil society. see § 515.570(g) for additional applicable conditions. remittances to religious organizations in cuba: persons subject to the jurisdiction of the united states are authorized to make remittances to religious organizations in cuba in support of religious activities, provided that the remittances are not made from a blocked source and that the remitter, if an individual, is 18 years of age or older. see § 515.570(c). remittances to students in cuba pursuant to an educational license: persons subject to the jurisdiction of the united states who are 18 years of age or older are authorized to make remittances to close relatives, as defined in § 515.339, who are students in cuba pursuant to the general license authorizing certain educational activities in § 515.565(a) or a specific license issued pursuant to § 515.565(f), provided that the remittances are not made from a blocked source and are for the purpose of funding transactions authorized by the general licenses in § 515.565(a) or the specific license issued pursuant to § 515.565(f) under which the student is traveling. see § 515.570(d). two one time $1,000 emigration related remittances: persons subject to the jurisdiction of the united states are authorized to remit the following amounts, subject to certain conditions: (1) up to $1,000 per payee on a one time basis to cuban nationals for the purpose of covering the payees' preliminary expenses associated with emigrating from cuba to the united states; and (2) up to an additional $1,000 per payee on a one time basis to cuban nationals for the purpose of enabling the payees to emigrate from cuba to the united states, including for the purchase of airline tickets and payment of exit or third country visa fees or other travel related fees. see § 515.570(e). unblocking and return of blocked remittances: effective june 9, 2022, ofac added a general license in § 515.570(h) authorizing the unblocking and return of blocked remittances, provided they would be authorized under revised § 515.570(a) or (b). see § 515.570 for a complete description of what the ofac general licenses related to remittances authorize and the restrictions that apply, as well as statements of specific licensing policy. for remittances from cuban nationals to persons subject to u.s. jurisdiction, see § 515.587. updated: may 28, 2024 yes. pursuant to a general license at 31 cfr § 515.572(a)(3), banking institutions, as defined in 31 cfr § 515.314, u.s. registered brokers or dealers in securities, and u.s. registered money transmitters are permitted to process authorized remittances to or from cuba without having to obtain a specific license, subject to the recordkeeping and reporting requirements set forth in 31 c.f.r § 515.572(b). please note, effective november 26, 2020, ofac amended 31 cfr § 515.572(a)(3) to exclude from the scope of the authorization any transaction relating to the collection, forwarding, or receipt of remittances involving any entity or subentity identified on the state department’s cuba restricted list. for a complete description of what the ofac general license authorizes and the restrictions that apply, see 31 cfr § 515.572(a)(3). in accordance with national security presidential memorandum 5 on strengthening the policy of the united states toward cuba (nspm 5) , the state department publishes a list of entities and subentities that are under the control of, or act for or on behalf of, the cuban military, intelligence, or security services or personnel, and with which direct financial transactions would disproportionately benefit the cuban military, intelligence, or security services or personnel at the expense of the cuban people or private enterprise in cuba. this list is called the cuba restricted list, and is available on the state department’s website at https://www.state.gov/cuba sanctions/cuba restricted list/. in accordance with nspm 5, ofac maintains a prohibition to restrict direct financial transactions with entities and subentities on the cuba restricted list. for a complete description of the scope of the prohibition on direct financial transactions and the restrictions and exceptions that apply, see 31 cfr § 515.209. this prohibition applies to the following general licenses: §§ 515.530, 515.534, 515.545, 515.560, 515.561,515.564, 515.565, 515.566, 515.567, 515.572, 515.573, 515.574, 515.576, 515.577, 515.578, 515.581,515.584, and 515.590. for a complete description of what each general license authorizes and the restrictions that apply, see the aforementioned general licenses. in addition, on october 27, 2020, ofac also amended the cuban assets control regulations (cacr) to exclude from the scope of certain remittance related general licenses any transactions relating to the collection, forwarding, or receipt of remittances involving any entity or subentity identified on the state department’s cuba restricted list (crl), effective november 26, 2020. this restriction is distinct from the prohibition in § 515.209, which, for example, contains certain exceptions for pre existing commercial engagements with crl entities or subentities. see note 2 to § 515.209, reinforcing this distinction. specifically, ofac’s october 27, 2020 rule removes from the scope of certain general licenses any transaction relating to the collection, forwarding, or receipt of remittances involving any entity or subentity on the crl, regardless of the existence of any pre existing commercial engagements. persons subject to u.s. jurisdiction may use the 30 days before the rule becomes effective to wind down those engagements and make alternative arrangements. section 515.421 of the cacr contains an interpretive provision for incidental transactions where ofac has clarified that authorized transactions ordinarily incident to licensed transactions and necessary to give effect thereto exclude direct financial transactions with such entities or subentities if the terms of the applicable general or specific license expressly exclude such direct financial transactions. ofac also amended 31 cfr § 515.421 to make clear that a transaction relating to the collection, forwarding, or receipt of remittances involving any entity or subentity identified on the crl is not authorized as an ordinarily incident transaction where the terms of the general or specific license expressly exclude any such transactions. for a complete description of the scope of the interpretive provision and the restrictions and exceptions that apply, see 31 cfr § 515.421. a person subject to u.s. jurisdiction traveling to cuba to engage in an authorized family visit pursuant to 31 cfr § 515.561 is prohibited from engaging in direct financial transactions with the entities and subentities on the state department’s cuba restricted list. as such, this traveler would not be authorized to book a hotel room directly with a hotel included on the cuba restricted list. an individual working for a church subject to u.s. jurisdiction interested in establishing a physical presence in cuba pursuant to 31 cfr § 515.573(d)(3) is prohibited from engaging in direct financial transactions with the entities and subentities on the state department’s cuba restricted list. as such, this traveler would not be able to sign a new contract directly with a real estate company on the cuba restricted list to rent a location for the church’s physical presence. yes, under certain circumstances. persons subject to u.s. jurisdiction may engage in transactions in u.s. dollars in cuba or with cuban nationals with respect to activity that is authorized pursuant to the cuban assets control regulations (cacr). for example, payments for telecommunications services in cuba provided pursuant to 31 cfr § 515.542 may be provided in u.s. dollars. further, the use of u.s. dollars for transactions that are exempt from the prohibitions of, or authorized by, the cacr is also allowed. for example, payments related to the importation or exportation of informational materials as defined in 31 cfr § 515.332, such as books or musical recordings, may be made in u.s. dollars. additionally, the may 29, 2024 amendment to section 515.584(d) of the cacr authorizes banking institutions subject to u.s. jurisdiction to process transactions originating and terminating outside the united states, provided that neither the originator nor the beneficiary is a person subject to u.s. jurisdiction (“u turn general license”). as a result, transactions related to third country commerce involving cuba or cuban nationals may be processed in u.s. dollars through the u.s. financial system via banking institutions located in the united states that serve as intermediary banks, provided that neither the originator nor the beneficiary is a person subject to u.s. jurisdiction. for more information on the “u turn” general license, please see faq 757. ofac expects u.s. banks, including their foreign branches and subsidiaries, to conduct due diligence on their own direct customers (including, for example, ownership structure (for entities), proof of citizenship (for individuals), and address information to confirm that the transactions being processed are consistent with the u turn general license. all banks, including those acting solely as intermediaries, should screen against the ofac sdn list and their own internal filters. in cases where the remitter or beneficiary of the transaction is not a direct customer, the u.s. banking institution that is acting as an intermediary may rely on the remitter’s or beneficiary’s address as stated in the transaction to determine whether the remitter or beneficiary is a person subject to u.s. jurisdiction, unless the u.s. banking institution knows or has reason to know that the remitter or beneficiary of a transaction is a person subject to u.s. jurisdiction. ofac will consider the totality of the circumstances surrounding the bank’s processing of transactions where a bank is acting solely as an intermediary and fails to block a prohibited transaction engaged in by a person subject to u.s. jurisdiction, including the factors listed above, to determine what, if any, enforcement action to take against the bank. note, however, that transactions meeting the requirements of 31 cfr § 515.584(d) may be processed notwithstanding the involvement of a specially designated national of cuba, as defined in 31 cfr § 515.306, in the transaction. the examples below illustrate some of the transactions and parties that may use the u turn general license. date updated: august 27, 2024 yes. persons subject to u.s. jurisdiction who are traveling to cuba pursuant to one of the 12 authorized categories of travel may open and maintain bank accounts in order to access funds while located in cuba for authorized transactions, and are authorized to close such accounts. for a complete description of what this general license authorizes and the restrictions that apply, see 31 cfr § 515.560(c)(6). in accordance with nspm 5, ofac amended this general license to exclude from the authorization certain direct financial transactions with entities and sub entities identified on the state department’s cuba restricted list. for a description of the scope of the prohibition on direct financial transactions and the restrictions and exceptions that apply, see 31 cfr § 515.209. yes. authorized travelers in cuba are permitted to use credit or debit cards issued by a u.s. financial institution with respect to activity that is authorized pursuant to the cacr. travelers are advised to check with their financial institution before traveling to cuba to determine whether the institution has established the necessary mechanisms for its issued credit or debit cards to be used in cuba. see 31 cfr § 515.560(c)(5) and 515.584(c). ofac regulations do not require financial institutions or credit card companies to accept, maintain, or facilitate authorized financial relationships or transactions. yes, credit card network operators that are persons subject to u.s. jurisdiction may process such transactions and related settlements for third country financial institutions. section 515.584(c) of the cacr authorizes all transactions incident to the processing and payment of credit and debit cards transactions for third country nationals traveling to, from, or within cuba. yes. section 515.584(c) of the cacr authorizes all transactions incident to the processing and payment of credit and debit cards transactions for third country nationals traveling to, from, or within cuba. any person subject to u.s. jurisdiction, including u.s. financial institutions and their foreign branches, may conduct transactions authorized by this section. depository institutions, as defined in 31 cfr § 515.333, which include certain financial institutions other than banks, are permitted to open correspondent accounts at banks in cuba. see 31 cfr § 515.584(a). no. u.s. depository institutions are permitted to open correspondent accounts at cuban banks located in cuba and in third countries, and at foreign banks located in cuba, but cuban banks are not generally licensed to open such accounts at u.s. banks. see note to 31 cfr § 515.584(a). yes. correspondent accounts of depository institutions (as defined in 31 cfr § 515.333) at a financial institution that is a national of cuba authorized pursuant to § 515.584(a) may be established and maintained in u.s. dollars. such accounts may be used only for transactions that are authorized by or exempt from the cacr. transactions necessary to establish and maintain such correspondent accounts    such as originating, processing, and terminating authorized funds transfers in u.s. dollars    are authorized. additionally, correspondent accounts used for transactions authorized by 31 cfr § 515.584(g), which permits banking institutions as defined in 31 cfr § 515.314(g) that are persons subject to u.s. jurisdiction to accept, process, and give credit to u.s. dollar monetary instruments presented indirectly by a financial institution that is a national of cuba, may be denominated in u.s. dollars. however, financial institutions that are nationals of cuba remain prohibited from opening correspondent accounts at a u.s. financial institution. for a complete description of what these general licenses authorize and the restrictions that apply, see 31 cfr § 515.584(a) and (g). yes. pursuant to section 515.571(a)(5) of the cacr, banking institutions are permitted to maintain accounts for certain cuban nationals present in the united states in a non immigrant status or pursuant to other non immigrant travel authorization. although the account may remain open while the cuban national is not in the united states, access to such accounts must be limited to periods during which the cuban national is lawfully present in the united states. for a complete description of what the ofac general license authorizes and the restrictions that apply, see 31 cfr § 515.571(a)(5). for authorizations related to u.s. bank accounts for independent private sector entrepreneurs present in cuba, see faq 748. updated: may 28, 2024 cuban nationals lawfully present in the united states in a non immigrant status or pursuant to another non immigrant travel authorization issued by the u.s. government may receive any salary or other compensation consistent with the individual’s non immigrant status or applicable non immigrant travel authorization provided that the recipient is not subject to any special tax assessment by the cuban government in connection with the receipt of such salary or other compensation. for a complete description of what the ofac general license authorizes and the restrictions that apply, see 31 cfr § 515.571. section 515.585 of the cacr contains a general license that authorizes all persons subject to u.s. jurisdiction to provide goods and services to cuban national individuals located in a third country, provided that the transaction does not involve commercial exportation to or from cuba. additionally, the general license authorizes banking institutions to open, maintain, and close bank accounts for such cuban nationals, provided that such accounts are used only while the cuban national is located outside of cuba and may not be used for transactions that involve a commercial exportation of goods or services to or from cuba. for a complete description of what the ofac general license authorizes and the restrictions that apply, see 31 cfr § 515.585. yes. section 515.584(h)(1) of the cacr contains a general license that allows banking institutions to open and maintain bank accounts in the united states solely in the name of a cuban national located in cuba, to receive payments in the united states for transactions authorized pursuant to, or exempt from the prohibitions of, the cacr and to remit such payments back to cuba, including through an online payment platform. for example, an author who is a cuban national located in cuba may open an account with a bank in the united states to receive payments for sales of their book. additionally, pursuant to 31 cfr § 515.584(h)(2), a u.s. banking institution may open and maintain an account solely in the name of a cuban national who is an independent private sector entrepreneur (as defined in 31 cfr § 515.340) for the purpose of conducting authorized or exempt transactions (e.g., receipt of payment for the importation to the united states of certain goods and services produced by independent cuban entrepreneurs pursuant to 31 cfr § 515.582 or payment related to authorized exports to cuba under 31 cfr § 515.533), including through an online payment platform. pursuant to this authorization, independent private sector entrepreneurs   whether located in the united states, cuba, or another country   can open and remotely access their account at a u.s. banking institution and conduct remote transfers, including to cuba, as long as the underlying transaction is authorized or exempt. for a complete description of what this general license authorizes and the restrictions that apply, see 31 cfr § 515.584(h)(2). updated: may 28, 2024 certain cuban nationals who have taken up residence in the united states on a permanent basis and who meet the requirements set forth in 31 cfr § 515.505(a) are licensed as unblocked nationals, and may participate fully in the u.s. financial system. see 31 cfr §§ 515.505(a)(1) and (d). pursuant to 31 cfr § 515.571, cuban nationals who are present in the united states in a non immigrant status or pursuant to other non immigrant travel authorization issued by the u.s. government, such as a non immigrant visa, may open and maintain bank accounts in the united states, provided that the cuban national account holder may only access the account while lawfully present in the united states. section 515.571 also authorizes such cuban nationals to engage in normal banking transactions involving foreign currency drafts, travelers’ checks, or other instruments negotiated incident to travel in the united states. no. if a cuban national has taken up residence in the united states and has applied to become a lawful permanent resident alien of the united states and has an adjustment of status application pending, then the cuban national is considered unblocked and does not need to apply to ofac to be treated as an unblocked national, provided that he or she is not a prohibited official of the government of cuba or a prohibited member of the cuban communist party. see 31 cfr § 515.505(a)(1). the cacr include a general license authorizing banking institutions to unblock any account that had been previously blocked solely because of the interest therein of one or more persons now licensed as unblocked nationals. for a complete description of what this general license authorizes and the restrictions that apply, see 31 cfr § 515.505(b). the cacr also include a general license at 31 cfr § 515.584(e) that authorizes the unblocking and return of funds transfers that could have been processed pursuant to 31 cfr §§ 515.562(b) or 515.579(b), if the processing of those transfers would have been authorized by the current text of the general licenses. funds unblocked pursuant to 31 cfr § 515.584(e) that were originally blocked on or after august 25, 1997 must be reported to ofac. for a complete description of what this general license authorizes and the restrictions that apply, see 31 cfr § 515.584. if your situation appears to meet the requirements of these general licenses, ofac suggests that you contact the financial institution maintaining the blocked account or blocked funds transfer to request that it review your situation within the context of the terms of the appropriate general license. if the terms of a general license apply, there is no need to seek specific license authorization from ofac. it is ofac’s policy not to grant specific licenses authorizing transactions for which the provisions of an outstanding general license are applicable. see 31 cfr § 501.801(a). if a transaction was previously blocked pursuant to the cacr at the time of the transaction, and the cacr was later amended to allow similar transactions, the earlier transaction is not unblocked unless the cacr amendments include a general license that unblocks previously blocked funds. transactions must be authorized pursuant to the cacr at the time that they are processed. to the extent that the unblocking of a funds transfer or blocked account is not authorized by a general license, a specific license would be required to release funds transfers or unblock accounts previously blocked. no. a financial institution may rely on u.s. travelers to provide their certifications of authorized travel directly to the person providing travel or carrier services when processing cuba travel related transactions, unless the financial institution knows or has reason to know that the travel is not authorized by a general or specific license. the cacr requires persons subject to u.s. jurisdiction providing travel or carrier services to retain for at least five years from the date of the transaction a certification from each customer indicating the section of the cacr that authorizes the person to travel to cuba. see 31 cfr §515.572(b). u.s. travelers utilizing a general or specific license are also required to retain for five years records associated with their travel to cuba. no. to the extent the transaction involves an entity or subentity on the cuba restricted list, a financial institution can rely on the statements of its customer that the transaction is authorized unless it knows or has reason to know the transaction is not authorized. a financial institution is expected to do its normal due diligence with respect to a transaction involving cuba or a cuban national. no. a financial institution receiving u.s. dollar monetary instruments for processing and payment directly or indirectly (in the case of a u.s. banking institution) may rely on the institution having presented such monetary instruments as confirmation that the underlying transactions are authorized, exempt, or otherwise not prohibited, unless the financial institution knows or has reason to know that the transaction is not authorized, exempt, or otherwise not prohibited. for a complete description of what this general license authorizes and the restrictions that apply, see 31 cfr § 515.584(g). yes. subject to certain exceptions, transactions that are ordinarily incident to an authorized transaction are permitted. see the examples in 31 cfr § 515.421. such transactions may include use of online payment platforms to facilitate authorized transactions. authorized transactions ordinarily incident to licensed transactions exclude direct financial transactions with cuba restricted list entities, as well as, effective september 24, 2020, lodging, paying for lodging, or making any reservation for or on behalf of a third party to lodge, at any property in cuba on the cuba prohibited accommodations list to the extent prohibited by § 515.210, if the terms of the applicable general or specific license expressly exclude such transactions. see 31 cfr § 515.421(5) (6). also, effective november 26, 2020, ofac amended 31 cfr § 515.421 to make clear that a transaction relating to the collection, forwarding, or receipt of remittances involving any entity or subentity identified on the cuba restricted list is not authorized as an ordinarily incident transaction where the terms of the general or specific license expressly exclude any such transactions. for a complete description of the scope of transactions ordinarily incident to a licensed transaction and the restrictions and exceptions that apply, see 31 cfr § 515.421. yes. effective may 29, 2024, banking institutions subject to u.s. jurisdiction are authorized to process “u turn” transactions, i.e., funds transfers originating and terminating outside the united states, provided that neither the originator nor the beneficiary is a person subject to u.s. jurisdiction. for a complete description of what this general license authorizes and the restrictions that apply, see 31 cfr § 515.584(d). for additional information, see faq 736. date updated: august 27, 2024 persons subject to u.s. jurisdiction are prohibited from doing business or investing in cuba unless authorized by ofac. an ofac general license authorizes, subject to certain conditions and limitations, the exportation from the united states, and the reexportation from third countries, of items to cuba where the exportation or reexportation is licensed or otherwise authorized by bis. see 31 cfr § 515.533(a). bis currently authorizes certain categories of items to be exported or reexported to cuba. in addition, ofac currently generally licenses the establishment of a business presence or physical presence in cuba for certain types of entities or persons. see 31 cfr § 515.573. in accordance with nspm 5, ofac amended the general licenses for the establishment of a business presence or physical presence in cuba to exclude from the authorizations certain direct financial transactions with entities and subentities identified on the state department’s cuba restricted list. for a description of the scope of the prohibition on direct financial transactions and the restrictions and exceptions that apply, see 31 cfr § 515.209. consistent with the administration’s interest in not negatively impacting u.s. businesses for engaging in lawful commercial opportunities, most existing cuba related commercial engagements that include direct financial transactions with entities and subentities identified on the state department’s cuba restricted list continue to be permitted, pursuant to 31 cfr § 515.209 (c), provided that those commercial engagements were in place prior to november 9, 2017 (or the date the entity or subentity was otherwise added to the cuba restricted list, as published in the federal register). for example, businesses will be permitted to continue with authorized transactions outlined in contingent or other types of contractual arrangements agreed to prior to the issuance of the 2017 regulations, consistent with other ofac authorizations. however, effective november 26, 2020, persons subject to u.s. jurisdiction will no longer be authorized to engage in any transactions relating to the collection, forwarding, or receipt of remittances involving any entity or subentity identified on the state department’s cuba restricted list, regardless of whether any commercial engagements with the entity or subentity were in place prior to november 9, 2017 (or the date the entity or subentity was otherwise added to the cuba restricted list, as published in the federal register). for a complete description of the scope of the prohibition on direct financial transactions and the restrictions and exceptions that apply to transactions relating to the collection, forwarding, or receipt of remittances, see 31 cfr §§ 515.209, 515.421, 515.570. 515.572(a)(3) and 515.587. the names of the entities and subentities that the state department identifies as meeting the criteria set forth in nspm 5 are published on the cuba restricted list, which is available on the state department’s website and in the federal register (updates to the cuba restricted list will also be published in the federal register). entities or subentities that are owned or controlled by another entity or subentity on the cuba restricted list are not treated as restricted unless also specified by name on the cuba restricted list. the cuba restricted list is maintained by the state department on its website: https://www.state.gov/cuba sanctions/cuba restricted list/. trade delegations are authorized to travel to cuba only if each member of the delegation meets the criteria of an applicable general license authorizing travel to cuba or has obtained a specific license from ofac. authorized trade delegations generally fall under one of two general licenses for travel authorization: either (1) 31 cfr § 515.533(c)(1), which authorizes travel related and other transactions incident to the exportation of certain authorized goods from the u.s. to cuba, specifically the conduct of “market research, commercial marketing, sales or contract negotiation, accompanied delivery, installation, leasing, servicing, or repair in cuba of items consistent with the export or reexport licensing policy of the commerce department,” or (2) 31 cfr § 515.564(a), which authorizes transactions related to professional research in cuba. further, please note that, effective september 24, 2020, ofac has amended both general licenses to exclude from the authorizations lodging, paying for lodging, or making any reservation for or on behalf of a third party to lodge, at any property in cuba on the cuba prohibited accommodations list to the extent prohibited by § 515.210. for a complete description of the scope of this prohibition, see 31 cfr § 515.210. for a complete description of what these general licenses authorize and the restrictions that apply, see 31 cfr §§ 515.533(c)(1) and 515.564(a). persons subject to u.s. jurisdiction that are exporting or reexporting items to cuba pursuant to an authorization from the department of commerce or ofac or that are otherwise exempt may assemble such items in cuba provided that the assembly does not involve the incorporation of cuban origin goods into items assembled or the processing of any raw materials into finished goods in cuba. for a complete description of what this general license authorizes and the restrictions that apply, see the note to 31 cfr § 515.573(c)(3). yes, provided such items were exported or reexported to cuba pursuant to 31 cfr § 515.533(a) or 31 cfr § 515.559. for a complete description of what this general licenses authorizes and the restrictions that apply, see 31 cfr § 515.533(b). the exportation or reexportation of repaired or replacement items to cuba must be separately authorized pursuant to 31 cfr § 515.533(a) or § 515.559, in addition to any department of commerce authorization that may be required. no. consistent with section 1706 of the cuban democracy act of 1992, (cda), the general license provided at 31 cfr § 515.533(a) does not authorize any transaction between a u.s. owned or  controlled firm in a third country and cuba for the exportation to cuba of commodities produced in a country other than the united states or cuba. such transactions must be specifically licensed pursuant to 31 cfr § 515.559 in addition to any required authorization from the department of commerce. there are also restrictions imposed by the cda on the types of transactions that may be licensed pursuant to that section. persons subject to u.s. jurisdiction may establish and maintain a physical presence, such as an office, warehouse, or retail outlet, in cuba to engage in transactions authorized by or exempt from the cacr in the following categories: entities engaging in non commercial activities authorized by section 515.574 (support for the cuban people); entities engaging in humanitarian projects set forth in section 515.575(b) (humanitarian projects); private foundations or research or educational institutes engaging in transactions authorized by § 515.576; news bureaus; exporters of certain goods authorized for export or reexport pursuant to 31 cfr §§ 515.533 and 515.559; entities providing mail or parcel transmission services; providers of telecommunications or internet based services; entities organizing or conducting certain educational activities; religious organizations; and providers of carrier and certain travel services. these persons may employ cuban nationals in cuba as well as persons subject to u.s. jurisdiction in cuba (and such persons may maintain a domicile in cuba). these persons may open and maintain bank accounts to facilitate authorized transactions. in accordance with nspm 5, ofac amended this general license to exclude from the authorization certain direct financial transactions with entities and subentities identified on the state department’s cuba restricted list. for a complete description of what this general license authorizes and the restrictions that apply, see 31 cfr § 515.573. persons subject to u.s. jurisdiction that do not meet the terms of the general license may apply to ofac for a specific license. such applications will be reviewed on a case by case basis. additional authorizations from the cuban government may also be required. section 515.533(a) of the cacr does not restrict payment and financing terms for exports of items from the united states or reexports of 100 percent u.s origin items from a third country, other than agricultural commodities. examples of permissible payment and financing terms for authorized exports and reexports that are not agricultural commodities include: payment of cash in advance; sales on an open account; and financing by u.s. or third country financial institutions. ofac has issued a general license authorizing banking institutions to provide financing for such authorized exports or reexports of items other than agricultural commodities, including issuing, advising, negotiating, paying, or confirming letters of credit (including letters of credit issued by a financial institution that is a national of cuba), accepting collateral for issuing or confirming letters of credit, and processing documentary collections. for a complete description of what this general license authorizes and the restrictions that apply, see 31 cfr § 515.584(f). in accordance with nspm 5, ofac amended this general license to exclude from the authorization certain direct financial transactions with entities and subentities identified on the state department’s cuba restricted list. for a description of the scope of the prohibition on direct financial transactions and the restrictions and exceptions that apply, see 31 cfr § 515.209. for such exports and reexports, only the following payment and financing terms may be used: payment of cash in advance, or financing by a banking institution located in a third country, subject to certain restrictions. this limitation is required by the trade sanctions reform and export enhancement act of 2000, 22 u.s.c. § 7207(b)(1). see 31 cfr § 515.533(a)(4). this provision only applies to exports and reexports of “agricultural commodities,” as defined in 15 cfr part 772, and not to exports or reexports of “agricultural items” authorized pursuant to 15 cfr § 746.2(b)(2)(iv). the regulatory interpretation of “cash in advance,” which describes one of the permissible payment and financing terms for authorized exports and reexports of agricultural commodities, is “cash before transfer of title and control.” for the full text, see 31 cfr § 515.533. persons subject to u.s. jurisdiction authorized to travel to cuba and persons subject to u.s. jurisdiction located in third countries may import into the united states as accompanied baggage merchandise acquired in cuba provided that the merchandise is for personal use only. please note that, as of september 24, 2020, this authorization no longer applies to the import into the united states of cuban origin alcohol or tobacco products. see 31 cfr § 515.560 and 31 cfr § 515.585. foreign persons traveling to the united states from a third country may import into the united states as accompanied baggage cuban origin merchandise provided that the merchandise is not in commercial quantities, is not imported for resale, and does not include alcohol or tobacco products. see 31 cfr § 515.569. in addition, cuban nationals who are present in the united states in a non immigrant status or pursuant to other non immigrant travel authorization issued by the u.s. government are not authorized to bring cuban origin alcohol or tobacco products for personal use as accompanied baggage. see 31 cfr § 515.571. normal limits on duty and tax exemptions for merchandise imported as accompanied baggage will apply. persons subject to u.s. jurisdiction are also authorized to import certain goods produced by independent private sector entrepreneurs, as defined in 31 cfr § 515.340, as set forth in the state department’s section 515.582 list. see faq 1178 for additional information on the importation of goods and services produced by independent private sector entrepreneurs. if these goods are for personal use, certain personal exemptions from u.s. customs and border protection may apply. persons subject to u.s. jurisdiction are also authorized to import cuban origin software and cuban origin mobile applications. see 31 cfr § 515.578. the importation into the united states of merchandise from cuba or cuban origin merchandise from a third country intended as gifts is authorized, provided that the value of the merchandise is not more than $100, the merchandise is of a type and in quantities normally given as gifts between individuals, the merchandise is sent and not carried by a traveler, and the merchandise is not alcohol or tobacco products. for a complete description of what this general license authorizes and the restrictions that apply, see 31 cfr § 515.544. the $100 limit on imports of gifts, as set forth in 31 cfr § 515.560, 31 cfr § 515.544, does not apply to imports of accompanied baggage or goods produced by independent private sector entrepreneurs as authorized under 31 cfr § 515.582. the importation into the united states from cuba of information and informational materials is exempt from the prohibitions of the cacr. the definition of “information and informational materials” may be found at 31 cfr § 515.332. updated: may 28, 2024 pursuant to 31 cfr § 515.582, certain goods and services produced by independent private sector entrepreneurs, as defined in 31 cfr § 515.340, and as set forth in a list maintained by the state department on its website, are authorized for importation. persons subject to u.s. jurisdiction may engage in associated transactions necessary to import these authorized goods and services. the state department section 515.582 list provides details of the goods and services authorized for importation into the united states from cuba pursuant to this provision. this list references sections and chapters of the harmonized tariff schedule (hts) of the united states to indicate categories of goods that are not eligible for importation into the united states pursuant to 31 cfr § 515.582, even if such goods were produced by independent private sector entrepreneurs; any other goods produced by independent private sector entrepreneurs and not covered by the listed sections and chapters of the hts may be imported, as provided in the state department’s section 515.582 list and subject to compliance with all other relevant requirements under state and federal law and regulations. imports authorized by 31 cfr § 515.582 are not subject to the limitations set forth in 31 cfr § 515.560(c) or 31 cfr § 515.544, including the $100 limitation on imported merchandise from cuba or cuban origin merchandise from a third country intended as gifts. for additional information, please see faq 1178. updated: may 28, 2024 yes. ofac considers the provision of training to persons in cuba, including to cuban nationals, on the use of items authorized for export or reexport to cuba by the department of commerce to be ordinarily incident to the export or reexport of the item and therefore authorized by 31 cfr § 515.533(a). persons subject to u.s. jurisdiction are authorized, subject to certain conditions, to travel to cuba to provide such training. for a complete description of what this general license authorizes and the restrictions that apply, see 31 cfr § 515.533(c)(1). please note that ofac amended 31 cfr § 515.533 to exclude from the authorization lodging, paying for lodging, or making any reservation for or on behalf of a third party to lodge, at any property in cuba on the cuba prohibited accommodations list to the extent prohibited by § 515.210. for a complete description of the scope of this prohibition, see 31 cfr § 515.210. the exportation or reexportation to cuba of technology subject to the ear may require separate authorization from the department of commerce. yes. see 31 cfr § 515.560. yes. see 31 cfr § 515.560. yes, provided that the insurance policy is a global policy, and not specific to the third country national’s travel to or within cuba. section 515.580 of the cacr authorizes persons subject to u.s. jurisdiction to issue or provide global health, life, or travel insurance policies for individuals ordinarily resident in a country outside of cuba who travel to or within cuba, regardless of whether the insurance policy is issued only to that individual or to a group, such as to all employees of a particular company. for instance, a u.s. insurer may pay medical claims pursuant to a group health insurance policy to or on behalf of a covered third country national injured while traveling in cuba. however, this provision does not authorize a person subject to u.s. jurisdiction to issue an insurance policy that is specific to travel to cuba. a separate provision of the cacr, § 515.560, authorizes the provision of health, life, and travel insurance related services that are specific to cuba for authorized u.s. travelers. also, effective september 24, 2020, ofac amended § 515.560 to exclude from the authorization at § 515.560(c)(2) lodging, paying for lodging, or making any reservation for or on behalf of a third party to lodge, at any property in cuba on the cuba prohibited accommodations list to the extent prohibited by § 515.210. for a complete description of the scope of this prohibition, see 31 cfr § 515.210. other than certain global health, life, or travel insurance policies for individuals authorized by 31 cfr § 515.580, absent specific authorization from ofac, u.s. insurers and their subsidiaries are not permitted to issue policies, provide reinsurance coverage, or pay insurance or reinsurance claims related to non u.s. persons, including entities such as foreign airlines, providing goods or services that facilitate travel by third country nationals from a third country to cuba. section 515.580 of the cacr authorizes global health, life, or travel insurance policies covering individuals ordinarily resident in a country outside of cuba traveling to cuba. the policy may be issued to a group, such as all employees of a company. the “global” requirement means it cannot be specific to travel to cuba. for example, it does not authorize an individual travel policy issued to a traveler specifically to cover a trip to cuba. it also does not authorize issuing a policy to a non u.s. travel agent specifically to cover its traveler clients where the travel agency is solely in the business of planning trips to cuba. where the provision of insurance related services is directly incident to activity authorized by general or specific license, then the provision of such services is authorized as well. for example, § 515.566 of the cacr authorizes travel and travel related transactions directly incident to engaging in religious activities in cuba. the provision of health insurance , life insurance , and travel insurance related services to authorized travelers traveling to cuba pursuant to § 515.566 would be authorized. for additional information, see note 2 to 31 cfr § 515.560. as an additional example, the provision of insurance to a person subject to u.s. jurisdiction that is incident to convening authorized athletic competitions, as defined in 31 cfr § 515.567(a), would also be authorized. additionally, § 515.533 of the cacr authorizes transactions ordinarily incident to the exportation or reexportation to cuba of certain goods licensed or otherwise authorized by the department of commerce. transactions directly incident to the exportation or reexportation of such goods, such as the provision of cargo insurance for the transportation of the goods, are authorized by § 515.533. for additional information, see note 1 to paragraph (a) of 31 cfr § 515.533. persons subject to u.s. jurisdiction, however, are prohibited from engaging in reinsurance arrangements where the underlying activity is not authorized by the cacr. for example, a person subject to u.s. jurisdiction would be prohibited from participating in a reinsurance arrangement that involved coverage for a foreign company that provides investment opportunities in cuban state  owned businesses. where the provision of insurance related services is authorized by general license, either expressly or as a transaction ordinarily incident to a licensed transaction, this authorization extends to the payment or settlement of claims, including to a cuban national. the 180 day rule is a statutory restriction prohibiting any vessel that enters a port or place in cuba to engage in the trade of goods or the purchase or provision of services there from entering any u.s. port for the purpose of loading or unloading freight for 180 days after leaving cuba, unless authorized by ofac. this restriction is applied even if a vessel has stopped in cuba solely to purchase services unrelated to the trade of goods, such as planned ship maintenance. the 180 day rule is separate from a second statutory restriction   the goods/passengers on board rule   which prohibits any vessel carrying goods or passengers to or from cuba or carrying goods in which cuba or a cuban national has an interest from entering a u.s. port with such goods or passengers on board, unless authorized or exempt. there are certain exceptions to these rules. for a complete description of the 180 day rule, the goods/passengers on board rule, and the general licenses and exemptions that apply, see 31 cfr §§ 515.206, 515.207, and 515.550. yes. ofac has authorized by general license certain exceptions to these rules. if a vessel engages only in one or more of the following activities with cuba, it will qualify for the general license and therefore will not be subject to the 180 day rule or the goods/passengers on board rule: additionally, if a vessel’s only transactions with cuba are the exportation to cuba from a third country of items that, were they subject to the ear, would be designated as ear99 or controlled on the commerce control list only for anti terrorism reasons, the vessel will not be subject to the 180  day rule. these exceptions to the 180 day rule do not apply to a vessel that: for a complete description of the 180 day rule, the goods/passengers on board rule, and the general licenses and exemptions that apply, see 31 cfr §§ 515.206, 515.207, and 515.550. no. the general licenses involving the 180 day rule only authorize certain vessels to enter a u.s. port within 180 days after leaving a port or place in cuba; they do not authorize any shipments to or from cuba. shipments to or from cuba may be separately authorized under other provisions of the cacr or, as in the case of most shipments from third countries to cuba, may simply not be subject to the restrictions of the cacr, though other u.s. government agency restrictions may apply. for a complete description of the 180 day rule and the general licenses and exemptions that apply, see 31 cfr §§ 515.206, 515.207(a), and 515.550. yes, provided that no other factors trigger the 180 day rule or the goods/passengers on board rule. for example, no goods may be unloaded in cuba other than goods that would be designated as ear99 or controlled on the commerce control list only for anti terrorism reasons if they had been exported from the united states; and no merchandise may be loaded in cuba that is not licensed or exempt. goods entering the united states that remained on board the ship while it docked in a cuban port are not considered goods carried to or from cuba or goods in which cuba or a cuban national has an interest for purposes of the goods/passengers on board rule. furthermore, such goods are not considered goods that have been located in or transported through cuba for the purposes of 31 cfr § 515.204, which prohibits the importation of certain merchandise into the united states. for a complete description of the 180 day rule, the goods/passengers on board rule, the importation prohibition, and the general licenses and exemptions that apply, see 31 cfr §§ 515.204, 515.206, 515.207, and 515.550. the exceptions to the 180 day rule apply to each individual vessel that meets the requirements of the general license irrespective of any code sharing arrangement. thus, any shipping company may deploy a vessel in a broader shipping arrangement and, so long as the vessel meets the terms of the general license, that vessel may enter a u.s. port accordingly. there is no requirement for authorization of the individual companies or the broader code sharing arrangement. code sharing agreements do not affect the general license or its requirements. persons subject to u.s. jurisdiction are authorized to engage in transactions that establish mechanisms to provide commercial telecommunications services in cuba or linking third countries and cuba. persons subject to u.s. jurisdiction are also authorized to engage in telecommunications related transactions, including payment related to the provision of telecommunications involving cuba or provided to cuban individuals. pursuant to 31 cfr § 515.542, u.s. persons may, for example, purchase calling cards for people to use in cuba or pay the bills of such people directly to a telecommunications operator located in cuba, such as etecsa. these steps to facilitate improved access to telecommunications services for cubans and increased international connections are intended to increase the ability of the cuban people to communicate freely and to better provide for efficient and adequate telecommunications services between the united states and cuba. the cacr define telecommunications services to include data, telephone, telegraph, internet connectivity, radio, television, news wire feeds, and similar services, regardless of medium of transmission, including transmission by satellite. for a complete description of what this general license authorizes and the restrictions that apply, see 31 cfr § 515.542. the general license at 31 cfr § 515.578 authorizes the provision of certain services incident to the exchange of communications over the internet, services to support the exchange of communications over the internet, and services related to certain authorized exports or reexports. transactions incident to providing internet based communications services, such as instant messaging, chat and email, social networking, sharing of photos and movies, web browsing, blogging, web hosting provided that it is not for the promotion of tourism, domain name registration, social media platforms, collaboration platforms, video conferencing, e gaming and e learning platforms, automated translation, web maps, and user authentications services, as well as services to support the exchange of communications over the internet, such as software design, business consulting, information technology management services, and cloud based services (including remote data storage, data transport service, content distribution networks, virtual machines, software as a service, and infrastructure as a service), are authorized in most circumstances, see faqs 1174 and 1176. note that 31 cfr § 515.578(a)(ii) authorizes the provision of cloud based services only if such services support the exchange of communications over the internet (e.g., the sharing of photos using the cloud). similarly, section 515.578(a)(i) of the cacr only authorizes the provision of internet based services when incident to the exchange of communications over the internet. services related to many kinds of software (including applications) used on personal computers, cell phones, and other personal communications devices are also authorized, along with other services related to the use of such devices. additionally, services, including training, installation, repair, or replacement of items related to communications, or items used to develop software that improves the free flow of information or will support private sector activities in cuba that are licensed or otherwise authorized by the department of commerce for exportation or reexportation to cuba, are also authorized by ofac. finally, the importation into the united states, as well as the exportation or reexportation from the united states to third countries, of cuban origin software and cuban origin mobile applications is also authorized. for a complete description of what this general license authorizes and the restrictions that apply, see 31 cfr § 515.578. see faq 1175 for additional information on authorized application programming interfaces. updated: may 28, 2024 yes. for example, a u.s. company could enter into a peering arrangement with etecsa, the cuban telecommunications provider, for the provision of internet services. see § 515.542(b). yes. section 515.578 authorizes the exportation or reexportation to cuba of services incident to the exchange of communications over the internet. to the extent data caching services are incident to such exchanges of communications, the provision of such services is authorized. section 515.578 also authorizes the exportation of services, including business consulting and information technology management services that are related to certain consumer communications devices. for instance, the provision by an internet or telecommunications provider of caching services related to items exported to cuba pursuant to commerce license exception consumer communications devices (ccd) or an individual license issued by commerce is authorized. for a complete description of what this general license authorizes and the restrictions that apply, see 31 cfr § 515.578. section 515.573 of the cacr contains a general license that authorizes certain persons subject to u.s. jurisdiction, including telecommunications and internet based service providers, to establish a physical and business presence in cuba to provide authorized telecommunications and internet based services. a business presence may include subsidiaries, branches, offices, joint ventures, franchises, and agency or other business relationships with any cuban individual or entity (including etecsa) and a physical presence may include leasing physical premises, including an office, warehouse, classroom, or retail outlet. for a complete description of what this general license authorizes and the restrictions that apply, see 31 cfr § 515.573. persons subject to u.s. jurisdiction that are providers of telecommunications or internet based services who establish a business or physical presence in cuba pursuant to the authorization in 31 cfr § 515.573 are authorized to engage in marketing related to that business or physical presence. individuals or entities subject to u.s. jurisdiction engaging in authorized transactions, either pursuant to a general or specific license, may engage with cuban state owned entities as authorized by the ofac license. for example, a u.s. company engaging in authorized telecommunications related transactions pursuant to 31 cfr § 515.542, such as payment for activation, installation, usage, roaming, maintenance, or termination fees, may engage directly with the cuban state owned telecommunications company, etecsa, for these authorized purposes. yes, but any individual cuban national who can establish that he or she has taken up permanent residence outside of cuba and otherwise meets the requirements set forth in 31 cfr § 515.505 is generally licensed as an unblocked national. additionally all persons subject to u.s. jurisdiction are authorized to provide goods and services to cuban national individuals located outside of cuba, provided there is no commercial exportation of goods or services to or from cuba. individuals subject to u.s. jurisdiction who are located in a third country may also receive or obtain services from a cuban national that are ordinarily incident to travel and maintenance within that country. for a complete description of what this general license authorizes and the restrictions that apply, see 31 cfr § 515.585. u.s. owned or  controlled entities in third countries may provide goods and services to a cuban national located outside of cuba, provided that the transaction does not involve a commercial exportation, directly or indirectly, of goods or services to or from cuba. for a complete description of what this general license authorizes and the restrictions that apply, see 31 cfr § 515.585. other general licenses may authorize persons subject to u.s. jurisdiction, including u.s. owned or controlled entities in third countries, to engage in certain specified transactions with cuban nationals that involve the commercial exportation of services to cuba. for example, 31 cfr § 515.572(a)(5) authorizes persons subject to u.s. jurisdiction to provide certain civil aviation safety related services to cuba or to cuban nationals, wherever located. yes. persons subject to u.s. jurisdiction may provide financial services to a cuban national located outside of cuba who is an individual, provided that the transaction does not involve a commercial exportation, directly or indirectly, of goods or services to or from cuba. additionally, banking institutions are authorized to open and maintain accounts, including the deposit of funds in such accounts by wire transfer, for such cuban nationals provided that the accounts are used only while the cuban national is located outside of cuba and the account is not used for transactions involving a commercial exportation, directly or indirectly, of goods or services to or from cuba. for a complete description of what this general license authorizes and the restrictions that apply, see 31 cfr § 515.585. section 515.590 of the cacr authorizes the provision of certain grants, scholarships, or awards to cuban nationals or in which cuba or a cuban national has an interest. such grants, scholarships, or awards must relate to educational activities, certain humanitarian projects (as set forth in § 515.575 (b)), scientific research, or religious activities. in accordance with nspm 5, ofac amended this general license to exclude from the authorization direct financial transactions with entities and subentities identified on the state department’s cuba restricted list. for a complete description of what this general license authorizes and the restrictions that apply, see 31 cfr § 515.590. section 515.590 of the cacr authorizes the provision of grants, scholarships, or awards to a cuban national, including a cuban state owned entity provided that entity is not included on the state department’s cuba restricted list, and as long as any such grant, scholarship, or award is related to educational activities, humanitarian projects (as set forth in § 515.575(b)), scientific research, or religious activities. for a complete description of what this general license authorizes and the restrictions that apply, see 31 cfr § 515.590. section 515.523 of the cuban assets control regulations authorizes all transactions incident to the administration and distribution of the assets of a blocked estate of a decedent. all property distributed pursuant to 31 cfr § 515.523 is unblocked, provided that neither cuba nor a cuban national (other than the decedent or a person unblocked pursuant to 31 cfr § 515.505) has an interest in the property. for a complete description of what this general license authorizes and the restrictions that apply, please see 31 cfr § 515.523. furthermore, funds deposited in a blocked account in a banking institution in the united states held in the name of, or in which the beneficial interest is held by, a national of cuba as a result of a valid testamentary disposition, intestate succession, or payment from a life insurance policy or annuity contract triggered by the death of the policyholder or contract holder may be remitted to the national of cuba pursuant to 31 cfr § 515.570(f)(1). for a complete description of what this general license authorizes and the restrictions that apply, please see 31 cfr § 515.570(f). please note, effective november 26, 2020, 31 cfr § 515.570 no longer authorizes any transaction relating to the collection, forwarding, or receipt of remittances involving an entity or subentity identified on the state department’s cuba restricted list. among other things, the provision for microfinancing projects in section 515.575 of the cuban assets control regulations (cacr) authorizes the provision of certain financial services to unemployed, underemployed, and low income cubans who have little or no access to conventional banks or comparable resources, and which may include a limited return on investment. in addition, section 515.570(g)(1) of the cacr authorizes remittances to individuals and independent non governmental entities in cuba to support authorized microfinancing projects. these provisions would authorize, for example, relatively limited contributions of funds to support individual entrepreneurs in sectors that need access to working capital, investment loans, insurance, or training in order to start or expand their operations. please note, effective november 26, 2020, 31 cfr § 515.570 no longer authorizes any transaction relating to the collection, forwarding, or receipt of remittances involving any entity or subentity identified on the state department’s cuba restricted list. furthermore, 31 cfr § 515.575 and 31 cfr § 515.570(g)(1) do not authorize loans, extensions of credit or other financing related to transactions involving confiscated property the claim to which is owned by a u.s. national, which are prohibited by 31 cfr § 515.208. for additional guidance or fact specific questions, we encourage you to contact ofac. no. if persons meet the qualifications listed in the general license, then they do not need to wait for an official determination from ofac regarding their specific license application. persons who have determined they may proceed under a general license may wish to contact ofac licensing to withdraw existing applications. generally no, a person subject to u.s. jurisdiction is not authorized to purchase or lease real property in cuba. the cacr prohibit any person subject to u.s. jurisdiction from purchasing or leasing property in cuba unless authorized by ofac. section 515.573 of the cacr authorizes certain entities subject to u.s. jurisdiction to establish a physical and/or business presence in cuba to conduct authorized activities. the purchase or lease of real property in cuba by such entities incident to their establishment of such physical or business presence is authorized. additionally, employees of such entities authorized by § 515.573(a)(4) of the cacr to establish domicile in cuba may purchase or lease residential property for use while domiciled in cuba. for a complete description of what this general license authorizes and the restrictions that apply, see 31 cfr § 515.573. authorized travelers to cuba may lease property in cuba as accommodations for the duration of their stay in cuba. see 31 cfr § 515.560(c). this authorization is limited to the period of time when the traveler is in cuba for authorized travel and does not permit the traveler to retain the property upon departure from cuba. transactions related to the purchase or lease of real property in cuba remain subject to the prohibitions in 31 cfr § 515.208. section 515.547(b) of the cacr authorizes all transactions incident to obtaining approval from the u.s. food and drug administration (fda) of cuban origin pharmaceuticals. the general license includes discovery and development, pre clinical research, clinical research, regulatory review, regulatory approval and licensing, regulatory post market activities, and the importation into the united states of cuban origin pharmaceuticals. section 515.547(c) of the cacr authorizes the importation into the united states, and the marketing, sale, or other distribution in the united states, of fda approved cuban origin pharmaceuticals. for a complete description of what these general licenses authorize and the restrictions that apply, see 31 cfr § 515.547. those engaging in the aforementioned activities may still need to secure regulatory approvals from other concerned u.s. government agencies, particularly the fda. section 515.591 of the cacr authorizes persons subject to u.s. jurisdiction to provide cuba or cuban nationals (including the cuban government and state owned entities) with services related to developing, repairing, maintaining, and enhancing cuban infrastructure that directly benefit the cuban people, consistent with the export or reexport licensing policy of the department of commerce. “infrastructure” in this case means systems and assets used to provide the cuban people with goods and services produced by the public transportation, water management, waste management, non nuclear electricity generation, and electricity distribution sectors, as well as hospitals, public housing, and primary and secondary schools. for a complete description of what this general license authorizes and the restrictions that apply, see 31 cfr § 515.591. with respect to the receipt or transmission of mail and parcels between the united states and cuba, section 515.542(a) of the cacr authorizes persons subject to u.s. jurisdiction to engage in all transactions, including payments, incident to such activities, provided that the importation or exportation of such mail and parcels is exempt from or authorized by the cacr. for a complete description of what this general license authorizes and the restrictions that apply, see 31 cfr § 515.542(a). this general license does not authorize transactions incident to the receipt of transmission of mail and parcels between third countries and cuba, or involving cuban nationals in third countries. to the extent that such mail or parcels contain information or informational materials, as defined in 31 cfr § 515.332, transactions incident to their receipt or transmission are exempt pursuant to 31 cfr § 515.206 or authorized by 31 cfr § 515.545(a). additionally, the provision of mail or parcel delivery services to a cuban national who is an individual located in a third country is authorized by 31 cfr § 515.585(a), provided that the transaction does not involve a commercial export of goods or services to cuba. effective september 24, 2020, ofac issued an amendment to the cacr restricting imports of cuban origin alcohol and tobacco products, as well as specific categories of authorized travel to cuba related to professional meetings or conferences and certain public performances or other events, and also incorporating a new prohibition related to lodging in cuba. specifically, the september 24, 2020 amendment makes the following changes to the cacr: please note that the cuba embargo remains in place, and most transactions between cuba and the united states, or persons subject to u.s. jurisdiction, continue to be prohibited under the cacr, which are enforced by ofac. no person subject to u.s. jurisdiction may lodge, pay for lodging, or make any reservation for or on behalf of a third party to lodge, at any property that the secretary of state has identified as a property in cuba that is owned or controlled by: the cuban government; a prohibited official of the government of cuba, as defined in § 515.337; a prohibited member of the cuban communist party, as defined in § 515.338; a close relative, as defined in § 515.339, of a prohibited official of the government of cuba; or a close relative of a prohibited member of the cuban communist party when the terms of the general or specific license expressly exclude such a transaction. such properties are identified on the cuba prohibited accommodations list. see faq 839 for travel arrangements initiated prior to a property’s listing on the cuba prohibited accommodations list. for a complete description of the scope of this prohibition, see 31 cfr § 515.210. consistent with the administration’s interest in avoiding negative impacts on americans for arranging lawful travel to cuba, any existing travel related arrangements that include lodging at properties in cuba identified on the cuba prohibited accommodations list will continue to be permitted, provided that those travel related arrangements were initiated prior to the state department’s addition of the property to the list as published in the federal register. once the state department publishes notice in the federal register that it has added the property to the cuba prohibited accommodations list, new lodging related transactions with the property prohibited by § 515.210, such as a reservation on behalf of a third party to lodge at a property on the cuba prohibited accommodations list, are prohibited, unless authorized by ofac or exempt. for a complete description of the scope of this prohibition, see 31 cfr § 515.210. on october 27, 2020, ofac issued an amendment to the cacr, effective november 26, 2020, to remove from the scope of certain remittance related general authorizations any transactions involving entities or subentities identified on the state department’s cuba restricted list. specifically, the october 27, 2020 rule amends the following general licenses: (i) 31 cfr § 515.570, relating to remittances from persons subject to u.s. jurisdiction or from blocked accounts; (ii) 31 cfr § 515.572(a)(3), relating to the provision of remittance forwarding services; and (iii) 31 cfr § 515.587, relating to remittances from cuban nationals to persons subject to u.s. jurisdiction. for more information, see 31 cfr §§ 515.570, 515.572, and 515.587. further, the october 27, 2020 rule amends 31 cfr § 515.421 to clarify that a transaction relating to the collection, forwarding, or receipt of remittances involving an entity or subentity identified on the state department’s cuba restricted list is not authorized as an ordinarily incident transaction where the terms of the general or specific license expressly exclude any such transactions (see, e.g., 31 cfr § 515.570(j), 31 cfr § 515.572(a)(3), or 31 cfr § 515.587). for more information, see 31 cfr § 515.421. ofac also added a clarifying note in 31 cfr § 515.209, consistent with the amended text of 31 cfr § 515.421. as a result of these amendments, effective november 26, 2020, persons subject to u.s. jurisdiction will no longer be authorized to process remittances to or from cuba through fincimex or any other entity or subentity on the cuba restricted list. effective june 9, 2022, in consultation with the department of state, ofac amended the cacr to implement elements of policy changes announced by the administration on may 16, 2022 to increase support for the cuban people. professional meetings and conferences in cuba: effective june 9, 2022, ofac amended 31 cfr § 515.564(a) to include a general license authorizing, subject to conditions, travel related and other transactions incident to attending or organizing professional meetings or conferences in cuba, such as professional meetings or conferences to support expanded internet access and remittance processing and to provide additional support and training to independent cuban entrepreneurs. ofac also amended and added cross references to § 515.564(a) in notes to §§ 515.534, 515.542, 515.547, 515.572, 515.577, and 515.591. group people to people and other academic educational activities: effective june 9, 2022, ofac amended § 515.565(a) to remove certain restrictions on authorized academic educational activities. ofac also amended § 515.565(b) to authorize group people to people educational travel conducted under the auspices of an organization that is subject to u.s. jurisdiction and that sponsors such exchanges to promote people to people contact, provided such travelers are accompanied by an employee, paid consultant, or agent of the sponsoring organization. travel related transactions authorized pursuant to § 515.565(b) must be for the purpose of engaging, while in cuba, in a full time schedule of activities that are intended to enhance contact with the cuban people, support civil society in cuba, or promote the cuban people’s independence from cuban authorities; and will result in meaningful interactions with individuals in cuba. this amendment does not authorize individual people to people travel. travel for tourist activities is not permitted. remittances: effective june 9, 2022, ofac amended § 515.570(a) to remove the $1,000 quarterly limit on family remittances to cuban nationals who are close relatives. ofac also added § 515.570(b) to authorize donative remittances to cuban nationals who are not prohibited officials of the government of cuba, prohibited members of the cuban communist party, or close relatives of a prohibited official of the government of cuba or prohibited member of the cuban communist party. finally, ofac added a general license in § 515.570(h) authorizing the unblocking and return of previously blocked remittances, provided they would be authorized under the revised § 515.570(a) or (b). no. under 31 cfr § 515.572(a)(3), banking institutions, as defined in § 515.314, including u.s. registered brokers or dealers in securities and u.s. registered money transmitters, are authorized to provide services in connection with the collection, forwarding, or receipt of remittances authorized pursuant to the cacr, subject to certain conditions. in addition, under § 515.570(h), banking institutions are authorized to unblock and return blocked remittances that would have been authorized under § 515.570(a) or (b). banking institutions may rely on the statements of their customers that remittance transactions are authorized unless they know or have reason to know a transaction is not authorized. a banking institution is expected to conduct a level of due diligence commensurate with its overall risk profile and internal compliance policies and procedures with respect to a transaction involving cuba or a cuban national. yes, provided the underlying remittance transactions are authorized under 31 cfr § 515.570 of the cuban assets control regulations (cacr) and the digital payment service provider is a u.s. registered money transmitter or other qualifying banking institution within the definition of that term provided in 31 cfr § 515.314. for purposes of this faq, “digital payments” means transfers of funds sent through mobile money, mobile wallets, digital bank accounts, credit/debit cards, online payments, or other digital technology. pursuant to 31 cfr § 515.570 of the cacr, ofac authorizes persons subject to u.s. jurisdiction to make certain categories of remittances to persons in cuba, subject to certain conditions (please see faq 732 for an overview of the types of remittances u.s. persons can send and applicable conditions and requirements). additionally, pursuant to 31 cfr § 515.572(a)(3) of the cacr, banking institutions, as defined in 31 cfr § 515.314, including u.s. registered money transmitters, are authorized to provide services in connection with the collection, forwarding, or receipt of authorized remittances. thus, digital payments service providers that fall within the definition of “banking institution” provided in 31 cfr § 515.314, including u.s. registered money transmitters, can process authorized remittances to cuba via digital payments. a banking institution is expected to conduct a level of due diligence commensurate with its overall risk profile and internal compliance policies and procedures. however, as noted in faq 1057, banking institutions, including u.s registered money transmitters within the context of § 515.572(a)(3), may rely on the statements of their customers that remittance transactions are authorized unless they know or have reason to know a transaction is not authorized. section 515.572(a)(3) of the cacr does not authorize any transaction related to the collection, forwarding, or receipt of remittances involving any entity or subentity identified on the state department’s cuba restricted list (crl). generally, ofac’s general licenses are self executing. this means that if u.s. persons assess that their transactions fall within the scope of the authorizations in 31 cfr § 515.570 and 31 cfr § 515.572, they may execute such transactions without further assurance from ofac. for transactions that do not fall within the scope of these authorizations, u.s. persons may apply for an ofac specific license. for example, financial institutions that fall outside the scope of 31 cfr § 515.572(a)(3) that seek to provide remittance forwarding services would not qualify for the authorization and would require a specific license. consistent with u.s. foreign policy, ofac will prioritize specific license applications seeking authorization to enable remittances to flow more freely to the cuban people via digital payments. it is ofac’s policy to deny specific license requests that involve transactions with crl listed entities for the purpose of collection, forwarding, or receipt of remittances. please see ofac’s license application page for additional details regarding the specific licensing process. persons providing web hosting services authorized pursuant to 31 cfr § 515.578 may reasonably rely on information provided to them by their customers in the ordinary course of business, unless they know or have reason to know their provision of web hosting services is for the promotion of tourism. yes. section 515.578(a)(1)(i) of the cacr authorizes the direct or indirect exportation or reexportation to cuba, from the united states or by a person subject to u.s. jurisdiction, of certain services. among these are api related services incident to the exchange of communications over the internet. this authorization may include, for example, api services incident to, among other services described in 31 cfr § 515.578(a)(1)(i), web maps, social media platforms, collaboration platforms, video conferencing, and e gaming and e learning platforms. section 515.578(a)(ii) of the cacr authorizes the direct or indirect exportation or reexportation to cuba, from the united states or by a person subject to u.s. jurisdiction, of services to support the exchange of communications over the internet, such as software design, business consulting, information technology management services, and cloud based services (including remote data storage, data transport service, content distribution networks, virtual machines, software as a service, and infrastructure as a service). with respect to the exportation or reexportation of api software to cuba, including the download of such software, 31 cfr § 515.533(a) authorizes all transactions ordinarily incident to the export to cuba of items from the united states, or reexport to cuba of items from a third country, if the export or reexport is licensed or otherwise authorized by the department of commerce pursuant to the export administration regulations (ear) (15 cfr parts 730 through 774). for example, the export and reexport to cuba of certain software is authorized under license exception consumer communications devices (ccd), 15 cfr § 740.19, and license exception support for the cuban people (scp), 15 cfr § 740.21. section 515.578(b)(1) of the cacr excludes from authorization under 31 cfr 515.578(a)(1) (3) the direct or indirect exportation or reexportation of services with knowledge or reason to know that such services are intended for a prohibited official of the government of cuba, as defined in 31 cfr § 515.337, a prohibited member of the cuban communist party, as defined in 31 cfr § 515.338, or to organizations administered or controlled by the government of cuba or the cuban communist party, except as specified in 31 cfr § 515.578(a)(4). for purposes of assessing whether exports or reexports are excluded from 31 cfr § 515.578 pursuant to 31 cfr § 515.578(b)(1), internet based service providers subject to u.s. jurisdiction may reasonably rely on information provided to them by their customers in the ordinary course of business, unless they know or have reason to know a transaction is not authorized. section 515.578(a)(4)(i) of the cacr authorizes the exportation or reexportation, directly or indirectly, from the united states or by a person subject to u.s. jurisdiction, to a prohibited official of the government of cuba, as defined in 31 cfr § 515.337, a prohibited member of the cuban communist party, as defined in 31 cfr § 515.338, of certain internet based services and services related to certain exportations and reexportations, as described in 31 cfr § 515.578(a)(1) or 31 cfr § 515.578(a)(2), respectively, provided that such services are widely available to the public at no cost to the user. examples of authorized services include: section 515.582 of the cacr authorizes persons subject to u.s. jurisdiction to import certain goods and services produced by independent private sector entrepreneurs, as determined by the state department and set forth on the state department's section 515.582 list. see faq 770. in determining whether a good is produced by an independent private sector entrepreneur, as defined in 31 cfr § 515.340, persons subject to u.s. jurisdiction should consider the extent of cuban state owned entities’ involvement in the production and exportation of such goods. for example, goods generally are not considered produced by independent private sector entrepreneurs if the manufacturing or processing conducted by cuban state owned entities results in a product with a new name, character, or use. for example, an agricultural commodity grown by an independent grower but then processed by cuban state owned entities into a new product prior to exportation would not be a good produced by an independent private sector entrepreneur for purposes of 31 cfr § 515.582. however, a good can still be considered produced by an independent private sector entrepreneur if, for example, cuban state owned entities are involved only in packing of the final product or acting solely as an export agent. section 515.340 defines the term “independent private sector entrepreneur” to mean a cuban national who is not a prohibited official of the government of cuba or a prohibited member of the cuban communist party, and who is one or more of the following: (a) an owner, including a self employed individual (cuentapropista), or employee of a small private business entity, private cooperative, or a sole proprietorship located in cuba, in each case of up to 100 employees; (b) an independent contractor or consultant; (c) a small farmer who owns his or her own land; (d) a small usufruct farmer who cultivates state owned land to sell products on the open market; or (e) a private cooperative or small private business entity located in cuba of up to 100 employees that is owned only by individuals described in paragraphs (a) through (d) of § 515.340. for example, small private business entities or private cooperatives owned only by independent private sector entrepreneurs, as defined, could include: executive order (e.o.) 13694, as amended on december 29, 2016, focuses on specific harms caused by significant malicious cyber enabled activities, and directs the secretary of the treasury, in consultation with the attorney general and the secretary of state, to impose sanctions on those persons he or she determines to be responsible for or complicit in activities leading to such harms. acting pursuant to delegated authority, treasury’s office of foreign assets control (ofac) works in coordination with other u.s. government agencies to identify individuals and entities whose conduct meets the criteria set forth in e.o. 13694, as amended, and designate them for sanctions. persons designated under this authority are added to ofac’s list of specially designated nationals and blocked persons (sdn list). e.o. 13694, as amended, is intended to address situations where, for jurisdictional or other issues, certain significant malicious cyber actors may be beyond the reach of other authorities available to the u.s. government. [12 29 2016] as with many of the sanctions programs that treasury administers, u.s. persons (and persons otherwise subject to ofac jurisdiction) must ensure that they are not engaging in trade or other transactions with persons named on ofac’s sdn list pursuant to e.o. 13694, as amended, or any entity owned by such persons. as a general matter, u.s. persons, including firms that facilitate or engage in online commerce, are responsible for ensuring that they do not engage in unauthorized transactions or dealings with persons named on any of ofac’s sanctions lists or operate in jurisdictions targeted by comprehensive sanctions programs. such persons, including technology companies, should develop a tailored, risk based compliance program, which may include sanctions list screening or other appropriate measures. an adequate compliance solution will depend on a variety of factors, including the type of business involved, and there is no single compliance program or solution suitable for every circumstance. the names of, and identifying information for, all individuals and entities included on ofac’s sanctions lists may be located via ofac’s free, online search engine at the following url: http://sanctionssearch.ofac.treas.gov. in addition, ofac offers text and pdf versions of these lists for manual review and a number of data file versions of its lists that are designed to facilitate automated screening. depending on the scale, sophistication, and risk profile of your business, you may consider one of the numerous commercially available screening software packages. [12 29 2016] we anticipate that regulations to be promulgated will define “cyber enabled” activities to include any act that is primarily accomplished through or facilitated by computers or other electronic devices. for purposes of e.o. 13694, malicious cyber enabled activities include deliberate activities accomplished through unauthorized access to a computer system, including by remote access; circumventing one or more protection measures, including by bypassing a firewall; or compromising the security of hardware or software in the supply chain. these activities are often the means through which the specific harms enumerated in the e.o. are achieved, including compromise to critical infrastructure, denial of service attacks, or massive loss of sensitive information, such as trade secrets and personal financial information. e.o. 13694 is tailored to address cyber enabled activities that are reasonably likely to result in, or have materially contributed to, a significant threat to the national security, foreign policy, or economic health or financial stability of the united states. as this language indicates, it is intended to counter the most significant cyber threats that we face, whether they target our critical infrastructure, our companies, our citizens, or our economic health or financial stability. the measures in this order are directed against significant malicious cyber enabled activities that have the purpose or effect of causing specific enumerated harms, and are not designed to prevent or interfere with legitimate cyber enabled academic, business, or non profit activities. the u.s. government supports efforts by researchers, cybersecurity experts, and network defense specialists to identify, respond to, and repair vulnerabilities that could be exploited by malicious actors. similarly, these measures are not intended to target persons engaged in legitimate activities to ensure and promote the security of information systems, such as penetration testing and other methodologies, or to prevent or interfere with legitimate cyber enabled activities undertaken to further academic research or commercial innovation as part of computer security oriented conventions, competitions, or similar “good faith” events the measures in this order are designed to address the threat posed by individuals and entities engaged in significant malicious cyber enabled activities that have the purpose or effect of causing specific enumerated harms. these measures are not designed to prevent or interfere with legitimate network defense or maintenance activities performed by computer security experts and companies as part of the normal course of business on their own systems, or systems they are otherwise authorized to manage. no. these sanctions are designed to target those actors whose malicious cyber enabled conduct is reasonably likely to result in, or have materially contributed to, a significant threat to the national security, foreign policy, or economic health or financial stability of the united states. these measures are not intended to target victims of such activities, including the unwitting owners of compromised computers. for more information about best practices for securing home networks and engaging in responsible online behavior, visit the federal trade commission’s website at onguardonline.gov. the united states’ whole of government strategy to combat cyber threats draws from a broad range of tools and authorities to respond to the growing and evolving threat posed by malicious cyber actors. similar to our approach to global threats from terrorists, narcotics traffickers, and transnational criminal organizations, we will use financial sanctions in the fight against malicious cyber actors as a complement to existing tools, including diplomatic outreach and law enforcement authorities. as with all financial sanctions programs treasury administers, these measures will be implemented in accordance with domestic law and our international obligations. no. this authority does not target american whistleblower activity or constitutionally protected activity. the e.o. defines misappropriation to be the “taking or obtaining by improper means, without permission or consent, or under false pretenses.” importantly, to be eligible for sanctions under this provision, an individual or entity must not only “misappropriate” information, but it must also do so with the purpose or effect of interfering with or undermining election processes or institutions. gl 1c authorizes transactions with the federal security service (a.k.a. federalnaya sluzhba bezopasnosti) (a.k.a. fsb) that are ordinarily incident and necessary to requesting, receiving, utilizing, paying for, or dealing in certain licenses and authorizations for the importation, distribution, or use of certain information technology products in the russian federation. it also authorizes transactions ordinarily incident and necessary to compliance with rules and regulations administered by, and certain actions or investigations involving, the federal security service. this general license does not authorize u.s. persons to engage in transactions with the federal security service, except for the limited purposes described above, nor does it authorize the exportation, reexportation, sale or supply, directly or indirectly, from the united states, or by a united states person, wherever located, of any goods, services, or technology to the so called “donetsk people’s republic” or “luhansk people’s republic” (dnr/lnr) regions of ukraine, or such other regions of ukraine as may be determined by the secretary of the treasury, in consultation with the secretary of state, pursuant to executive order 14065, or to the crimea region of ukraine. date updated: april 27, 2023 gl 1c only authorizes certain transactions and activities with the federal security service acting in its administrative and law enforcement capacities. the gl was issued in order to ensure that u.s. persons engaging in certain business activities in russia that are not otherwise prohibited are not unduly impacted. all other transactions and activities involving any property subject to u.s. jurisdiction or within the possession or control of u.s. persons in which the federal security service has an interest, including all other transactions and activities directly or indirectly with the federal security service, remain prohibited unless exempt or otherwise authorized by ofac. date updated: april 27, 2023 no. gl 1c does not authorize the export of any goods, technology, or services directly or indirectly to the federal security service or any other blocked person, except for the limited purposes of complying with rules and regulations administered by, and certain actions and investigations involving, the federal security service or requesting certain licenses or authorizations for the importation, distribution, or use of information technology products in the russian federation. date updated: april 27, 2023 no, the sanctions on the fsb do not apply to transactions by u.s. persons that are ordinarily incident to travel to or from russia, including those transactions required to enter into or exit the country (i.e., complying with russian border control requirements). on august 8, 2022, ofac designated the entity tornado cash pursuant to executive order (e.o.) 13694, as amended, for facilitating the laundering of proceeds of cybercrimes, including those committed by the lazarus group, a north korea state sponsored hacking group that was sanctioned in 2019. on november 8, 2022, ofac simultaneously designated tornado cash pursuant to e.o. 13722 for having materially assisted, sponsored, or provided financial, material, or technological support for, or goods or services to or in support of the government of north korea and redesignated tornado cash pursuant to e.o. 13694, as amended, for facilitating the laundering of proceeds of cybercrimes, including those committed by the lazarus group, and as such the august 8, 2022 designation of tornado cash is no longer operative and is wholly replaced. as described in faqs 561 and 562, ofac may include as identifiers on the specially designated nationals and blocked persons list (sdn list) specific virtual currency wallet addresses associated with blocked persons. as part of the sdn list entry for tornado cash, ofac included as identifiers certain virtual currency wallet addresses associated with tornado cash, as well as the url address for tornado cash’s website. the tornado cash website has since been deleted from the internet, but it currently remains available through certain internet archives. while engaging in any transaction with tornado cash or its blocked property or interests in property is prohibited for u.s. persons, interacting with open source code itself, in a way that does not involve a prohibited transaction with tornado cash, is not prohibited. for example, u.s. persons would not be prohibited by u.s. sanctions regulations from copying the open source code and making it available online for others to view, as well as discussing, teaching about, or including open source code in written publications, such as textbooks, absent additional facts. similarly, u.s. persons would not be prohibited by u.s. sanctions regulations from visiting the internet archives for the tornado cash historical website, nor would they be prohibited from visiting the tornado cash website if it again becomes active on the internet. updated: november 8, 2022 no. u.s. persons are prohibited from engaging in transactions involving tornado cash, including through the virtual currency wallet addresses that ofac has identified. if u.s. persons were to initiate or otherwise engage in a transaction with tornado cash, including or through one of its wallet addresses, such a transaction would violate u.s. sanctions prohibitions, unless exempt or authorized by ofac. ofac is aware of reports following the august 8, 2022 designation of tornado cash that certain u.s. persons may have received unsolicited and nominal amounts of virtual currency or other virtual assets from tornado cash smart contracts, a practice commonly referred to as “dusting.” technically, ofac’s regulations would apply to these transactions. to the extent, however, these “dusting” transactions have no other sanctions nexus besides tornado cash, ofac will not prioritize enforcement against the delayed receipt of initial blocking reports and subsequent annual reports of blocked property from such u.s. persons. persons who received a “dusting” transaction can also apply to ofac for a specific license. for guidance related to filing an initial and annual report of blocked property, please see faqs 49, 50, and 646, respectively, and 31 c.f.r. § 501.603. please note that the annual filing requirement for 2022 applies only to persons holding blocked property as of june 30 of this year. updated: november 8, 2022 for transactions involving tornado cash that were initiated prior to its designation on august 8, 2022 but not completed by the date of designation, u.s. persons or persons conducting transactions within u.s. jurisdiction may request a specific license from ofac to engage in transactions involving the subject virtual currency. applicants should be prepared to provide, at a minimum, all relevant information regarding these transactions with tornado cash, including the wallet addresses for the remitter and beneficiary, transaction hashes, the date and time of the transaction(s), as well as the amount(s) of virtual currency. ofac would have a favorable licensing policy towards such applications, provided that the transaction did not involve other sanctionable conduct. in order to apply for a specific license to complete a transaction or withdraw virtual currency involving tornado cash that was deposited prior to its designation, or to engage in other transactions or dealings with tornado cash, you are encouraged to file a licensing request by visiting the following link: https://ofac.treasury.gov/ofac license application page. updated: november 8, 2022 a “person” subject to designation under e.o. 13722 or e.o. 13694, as amended, includes an individual or an entity, defined as “a partnership, association, trust, joint venture, corporation, group, subgroup, or other organization.” once ofac has determined that a person is subject to sanctions, ofac adds that person to the specially designated nationals and blocked persons list. ofac designated the entity known as tornado cash, which is a “partnership, association, joint venture, corporation, group, subgroup, or other organization” that may be designated pursuant to ieepa. tornado cash’s organizational structure consists of: (1) its founders and other associated developers, who together launched the tornado cash mixing service, developed new tornado cash mixing service features, created the tornado cash decentralized autonomous organization (dao), and actively promoted the platform’s popularity in an attempt to increase its user base; and (2) the tornado cash dao, which is responsible for voting on and implementing new features created by the developers. tornado cash uses computer code known as “smart contracts” to implement its governance structure, provide mixing services, offer financial incentives for users, increase its user base, and facilitate the financial gain of its users and developers. ofac has not designated tornado cash’s individual founders, developers, members of the dao, or users, or other persons involved in supporting tornado cash at this time. however, all tornado cash property and interests in property are blocked, and u.s. persons cannot transact with tornado cash or deal in its property and interests in property, absent authorization from ofac. see faqs 1077 and 1078. no, the accounts are restricted. the iranian sanctions prohibit the export of goods or services to iran. by operating an account for an individual or company in iran, the bank would be exporting services to that person or entity in violation of the iranian transactions regulations. the accounts, however, are not blocked. the account holder can close the account and have the funds transferred to his or her account outside the united states. no, as of november 10, 2008 u turn payments are no longer allowed. in the absence of information proving to your satisfaction that the account holder is not in iran, you should consider the account restricted based on the w 8 filing. see faq 37. no. as long as you are satisfied that the client is not ordinarily resident in iran, then the account does not need to be restricted. see faq 37. as described in the iranian financial sanctions regulations, the sanctionable activities of a foreign financial institution are: the list of blocked irgc affiliates and blocked iran linked financial institutions is dynamic and is based on the identity of “designated” persons, which refers both to natural persons (i.e., individuals) and legal persons (such as corporations and other entities). the most recent list of designated persons   which includes most, but not all, blocked entities*   can be found at here. the listings of designated irgc entities will be followed by the tag [irgc]; those of designated iran linked financial institutions will have the tag [ifsr]. *under department of the treasury regulations, designated persons are those that are named on the list. all interests in property of such persons are blocked, and such persons are considered to have an interest in all property and entities in which they own, directly or indirectly, a 50 percent or greater interest. as a result, such property and entities are also blocked, even if they do not themselves appear on the list. the iranian financial sanctions regulations (ifsr) define “u.s. financial institutions” to include: depository institutions, banks, savings banks, money service businesses, trust companies, insurance companies, securities brokers and dealers, commodities exchanges, clearing corporations, investment companies, employee benefit plans, and u.s. holding companies, u.s. affiliates, or u.s. subsidiaries of any of these entities. covered institutions include those branches, offices, and agencies of foreign financial institutions that are located in the united states. the iranian financial sanctions regulations (ifsr) define “foreign financial institutions” to include foreign depository institutions, banks, savings banks, money service businesses, trust companies, securities brokers and dealers, commodities exchanges, clearing corporations, investment companies, employee benefit plans, and holding companies, affiliates, or subsidiaries of any of these entities. the term “knowingly” as used in the ifsr means that a person has actual knowledge or should have known of specific conduct, a circumstance, or a result. in other words, the ifsr could be implicated if the treasury department finds that a foreign financial institution knew or should have known that it engaged in one or more of the sanctionable activities. as set out in the ifsr, in determining whether a transaction or financial service is “significant,” the treasury department may consider: (1) the size, number, frequency, and nature of the transaction(s); (2) the level of awareness of management of the transaction(s) and whether or not the transaction(s) are a part of a pattern of conduct; (3) the nexus between the foreign financial institution involved in the transaction(s) and a blocked islamic revolutionary guard corps individual or entity or blocked iran linked financial institution; (4) the impact of the transaction(s) on the goals of the comprehensive iran sanctions, accountability, and divestment act (cisada); (5) whether the transaction(s) involved any deceptive practices; and (6) other factors the treasury department deems relevant on a case by case basis. a finding by the treasury department that a foreign financial institution knowingly engages in one or more of the sanctionable activities is necessary before the treasury department can prohibit or impose strict conditions on the opening or maintaining in the united states of correspondent accounts or payable through accounts for that foreign financial institution. as a general matter, the treasury department will reach out to foreign financial institutions to inquire about their conduct before making a finding. if the treasury department decides to impose strict condition(s), the treasury department will issue an order or a regulation that sets out the strict condition(s) to be imposed on the u.s. correspondent accounts or u.s. payable through accounts of the relevant foreign financial institution and publish the order or regulation in the federal register. the federal register is available at www.gpo.gov/fdsys/. if the treasury department decides to prohibit the opening or maintaining of u.s. correspondent accounts or u.s. payable through accounts for a foreign financial institution, the treasury department will add the name of the foreign financial institution and publish it to the part 561 list. any u.s. person who violates the correspondent account provisions of the ifsr may be subject to civil penalties of up to the greater of $250,000 or twice the transaction value, and criminal penalties for willful violations of up to $1 million and 20 years in prison. a u.s. financial institution may be subject to civil penalties of up to the greater of $250,000 or twice the transaction value, if any person that it owns or controls violates the ifsr prohibition on engaging in any transaction with or benefitting the islamic revolutionary guard corps (irgc) or any of its agents or affiliates whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to the international emergency economic powers act (ieepa), and if the u.s. financial institution knew or should have known that the person violated the ifsr. the comprehensive iran sanctions, accountability, and divestment act (cisada) provides for a waiver of the sanctions under the iranian financial sanctions regulations (ifsr) if the secretary of the treasury determines that a waiver is necessary to the national interest of the united states. the text of the iranian financial sanctions regulations (ifsr) can be found here. e.o. 13599 requires u.s. persons to block (i.e., freeze) all property and interests in property of the government of iran, including the central bank of iran, and of all iranian financial institutions, which also includes the central bank of iran. this means that all individuals and entities that meet the definition of “government of iran” (“goi”) as defined by section 7(d) of the new e.o. as well as all iranian financial institutions (whether or not they meet the definition of the goi) are now blocked. previously, under the iranian transactions regulations, 31 c.f.r. part 560 (the “itr”), financial institutions and other u.s. persons were prohibited from engaging in transactions with the goi. under those prior rules, u.s. financial institutions receiving instructions to execute transactions involving these entities were not required to block the transactions, but were instead required to reject those instructions rather than carry them out, unless the transactions were exempt, authorized, or not prohibited by ofac. the executive order defines an “iranian financial institution” as a financial institution organized under the laws of iran or any jurisdiction within iran (including foreign branches), any financial institution in iran, any financial institution, wherever located, owned or controlled by the government of iran, and any financial institution, wherever located, owned or controlled by any of the aforementioned entities. as a result, transactions involving entities bearing the [iran] tag on ofac’s list of specially designated nationals and blocked persons (“sdn list”) will now need to be blocked unless exempt or authorized by ofac. going forward, the [iran] tag will connote that a person or entity meets the definition of the term “goi” or “iranian financial institution”. ofac will continue to update the sdn list and may add, delete, or edit entries as appropriate. e.o. 13599 blocks the property and interests in property of any individual or entity that comes within its definition of the term “government of iran” regardless of whether it is listed on the sdn list, and similarly it blocks the property and interests in property of all iranian financial institutions as defined in the order regardless of whether the iranian financial institution is listed on the sdn list. e.o. 13599 builds upon the prohibitions in the itr, which remain in effect. please note, pursuant to ofac guidance, even when an entity does not itself appear on the sdn list or otherwise meet the definition of the goi or an iranian financial institution, the property and interests in property of that entity are blocked if the entity is owned, directly or indirectly, 50% or more by a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to an executive order or regulations administered by ofac. generally yes. under new general license a, almost all transactions that are authorized under existing general licenses issued pursuant to the iranian transactions regulations (itr) or under existing ofac specific licenses will continue to be authorized under the authority of e.o. 13599. however, transactions previously authorized under one existing itr general license are not authorized pursuant to e.o. 13599. specifically, the closing of accounts of the government of iran or an iranian financial institution and the lump sum transfer of the balances to an account outside of the united states, which is authorized by sections 560.517(a)(3) & (b)(2) of the itr, is not authorized by general license a, and, therefore, those transactions are prohibited by e.o. 13599 and the accounts must be blocked. in addition, general license a does not authorize any payments from blocked funds or debits to blocked accounts, with a limited exception for payments from funds or debits to accounts blocked under the iranian assets control regulations (the hostage crisis blocking program that began in 1979) that are authorized by specific licenses issued by ofac. new general license b authorizes u.s. depository institutions and u.s. registered brokers or dealers in securities to process noncommercial, personal remittances, to or from iran, or for or on behalf of individuals ordinarily resident in iran who are not included in the term “government of iran”, provided that such funds transactions are not made by, to, or through a financial institution blocked pursuant to the weapons of mass destruction proliferators sanctions regulations, 31 c.f.r. part 544 (the “wmdpsr”), or the global terrorism sanctions regulations, 31 c.f.r. part 594 (the “gtsr”), or a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to any other part of 31 c.f.r. chapter v, or any executive order, except an iranian financial institution whose property and interests in property are blocked solely pursuant to e.o. 13599. transactions not previously authorized by ofac that involve property or interests in property of the government of iran, including the central bank of iran, or of iranian financial institutions must be blocked. yes. e.o. 13599 builds upon the prohibitions of the itr, and the prohibitions of the itr remain in effect. the itr prohibit prohibit virtually all direct or indirect transactions involving iran or the government of iran by u.s. persons or with a nexus to the united states, unless otherwise authorized by ofac or exempted by statute, but they do not contain blocking provisions. e.o. 13599 requires u.s. persons to block all property and interests in property of the government of iran, including the central bank of iran, and of iranian financial institutions, which also includes the central bank of iran, unless it relates to a transaction that is exempted by statute or authorized by ofac. to illustrate the difference between how a transaction would be treated under the itr and the new e.o., imagine a commercial wire transfer being processed through the u.s. financial system by order of a third country, non u.s. company for credit to a third country financial institution in favor of a correspondent account it maintains for an iranian financial institution. the transaction is not exempt or authorized by a general or specific license, and the iranian bank is not blocked pursuant to the gtsr or the wmdpsr. previously, under the itr, any u.s. financial institution handling the transaction would have needed to reject the payment because allowing it to be processed would constitute a prohibited exportation of services to iran. with the new e.o. in place, the u.s. financial institution would be required to block (“freeze”) that transaction. general license b under e.o. 13599 authorizes u.s. depository institutions and u.s. registered brokers or dealers in securities to process noncommercial, personal remittances to or from iran provided that the payment is not made by, to, or through a financial institution designated by ofac under the wmdpsr, or the gtsr, or a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to any other part of 31 c.f.r. chapter v, or any executive order, except an iranian financial institution whose property and interests in property are blocked solely pursuant to e.o. 13599. exempt or authorized transactions to or from iran may also be processed subject to the above conditions. such transactions must be processed through a third country, as u.s. banks are prohibited from operating correspondent accounts for iranian banks. the transactions may involve the use of blocked iranian financial institutions as long as the iranian financial institution is blocked solely pursuant to e.o. 13599 (and not pursuant to any other executive order or part of 31 c.f.r. chapter v) and there is a third country, non u.s. financial institution as an intermediary between the u.s. financial institution and the iranian financial institution. e.o. 13599 requires u.s. persons to block all property and interests in property of the government of iran, unless otherwise exempt or authorized by ofac. please contact the ofac compliance hotline, for guidance regarding entities that you suspect are owned or controlled by the government of iran that do not appear on the sdn list. as a general matter, ofac expects financial institutions to conduct due diligence on their own direct customers (including, for example, their ownership structure) to confirm that those customers are not persons whose property and interests in property are blocked. with regard to other types of transactions where a financial institution is acting solely as an intermediary and fails to block transactions involving a sanctions target, ofac will consider the totality of the circumstances surrounding the bank's processing of the transaction to determine what, if any, regulatory response is appropriate. yes, u.s. persons should now block the property and interests in property of the government of iran entities appearing on the sdn list, unless ofac has authorized the underlying transaction or the transaction is exempt. under general license a issued pursuant to e.o. 13599, transactions authorized under existing specific licenses issued pursuant to tsra and the itr are authorized under e.o. 13599 until the specific license expires, per the terms of the license. under general license a issued pursuant to e.o. 13599, transactions authorized by (non tsra) specific licenses issued prior to the issuance of e.o. 13599 and issued pursuant to any part of 31 c.f.r. chapter v are also authorized under e.o. 13599. as set forth in general license a, in most cases these new authorizations under e.o. 13599 are in effect until theexpiration date of the individual specific license, or, if the specific license has no expiration date, until april 6, 2012. on december 31, 2011, the president signed into law the national defense authorization act (ndaa). section 1245 of the ndaa requires the president to block the property and interests in property subject to u.s. jurisdiction of all iranian financial institutions, including the central bank of iran (cbi). it also aims to reduce iranian oil revenues and discourage transactions with the cbi by providing for sanctions on foreign financial institutions that knowingly conduct or facilitate certain significant financial transactions with the cbi. for private financial institutions, the act mandates that the president sanction those institutions that are found to knowingly conduct or facilitate any significant transactions with a u.s. designated iranian financial institution or with the central bank of iran (cbi)   whether for the purchase of petroleum or otherwise   unless the transaction is for the sale of food, medicine, or medical devices to iran. for all transactions with the cbi other than petroleum purchases, this provision takes effect on february 29, 2012, i.e., 60 days after the enactment of the act. the timing of the petroleum purchase sanctions is discussed immediately below. private financial institutions and all other foreign financial institutions   including central banks or foreign state owned or  controlled banks   potentially face sanctions under the ndaa if they knowingly conduct or facilitate significant financial transactions for the purchase of iranian petroleum or petroleum products with a u.s. designated iranian financial institution or with the cbi after the provision takes effect as early as june 28, 2012, i.e., 180 days after enactment.* this ndaa provision may be held in abeyance beyond june 28, 2012, depending on the president’s determination on the availability and price of alternative supplies. foreign central and foreign state owned or  controlled banks are also subject to these sanctions if the transactions are for the sale of petroleum or petroleum products to iran and they occur after june 28, 2012. all foreign financial institutions, including private and state owned institutions, remain subject to section 104(c) of the comprehensive iran sanctions, accountability, and divestment act (cisada), which calls for sanctions on foreign financial institutions that are found to have knowingly engaged in facilitating significant transactions for specific iranian linked individuals and entities. *irrespective of the timeframes set forth in the ndaa, any foreign financial institution that knowingly facilitates significant transactions with any u.s. designated iranian financial institution would still be subject to cisada. no. any foreign financial institution that knowingly facilitates significant transactions or provides significant financial services for a u.s. designated, iranian linked financial institution can be sanctioned under section 104(c) of cisada and section 561.201 of the iranian financial sanctions regulations (“ifsr”) even if those transactions are not sanctionable under section 1245(d) of the ndaa. though the ndaa imposes sanctions on foreign financial institutions similar to financial sanctions under cisada and the ifsr (i.e., prohibiting and/or imposing strict conditions on opening or maintaining correspondent accounts or payable through accounts in the united states), there are differences in the scope and operation of the statutes. the comprehensive iran sanctions, accountability, and divestment act (cisada) applies to transactions with only those iranian financial institutions that are designated in connection with iran’s wmd or terrorism activities and are denoted on ofac’s list of specially designated nationals and blocked persons (the sdn list) with the [ifsr] tag. while e.o. 13599 does block the property of all iranian financial institutions, that action is not grounded in the authorities that relate to counterproliferation or counterterrorism, and therefore does not implicate cisada. yes. section 1245 of the ndaa for fy 2012 includes an exception that prohibits the president from imposing sanctions “with respect to any person for conducting or facilitating a transaction for the sale of food, medicine, or medical devices to iran.” "significant financial transaction" the iranian financial sanctions regulations (ifsr), which implement section 104(c) of the comprehensive iran sanctions, accountability, and divestment act (cisada), identify factors to be used in determining what is significant (as it relates to transactions) in 31 c.f.r § 561.404, which allows the secretary of the treasury to consider the “totality of the facts and circumstances” while providing a list of seven broad factors that can play a role in the determination, including: (1) the size, number, and frequency of transactions; (2) the nature of the transaction(s); (3) the level of awareness of management and whether the transaction(s) are part of a pattern of conduct; (4) the nexus between the transaction(s) and a blocked person; (5) the impact of the transaction(s) on statutory objectives; (6) whether the transaction(s) involve deceptive practices; and (7) such other factors that the secretary deems relevant on a case by case basis. treasury anticipates closely modeling the definition of “significant” for national defense authorization act (ndaa) purposes on the ifsr. we anticipate utilizing a broad definition of “financial transaction” that encompasses “any transfer of value involving a financial institution.” the term “transaction” includes, but is not limited to, the following: "knowingly" the ifsr defines “knowingly” with respect to conduct, a circumstance, or a result, to mean that an entity or individual had actual knowledge, or should have known, about the conduct, the circumstance, or the result. 31 c.f.r. § 561.314. treasury anticipates closely modeling the definition of this term on the ifsr. “owned or controlled by the government of a foreign country” the iranian transactions regulations (“itr”) define “an entity owned or controlled by the government of iran” in section 560.313. borrowing from that definition, a financial institution “owned or controlled by the government of a foreign country” would be deemed to include a financial institution in which a foreign government owns a 50% or greater interest or which is otherwise controlled by a foreign government. treasury anticipates closely modeling the definition of this term under the ndaa on the itr definition. “food, medicine, and medical devices” “food”: the october 2011 general license for the itr and the sudanese sanctions regulations (“ssr”) authorizing certain food exports to iran and sudan defines “food” as “items that are intended to be consumed by and provide nutrition to humans or animals in iran   including vitamins and minerals, food additives and supplements, and bottled drinking water   and seeds that germinate into items that are intended to be consumed by and provide nutrition to humans or animals in iran.” the regulations also specify that food does not include alcoholic beverages, cigarettes, gum, or fertilizer. treasury anticipates closely modeling the definition of this term under the ndaa on this license definition. “medicine”: itr section 560.530(e)(2) states that: “for the purposes of this part, the term medicine has the same meaning given the term ‘drug’ in section 201 of the federal food, drug, and cosmetic act (21 u.s.c. 321) but does not include any item listed on the commerce control list in the export administration regulations, 15 cfr part 774, supplement no. 1 (excluding items classified as ear 99).” similarly, under the trade sanctions reform and export act (“tsra”), 22 u.s.c. 7201(5), “[t]he term ‘medicine’ has the meaning given the term "drug" in section 321 of title 21.” treasury anticipates closely modeling the definition of this term under the ndaa on the itr and tsra. “medical devices”: itr section 560.530(e)(3) states that: “for the purposes of this part, the term medical device has the meaning given the term ‘device’ in section 201 of the federal food, drug, and cosmetic act (21 u.s.c. § 321) but does not include any item listed on the commerce control list in the export administration regulations, 15 cfr part 774, supplement no. 1 (excluding items classified as ear 99).” similarly, under tsra, 22 u.s.c. 7201(4), “[t]he term "medical device" has the meaning given the term ‘device’ in section 321 of title 21.” treasury anticipates closely modeling the definition of this term under the ndaa on the itr and tsra. “foreign financial institution” “foreign financial institution” is defined in section 1245 of the ndaa with reference to section 104(i) of cisada (22 u.s.c. § 8513(i)). as further defined in the ifsr, a “foreign financial institution” is “any foreign entity that is engaged in the business of accepting deposits, making, granting, transferring, holding, or brokering loans or credits, or purchasing or selling foreign exchange, securities, commodity futures or options, or procuring purchasers and sellers thereof, as principal or agent. it includes but is not limited to depository institutions, banks, savings banks, money service businesses, trust companies, securities brokers and dealers, commodity futures and options brokers and dealers, forward contract and foreign exchange merchants, securities and commodities exchanges, clearing corporations, investment companies, employee benefit plans, and holding companies, affiliates, or subsidiaries of any of the foregoing.” 31 c.f.r. § 561.308. it does not include “the international financial institutions identified in 22 u.s.c. 262r(c)(2), the international fund for agricultural development, or the north american development bank.” 31 c.f.r. § 561.308. treasury anticipates closely modeling the definition of this term under the ndaa on the ifsr. “iranian financial institution” this term is defined in e.o. 13599 as: “a financial institution organized under the laws of iran or any jurisdiction within iran (including foreign branches), any financial institution in iran, any financial institution, wherever located, owned or controlled by the government of iran, and any financial institution, wherever located, owned or controlled by any of the foregoing.” such financial institutions include, but are not limited to, any foreign entity that is engaged in the business of accepting deposits, making, granting, transferring, holding, or brokering loans or credits, or purchasing or selling foreign exchange, securities, or commodity futures or options, or procuring purchasers and sellers thereof, as principal or agent. it includes but is not limited to depository institutions, banks, savings banks, money service businesses, trust companies, insurance companies, securities brokers and dealers, commodity futures and options brokers and dealers, forward contract and foreign exchange merchants, securities and commodities exchanges, clearing corporations, investment companies, employee benefit plans, and holding companies, affiliates, or subsidiaries of any of the foregoing. “significantly reduced” the secretary of state, in consultation with the secretary of the treasury, the secretary of energy, and the director of national intelligence, will make determinations as to whether any country has significantly reduced the volume of iranian crude oil purchases. any determinations will be preceded by a process of rigorous due diligence. the secretary of state intends to consider relevant evidence in assessing each country’s efforts to reduce the volume of crude oil imported from iran, including the quantity and percentage of the reduction in purchases of iranian crude oil over the relevant period, termination of contracts for future delivery of iranian crude oil, and other actions that demonstrate a commitment to substantially decrease such purchases. “whether the price and supply of petroleum and petroleum products produced in countries other than iran is sufficient” the president will make a determination, based on the reports required by subparagraph (a) of section 1245(d)(4) of the ndaa, as to whether the price and supply of petroleum and petroleum products produced in countries other than iran is sufficient to permit purchasers of petroleum and petroleum products from iran to reduce significantly in volume their purchases from iran. as defined by the u.s. energy information administration (eia), petroleum products include unfinished oils, liquefied petroleum gases, pentanes plus, aviation gasoline, motor gasoline, naphtha type jet fuel, kerosene type jet fuel, kerosene, distillate fuel oil, residual fuel oil, petrochemical feedstocks, special naphthas, lubricants, waxes, petroleum coke, asphalt, road oil, still gas, and miscellaneous products obtained from the processing of crude oil (including lease condensate), natural gas, and other hydrocarbon compounds. in keeping with the eia’s standard definition, petroleum products do not include natural gas, liquefied natural gas, biofuels, methanol, and other non petroleum fuels. please see national defense authorization act of 2012 as amended for the definition of "law," in this faq. if a transfer involves a financial institution it would likely be considered a financial transaction. section 1245 targets any significant transactions “with” the cbi; a transaction involving the cbi in an intermediary role would likely be viewed as a transaction “with” the cbi. if a transfer involves a financial institution it would likely be considered a financial transaction. this will be a case by case determination and will require specifics on what “passive holding” entails. as a general matter, we would likely not view the holding of reserves as sanctionable in the following circumstances: the accounts are frozen or restricted, under which the cbi would be allowed to maintain accounts that it had already opened as of december 31, 2011, but would otherwise be unable to direct the disposition of those funds, with ordinary commercial interest payments and routine roll overs of time deposits under pre existing instructions being the only new transactions. no general exception will be provided for payments arising out of pre existing contracts. the assessment of whether such payments are “significant” will be done on a case by case basis in line with the criteria discussed in faq #174. as noted, no general exception will be provided for payments arising out of pre existing contracts. the assessment of whether such payments are “significant” will be done on a case by case basis in line with the criteria discussed in faq #174. regarding payments for food, medicine, and medical devices, the ndaa does not allow sanctions based on transactions for the sale of food, medicine, or medical devices to iran. payments related to the export of broader humanitarian items would be dealt with in our analysis of what constitutes a “significant financial transaction” and would be considered on a case by case basis. both blocked and designated entities appear on the sdn list. “blocked” persons, in the context of e.o. 13599, appear on the sdn list due to the united states government’s identification of these entities as the government of iran and/or as an iranian financial institution. such entities are identified on the sdn list with the tag [iran]. for example, bank keshavarzi is a government of iran owned iranian financial institution and is identified with the [iran] tag. additionally, the national iranian oil company (nioc) is a non financial institution that has been identified as the government of iran and bears the [iran] tag. “designated” persons appear on the sdn list due to the united states government’s having determined that they meet the criteria set forth in any of a number of other executive orders concerning, for example, assisting iran’s weapons of mass destruction development, or aiding international terrorism and designating them for such activities. such entities are identified on the sdn list with various tags other than [iran], such as [npwmd] or [sdgt]. for example, islamic republic of iran shipping lines is listed as: “irisl [npwmd].” note that many entries on the sdn list have more than one tag. for example: bank saderat iran has three tags: [sdgt], indicating that it has been sanctioned for providing services to terrorism; [iran], indicating that it is the government of iran; and [ifsr], referring to the iranian financial sanctions regulations to signal to third country financial institutions that engage with entities with this tag that they risk sanctions under cisada. the ghravity e.o. follows prior executive orders issued by the president in response to the commission of human rights abuses by the governments of iran and syria. with the ghravity e.o., the president recognized that the commission of serious human rights abuses against the people of iran and syria by their governments, facilitated by computer and network disruption, monitoring, and tracking by those governments, threatens the national security and foreign policy of the united states. the ghravity e.o. targets this activity in order to deter and disrupt such abuses. the ghravity e.o. blocks (i.e., freezes) the property and interests in property of, among others, any person determined by the secretary of the treasury, in consultation with or at the recommendation of the secretary of state, (1) to have operated, or to have directed the operation of, information and communications technology that facilitates computer or network disruption, monitoring, or tracking that could assist in or enable serious human rights abuses by or on behalf of the government of iran or the government of syria; or (2) to have sold, leased, or otherwise provided, directly or indirectly, goods, services, or technology to iran or syria likely to be used to facilitate such activities. u.s. persons in possession of property or interests in property belonging to persons listed in the annex to the ghravity e.o., or designated in the future by treasury under the e.o., are obligated to block the property and report the blocking to ofac within 10 days of blocking. entities that are 50% or more owned by persons blocked by the ghravity e.o. are also blocked, regardless of whether such entities appear on the annex or ofac’s list of specially designated nationals and blocked persons (“sdn list”). the ghravity e.o. targets the provision and use of information and communications technology to facilitate computer or network disruption, monitoring, or tracking that could assist in or enable serious human rights abuses by or on behalf of the government of iran or the government of syria. it is not intended to block exports of technology that enable the syrian and iranian people to freely communicate among themselves and with the outside world. “information and communications technology” means any hardware, software, or other product or service primarily intended to fulfill or enable the function of information processing and communication by electronic means, including transmission and display, including via the internet. persons designated under the ghravity e.o. appear on the publicly available specially designated nationals list (sdn list) bearing the [hrit] tag. u.s. persons are obligated to block property involving the persons bearing the tag [hrit] on the sdn list, unless the transaction is exempt or otherwise authorized by ofac. this e.o. does not generally prohibit transactions involving persons that do business with iran or syria, unless the person has been designated pursuant to this order. you should consult with the department of commerce’s bureau of industry and security (bis) regarding exports to companies that do business with syria. the measures in this order are designed primarily to address the need to prevent entities located in whole or in part in iran and syria from facilitating or committing serious human rights abuses. these measures are not designed to prevent the provision of information and communications technology necessary to enable the iranian and syrian people to freely communicate with each other and the outside world. that said, those providing communications technology to iran or syria that has the potential to facilitate computer or network disruption, monitoring, or tracking should exercise great caution given iran and syria’s use of this technology to assist in the commission of serious human rights abuses. yes. for more information regarding exports of goods or technology to persons blocked under the ghravity e.o. please contact ofac or bis. u.s. persons who have been issued licenses involving persons designated under the ghravity e.o. should check with the issuing agency regarding the validity of their licenses. this executive order gives treasury new authorities. first, it strengthens treasury’s ability to address behavior by foreign individuals and entities determined to have violated, attempted to violate, conspired to violate, or caused a violation of u.s. sanctions on syria or iran. this e.o. also gives treasury the authority to impose sanctions on foreign persons who have facilitated deceptive transactions for or on behalf of persons subject to u.s. sanctions. transactions by u.s. persons or within the united states involving persons sanctioned under this authority are prohibited, effectively cutting the listed persons off from the u.s. marketplace and financial system. by cutting off access to the u.s. marketplace and financial system to such sanctions evaders, executive order 13608 provides treasury with a powerful tool to prevent and deter such behavior and to hold such persons accountable and to convince them to change their behavior. publicly identifying such persons will also allow u.s. persons to avoid unwittingly engaging in transactions with identified foreign persons that may expose u.s. persons to the risk of sanctions violations. executive order 13608 expands treasury’s ability to address the behavior of foreign persons determined to have violated or attempted to violate u.s. sanctions on syria or iran, or to have facilitated deceptive transactions on behalf of persons subject to those sanctions, where the foreign person had no physical, financial, or other presence in the united states and did not submit to u.s. administrative proceedings. treasury may use this authority where it appears that a foreign person violated u.s. sanctions on iran or syria but may not meet criteria for designation under existing executive orders. executive order 13608 will provide a means through which treasury can limit the risk to u.s. commercial and financial systems posed by foreign persons determined to have violated u.s. sanctions on iran or syria, or to have engaged in deceptive transactions for or on behalf of persons subject to u.s. sanctions on iran or syria. such a listing under executive order 13608 also provides treasury with the capability to put the world on notice as to such foreign persons’ activity and the risk of similar future activity. such identification will help prevent u.s. persons from unwittingly engaging in transactions with foreign persons that may pose a risk of sanctions violations. if an individual or entity is made subject to sanctions under this authority, u.s. persons generally may no longer provide to or procure from such individual or entity any goods, services, or technology. from a practical standpoint, it means that the sanctioned individual or entity will be cut off from the u.s. commercial and financial systems. no. identifications or listings under executive order 13608 do not block any assets. however, a u.s. person may not provide or procure goods or services, including financial services, or technology to or from a listed person without authorization from ofac, unless the transaction is otherwise exempt from regulation under the international emergency economic powers act (e.g., certain travel related transactions). context information: this faq is associated with executive order 13608. a u.s. financial institution must reject any wire transfer involving a listed person and file a report with ofac within 10 days. context information: this faq is associated with executive order 13608. the account is not blocked; however, it is restricted and you cannot allow it to be operated without authorization from ofac. property of an executive order 13608 listed person is not blocked, but u.s. persons must have authorization from ofac to provide or procure such property to or from a listed person, or to provide or procure services to or from a listed person in connection with such property. additionally, wire transfers involving the assets of an executive order 13608 listed person must be rejected. no. u.s. persons are prohibited from all transactions or dealings described in executive order 13608 with persons listed under executive order 13608, unless authorized by ofac or where the transaction is otherwise exempt from regulation under the international emergency economic powers act. like a designation, a u.s. person is prohibited, unless authorized by ofac or if the underlying transaction is exempt from regulation under the international emergency economic powers act , from dealing with an identified or listed person. unlike a blocking designation, the property and the interests in property of a person listed under executive order 13608 are not blocked. treasury's authority under executive order 13608 has some similarities to commerce's authority under the export administration regulations ("ear"). commerce may impose denial orders on persons (both foreign and u.s.) who have committed violations of the ear or present an imminent risk of committing a violation. these individuals or organizations are listed on commerce's denied persons list. it is prohibited to deal with denied persons in any export transaction involving items (commodities, software, and technology) subject to the ear. treasury’s authority under executive order 13608 complements commerce's authority by addressing at least two types of sanctions violations that are outside the scope of the ear. specifically, treasury may prohibit the provision of services (in addition to goods and technology) to or from identified or listed persons and treasury may prohibit transactions or dealings involving goods and technology that are not subject to the ear. however, unlike commerce's authority, treasury's authority to sanction or list an individual or entity under executive order 13608 may be implemented only with respect to foreign individuals or entities. no. u.s. persons cannot have any dealings with a person identified or listed under this executive order absent specific authorization from ofac pursuant to the executive order 13608, unless the transaction is exempt from regulation under the international emergency economic powers act . if a transaction is underway at the time of an executive order 13608 listing, a u.s. person must cease dealing with the listed person and the u.s. person is prohibited from engaging in transactions or dealings in or related to any goods, services, or technology to or from the listed person, unless the transaction is exempt under the international emergency economic powers act, or until such time that ofac authorizes the transactions pursuant to the executive order 13608. additionally, if the transaction underway involves a wire transfer, a u.s. financial institution must reject it and file a report with ofac within 10 days. like all of its programs, ofac has the authority under executive order 13608 to license transactions that are consistent with u.s. foreign policy. context information: this faq is associated with executive order 13608. no. without specific authorization from ofac, u.s. persons cannot use a listed person to process personal remittances. the authorities granted under this executive order are in addition to current authorities that treasury has to pursue an enforcement action for violations of u.s. law, and treasury is not required to pursue a civil enforcement action prior to identifying or listing a person pursuant to executive order 13608. based on information made available to the treasury department, the department has found that china’s bank of kunlun has knowingly facilitated significant transactions for various iranian linked banks designated by the united states under our wmd or terrorism authorities. upon finding that bank of kunlun was knowingly engaged in these activities that are sanctionable under the comprehensive iran sanctions, accountability, and divestment act (cisada), the secretary of the treasury has prohibited u.s. banks from opening or maintaining correspondent accounts or payable through accounts in the united states for bank of kunlun   effectively cutting off bank of kunlun’s direct access to the u.s. financial system. since cisada was signed into law in july 2010, treasury has engaged with over 120 financial institutions and bank regulators in more than 60 countries all over the world to brief them on the financial provisions of cisada, and, in cases where we had specific concerns, has shared information about those concerns. this global engagement campaign has proven highly successful, as we have seen the overwhelming majority of financial institutions with which we have engaged change their business practices   even close any correspondent accounts with u.s. designated iranian banks   to ensure that their access to the u.s. financial system is not put at risk. the july 31, 2012 action against bank of kunlun was in response to its ongoing relationships with u.s. designated iranian banks. note: the treasury department had also made a cisada finding against iraq’s elaf islamic bank on july 31, 2012. on may 17, 2013, elaf islamic bank was delisted and its name was removed from the part 561 list. in determining whether transactions or financial services are significant, the secretary of the treasury may consider a number of factors related to the transactions or services, including, but not limited to: size, number, and frequency; type, complexity and commercial purpose; the level of awareness or involvement by the bank’s management; whether the activity or payment illustrates a pattern of practice or is an isolated event; the ultimate economic benefit conferred upon the designated person(s); and whether the transactions involved the use of deceptive financial practices to obscure the identities of the parties involved. bank of kunlun bank of kunlun has provided hundreds of millions of dollars’ worth of services to u.s. designated iranian banks. these financial services include maintaining accounts, transferring payments, and serving as the paying bank for letters of credit opened by u.s. designated iranian banks. the facilitation of hundreds of millions of u.s. dollars worth of transactions with u.s. designated iranian banks over the past year is significant. in 2012, after treasury designated bank tejarat, bank of kunlun transferred hundreds of payments totaling approximately $100 million dollars for accounts it holds for bank tejarat and made a payment for an irgc affiliate pursuant to a letter of credit opened by bank tejarat. context information: this faq is associated with the comprehensive iran sanctions, accountability, and divestment act of 2010 (cisada). to our knowledge, bank of kunlun does not currently hold correspondent accounts with u.s. financial institutions. the july 31, 2012 action prohibits financial institutions in the united states from opening or maintaining correspondent or payable through accounts for bank of kunlun. context information: this faq is associated with the comprehensive iran sanctions, accountability, and divestment act of 2010 (cisada). a u.s. financial institution that maintains or opens a correspondent or payable through account for bank of kunlun is subject to civil penalties in the amount of up to $250,000 or twice the value of the transaction, whichever is greater. criminal penalties of up to $1 million can be imposed for willful violations, and individuals who willfully violate the prohibition can face up to 20 years in prison. context information: this faq is associated with the comprehensive iran sanctions, accountability, and divestment act of 2010 (cisada). any foreign financial institution that knowingly facilitates significant transactionson behalf of designated iranian banks   whether directly or indirectly   may face comprehensive iran sanctions, accountability, and divestment act (cisada) sanctions. ofac defines "knowingly" in this context as meaning the financial institution knew or should have known of the conduct, circumstance, or result. bank of kunlun has demonstrated its willingness to move hundreds of millions dollars on behalf of designated iranian banks. accordingly, we would expect heightened due diligence in any dealings with bank of kunlun. context information: this faq is associated with the comprehensive iran sanctions, accountability, and divestment act of 2010 (cisada). the prohibitions implemented as a result of today's action apply to bank of kunlun and all of its offices, around the world. context information: this faq is associated with the comprehensive iran sanctions, accountability, and divestment act of 2010 (cisada). no. u.s. financial institutions are not required to block or reject financial or trade transactions that involve bank of kunlun. that said, we would expect heightened due diligence in any dealings with bank of kunlun given its demonstrated willingness to facilitate transactions on behalf of iranian banks designated by well over a dozen countries worldwide. context information: this faq is associated with the comprehensive iran sanctions, accountability, and divestment act of 2010 (cisada). treasury regulations provide a 10 day period in which u.s. financial institutions are authorized to engage in the transactions necessary to close an affected account. if a u.s. financial institution that is in the process of closing an affected account seeks to engage in transactions beyond those already authorized, treasury may issue specific licenses on a case by case basis. the july 31, 2012 comprehensive iran sanctions, accountability, and divestment act (cisada) finding prohibits the opening or maintaining of correspondent accounts or payable through accounts in the united states for bank of kunlun. this action does not require the immediate freezing of any assets that bank of kunlun may hold within u.s. jurisdiction. yes. executive order 13622 provides for sanctions on foreign financial institutions found to have knowingly conducted or facilitated significant financial transactions with nioc (except for sales of refined petroleum products to nioc that fall below the dollar threshold that could trigger sanctions under the iran sanctions act). executive order 13622 also provides authority for the secretary of the treasury to block the property and interests in property of persons determined to have materially assisted, sponsored, or provided financial, material, or technological support for, or goods or services in support of, nioc (as well as other specified entities). note, however, that these sanctions are not applicable to certain transactions related to the shah deniz pipeline project, in which nioc has a minority stake, under executive order 13622. in addition, nioc was already blocked as an entity of the government of iran under e.o. 13599, which was issued pursuant to the international emergency economic powers act (ieepa), as amended, among other authorities. nevertheless, as described below, the determination that nioc is an agent or affiliate of the irgc carries consequences. as a result of the iran threat reduction and syria human rights act (tra) section 312 determination, nioc now is also a person described under section 104(c)(2)(e)(i) of the comprehensive iran sanctions, accountability, and divestment act of 2010 (cisada) as an agent or affiliate of the irgc whose property or interests in property are blocked pursuant to ieepa. this means that foreign financial institutions determined to knowingly facilitate significant transactions or provide significant financial services for nioc are exposed to cisada sanctions, including prohibitions or the imposition of strict conditions on the opening or maintaining of correspondent or payable through accounts in the united states. in addition, section 302 of tra requires sanctions on foreign persons determined to have knowingly provided certain material support to, or engaged in significant transactions with, the irgc or its officials, agents, or affiliates whose property or interest in property are blocked. consequently, foreign persons that knowingly engage in significant transactions with nioc after the september 24, 2012 determination could be exposed to sanctions. an “irgc” identifier will be added to nioc’s entry on the specially designated nationals and blocked persons list available on ofac’s website. as noted below, the potential application of sanctions under section 104(c)(2)(e)(i) of cisada and section 302 of tra is affected by whether the country with primary jurisdiction has received a significant reduction exception from the secretary of state. significant transactions, financial services, or material support involving national iranian oil company (nioc) for the purchase of iranian petroleum or petroleum products by a foreign financial institution or entity based in a country that has received a significant reduction exception from the secretary of state do not carry potential sanctions consequences   under the comprehensive iran sanctions, accountability, and divestment act (cisada), sections 302 and 312 of the iran threat reduction and syria human rights act (tra), section 1245 of the national defense authorization act for fiscal year 2012 (ndaa), or sections 1 and 2 of executive order 13622. sections 302 and 312 of tra authorize the president not to impose sanctions for the purchase of petroleum or petroleum products from iran if an exception under subsection 1245(d)(4)(d) of the ndaa applies to the country with primary jurisdiction over the foreign financial institution at the time of the transactions or the provision of services. notwithstanding the foregoing, any significant transaction for other sanctioned entities (such as iranian designated banks or other persons described in section 104(c)(2)(e) of cisada) may result in sanctions, regardless of whether the transaction is for the purchase of petroleum or petroleum products and involves nioc. this statement means only that, based on the currently available information, treasury is not able to determine at this time that nitc is an agent or affiliate of the irgc. the effect of the determination is similar to the effect of executive order 13622 section 1(a), which provides for prohibitions on the opening of and prohibitions or strict conditions on maintaining correspondent accounts or payable through accounts in the united states for foreign financial institutions determined by the secretary of the treasury, in consultation with the secretary of state, to have knowingly conducted or facilitated significant financial transactions with nioc. executive order 13622 likewise contains an exception that covers transactions with nioc conducted or facilitated by foreign financial institutions based in ndaa excepted jurisdictions. a significant difference between these authorities is that the national defense authorization act (ndaa) exception in the iran threat reduction and syria human rights act (tra) section 312 is limited to transactions or financial services for the purchase of petroleum or petroleum products from iran. the itsr block the property and interests in property of the government of iran and all iranian financial institutions that come within the possession or control of any u.s. person, including any foreign branch, and prohibit all u.s. persons from dealing with any property interests whatsoever, present, future, or contingent, of persons identified as already blocked pursuant to e.o. 13599 and the national defense authorization act (ndaa). ofac is adding section 560.211 to the itsr to implement the blocking prohibitions set forth in e.o. 13599 and the ndaa. new sections 560.212 through 560.214 are being added to set forth certain consequences and requirements that stem from the blocking prohibitions, including, inter alia, the requirement to hold blocked funds in interest bearing accounts. new paragraphs (e) and (f) are being added to section 560.210 to incorporate two exemptions from the blocking prohibitions that are set forth in e.o. 13599. these exemptions concern the official business of the federal government and the property and interests in property of the government of iran that were blocked pursuant to executive order 12170 of november 14, 1979. the iranian transactions and sanctions regulations(itsr) authorize united states depository institutions to process transfers of funds to or from iran, or for the direct or indirect benefit of persons in iran or the government of iran , if the transfer arises from, and is ordinarily incident and necessary to give effect to, an underlying transaction that has been authorized by a specific or general license issued pursuant to, or set forth in, the itsr and does not involve debiting or crediting an iranian account. see 31 cfr 560.516(a). in addition, the itsr authorize united states registered brokers or dealers in securities to process transfers of funds to or from iran, or for the direct or indirect benefit of persons in iran or the government of iran, if the transfer arises from, and is ordinarily incident and necessary to give effect to, an underlying transaction that has been authorized by a specific or general license issued pursuant to, or set forth in, the itsr and does not involve debiting or crediting an iranian account. see 31 cfr 560.516(b). the authorizations set forth in section 560.516 of the itsr do not allow a u.s. person who is authorized to engage in the underlying transaction to deal directly with money service businesses (msbs) or hawalas, wherever located. however, these authorizations do not preclude united states depository institutions or united states registered brokers or dealers in securities from engaging or dealing with third country msbs or hawalas in the processing of the authorized transfers pursuant to section 560.516 of the itsr. the itsr authorize the transfer of funds that are noncommercial and personal in nature to or from iran or for or on behalf of an individual ordinarily resident in iran, other than an individual whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to § 560.211, subject to certain restrictions and limitations. see 31 cfr 560.550. such transfers must be processed by a united states depository institution or a united states registered broker or dealer in securities and not by any other u.s. person. the personal remittances general license does not permit a u.s. person to deal directly with money service businesses (msbs) or hawalas, wherever located. however, this general license does not preclude united states depository institutions or united states registered brokers or dealers in securities from engaging or dealing with third country msbs or hawalas in the processing of the authorized transfers pursuant to section 560.550 of the itsr. the hand carrying of certain noncommercial, personal remittances is also authorized, provided that the individual who is a u.s. person is hand carrying the funds on his or her behalf, but not on behalf of another person. see 31 cfr 560.550. the itsr include several general licenses that newly authorize, or continue to authorize, activities that are otherwise prohibited by the regulations. categories of activities affected by these changes include, among other things, visa related transactions, journalistic activities in iran, the sale of real property in iran and the transfer of related proceeds to the united states, educational activities (including certain exchange programs), participation in conferences, and the exportation and reexportation of medicine and basic medical supplies to iran. the statement of licensing procedure reflects procedures established pursuant to section 413 of the iran threat reduction and syria human rights act (the tra). these procedures stipulate that, as of the effective date of the tra, license determinations for complete requests for authorization under this policy shall be made not later than 90 days after receipt by ofac, with certain exceptions. the statement of licensing policy applies to applications submitted by the following categories of u.s. persons seeking to engage in certain human rights , humanitarian , and democracy related activities with respect to iran: (1) entities receiving funds from the department of state to engage in the proposed activity; (2) the broadcasting board of governors; and (3) other appropriate agencies of the united states government. the itsr also include separate statements of licensing policy related to the sharing of information over the internet in iran and the support of democracy and human rights in iran and academic and cultural exchange programs. pursuant to the restrictions already in place under the national defense authorization act (ndaa), foreign financial institutions (“ffis”) face restrictions on, or loss of, correspondent and payable through account access in the united states if they knowingly engage in significant financial transactions with the central bank of iran (“cbi”) or a designated iranian financial institution, unless an ndaa exception, such as the significant reduction exception, applies. the ndaa significant reduction exception applies if the secretary of state, in consultation with the secretary of the treasury and other agencies, has determined that the country with primary jurisdiction over the ffi has significantly reduced its purchases of iranian crude oil during a specified period of time. effective february 6, 2013, section 504 amends the ndaa in several ways. most importantly, it narrows the ndaa’s significant reduction exception to (a) exempt from sanctions only transactions that conduct or facilitate bilateral trade in goods or services between the country granted the exception and iran, and (b) require that funds owed to iran as a result of the bilateral trade be credited to an account located in the country granted the exception and not be repatriated to iran. in addition, it   (i) eliminates the distinction between state owned or  controlled ffis (not including foreign central banks) and private ffis, thereby expanding the scope of sanctionable transactions for state owned or  controlled ffis with the cbi or designated iranian financial institutions; and (ii) clarifies that countries that have reduced their iranian crude oil purchases to zero may continue to receive the significant reduction exception. the sale of agricultural commodities, food, medicine, or medical devices to iran (the “humanitarian exception”) is not impacted by section 504 of the tra. the purchase or acquisition of petrochemicals from iran remain sanctionable activities and are not subject to the significant reduction exception. yes, the section 504 modifications also narrow the scope of transactions excepted from certain sanctions available under e.o. 13622. accordingly, foreign financial institutions (ffis) in countries that are determined by the secretary of state to have significantly reduced their purchases of iranian crude oil pursuant to the ndaa, that knowingly conduct significant financial transactions with the national iranian oil company (“nioc”), the naftiran intertrade company (“nico”), or otherwise for the purchase of petroleum or petroleum products from iran, are only eligible for the significant reduction exception if the ffis adhere to the bilateral trade restrictions, credit the funds to an account in the country with primary jurisdiction over the ffi, and do not repatriate the funds to iran. example 1: a ffi in a country which has received a significant reduction exception and with primary jurisdiction over the ffi may facilitate a transaction enabling an oil refinery in that country to purchase crude oil from iran without having exposure to u.s. correspondent account sanctions, so long as the transaction meets section 504’s bilateral trade requirements, the funds are credited to an account in the ffi in the country with primary jurisdiction over the ffi, and the funds are not repatriated to iran. example 2: if, however, a ffi in a country which has received a significant reduction exception facilitates a third country’s crude oil purchase   even a third country with a significant reduction exception   from iran, the ffi would have exposure to sanctions because the transaction was not solely for the ffi host country’s purchase of crude oil from iran. significant financial transactions* knowingly conducted or facilitated by a foreign financial institution (ffi) with the central bank of iran (cbi) on or after november 5, 2018 or with a designated iranian financial institution may be subject to sanctions under the national defense authorization act (ndaa) and section 561.203 of the iranian financial sanctions regulations (ifsr), 31 c.f.r. part 561, unless   (i) the country that has primary jurisdiction over the ffi conducting or facilitating such significant financial transactions has received a significant reduction exception under section 1245(d)(4)(d) of the ndaa; and (ii) the significant financial transaction is for bilateral trade only, and any funds owed to iran as a result of such trade are credited to an account at the ffi in the country that has primary jurisdiction over the ffi and are not repatriated to iran. however, any ffi that knowingly facilitates significant transactions or provides significant financial services for persons designated in connection with iran’s support for international terrorism or the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction pursuant to e.o.s 13224 or 13382 can be sanctioned under section 104(c) of the comprehensive iran sanctions, accountability, and divestment act of 2010 (“cisada”) and section 561.201 of the iranian financial sanctions regulations (ifsr), even if those transactions are not sanctionable under section 1245(d) of the ndaa, section 561.203 of the ifsr, sections 1244 and 1247 of the iran freedom and counter proliferation act of 2012, and executive order 13846 for countries that receive an sre. * these do not include sales relating to the humanitarian exception. as of february 6, 2013, 20 jurisdictions have been granted a 180 day significant reduction exception. the following jurisdictions received their 180 day significant reduction exception to the national defense authorization act (ndaa) sanctions on september 14, 2012: belgium, the czech republic, france, germany, greece, italy, japan, the netherlands, poland, spain, and the united kingdom. the following jurisdictions received their 180 day significant reduction exception to ndaa sanctions on december 7, 2012: china, india, malaysia, republic of korea, singapore, south africa, sri lanka, taiwan, and turkey. ofac interprets bilateral trade between iran and the country with primary jurisdiction over the ffi to mean trade in only those goods or services originating in (e.g., produced in or substantially transformed in)   (i) the country with primary jurisdiction over the ffi conducting or facilitating the transaction, or (ii) iran (for purposes of the import of iranian origin goods or services by the country with primary jurisdiction over the ffi), and the trade in services cannot include brokering transactions involving goods or services from or to third countries. furthermore, the goods or services must be exported and sold directly to either the country with primary jurisdiction over the ffi (in the case of iranian origin goods or services), or iran (in the case of goods or services originating in the country with primary jurisdiction over the ffi). the humanitarian exception is not impacted by section 504’s bilateral trade limitations (see faq 265). section 504 of the tra requires that, in order for a sanctionable transaction to fall within the bounds of the significant reduction exception, any funds owed to iran as a result of the bilateral trade transaction must be credited to an “account located in the country with primary jurisdiction over the [ffi].” for purposes of implementing this requirement, ofac interprets the “account located in the country with primary jurisdiction over the [ffi]” to be an account in the country with primary jurisdiction over the ffi, and at the same ffi that facilitated the transaction for the importation of goods or services from iran. once the funds are deposited in the ffi, they can be   (i) used to pay for a purchase by iran of goods or services originating in the country with primary jurisdiction over the ffi which are exported and sold directly to iran, or for the humanitarian exception (see figure 1); or (ii) transferred to a special purpose account (see faq 260) within that same ffi, in the country with primary jurisdiction over the ffi, where the funds may be later debited to purchase goods or services originating in the country with primary jurisdiction over the ffi which are exported and sold directly to iran, or for the humanitarian exception (see figure 2). the funds may not be repatriated to iran. a special purpose account is an account set up with conditions and safeguards that require the account to be used only for bilateral trade in goods or services between iran and the country with primary jurisdiction over the ffi, and for sales made under the humanitarian exception (see faq 265). funds paid as a result of bilateral trade under the ndaa’s significant reduction exception may be transferred to a special purpose account, so long as the account is at the same ffi that facilitated or conducted the original transaction, in the country with primary jurisdiction over the ffi. transfers on or after february 6, 2013, of funds deposited in the recipient account or the special purpose account to third country financial institutions are not covered by the national defense authorization act's (ndaa) significant reduction exception, and create exposure to sanctions for ffis conducting or facilitating such transfers, unless the transfer is to pay a third country exporter for sales made pursuant to the humanitarian exception (see faq 265). in order for the national defense authorization act's (ndaa) significant reduction exception to apply on or after february 6, 2013, funds withdrawn from the recipient account or special purpose account at the ffi may only be used to pay for bilateral trade or purchases relating to the humanitarian exception. cash withdrawals from the recipient account or special purpose account would be deemed to fall outside of the scope of bilateral trade and would expose the ffi to sanctions. bank checks written on the account may be used only to pay for bilateral trade or purchases relating to the humanitarian exception, and are subject to further restrictions set out in faq 263 below. in order for the national defense authorization act's (ndaa) significant reduction exception to apply on or after february 6, 2013, the person receiving payment (e.g., the manufacturer or service provider) for goods or services being exported to iran must be   (i) a citizen, national, or permanent resident of the country with primary jurisdiction over the ffi maintaining the accounts containing the bilateral trade funds; or (ii) an entity organized under the laws of the country with primary jurisdiction over the ffi maintaining such accounts. furthermore, the person receiving such payment may not be   (i) the government of iran (as defined in 31 cfr part 561.321) (“goi”);* or (ii) a financial institution that appears on the list of foreign financial institutions subject to part 561, which is maintained on the office of foreign assets control’s web site (https://ofac.treasury.gov). *the term “government of iran” as defined in 31 cfr part 561.321 includes: (a) the state and the government of iran, as well as any political subdivision, agency, or instrumentality thereof; (b) any entity owned or controlled directly or indirectly by the foregoing; (c) any person to the extent that such person is, or has been, or to the extent that there is reasonable cause to believe that such person is, or has been, acting or purporting to act directly or indirectly on behalf of any of the foregoing; and (d) any person or entity identified by the secretary of the treasury to be the government of iran under 31 cfr part 560. no. if funds from the recipient account or the special purpose account are remitted, directly or indirectly, to iran, or paid to any person that is the goi, the ffi would be exposed to sanctions. the national defense authorization act of fiscal year 2012 (ndaa) generally exempts from sanctions sales made under the humanitarian exception (i.e., the sale of agricultural commodities, food, medicine, or medical devices from third countries to iran). funds deposited in the recipient account or the special purpose account can be used to pay for sales made pursuant to the humanitarian exception yes. on september 24, 2012, nioc was identified as an agent or affiliate of iran’s islamic revolutionary guard corps (“irgc”) under section 312 of the tra , and designated on november 8, 2012, under e.o. 13382 for providing services and support to the irgc. accordingly, the comprehensive iran sanctions, accountability, and divestment act (cisada) applies to transactions with nioc. as a result of these additional sanctions against nioc, only transactions solely for the purchase of petroleum or petroleum products from nioc will fall within the scope of the significant reduction exception. a ffi in a significantly reducing country that is found to knowingly conduct or facilitate other types of significant transactions with nioc (i.e., transactions unrelated to the purchase of petroleum or petroleum products from iran) would face exposure to cisada sanctions. example 3: if a ffi in a country with a significant reduction exception facilitates a transaction enabling a company in that country to purchase drilling equipment from nioc, the ffi risks restrictions on, or loss of, correspondent and payable through account access in the united states, because the transaction was not solely for the purchase of petroleum or petroleum products from iran. these definitions are set out in 31 cfr part 561. as a general matter, we intend to rely, where applicable, on definitions of terms previously included in treasury regulations. “iran” the iranian financial sanctions regulations (31 cfr part 561) (ifsr) define “iran” as the government of iran and the territory of iran and any other territory or marine area, including the exclusive economic zone and continental shelf, over which the government of iran claims sovereignty, sovereign rights, or jurisdiction, provided that the government of iran exercises partial or total de facto control over the area or derives a benefit from economic activity in the area pursuant to international arrangements. (31 cfr § 561.329) “knowingly” the ifsr define “knowingly” with respect to conduct, a circumstance, or a result, to mean that a person has actual knowledge, or should have known, of the conduct, the circumstance, or the result. (31 cfr § 561.314) “significant” as a general matter, in determining for purposes of ifca and relevant executive orders whether transactions, financial transactions, or financial services are significant, the department of the treasury will rely on the interpretation set out in §561.404 of the ifsr. the ifsr provide that the department of the treasury may consider the totality of the facts and circumstances set forth a list of broad factors that can play a role in the determination whether transactions, financial services, and financial transactions are significant, including: (a) the size, number, and frequency of the transactions, financial services, or financial transactions; (b) the nature of the transactions, financial services, or financial transactions, including their type, complexity, and commercial purpose; (c) the level of awareness of management and whether the transactions are part of a pattern of conduct; (d) the nexus of the transactions, financial services, and financial transactions and blocked persons; (e) the impact of the transactions, financial services, and financial transactions on statutory objectives; (f) whether the transactions, financial services, and financial transactions involve deceptive practices; (g) whether the transactions solely involve the passive holdings of central bank of iran (cbi) reserves or repayment by the cbi of official development assistance or the transfer of funds required as a condition of iran’s membership in an international financial institution; and (h) other relevant factors that the secretary of the treasury deems relevant. we anticipate adopting a similar approach to interpreting the term “significant” as it applies to goods or services. (31 c.f.r. §561.404) “transfer” we anticipate that regulations to be promulgated will define “transfer” to include import, transshipment, export, or reexport, whether direct or indirect. there is no general exception for payments, sales, deliveries, or transfers arising out of contracts entered into prior to july 1, 2013, on or after which date certain activities become sanctionable under the iran freedom and counter proliferation act of 2012 (ifca). the assessment of whether such payments are “significant” or result in the transfer of “significant goods or services” or “significant financial support” will be done on a case by case basis in line with the criteria discussed above. ifca generally excepts from sanctions transactions for the sale of agricultural commodities, food, medicine, or medical devices to iran, as set out in more detail in q&as 297 and 304. we anticipate that regulations to be promulgated will define “energy sector of iran” to include activities involving the exploration, extraction, production, refinement, or liquefaction of petroleum, natural gas, or petroleum products in iran. (see also discussion of activities involving natural gas in q&a 297.) we anticipate that regulations to be promulgated will define “shipping sector of iran” to include activities involving the transportation of goods by seagoing vessels, including oil tankers and cargo vessels, flying the flag of the islamic republic of iran, or owned, controlled, chartered, or operated directly or indirectly by the government of iran. we anticipate that regulations to be promulgated will define “shipbuilding sector of iran” to include activities involving the construction of seagoing vessels, including oil tankers and cargo vessels, in iran. persons determined to be part of iran’s energy, shipping, or shipbuilding sectors, or a port operator in iran for purposes of ifca section 1244(c) will be identified as such on the sdn list. knowingly providing certain significant support to persons determined to be part of iran’s energy, shipping, or shipbuilding sectors, or a port operator in iran will have exposure to sanctions, unless the transaction is excepted (see also q&a 297). we anticipate that regulations to be promulgated will define goods and services used in connection with iran’s energy, shipping and shipbuilding sectors to include: a. energy sector: in the case of iran’s energy sector, goods or services that contribute to, b. shipping sector: in the case of iran’s shipping sector, c. shipbuilding sector: in the case of iran’s shipbuilding sector, sections 1244(d)(1) and (2) of ifca make sanctionable certain transactions for the sale, supply, or transfer to or from iran of such goods and services if they are significant goods or services used in connection with iran’s energy, shipping, or shipbuilding sectors. (see faq 289 above for an interpretation of “significant.”) the provision of goods or services identified above could be sanctionable regardless of whether any person involved in the transaction has been determined to be part of iran’s energy, shipping, or shipbuilding sectors. if a non iranian vessel is transporting non sanctionable goods to or from iran, the bunkering of that non iranian vessel in a country other than iran   and related payments for these bunkering services   will not be subject to sanctions, only if (1) the transaction either does not involve u.s. persons (including u.s. financial institutions) or u.s. owned or  controlled foreign entities, or the transaction is exempt from ofac regulation or authorized by ofac if it does involve u.s. persons (including u.s. financial institutions) or u.s. owned or  controlled foreign entities, and (2) the transaction does not involve persons on ofac’s list of specially designated nationals and blocked persons (sdn list) that have been designated in connection with iran’s support for international terrorism or proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, including designated iranian financial institutions or the islamic revolutionary guard corps (irgc), or activity that is subject to other sanctions authorities. the following transactions are excepted from the provisions of section 1244 of ifca. a. transactions for the sale of agricultural commodities, food, medicine, or medical devices to iran or for the provision of humanitarian assistance to the people of iran. b. the export of petroleum or petroleum products from iran to a country with a significant reduction exception under section 1245(d)(4)(d)(i) of the national defense authorization act for fiscal year 2012 (ndaa 2012). c. a significant financial transaction conducted or facilitated by a foreign financial institution (ffi), provided that a significant reduction exception under 1245(d)(4)(d)(i) of ndaa 2012 applies to the country with primary jurisdiction over the ffi and the financial transaction is for trade in goods or services (i) between iran and the country with primary jurisdiction over the ffi and (ii) not otherwise subject to sanctions under the law of the united states, and any funds owed to iran as a result of the trade are credited to an account located in the country with primary jurisdiction over the ffi. we anticipate the implementation of these trade requirements to be similar to the trade requirements set forth in the iranian financial sanctions regulations (ifsr), in particular 31 cfr §561.203(j) and 31 cfr §561.203(k). d. the sale, supply, or transfer of natural gas to or from iran. ifca section 1244, however, does set out sanctions that may apply to ffis that conduct or facilitate a transaction for the sale, supply, or transfer of natural gas to or from iran unless the financial transaction is for trade in goods or services (i) between iran and the country with primary jurisdiction over the ffi and (ii) not otherwise subject to sanctions under the law of the united states, and any funds owed to iran as a result of the trade are credited to an account located in the country with primary jurisdiction over the ffi. we anticipate the implementation of these trade requirements to be similar to the trade requirements set forth in the ifsr, in particular 31 cfr §561.203(j) and 31 cfr §561.203(k). e. certain activities relating to the pipeline project to supply natural gas from the shah deniz gas field in azerbaijan to europe and turkey. for purposes of ifca, we anticipate that regulations to be promulgated will define graphite, raw or semi finished metals described in section 1245(d) of ifca to include steels; aluminum metal and its alloys; base metals of single or complex borides of titanium; beryllium metal and its alloys; boron metal and its alloys; cobalt metal and its alloys; copper infiltrated tungsten metal; copper beryllium metal; germanium metal and its alloys; graphites; hastelloy; inconel; magnesium metal and its alloys; molybdenum metal and its alloys; neptunium 237 metal and its alloys; nickel metal and its alloys; nickel aluminide metals; niobium metal and its alloys; niobium titanium filaments; plutonium metal and its alloys; porous nickel metal; silver infiltrated tungsten metal; tantalum metal and its alloys; tellurium metal and its alloys; titanium aluminide metals; titanium metal and its alloys; tungsten metal, tungsten carbide metal, and their alloys; uranium titanium alloy metals; and zirconium metal and its alloys and compounds. for purposes of ifca, we anticipate that regulations to be promulgated will define the term “precious metals” to include silver (including silver plated with gold or platinum, unwrought or in semi manufactured forms, or in powder form); gold (including gold plated with platinum, unwrought or in semi manufactured forms, or in powder form); base metals or silver, clad with gold, not further worked than semi manufactured; platinum, unwrought or in semi manufactured forms, or in powder form; iridium; osmium; palladium; rhodium; ruthenium; base metals, silver or gold, clad with platinum, not further worked than semi manufactured; waste and scrap of precious metal or of metal clad with precious metals, other waste and scrap containing precious metal or precious metal compounds, of a kind used principally for the recovery of precious metal. pursuant to delegated authority, the secretary of state issues periodic reports pursuant to section 1245(e) of ifca with respect to which sectors of the iranian economy are controlled directly or indirectly by iran’s islamic revolutionary guard corps (irgc). given the opaque business environment in iran and the significant role that the irgc plays in the iranian economy, ofac recommends that a person considering business in iran or with iranian persons conduct due diligence sufficient to ensure that it is not knowingly engaging in transactions with the irgc, or its officials, agents, or affiliates. a ffi, prior to conducting or facilitating a significant financial transaction for the sale, supply, or transfer to or from iran of the materials listed in 1245(d)   as described in part in q&a 298  will need to undertake due diligence to ensure that the transaction does not involve the materials being sold, supplied, or transferred, directly or indirectly, to or from iran for sanctionable uses under section 1245. pursuant to delegated authority, the secretary of state issues periodic reports pursuant to section 1245(e) of ifca, which contains determinations on which materials identified in section 1245(d) are used by iran as a medium for swap or barter, are listed as assets on the national balance sheet of iran, or are used in connection with the nuclear, military, or ballistic missile programs of iran. a person will not be subject to sanctions under section 1245 of ifca if a determination is made by the department of the treasury or the department of state, as appropriate, that the person has established and enforced official policies, procedures, and controls to ensure that the person does not sell, supply, or transfer to or from iran, or facilitate or conduct a significant financial transaction to sell supply, or transfer to or from iran, materials listed in section 1245 as sanctioned under section 1245. the department of the treasury or the department of state, as appropriate, will make this determination on a case by case basis as part of an investigation or enforcement action by the relevant department. a number of insurance activities are subject to sanctions under ifca, including knowingly providing insurance, reinsurance, or underwriting services to or for iranian persons on the sdn list to or for any person designated in connection with iran’s support for international terrorism or wmd proliferation, or for activities with respect to iran for which sanctions have been imposed (e.g., knowingly engaging in a significant transaction for the purchase, acquisition, sale, transport, or marketing of petroleum or petroleum products from iran). however, the provision of insurance, reinsurance, or underwriting services to non iranian persons on the sdn list is generally not sanctionable under section 1246(a)(1) of ifca if the provision of insurance, reinsurance or underwriting services is not to or for an iranian person on the sdn list, to or for any person designated in connection with iran’s support for international terrorism or wmd proliferation, or for any activity with respect to iran for which sanctions have been imposed. yes. ifca includes the following exceptions to insuring, reinsuring, or underwriting sanctioned activities. a. transactions for the sale of agricultural commodities, food, medicine, or medical devices to iran or for the provision of humanitarian assistance to the people of iran can be insured, reinsured, or underwritten. b. a person that provides insurance, reinsurance, or underwriting services to sanctioned activity, if a determination is made by the department of the treasury or the department of state, as appropriate, that the person has established and enforced official policies, procedures, and controls to ensure that the person does not underwrite or enter into a contract to provide insurance or reinsurance for activities targeted under section 1246 of ifca. the department of the treasury or the department of state, as appropriate, will make this determination on a case by case basis as part of an investigation or enforcement action by the relevant department. ifca was signed into law on january 2, 2013, as a part of the national defense authorization act for fiscal year 2013, and provides for several new sanctions related to iran. ifca authorizes broad sanctions on: certain activities related to iran’s energy, shipping, and shipbuilding sectors; the sale, supply, or transfer to or from iran of precious and certain other metals, graphite, coal, and industrial software; the provision of underwriting services, insurance, or reinsurance to activities and persons targeted by u.s. sanctions against iran; financial transactions involving sanctioned iranian individuals and entities; and persons involved in the diversion of goods intended for the iranian people. most of the ifca provisions target conduct occurring on or after july 1, 2013. the u.s. department of the treasury will be issuing regulations to implement certain provisions in ifca. in addition, the u.s. department of state expects to adopt an interpretation of ifca similar to that set forth below. yes. so long as the transaction does not involve a designated individual or entity, banks on the part 561 list located on ofac’s website, or otherwise proscribed conduct, such transactions are not sanctionable under u.s. law. furthermore, there is no requirement under u.s. law that agricultural commodities, food, medicine, or medical devices be routed through the country with the significant reduction exception. such a payment mechanism is not the exclusive mechanism for the purchase of agricultural commodities, food, medicine, or medical devices under u.s. law. other options include receiving payment from a third country account of the cbi or a non designated iranian financial institution. the department of the treasury office of foreign assets control regulations describe the exception for transactions relating to agricultural commodities, food, medicine, or medical devices in 31 cfr § 561.203(g) and note 2 to 51 cfr § 561.203. additional information and clarifying guidance about humanitarian assistance and related exports to the iranian people can be found in the clarifying guidance document. any company involved in loading or unloading cargo in iran should exercise great caution to avoid engaging in transactions with entities designated by the united states, including the tidewater middle east co. which was designated for its involvement in iran’s proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. however, to the extent that a shipping company transacts with port operators in iran that have been identified as such under ifca but not otherwise designated, and as long as such payments are limited strictly to routine fees including port dues, docking fees, or cargo handling fees, paid for the loading and unloading of non sanctioned goods at iranian ports, we anticipate that such transactions would not be considered significant transactions for the purposes of ifca. non routine and/or large payments or fees that materially exceed standard industry rates could expose a person to sanctions. furthermore, providing any port operator in iran with any significant financial, material, technological, or other support could expose a person to sanctions. no. the gl for medical devices appearing at section 560.530(a)(3)(i) of the iranian transactions and sanctions regulations (itsr) authorizes covered persons, as defined in section 560.530(e)(4), to export or reexport to iran medical devices as defined in section 560.530(e)(3) of the itsr, except for items on the list of medical devices requiring specific authorization, which is maintained on ofac’s website. this list will be published in the federal register, as will any changes to the list. no. while the gl under section 560.530(a)(3)(i) of the iranian transactions and sanctions regulations (itsr) authorizes exports or reexports of certain medical devices to most entities in iran, it does not authorize exports or reexports to military, intelligence, or law enforcement purchasers or importers, nor does it authorize exports or reexports to persons whose property and interests in property are blocked under any of the programs administered by ofac, except for persons whose property and interests in property are blocked solely pursuant to executive order 13599 and the itsr. when engaging in activities pursuant to this gl, exporters and reexporters are expected to undertake due diligence regarding all parties to the transactions, just as they would when acting pursuant to a specific license issued by ofac. please refer to the foreign sanctions evaders (fse) list. yes, transactions that were authorized under 31 cfr § 560.540 of the itsr as of may 16, 2024 or gl d 2 (as well as its predecessors, gls d and d 1) continue to be authorized pursuant to the version of 31 cfr § 560.540 revised on may 17, 2024. see faqs 338 343 and 1110 for additional information on transactions authorized pursuant to 31 cfr § 560.540. date updated: may 16, 2024 qualifying services under 31 cfr § 560.540(a)(1) are those that are “incident to the exchange of communications over the internet,” as well as cloud based services in support of such services or of any other transaction authorized or exempt under the itsr. qualifying software under 31 cfr § 560.540(a)(2) is software that is incident to, or enables services incident to, the exchange of communications over the internet, as well as certain cloud based services. in addition, qualifying software under 31 cfr § 560.540(a)(2) must meet the stated export control related criteria. both paragraphs provide an illustrative but not exhaustive list of the types of services that are authorized: “instant messaging, chat and email, social networking, sharing of photos and movies, web browsing, blogging, social media platforms, collaboration platforms, video conferencing, e gaming, e learning platforms, automated translation, web maps, and user authentication services, as well as cloud based services in support of the foregoing or of any other transaction authorized or exempt under the itsr. qualifying services or software need not be specifically listed in the 31 cfr § 560.540 list of services, software, and hardware incident to communications in order to be authorized by 31 cfr § 560.540(a)(1) or (a)(2), provided that they otherwise meet the requirements of 31 cfr § 560.540(a)(1) or (a)(2). date updated: may 16, 2024 no. the 31 cfr § 560.540 list of services, software, and hardware incident to communications lists software, hardware, and related services determined to be “incident to communications” for purposes of the authorization in 31 cfr § 560.540(a)(3) of the itsr. date updated: may 16, 2024 if you require assistance interpreting the authorizations contained in 31 cfr § 560.540 and how they apply to your situation, please contact ofac’s compliance hotline or submit a request for interpretive guidance at the ofac license application page. date updated: may 16, 2024 yes. for purposes of the authorities administered by ofac, 31 cfr § 560.540 authorizes the exportation, reexportation, or provision of certain hardware and software subject to the ear by non u.s. persons outside the united states. see 31 cfr § 560.540(a)(2)(i) and (a)(3). for example, a non u.s. person manufacturer of smartphones that are (a) subject to the ear because they contain more than a de minimis amount of u.s. controlled content and (b) within the scope of the 31 cfr § 560.540 authorization may export the smartphones from its third country manufacturing facility directly or indirectly to iran. see faqs 1087 1089 and 1110. date updated: may 16, 2024 yes. section 560.540 of the itsr continues to authorize the exportation, reexportation, or provision to iran by u.s. persons located outside of the united states of certain specified hardware and software items that are not subject to the ear. see 31 cfr § 560.540(a)(2)(ii), (a)(3)(ii) and (iii). section 560.540 continues to extend this authorization to an entity owned or controlled by a u.s. person and established or maintained outside the united states (“a u.s. owned or  controlled foreign entity”), subject to the conditions set forth in 31 cfr § 560.556. for example, an overseas branch of a u.s. company or a u.s. owned or  controlled foreign entity may export to iran, from a location outside the united states, certain hardware or software that is not subject to the ear (including foreign origin hardware or software containing less than a de minimis amount of u.s. controlled content) if the hardware or software is within the scope of the 31 cfr § 560.540 authorization. section 560.540 also authorizes the exportation, reexportation, or provision of certain fee based software that is not subject to the ear because it is described in section 734.3(b)(3) of the ear. date updated: may 16, 2024 yes. section 560.540 of the itsr authorizes the exportation, reexportation, or provision to iran and the importation into the united states by an individual entering the united states directly or indirectly from iran, of hardware and software authorized by paragraphs 31 cfr § 560.540(a)(2) or (a)(3). see note 1 to paragraphs (a)(2) and (a)(3) of 31 cfr § 560.540. section 560.540 also authorizes the importation into the united states by an individual entering the united states, directly or indirectly, from iran, of hardware or software authorized by 31 cfr § 560.540(a)(2) or (a)(3), provided the items were previously exported, reexported, or provided to iran under an authorization issued pursuant to the itsr. see 31 cfr § 560.540(a)(5). see also faq 1110. date updated: may 16, 2024 in general, the payment requirements under 31 cfr § 560.540 are the same as for all other general licenses under the iranian transactions and sanctions regulations (itsr). section 560.540(c) of the itsr provides that u.s. depository institutions or u.s. registered brokers or dealers in securities may process transfers of funds from iran or for or on behalf of a person in iran that are in furtherance of a transaction authorized under 31 cfr § 560.540, provided the transfer is consistent with § 560.516, which does not allow debiting or crediting an iranian account. see 31 cfr § 560.516(a). date updated: may 16, 2024 due diligence programs should be tailored to the particular risks encountered by exporters. as a general matter, companies selling fee based services, software, or hardware authorized by 31 cfr § 560.540 should undertake reasonable, risk based measures designed to ensure that they do not export their products to persons whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to any sanctions program administered by ofac, regardless of whether the government of iran or other end user appears on ofac’s specially designated nationals and blocked persons list or any of ofac's other sanctions lists. see faq 1088 for more information regarding ofac’s due diligence expectations for cloud based service or software providers whose services and software support communications tools are authorized by 31 cfr § 560.540. date updated: may 16, 2024 u.s. sanctions on iran do not impose any restrictions as to the use of the farsi language. see faq 337. date updated: may 16, 2024 no. section 560.540 of the itsr does not authorize the employment of persons in iran to facilitate sales, the maintenance of a physical sales presence in iran, or the utilization of iranian marketing services. however, the exportation of certain copy ready advertising materials is exempt from the prohibitions of the itsr to the extent they qualify as information or informational materials pursuant to 31 cfr § 560.210(c). date updated: may 16, 2024 the specified items excluded from the scope of the agricultural commodities general license are: castor beans, castor bean seeds, certified pathogen free eggs (unfertilized or fertilized), dried egg albumin, live animals (excluding live cattle, shrimp, and shrimp eggs), embryos (excluding cattle embryos), rosary/jequirity peas, non food grade gelatin powder, peptones and their derivatives, super absorbent polymers, western red cedar, and all fertilizers. the persons excluded from the scope of the agricultural commodities general license are iranian military, intelligence, or law enforcement purchasers or importers. in addition, the agricultural commodities general license does not authorize exports or reexports to persons whose property and interests in property are blocked under any of the programs administered by ofac, except for persons whose property and interests in property are blocked solely pursuant to executive order 13599and the itsr. exports or reexports involving the excluded items or excluded persons discussed above continue to require the level of review afforded by specific licensing and therefore are not authorized by the agricultural commodities general license. yes. the definitions of the terms “agricultural commodities,” “medicine,” and “medical device” used in the relevant general licenses in the itsr include, in the case of items subject to commerce's export administration regulations (ear), items that are designated as ear99 and, in the case of items not subject to the ear, items that would be designated as ear99 if they were located in the united states. for example, under the agricultural commodities general license, a company located in the united states would be authorized to arrange for the exportation from a third country to iran of agricultural commodities produced in the third country if those commodities would be designated as ear99 if they were located in the united states, provided that all conditions of the general license are otherwise satisfied. yes. a non u.s. person may export or reexport agricultural commodities, medicine, or medical devices to iran under the relevant general licenses in the itsr, provided that the items are subject to commerce's export administration regulations (ear); and all conditions of the relevant general license are otherwise satisfied. for example, a non u.s. person would be authorized under the medicine and medical devices general license to arrange for the exportation or reexportation to iran of ear99 medicines located in the united states or a third country. in addition, an entity owned or controlled by a u.s. person and established or maintained outside the united states (a “u.s. owned or  controlled foreign entity”) may export or reexport agricultural commodities, medicine, and medical devices to iran under the relevant general licenses in the itsr (including both items subject to the ear and items not subject to the ear), provided that all conditions of the relevant general license are otherwise satisfied. for example, a u.s. owned or  controlled foreign entity would be authorized under the medicine and medical devices general license to arrange for the reexport to iran of ear99 medicines, as well as the export to iran of medicines not subject to the ear (e.g., medicines produced outside the u.s. by a non u.s. person with no controlled u.s. content) that would be designated as ear99 if they were located in the united states. if an export or reexport is not authorized by general license, any u.s. person, or non u.s. person exporting items subject to commerce's export administration regulations (ear); and designated as ear99, wherever located, or u.s. owned or  controlled foreign entity may apply for a specific license. for example, a u.s. owned or  controlled foreign entity may apply for a specific license for the export or reexport to iran of agricultural commodities excluded from the scope of the agricultural commodities general license, such as live animals. u.s. persons continue to be authorized to provide brokerage services on behalf of u.s. persons for the sale and exportation or reexportation by u.s. persons of agricultural commodities, medicine, and medical devices to iran, provided that the sale and exportation or reexportation itself is authorized by either general or specific license. ofac will no longer issue specific licenses for exports or reexports that are covered by the agricultural commodities general license in the itsr. however, a small number of specified agricultural commodities and certain persons are excluded from the agricultural commodities general license and continue to require the level of review afforded by specific licensing. as a result, persons seeking authorization for the exportation or reexportation to iran of castor beans, castor bean seeds, certified pathogen free eggs (unfertilized or fertilized), dried egg albumin, live animals (excluding live cattle, shrimp, and shrimp eggs), embryos (excluding cattle embryos), rosary/jequirity peas, non food grade gelatin powder, peptones and their derivatives, super absorbent polymers, western red cedar, or all fertilizers, or for the exportation or reexportation of any agricultural commodities to iranian military, intelligence, or law enforcement purchasers or importers, must still apply for a specific license from ofac. the agricultural commodities general license in the itsr also does not authorize exports or reexports to persons whose property and interests in property are blocked under any of the programs administered by ofac, except for persons whose property and interests in property are blocked solely pursuant to executive order 13599 and the itsr. for purposes of the relevant exclusion from the agricultural commodities general license in the iranian transactions and sanctions regulations(itsr), the term “bioactive peptide” means an item that must be less than 50 amino acids in length and bioactive (antioxidant, antiallergic, antimicrobial, antithrombotic, antiatherogenic, hypoglycaemic, anti inflammatory, antitumor, cytostatic, immunosuppressive properties, or hepatoprotective properties.) no. provided that the relevant transactions do not involve the u.s. financial system or persons on the specially designated nationals and blocked persons list (sdn list), payments of charges for services rendered by the government of iran in connection with the overflight of iran or landing in iran of aircraft owned by a non u.s. person and registered outside the united states are not subject to sanctions under u.s. law. the involvement of persons on the sdn list, including iranian financial institutions or airlines designated pursuant to executive order 13224 or executive order 13382, would create sanctions exposure for participants to such transactions. u.s. persons and u.s. owned or  controlled foreign entities cannot participate in transactions related to the payment of overflight or landing fees to the government of iran, nor can such transactions transit the u.s. financial system, unless the transactions fall within the scope of 31 c.f.r. § 560.522 or a specific license issued by ofac and the payments in connection with such authorized transactions are consistent with 31 c.f.r. § 560.516. the provision of goods and services for the conduct of the official business of the diplomatic missions of the government of iran located outside the united states or for the personal use of the employees of the missions, including financial services such as the opening of a bank account, by a non u.s. person would not be sanctionable under u.s. law, provided that such goods and services do not involve persons on ofac’s list of specially designated nationals and blocked persons (other than any political subdivision, agency, or instrumentality of the government of iran listed solely pursuant to executive order 13599 or any iranian depository institution listed solely pursuant to executory order 13599) or other activities that would be sanctionable under u.s. law. further, the provision of goods and services to the diplomatic missions of the government of iran outside the united states cannot involve u.s. persons or u.s. owned or  controlled foreign entities, or the provision to the government of iran of goods, technology, or services subject to the prohibitions of 31 c.f.r. §§ 560.204 205, nor can related transactions transit the u.s. financial system, unless the activities and/or transactions are authorized by ofac. the amendment primarily expands the scope of medical devices that can be exported or reexported to iran without specific authorization. it authorizes the exportation or reexportation to iran of all items meeting the definition of the term “medical device” as defined in section 560.530(e)(3) of the itsr, except for certain excluded persons as well as certain medical devices that are excluded from the authorization and published on the list of medical devices requiring specific authorization. the exportation and reexportation of items on the list of medical devices requiring specific authorization or to excluded persons requires a specific license from ofac. the amendment also adds shrimp and shrimp eggs to the list of agricultural commodities that may be exported to iran without specific authorization, other than to certain excluded persons. in addition, the amendment authorizes covered persons to provide training, other than to certain excluded persons, necessary and ordinarily incident to the safe and effective use of agricultural commodities, medicine, and medical devices exported or reexported pursuant to section 560.530 of the itsr. it also authorizes the importation into the united states of certain u.s. origin agricultural commodities, medicine, and medical devices that were previously exported or reexported to iran pursuant to the authorizations in section 560.530 of the itsr and that are broken, defective, or non operational, or are connected to product recalls, adverse events, or other safety concerns. additionally, the amendment authorizes the exportation or reexportation to iran, and storage within iran for future use, of a limited number of replacement parts for certain medical devices previously exported or reexported to iran pursuant to an ofac license to replace broken or non operational components or where it is ordinarily incident and necessary to proper preventative maintenance of the medical device, and the exportation or reexportation of software and services related to the operation, maintenance, and repair of medical devices. an exporter should refer to the list of medical devices requiring specific authorization, which is maintained on ofac’s website, on the iran sanctions page. an exporter must obtain a specific license from ofac to export or reexport any medical device on that list to iran. an exporter must also obtain a specific license for exports to excluded persons as defined in section 560.530(a)(3)(iv) of the itsr. ofac considers training activities including the dissemination of product information on the intended use of the device; comparisons of other devices and options; and the manufacturer’s instructions for use, labeling, warning, contraindications, storage, and maintenance of the medicine or device to be necessary and ordinarily incident to the safe and effective use of medicines and medical devices. other examples include training health care professionals to use medical devices safely in order to achieve the desired patient outcome, training on procedures for cleaning and inspecting devices regularly to ensure they are functioning correctly, ongoing training and periodic testing to ensure users stay competent, and training on procedures for adverse events or device failure. ofac amended section 560.306 of the itsr to clarify that the terms “goods of iranian origin” and “iranian origin goods” do not include the following categories of goods, provided that such goods were not grown, produced, manufactured, extracted, or processed in iran: (i) goods exported or reexported to iran under an authorization issued pursuant to the itsr (e.g., a medical device or a personal communications device exported or reexported to iran pursuant to a general or specific license issued pursuant to the itsr) and that subsequently have been reexported from and are located outside of iran, or (ii) goods transported on a vessel or aircraft that passed though iranian territorial waters or stopped at a port or place in iran en route to a destination outside of iran and that have not otherwise come into contact with iran. goods have come into contact with iran, if, for example, they are removed from a port or airport in iran or are processed through iranian customs, or if they transit iran by truck or train en route to a destination outside of iran. yes. these goods have otherwise come in contact with iran and thus do not fall within the carve out to the definition of iranian origin goods or goods of iranian origin at section 560.306 (b)(2) of the itsr . however, if these goods are being exported or reexported to iran under an authorization issued pursuant to the itsr and they subsequently are reexported from and are located outside of iran, they would fall within the carve out to the definition of iranian origin goods or goods of iranian origin at section 560.306(b)(1) of the itsr. no, provided that they have not otherwise come in contact with iran. on august 2, 2017, the president signed into law the “countering america’s adversaries through sanctions act” (public law 115 44) (caatsa), which, among other things, imposes new sanctions on iran. section 105 of caatsa requires the imposition of sanctions applicable pursuant to the global terrorism executive order 13224 on iran’s islamic revolutionary guard corps (irgc) and foreign persons that are officials, agents, or affiliates of the irgc. consistent with that requirement of caatsa, ofac designated the irgc on october 13, 2017, pursuant to e.o. 13224 for providing support to the irgc qods force, which previously had been designated for its support to various terrorist groups. in addition, effective october 31, 2017, ofac amended the global terrorism sanctions regulations, 31 c.f.r. part 594, to block the property and interests in property of foreign persons that have been identified by ofac as officials, agents, or affiliates of the irgc. before october 13, 2017, the irgc was blocked under executive order 13382 (relating to wmd proliferation), 13553 (relating to iranian human rights abuses), and 13606 (relating to iranian and syrian human rights abuses via information technology), and persons who engaged in certain activity involving the irgc were already subject to secondary sanctions. ofac’s october 13, 2017 action designating the irgc under e.o. 13224 (relating to counterterrorism) and ofac’s october 31, 2017 action under the global terrorism sanctions regulations, 31 c.f.r. part 594 (gtsr), to block the property and interests in property of foreign persons that have been identified by ofac as officials, agents, or affiliates of the irgc carry additional consequences that limit certain activities with respect to the irgc and foreign persons identified by ofac as officials, agents, or affiliates of the irgc. certain exemptions available under the international emergency economic powers act (ieepa) relating to personal communications, humanitarian donations, information or informational materials, and travel do not apply to transactions with persons designated under e.o. 13224 or otherwise blocked pursuant to the gtsr, which include the irgc and foreign persons that have been identified by ofac as officials, agents, or affiliates of the irgc. in light of the tragic earthquake in iran, the department of the treasury’s office of foreign assets control (ofac) would like to highlight some of the ways in which americans can provide humanitarian assistance to the iranian people, consistent with the iran related sanctions administered by ofac. general license e, issued by ofac in 2013 pursuant to the iranian transactions and sanctions regulations, 31 c.f.r. part 560 (itsr), authorizes nongovernmental organizations to export services to iran in support of activities related to humanitarian projects to meet basic human needs in iran, including the provision of relief services related to natural disasters, the provision of donated health related services, and the distribution of donated articles (such as food, clothing, and medicine) intended to be used to relieve human suffering in iran. in addition, nongovernmental organizations are authorized to transfer up to $500,000 per year in support of these activities, subject to certain conditions, including reporting requirements. u.s. individuals may raise funds outside of iran in support of relief services provided by nongovernmental organizations pursuant to general license e, and may make financial donations to such nongovernmental organizations in support of authorized activities. general license e does not, however, authorize u.s. individuals to transfer financial donations directly to iran or nongovernmental organizations in iran or to organize disaster relief services in iran such as fire, rescue, or medical services. u.s. persons interested in doing so should consider working through a nongovernmental organization in order to conduct such activity. in addition, donations of articles such as food, clothing, and medicine intended to be used to relieve human suffering are exempt from the sanctions on trade between the united states and iran, as long as the donations are not being sent to the government of iran or any iranian individual or entity on the list of specially designated nationals and blocked persons (sdn list). finally, u.s. financial institutions are authorized to process noncommercial, personal remittances to iran, which may include a personal transfer of funds from the united states to iran to assist a friend or family member, provided that the transfer complies with the requirements of sections 560.516 and 560.550 of the itsr. in accordance with his may 8, 2018 decision to cease the united states’ participation in the joint comprehensive plan of action (jcpoa) and to reimpose all of the u.s. sanctions lifted or waived in connection with the jcpoa, the president issued e.o. 13846 on august 6, 2018 to reimpose relevant provisions of e.o. 13574 of may 23, 2011; e.o. 13590 of november 20, 2011; e.o. 13622 of july 30, 2012; and e.o. 13645 of june 3, 2013, that had been revoked by e.o. 13716 of january 16, 2016. consistent with guidance issued by the department of the treasury on may 8, 2018 , e.o. 13846 reimposes specified sanctions relating to iran following relevant wind down periods, i.e., on or after august 7, 2018 or november 5, 2018, depending on the activity involved. in addition, to provide clarity and consolidate relevant authorities into a single e.o., e.o. 13846 revokes e.o.s 13716 and 13628 and continues in effect sanctions authorities provided for in those e.o.s. e.o. 13846 also broadens the scope of certain provisions contained in those e.o.s, as outlined in faq 601 below. e.o. 13846 reimposes relevant blocking sanctions, correspondent and payable through account sanctions, and menu based sanctions previously provided for in e.o.s 13574, 13590, 13622, and 13645, which were revoked by e.o. 13716, and continues in effect sanctions authorities provided for in e.o.s 13628 and 13716. as incorporated into e.o. 13846, these measures include implementing authority for and additional tools related to: the iran sanctions act of 1996, as amended (isa), the comprehensive iran sanctions, accountability and divestment act of 2010, as amended (cisada), the iran threat reduction and syria human rights act of 2012 (tra), and the iran freedom counter proliferation act of 2012 (ifca) (see faq 605). as a general matter, e.o. 13846 incorporates exceptions to these sanctions, including for transactions for the provision of agricultural commodities, food, medicine, or medical devices to iran, to the same extent such exceptions applied under the prior e.o.s. e.o. 13846 also broadens the scope of certain provisions contained in those e.o.s, as outlined in faq 601 below. section 1 of e.o. 13846 authorizes blocking sanctions on persons determined: iv. pursuant to the relevant statutory authorities in ifca, to be: section 2 of e.o. 13846 authorizes correspondent and payable through account sanctions on foreign financial institutions (ffis) determined to have knowingly conducted or facilitated any significant financial transaction: i. on or after august 7, 2018, for the sale, supply, or transfer to iran of significant goods or services used in connection with iran’s automotive sector (subsection 2(a)(i)); ii. on or after november 5, 2018, on behalf of an iranian person on sdn list (other than an iranian depository institution whose property and interests in property are blocked solely pursuant to e.o. 13599) or any other person on the sdn list whose property is blocked pursuant to subsection 1(a) of e.o. 13846 or e.o. 13599 (other than an iranian depository institution whose property and interests in property are blocked solely pursuant to e.o. 13599) (subsection 2(a)(ii)); iii. on or after november 5, 2018, with nioc or nico, except for the sale or provision to nioc or nico of the products described in section 5(a)(3)(a)(i) of isa provided that the fair market value of such products is lower than the applicable dollar threshold specified in that provision (subsection 2(a)(iii)); iv. on or after november 5, 2018, for the purchase, acquisition, sale, transport, or marketing of petroleum or petroleum products from iran (subsection 2(a)(iv)); and v. on or after november 5, 2018, for the purchase, acquisition, sale, transport, or marketing of petrochemical products from iran (subsection 2(a)(v)). section 3 of e.o. 13846 authorizes menu based sanctions on persons determined to: i. have knowingly engaged, on or after august 7, 2018, in a significant transaction for the sale, supply, or transfer to iran of significant goods or services used in connection with iran’s automotive sector (subsection 3(a)(i)); ii. have knowingly engaged, on or after november 5, 2018, in a significant transaction for the purchase, acquisition, sale, transport, or marketing of petroleum or petroleum products from iran (subsection 3(a)(ii)); iii. have knowingly engaged, on or after november 5, 2018, in a significant transaction for the purchase, acquisition, sale, transport, or marketing of petrochemical products from iran (subsection 3(a)(iii)); or iv. be a successor entity to a person determined to meet any of the criteria set out in subsections 3(a)(i) (a)(iii) of e.o. 13846 (subsection 3(a)(iv)); or v. own or control a person determined to meet any of the criteria set out in subsections 3(a)(i) (a)(iii) of e.o. 13846 and to have had knowledge that the person engaged in the activities referred to in the relevant subsection (subsection 3(a)(v)); or vi. be owned or controlled by, or under common ownership or control with, a person determined to meet any of the criteria set out in sections 3(a)(i) 3(a)(iii) of e.o. 13846, and knowingly engaged in the activities referred to in the relevant subsection (subsection 3(a)(vi)). section 4 of e.o. 13846 provides authority for the heads of relevant agencies of the u.s. government to implement the menu based sanctions provided for in section 3. section 5 of e.o. 13846 provides authority for the treasury department to implement the menu based sanctions provided for in isa, cisada, tra, ifca, and section 3 of e.o. 13846 section 6 of e.o. 13846 authorizes correspondent or payable through account sanctions or blocking sanctions on ffis that are determined to have, on or after august 7, 2018: (a) knowingly conducted or facilitated any significant transaction related to the purchase or sale of iranian rials or a derivative, swap, future, forward, or other similar contract whose value is based on the exchange rate of the iranian rial (subsection 6(a)(i)); or (b) maintained significant funds or accounts outside the territory of iran denominated in the iranian rial (subsection 6(a)(ii)). section 7 of e.o. 13846 carries forward sections 2 and 3 of e.o. 13628 and subsection 3(c) of e.o. 13716 (see faq 602 below) by providing for blocking sanctions on persons determined to: i. have engaged, on or after january 2, 2013, in corruption or other activities relating to the diversion of goods, including agricultural commodities, food, medicine, and medical devices, intended for the people of iran (subsection 7(a)(i)); ii. have engaged, on or after january 2, 2013, in corruption or other activities relating to the misappropriation of proceeds from the sale or resale of goods described in subsection 7(a)(1) of e.o. 13846 (subsection 7(a)(ii)); iii. have knowingly, on or after august 10, 2012, transferred or facilitated the transfer of, goods or technologies to iran, any entity organized under the laws of iran, or otherwise subject to the jurisdiction of the goi, or any national of iran for use in or with respect to iran, that are likely to be used by the goi or any of its agencies or instrumentalities, or by any person on behalf of the goi or any such agencies or instrumentalities, to commit serious human rights abuses against the people of iran (subsection 7(a)(iii)); iv. have knowingly, on or after august 10, 2012, provided services, including services relating to hardware, software, or specialized information or professional consulting, engineering, or support services with respect to goods or technologies that have been transferred to iran and that are likely to be used by the goi or any of its agencies or instrumentalities, or by any person on behalf of the goi or any such agencies or instrumentalities, to commit serious human rights abuses against the people of iran (subsection 7(a)(iv)); v. have engaged in censorship or other activities with respect to iran, on or after june 12, 2009, that prohibit, limit, or penalize the exercise of freedom of expression or assembly by citizens of iran, or that limit access to print or broadcast media, including the facilitation or support of intentional frequency manipulation by the goi or an entity owned or controlled by the goi that would jam or restrict an international signal (subsection 7(a)(v)); vi. have materially assisted or provided other support for activities listed in subsections 7(a)(i) (a)(v) of e.o. 13846 (subsection 7(a)(vi)); or vii. be owned or controlled by, or to have acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant section 7 of e.o. 13846 (subsection 7(a)(vii)). section 8 of e.o. 13846 continues in effect the sanctions previously contained in section 4 of e.o. 13628, which prohibit an entity owned or controlled by a u.s. person and established or maintained outside the united states (a “u.s. owned or  controlled foreign entity”) from knowingly engaging in any transaction, directly or indirectly, with the goi or any person subject to the jurisdiction of the goi, if that transaction would be prohibited by specified authorities if engaged in by a u.s. person or in the united states (see faqs 621 623). section 9 of e.o. 13846 provides that it revokes and supersedes e.o.s 13628 and 13716 (see faq 602). sections 10 22 of e.o. 13846 contain exceptions, definitions, and other implementing provisions related to the sanctions in the e.o. e.o. 13846 is effective at 12:01 a.m. eastern daylight time (edt) on august 7, 2018. however, certain sanctions set out in e.o. 13846 apply only to activities that take place on or after november 5, 2018, as set out in faq 598 above and in the relevant provisions of e.o. 13846. e.o. 13846 is being issued to coincide with the end of the 90 day wind down period which started on may 8, 2018. the last day of the 90 day wind down period is august 6, 2018, and, as announced on may 8, 2018, certain sanctions previously lifted under the jcpoa will be reimposed on august 7, 2018, including sanctions set out in e.o. 13846 (see faq 598 above). subsection 1(a)(iv) authorizes blocking sanctions pursuant to section 1244(c)(1)(a) of ifca on persons determined to: (a) be part of the energy, shipping, shipbuilding sectors of iran; (b) operate a port in iran; or (c) knowingly provide significant support to certain other persons sanctioned pursuant to section 1244(c)(1)(a) of ifca or an iranian person on the sdn list. consistent with the guidance issued by the u.s. department of the treasury on may 8, 2018, the relevant sanctions in section 1244(c)(1)(a) of ifca are waived through november 4, 2018 to provide a wind down period for activities involving iran that were consistent with the u.s. sanctions relief provided for under the jcpoa. however, the sanctions provided for in section 1244(c)(1)(a) of ifca targeting significant support to iranian persons on the sdn list remained in effect even when the jcpoa sanctions relief was in effect. to the extent activities within the scope of section 1244(c)(1)(a) of ifca involve persons on the sdn list or otherwise sanctionable conduct, persons engaging in such activities could be exposed to sanctions under subsection 1(a)(iv) of e.o. 13846 prior to november 5, 2018. yes. e.o. 13846 broadens the scope of the sanctions that were in effect prior to january 16, 2016 and provides for greater consistency in the administration of iran related sanctions provisions. see faq 597. these added measures are as follows: i. subsection 1(a)(iii)(b): providing new authority for blocking sanctions on persons determined, on or after november 5, 2018, to have provided material support for, or goods and services in support of, persons blocked for: a. providing material support for, or goods and services in support of, the purchase or acquisition of u.s. bank notes or precious metals by the goi (i.e., persons designated pursuant to subsection 1(a)(i)); b. providing material support for, or goods and services in support of, nioc, nico, or cbi (i.e., persons designated pursuant to subsection 1(a)(ii)); or c. being part of the energy, shipping, or shipbuilding sectors of iran or a port operator in iran or knowingly providing significant support to certain other persons blocked pursuant to section 1244(c)(1)(a) of ifca or to an iranian person on the sdn list (i.e., persons blocked pursuant to subsection 1(a)(iv) for meeting the criteria of section 1244(c)(1)(a) of ifca). ii. subsection 2(a)(ii): providing new authority for correspondent and payable through account sanctions on ffis determined to have, on or after november 5, 2018, knowingly conducted or facilitated any significant financial transaction on behalf of the persons blocked under the new authorities in subsection 1(a)(iii)(b) described above (i.e., any person blocked pursuant to subsections 1(a)(i), 1(a)(ii), or 1(a)(iv) and included on the sdn list). iii. sections 4 and 5: expanding the menu of sanctions available to impose on persons determined to have, on or after november 5, 2018, knowingly engaged in certain significant transactions relating to petroleum, petroleum products, or petrochemicals from iran (i.e., persons determined to meet the criteria in subsections 3(a)(ii) (a)(iii) or to be a derivative thereof pursuant to subsections 3(a)(iv) (a)(vi)) by authorizing the imposition of: a. visa restrictions on corporate officers, principals, or controlling shareholders of a sanctioned person (subsection (4)(e)); b. any of the sanctions from the menu set forth in subsections 4(a) (e) on principal executive officers of a sanctioned person (subsection 4(f)); c. prohibitions on u.s. persons investing in or purchasing significant amounts of equity or debt instruments of a sanctioned person (subsection 5(a)(v)); or d. any of the sanctions from the menu set forth in subsections 5(a)(i) (a)(vi) on principal executive officers of a sanctioned person (subsection 5(a)(vii)). iv. section 8: expanding the prohibition on u.s. owned or  controlled foreign entities previously contained in section 4 of e.o. 13628 (see faqs 621 623) by prohibiting transactions with persons blocked for: a. providing material support for, or goods and services in support of, iranian persons on the sdn list and certain other designated persons (i.e., persons designated pursuant to subsection 1(a)(iii)); or b. being part of the energy, shipping, or shipbuilding sectors of iran or a port operator in iran or knowingly providing significant support to certain other persons blocked pursuant to section 1244(c)(1)(a) of ifca or to an iranian person on the sdn list (i.e., persons blocked pursuant to subsection 1(a)(iv) for meeting the criteria of section 1244(c)(1)(a) of ifca). to provide clarity and consolidate relevant authorities into a single document, e.o. 13846 revokes e.o.s 13716 and 13628, and continues in effect relevant provisions from those two revoked e.o.s. see faq 597 and faq 598. provisions of e.o. 13846 that carry forward relevant provisions of e.o.s 13628 and 13716 include: • section 7, which consolidates into a single section designation authorities targeting corruption or other activities relating to the diversion of goods intended for the people of iran, the transfer of goods or technologies to iran that are likely to be used by the government of iran or any of its agencies or instrumentalities to commit serious human rights abuses against the people of iran or the provision of certain services with respect to such goods or technologies, and persons engaged censorship in iran (these provisions previously appeared in sections 2 and 3 of e.o. 13628 and section 8 of e.o. 13645, which was carried forward by subsection 3(c) of e.o. 13716), and • section 8 extends certain prohibitions applicable to u.s. persons under ofac administered iran sanctions to u.s. owned or  controlled foreign entities and provides for civil penalties on the u.s. parent for any violations of such prohibitions to the same extent that they would apply to a u.s. person for the same conduct, consistent with section 218 of the tra (this provision was formerly contained in section 4 of e.o. 13628). yes. ofac is taking action under section 7 of e.o. 13846 to continue in effect the designations of persons who were designated pursuant to e.o. 13628 at the time of the issuance of e.o. 13846. see faq 602. u.s. persons must continue to block the property and interests in property of these individuals and entities, and non u.s. persons should be aware of the sanctions risk associated with these persons. the treasury department implementation authorities set out in section 1 of e.o. 13574 for “menu based” sanctions under isa have been superseded by the implementation authorities for “menu based” sanctions under a broader range of authorities that include isa, cisada, tra, and ifca, and section 3 of e.o. 13846 as a result, section 1 of e.o. 13574 is not included verbatim in e.o. 13846. see faq 597 and faq 598. the sanctions set out in section 1 of e.o. 13590   relating to development of petroleum resources in iran and iran’s domestic production of petrochemical products   were incorporated into subsections 5(a)(5) (a)(6) of isa by a statutory amendment set forth in section 201 of the tra. as a result, the sanctions previously set forth in section 1 of e.o. 13590 are not included in e.o. 13846, but remain in place pursuant to statutory authorities. implementation authorities for the sanctions in subsections 5(a)(5) (a)(6) of isa are delegated to the appropriate agency heads through the presidential memorandum of october 9, 2012, or through section 5 of e.o. 13846. e.o. 13846 implements provisions of, and provides additional tools related to, isa, cisada, tra, and ifca that were contained in the prior e.o.s. these include: i. invoking the president’s authority under the international emergency economic powers act (ieepa) to supplement statutory authorities in ifca with prohibitions or restrictions on the importation of goods; ii. continuing to implement the statutory requirements of sections 105a and 105b of cisada, as added by sections 402 and 403 of tra, by providing authority to block the property and interests in property and suspend the entry into the united states of persons determined to have engaged in the transfer of goods or technologies to iran that are likely to be used by the goi or any of its agencies or instrumentalities to commit serious human rights abuses against the people of iran or the provision of services with respect to such goods or technology after they are transferred to iran, and persons determined to have engaged in censorship in iran; and iii. continuing to implement the statutory requirements of section 105c of cisada, as added by section 1249 of ifca, by providing authority to block the property and interests in property and suspend the entry into the united states of persons determined to have engaged in corruption or other activities relating to the diversion of goods intended for the iranian people or the misappropriation of proceeds from the sale or resale of such goods. after the 90 day wind down period ends on august 6, 2018, the following sanctions come into effect, including under provisions of e.o. 13846 and relevant statutory authorities: i. sanctions on the purchase or acquisition of u.s. dollar banknotes by the goi (see, e.g., subsection 1(a)(i) of e.o. 13846); ii. sanctions on iran’s trade in gold or precious metals (see, e.g., subsection 1(a)(i) of e.o. 13846 and subsection 1245(a)(1)(a) of ifca ); iii. sanctions on the direct or indirect sale, supply, or transfer to or from iran of graphite, raw, or semi finished metals such as aluminum and steel, coal, and software for integrating industrial processes (see, e.g., section 5 of e.o. 13846 and subsections 1245(a)(1)(b) (a)(1)(c) and (c) of ifca); iv. sanctions on significant transactions related to the purchase or sale of iranian rials, or the maintenance of significant funds or accounts outside the territory of iran denominated in the iranian rial (see, e.g., section 6 of e.o. 13846); v. sanctions on the purchase, subscription to, or facilitation of the issuance of iranian sovereign debt (see, e.g., section 5 of e.o. 13846 and subsection 213(a) of tra); and vi. sanctions on iran’s automotive sector (see, e.g., subsections 2(a)(i) and 3(a)(i) of e.o. 13846). after the 180 day wind down period ends on november 4, 2018, the following sanctions come into effect, including under provisions of e.o. 13846 and relevant statutory authorities: i. sanctions on iran’s port operators, and shipping and shipbuilding sectors, including on the islamic republic of iran shipping lines (irisl), south shipping line iran, or their affiliates (see, e.g., subsection 1(a)(iv) and section 5 of e.o. 13846 and section 1244(c)(1) of ifca); ii. sanctions on petroleum related transactions with, among others, nioc, nico, and the national iranian tanker company (nitc), including the purchase of petroleum, petroleum products, or petrochemical products from iran (see, e.g., subsections 1(a)(ii), 1(a)(iv), 2(a)(iii) (a)(v), and 3(a)(ii) (a)(iii) and sections 4 and 5 of e.o. 13846); iii. sanctions on transactions by ffis with the cbi and designated iranian financial institutions under section 1245 of the national defense authorization act for fy 2012 (ndaa 2012) (see, e.g., section 5 of e.o. 13846, section 1245 of ndaa 2012, and subsection 1247(a) of ifca); iv. sanctions on the provision of specialized financial messaging services to the cbi and iranian financial institutions described in subsection 104(c)(2)(e)(ii) of cisada (see, e.g., section 5 of e.o. 13846, section 220 of tra, and subsection 1244(c)(1) of ifca); v. sanctions on the provision of underwriting services, insurance, or reinsurance (see, e.g., section 5 of e.o. 13846, section 5(a)(7) of isa, subsections 211(a) and 212(a) of tra, and subsections 1246(a) and 1247(a) of ifca); and vi. sanctions on iran’s energy sector (see, e.g., subsection 1(a)(iv) and section 5 of e.o. 13846, subsection 5(a) of isa, section 212(a) of tra, and sections 1244(c)(1), (d) and (h)(2), 1246(a), and 1247(a) of ifca). section 6 of e.o. 13846 reimposes the sanctions previously contained in section 1 of e.o. 13645 with respect to transactions involving the iranian rial. ffis risk correspondent and payable through account sanctions and blocking sanctions if they, on or after august 7, 2018, (i) knowingly conduct or facilitate any significant transaction related to the purchase or sale of iranian rials or a derivative, swap, future, forward, or other similar contract whose value is based on the exchange rate of the iranian rial, or (ii) maintain significant funds or accounts outside the territory of iran denominated in the iranian rial. e.o. 13846 reimposes the sanctions previously contained in subsections 3(a)(ii) and section 5 of e.o. 13645 by authorizing the imposition of correspondent and payable through account sanctions (subsection 2(a)(i)) of e.o. 13846) and menu based sanctions (subsection 3(a)(i) of e.o. 13846) for certain transactions, on or after august 7, 2018, for the sale, supply, or transfer to iran of significant goods or services used in connection with iran’s automotive sector. e.o. 13846 defines the automotive sector of iran as the manufacturing or assembling in iran of light and heavy vehicles including passenger cars, trucks, buses, minibuses, pick up trucks, and motorcycles, as well as original equipment manufacturing and after market parts manufacturing relating to such vehicles. e.o. 13846 reimposes sanctions on certain transactions on or after august 7, 2018, for the sale, supply, or transfer to iran of “significant” goods or services used in connection with the automotive sector of iran. (see faq 289 for an interpretation of the term “significant.”) we anticipate that forthcoming regulations will define “goods or services used in connection with the automotive sector of iran” to include goods or services that contribute to (i) iran’s ability to research, develop, manufacture, and assemble light and heavy vehicles, and (ii) the manufacturing or assembling of original equipment and after market parts used in iran’s automotive industry. e.o. 13846 does not make sanctionable the export of finished vehicles to iran if no further assembly or manufacturing is required. as such, exporting fully assembled and finished vehicles to iran for sale would not be sanctionable, so long as the transaction is consistent with u.s. sanctions, including that it does not involve a sanctioned person. in contrast, “auto kits” (or “knock down kits”) exported to iran for assembly in iran would be considered goods or services used in connection with the automotive sector of iran and the export of such kits to iran would be sanctionable if the transaction is “significant.” (see faq 289 for an interpretation of the term “significant.”) goods or services for the maintenance of finished vehicles exported to iran would generally not be considered “significant goods or services used in connection with the automotive sector of iran” for the purposes of e.o. 13846, and the provision of such goods or services would generally not be sanctionable. however, the export, sale, or distribution of goods (e.g., auto parts and accessories) or services that would contribute to iran’s ability to manufacture or assemble vehicles, or manufacture original equipment and after market parts in iran, could create exposure to sanctions. persons exporting parts and services to iran for the maintenance or upkeep of finished automobiles, and ffis facilitating such exports, should exercise caution to ensure that the parts or services are not diverted for the manufacturing or assembly of vehicles in iran or the manufacturing of original equipment or after market parts in iran, and are used only for maintenance and upkeep. e.o. 13846 reimposes sanctions previously set out in e.o.s 13622, 13628, and 13645 with respect to the iranian energy, petroleum, and petrochemical sectors. as such, subsections 1(a)(ii) and (2)(a)(ii) of e.o. 13846 authorize blocking sanctions and correspondent or payable through account sanctions on persons providing material support for, or goods or services to, nioc or nico. separately, subsection 2(a)(iii) of e.o. 13846 authorizes the imposition of correspondent or payable through account sanctions on an ffi determined to have knowingly conducted or facilitated any significant financial transaction with nioc or nico (except for sales of refined petroleum products to nioc or nico that are below the dollar threshold that could trigger sanctions under section 5(a)(3)(a)(i) of isa). subsections 2(a)(iv) (a)(v) provide authority to impose sanctions on ffis determined to have knowingly conducted or facilitated a significant transaction for the purchase, acquisition, sale, transport, or marketing of petroleum, petroleum products, or petrochemicals from iran, with the aim of deterring iran or any other country or institution from establishing workaround payment mechanisms for the purchase of iranian oil to circumvent the ndaa 2012 oil sanctions. subsections 3(a)(ii) (a)(iii) provide authority to impose menu based sanctions or persons determined to have engaged in a significant transaction for the purchase, acquisition, sale, transport, or marketing of petroleum or petroleum products from iran. furthermore, persons that sell, supply, or transfer to or from iran significant goods or services used in connection with iran’s energy sector are exposed to menu based sanctions pursuant to subsection 1244(d) of ifca and section 5 of e.o. 13846 the existing exception rules under ndaa 2012 apply to these sanctions. thus, countries that are determined by the secretary of state to have significantly reduced their purchases of iranian crude oil will be excepted from these measures as well. (see faqs 169 182 relating to the ndaa 2012 sanctions.) the provisions in e.o. 13846 reimposing these sanctions come into effect beginning on november 5, 2018. these measures, which apply to transactions occurring on or after november 5, 2018, establish a key element of the comprehensive iran sanctions framework by deterring work around financial transactions involving nioc or nico that were not being captured under the sanctions previously implemented against the cbi at the time e.o. 13622 was issued. iranian trade partners can continue to buy petroleum and petroleum products from iran without risking sanctions under e.o. 13846 if they receive a significant reduction exception under relevant provisions of the ndaa 2012 for the relevant period. however, e.o. 13846 provides authority to sanction, on or after november 5, 2018, the purchase of petroleum or petroleum products and significant dealings with nioc or nico by persons in jurisdictions that do not have a significant reduction exception. in addition, ifca provides for sanctions on persons determined to be part of the energy sector of iran, or to sell, supply, or transfer to or from iran significant goods or services used in connection with the energy sector of iran, provided the person is not in a jurisdiction that has received a significant reduction exception. (see faqs 293 297 relating to ifca.) all property and interests in property of nioc and nico subject to u.s. jurisdiction are already blocked pursuant to e.o. 13599, and u.s. persons are prohibited from all dealings with these entities. e.o. 13846 reestablishes the authority previously contained in e.o. 13622 to sanction ffis that, on or after november 5, 2018, knowingly conduct or facilitate any significant transaction with nioc or nico. financial institutions in jurisdictions that have received a significant reduction exception are not subject to these sanctions for transactions with nioc and nico for the purchase of petroleum or petroleum products from iran while the exception applies. in addition, ifca provides for sanctions on persons that knowingly provide significant financial, material, technological, or other support to, or goods or services in support of any activity or transaction on behalf of or for the benefit of an iranian person on the sdn list (other than non designated iranian financial institutions), provided the person is not in a jurisdiction that has received a significant reduction exception. (see faqs 293 297 relating to ifca.) yes. as in e.o. 13622, e.o. 13846 defines nioc and nico to include any entity owned or controlled by, or operating for or on behalf of, nioc and nico. no. section 10 of e.o. 13846 maintains the exceptions previously provided for in e.o. 13622 and e.o. 13645, as well as in subsection 603(a) of the tra and section 1254 of ifca, for the pipeline project to supply natural gas from the shah deniz gas field in azerbaijan to europe and turkey. yes. to the extent a financial institution is involved, that financial institution could be sanctioned under e.o. 13846 for a barter arrangement, on or after november 5, 2018, related to the purchase or acquisition of petroleum, petroleum products, or petrochemical products from iran. in addition, barter transactions knowingly conducted with nioc, nico, or the cbi also could result in sanctions   regardless of whether a financial institution is involved   to the extent that those transactions constitute material support for, or services to, nioc, nico, or the cbi. the term "petroleum products," as defined in section 16(o) of e.o. 13846, includes unfinished oils, liquefied petroleum gases, pentanes plus, aviation gasoline, motor gasoline, naphtha type jet fuel, kerosene type jet fuel, kerosene, distillate fuel oil, residual fuel oil, petrochemical feedstocks, special naphthas, lubricants, waxes, petroleum coke, asphalt, road oil, still gas, and miscellaneous products obtained from the processing of: crude oil (including lease condensate), natural gas, and other hydrocarbon compounds. the term does not include natural gas, liquefied natural gas, biofuels, methanol, and other non petroleum fuels. the term "petrochemical products," as defined in section 16(m) of e.o. 13846, includes any aromatic, olefin, and synthesis gas, and any of their derivatives, including ethylene, propylene, butadiene, benzene, toluene, xylene, ammonia, methanol, and urea. consistent with section 218 of tra, section 8 of e.o. 13846 continues in effect the sanctions previously contained in section 4 of e.o. 13628 and expands them to cover activity sanctionable under e.o. 13846 (see faq 601). this provision prohibits a u.s. owned or  controlled foreign entity from knowingly engaging in any transaction, directly or indirectly, with the goi, or any person subject to the jurisdiction of the goi, if that transaction would be prohibited by certain executive orders prohibiting trade and other dealings with, and investment in, iran and blocking the goi and iranian financial institutions, or any regulation issued pursuant to the foregoing (including the iranian transactions and sanctions regulations, 31 c.f.r. part 560 (itsr)), if the transaction were engaged in by a united states person or in the united states. civil penalties for the u.s. owned or  controlled foreign entity’s violation of section 8, attempted violation, conspiracy to violate, or causing of a violation shall apply to the u.s. person that owns or controls such entity to the same extent that they would apply to a u.s. person for the same conduct. section 20(c) of e.o. 13846 contains a savings clause that continues in effect under e.o. 13846 regulations, orders, directives, and licenses that were issued pursuant to e.o. 13628 and remained in effect immediately prior to the date of e.o. 13846 pursuant to this authority, section 560.215 of the itsr, which implemented section 4 of 13628, and licenses issued pursuant to e.o. 13628 that were valid as of the date of e.o. 13846 remain in effect, subject to their existing terms and conditions. such terms and conditions include the expiration date of the license to the extent a transaction is exempt from the prohibitions of the itsr, e.o. 13599, or section 1 or 15 of e.o. 13846, or is authorized by a general license issued pursuant to these authorities if engaged in by a u.s. person, it would not be prohibited for a u.s. owned or  controlled foreign entity (as defined above) to engage in the transaction, provided that it satisfies all the conditions and requirements of the exemption or general license. similarly, if the transaction is one for which a u.s. person might apply for a specific license   for example, under ofac’s statement of licensing policy for certain targeted educational, cultural, and sports exchange programs that are designed to directly benefit the iranian people set forth at section 560.545 of the itsr   a u.s. owned or  controlled foreign entity or the u.s. person that owns or controls the entity may apply for a specific license for the u.s. owned or  controlled foreign entity to engage in the transaction. note: whether a u.s. parent company’s specific license covers transactions by its owned or controlled foreign entity that are otherwise prohibited by section 8 of e.o. 13846 will depend on the terms of that license and the scope of the authorized activities. pursuant to subsection 20(c) of e.o. 13846, section 560.556 of the itsr, which extends general licenses available under the itsr to u.s. owned or  controlled foreign entities, remains in effect. no. section 8 of e.o. 13846 continues in effect the prohibition previously contained in section 4 of e.o. 13628, which   consistent with subsection 218(d) of the tra   provided that civil penalties would not apply if a u.s. person that owns or controls the foreign entity divested or terminated its business with the u.s. owned or  controlled foreign entity not later than february 6, 2013. because the relevant prohibition came into effect more than five years ago and a wind down period was provided at that time, section 8 of e.o. 13846 does not include such a wind down authorization. please note, however, that section 560.537 of the itsr authorizes   through 11:59 p.m. est on november 4, 2018   all transactions and activities ordinarily incident and necessary to the wind down of activities that had been authorized under the now revoked iran general license h. to the extent a u.s. owned or  controlled foreign entity or a u.s. person is engaging in wind down activities pursuant to section 560.537 of the itsr, those activities should be completed prior to the general license’s expiration at 11:59 p.m. est on november 4, 2018. subsection 1(a)(iii) of e.o. 13846 provides authority to block the property and interests in property of persons determined, on or after november 5, 2018, to have materially assisted, sponsored, or provided financial, material, or technological support for, or goods or services to or in support of: (a) iranian persons included on the sdn list or (b) any other persons included on the sdn list whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to executive order 13599 or subsection 1(a) of e.o. 13846 (in both cases excluding iranian depository institutions whose property and interests in property are blocked solely pursuant to executive order 13599). certain activities relating to the pipeline project to supply natural gas from the shah deniz gas field in azerbaijan to europe and turkey are excepted from this provision. in implementing this provision, the united states government will take appropriate steps to avoid, among other things, undue impacts on the access of the people of iran to humanitarian items, telecommunications, and other basic services. the wind down period has ended and the united states intends to fully enforce the sanctions that have come back into effect. the provision or delivery of goods or services and/or the extension of additional loans or credits to an iranian counterparty after november 4, 2018   even pursuant to written contracts or written agreements entered into prior to may 8, 2018   may result in the imposition of u.s. sanctions unless such activities are exempt from regulation, authorized by ofac, or otherwise not sanctionable. the united states maintains authorizations and exceptions under u.s. sanctions that allow for the sale of agricultural commodities, food, medicine, and medical devices to iran by u.s. persons and non u.s. persons. however, these authorizations and exceptions do not apply to transactions involving persons on ofac’s list of specially designated nationals and blocked persons (sdn list) that have been designated in connection with iran’s support for international terrorism or proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, including designated iranian financial institutions or the islamic revolutionary guard corps (irgc), or activity that is subject to other sanctions (see faq 637). in the event that a non u.s., non iranian person is owed payment after the conclusion of the wind down period on august 6, 2018, or november 4, 2018, as applicable, for goods or services fully provided or delivered to an iranian counterparty prior to august 6, 2018, or november 4, 2018, as applicable, pursuant to a written contract or written agreement entered into prior to may 8, 2018, and such activities were consistent with u.s. sanctions in effect at the time of delivery or provision, the u.s. government would allow the non u.s., non iranian person to receive payment for those goods or services according to the terms of the written contract or written agreement. similarly, if a non u.s., non iranian person is owed repayment after august 6, 2018, or november 4, 2018, as applicable, for loans or credits extended to an iranian counterparty prior to the end of the 90 day or 180  day wind down period, as applicable, provided that such loans or credits were extended pursuant to a written contract or written agreement entered into prior to may 8, 2018, and such activities were consistent with u.s. sanctions in effect at the time the loans or credits were extended, the u.s. government would allow the non u.s., non iranian person to receive repayment of the related debt or obligation according to the terms of the written contract or written agreement. this allowance is designed for non u.s., non iranian parties to be made whole for debts and obligations owed or due to them for goods or services fully provided or delivered or loans or credit extended to an iranian party prior to the end of the 90 day or 180 day wind down period, as applicable. any payments would need to be consistent with u.s. sanctions, including that payments could not involve u.s. persons or the u.s. financial system, unless the transactions are exempt from regulation or authorized by ofac (see faq 634 and faq 636). the u.s. government would evaluate matters falling outside the above parameters on a case by case basis. ofac encourages non u.s., non iranian persons to rely on the guidance provided in faqs 631 and 634. non u.s., non iranian persons can seek guidance from ofac or the state department, as appropriate, prior to the receipt of payment, if they would like to confirm that the payments would meet the criteria set forth in faq 631 and faq 634 and would not be subject to u.s. sanctions. ofac looks to the industry standard to determine whether particular goods or services are considered fully provided or delivered prior to the expiration of the relevant wind down period. as a general matter, goods or services will be considered fully provided or delivered when the party providing or delivering the goods or services has performed all the actions and satisfied all the obligations necessary to be eligible for payment or other agreed to compensation. with respect to goods exported to or from iran, at a minimum, title to the goods must have transferred to the relevant party yes, subject to the conditions set out below and in faq 631 above, non u.s., non iranian persons may receive payment after the end of the relevant wind down period for goods or services fully provided or delivered to an iranian counterparty prior to expiration of the relevant wind down period (see faq 633 above). in particular, the goods or services must have been fully provided or delivered prior to the end of the applicable wind down period pursuant to a written contract or written agreement entered into prior to may 8, 2018; the relevant activities must have been consistent with u.s. sanctions in effect at the time of delivery or provision, including that the activities did not involve persons on the sdn list at the time of the transaction; and any payments must be consistent with u.s. sanctions, including that payments can not involve u.s. persons or the u.s. financial system, unless the transactions are exempt from regulation or authorized by ofac (see faq 631 and faq 636). the wind down authorizations allow u.s. persons and u.s. owned or  controlled foreign entities to receive payments for activities conducted pursuant to such wind down authorizations only during their validity periods. for example, a u.s. owned or  controlled foreign entity may receive payment through 11:59 p.m. eastern standard time on november 4, 2018 for iran related activities undertaken pursuant to section 560.537 of the iranian transactions and sanctions regulations (itsr) (winding down of transactions relating to u.s. owned or  controlled foreign entities). any payment following the end of the relevant wind down period for activities undertaken pursuant to a wind down authorization, including from an iranian counterparty, would require specific authorization from ofac. ofac will evaluate such requests for specific licenses on a case by case basis. any request for a specific license should provide sufficient details for ofac to evaluate the application, including: whether the relevant transactions complied with u.s. sanctions as in effect at the time of the transactions; whether the activities were performed under a written contract or written agreement entered into prior to may 8, 2018; and why the applicant was unable to receive the payment for which authorization is sought prior to the end of the relevant wind down period. ofac will generally deny requests to receive payment for activities that were not authorized under the relevant wind down authorizations or that were not undertaken pursuant to a written contract or written agreement entered into prior to may 8, 2018. as required by 31 c.f.r. section 501.801(b), applicants should identify the names of all parties who are concerned with or interested in the proposed transaction. to facilitate ofac’s review, the request should also include a description of the efforts that were undertaken to collect the payment during the relevant wind down period and be accompanied by supporting documentation, including relevant contracts, invoices, and shipping documents. ofac encourages applicants to submit applications online using ofac's licensing application portal. the united states intends to fully enforce the sanctions that apply to persons that were previously on the e.o. 13599 list but that are now designated under another authority. u.s. persons and u.s. owned or  controlled foreign entities generally would require an ofac authorization to receive any payment involving an sdn, regardless of whether they were previously on the e.o.13599 list. ofac will evaluate requests for such authorization on a case by case basis, including whether payments are for goods or services fully provided or delivered during the wind down period pursuant to an ofac wind down authorization (see faq 635). non u.s. persons, including foreign financial institutions, could be subject to sanctions for knowingly engaging in certain significant transactions involving an iranian person on the sdn list   other than a non designated iranian financial institution   or a person designated in connection with iran’s support for international terrorism or proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, including a person that was previously on the e.o. 13599 list but is now designated under another authority. such persons will have a notation of “additional sanctions information   subject to secondary sanctions” in their sdn list entry in addition to the tag for the other sanctions program(s) (e.g., the “[sdgt]” tag, the “[iran hr]” tag, or the “[npwmd]” tag for persons designated under e.o. 13224, e.o. 13553, or e.o. 13382). non u.s., non iranian persons seeking to receive payment for activities undertaken during the wind down period that involves a person added to the sdn list should seek guidance from ofac or the state department, as appropriate (see faq 634). the united states maintains broad authorizations and exceptions under u.s. sanctions that allow for the sale of agricultural commodities, food, medicine, and medical devices to iran from the united states or by u.s. persons or u.s. owned or  controlled foreign entities. u.s. sanctions laws provide similar allowances for sales of food, agricultural commodities, medicine, and medical devices to iran by non u.s. persons. broadly speaking, transactions for the sale of agricultural commodities, food, medicine, or medical devices to iran are not sanctionable unless they involve persons on the sdn list that have been designated in connection with iran’s support for international terrorism or proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, including designated iranian financial institutions or the islamic revolutionary guard corps (irgc), or activity that is subject to other sanctions. additional guidance relating to these authorizations and exceptions can be found in the following ofac publications: guidance on the sale of food, agricultural commodities, medicine, and medical devices by non u.s. persons to iran and humanitarian assistance and related exports to the iranian people. transactions by non u.s. persons related to the export to iran of consumer goods that do not fall within these exceptions, but are not expressly targeted by u.s. sanctions, should not involve certain persons on the sdn list, including the central bank of iran or a designated iranian financial institution, unless an exception under section 1245(d)(4)(d) of the national defense authorization act of fiscal year 2012 (ndaa 2012) applies, or the irgc. in addition, such transactions should not involve u.s. persons or transit the u.s. financial system, unless the activities and/or transactions are exempt from regulation or authorized by ofac. the e.o. 13599 list was created to clarify that, regardless of their removal from the sdn list on january 16, 2016, persons that ofac had previously identified as meeting the definition of the terms “government of iran” or “iranian financial institution” still met those definitions and continued to be persons whose property and interests in property were blocked pursuant to e.o. 13599 and section 560.211 of the itsr. on november 5, 2018, ofac moved persons identified on the e.o. 13599 list to the sdn list and removed the e.o. 13599 list from its website. beginning on november 5, 2018, significant transactions with persons moved from the e.o. 13599 list to the sdn list, other than non designated iranian financial institutions, could be subject to secondary sanctions, unless an exception applies, such as the exception relating to transactions for the sale of agricultural commodities, food, medicine, or medical devices to iran; or the significant reduction exception under section 1245(d)(4)(d) of the ndaa 2012. persons subject to secondary sanctions will have a notation of “additional sanctions information   subject to secondary sanctions” in the sdn list entry. in addition, effective november 5, 2018, ofac has amended the itsr to replace references to the e.o. 13599 list with references to the sdn list. some persons moved to the sdn list from the e.o. 13599 list also have been designated under additional authorities and, therefore, have received new unique identification numbers (uids) when added to the sdn list. users of ofac’s sanctions list data may wish to reference the following mapping table to see how these specific records were added back onto the sdn list. ofac designated multiple iranian financial institutions and other persons previously blocked solely pursuant to e.o. 13599 under e.o. 13224 (relating to counterterrorism), e.o. 13382 (relating to wmd proliferation), and e.o. 13553 (relating to serious human rights abuses by the government of iran) on october 16, 2018, and november 5, 2018. these included persons that had been removed from the sdn list on january 16, 2016. as new information became available, ofac determined that these persons met one or more of the criteria for designation under ofac’s other designation authorities. relatedly, a number of persons that were previously designated pursuant to e.o. 13382 and were removed from the sdn list on january 16, 2016 were relisted on the sdn list on november 5, 2018 as persons identified as meeting the definitions of the “government of iran” or an “iranian financial institution” pursuant to e.o. 13599. this regulatory amendment does two things. first, it amends the itsr to reflect the re imposition of itsr related sanctions lifted under the jcpoa, including sanctions pursuant to certain sections of e.o. 13846 and the relisting on the sdn list of persons included on the e.o. 13599 list. more specifically, this rule reinstates the regulatory provisions implementing the blocking authorities that were previously in sections 5 and 6 of e.o. 13622 and now are in sections 1 and 10 of e.o. 13846. section 560.211(c) of the itsr will now implement blocking of the property and interests in property of any person determined by the secretary of the treasury, in consultation with the secretary of state, to have (i) on or after august 7, 2018, materially assisted, sponsored, or provided financial, material, or technological support for, or goods or services in support of, the purchase or acquisition of u.s. bank notes or precious metals by the government of iran, or (ii) on or after november 5, 2018, materially assisted, sponsored, or provided financial, material, or technological support for, or goods or services in support of, the national iranian oil company (nioc), the naftiran intertrade company (nico), or the central bank of iran. additionally, this rule removes references to the e.o. 13599 list to reflect ofac’s separate action removing the e.o. 13599 list from its website and relisting on the sdn list the persons that were previously listed on the e.o. 13599 list. second, the rule amends an existing general license in the itsr to allow individual u.s. persons to engage in transactions necessary to sell certain personal property in iran (which was acquired before becoming a u.s. person or which was inherited from persons in iran) and to transfer the proceeds of those sales to the united states. section 560.543 of the itsr currently authorizes individual u.s. persons to engage in transactions necessary for the sale of real property in iran and the transfer of related proceeds to the united states, subject to a number of conditions and limitations. authorized transactions include engaging the services of any persons in iran necessary for the sale, such as an attorney, funds agent, or real estate broker, provided such person is not a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to any part of 31 cfr chapter v, other than persons whose property and interests in property are blocked solely pursuant to executive order 13599 as the government of iran. ofac is amending section 560.543 of the itsr to authorize the sale of personal property in iran and the transfer of related proceeds to the united states, subject to the same conditions and limitations applicable to sales of real property. section 560.543 of the itsr, as amended, does not authorize transactions that would be prohibited by a different sanctions program administered by ofac, such as transactions with sdns designated under e.o. 13224 or e.o. 13382 (ofac's counterterrorism or counterproliferation authorities). yes. transactions for the sale of agricultural commodities, food, medicine, or medical devices to iran involving the central bank of iran are excepted from the relevant sanctions under section 1245(d)(2) of the ndaa 2012 and sections 561.203 and 561.204 of the iranian financial sanctions regulations (31 c.f.r. part 561) (ifsr), regardless of whether the country has received an sre. in addition, funds held on behalf of a non designated iranian financial institution at a foreign financial institution generally would not be subject to u.s. secondary sanctions and could be used to facilitate humanitarian trade. many u.s. sanctions related to iran include an exception for countries that have received a sre under section 1245(d)(4)(d) of the ndaa 2012 (see https://ofac.treasury.gov/faqs/topic/1551 for additional information regarding the implementation of the sre and sanctionable transactions). to the extent the purchase of petroleum or petroleum products from iran and the processing of the related financial transactions meet the requirements set out in section 1245(d)(4)(d) of the ndaa 2012, the services used to import the petroleum from iran including services provided by the shipping sector of iran and iranian port operators would not be sanctionable pursuant to the iran freedom and counter proliferation act of 2012 (ifca), provided that iranian entities that are involved in such transactions are not designated in connection with iran’s support for international terrorism, or its proliferation of weapons of mass destruction or their means of delivery. (additional information on ifca). payment of iran related insurance or reinsurance claims arising from incidents that occurred prior to november 5, 2018 could create sanctions exposure for non u.s. persons to the extent such payment involves a person designated in connection with iran’s proliferation of wmd or support for international terrorism, or an iranian person on the sdn list, other than a non designated iranian financial institution, or if the underlying activity involved such persons or was otherwise sanctionable at the time it occurred. u.s. persons continue to be generally prohibited under the itsr from exporting goods, services, or technology directly or indirectly to iran, including participating in the payment of claims to or for the benefit of iran or any persons blocked under the itsr, or for the transportation of iranian origin oil, unless exempt or specifically authorized by ofac. in addition, after november 4, 2018, to the extent a claim payment involves a u.s. owned or  controlled foreign entity, the payment of such claim would be prohibited and would require an authorization from ofac prior to payment. see faq 102 and faq 103 for additional information relating to u.s. person involvement in global insurance policies and faq 303 and faq 304 for additional information on secondary sanctions, and exceptions to these sanctions, such as the humanitarian exception, relating to insurance, reinsurance, or underwriting activities relating to iran. yes. under section 560.215 of the itsr, u.s. owned or  controlled foreign entities are prohibited from knowingly engaging in any transaction, directly or indirectly, with the government of iran or any person subject to the jurisdiction of the government of iran that would be prohibited by the itsr if engaged in by a u.s. person or in the united states. section 560.211 of the itsr separately prohibits transferring, paying, exporting, withdrawing, and dealing in any property and interests in property of the government of iran, any iranian financial institution, and any other persons whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to the itsr, unless exempt or authorized by ofac. in light of these prohibitions, u.s. owned or  controlled foreign entities are required to apply restrictions akin to blocking on any property or interests in property of persons subject to section 560.211 of the itsr to ensure that such property and interests in property are not transferred, paid, exported, withdrawn, or otherwise dealt in. this requirement applies both with respect to a person whose property and interests in property are blocked solely pursuant to the itsr and a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to the itsr and another authority (e.g., when a person is included on the list of specially designated nationals and blocked persons with the “[iran]” tag, as well as a tag for another sanctions program, such as the terrorism tag (“[sdgt]”), nuclear proliferation tag (“[npwmd]”), or human rights tag (“[iran tra]” or “[iran hr]”)). section 560.215(b)(1) of the itsr deems an entity to be “owned or controlled” by a u.s. person if the u.s. person holds a 50 percent or greater equity interest by vote or value in the entity; holds a majority of seats on the board of directors of the entity; or otherwise controls the actions, policies, or personnel decisions of the entity. following the re imposition of u.s. sanctions on november 5, 2018, sanctions that had previously been lifted or waived as part of u.s. commitments under the joint comprehensive plan of action (jcpoa) will come back into effect in their entirety, including sanctions on the provision of specialized financial messaging services to certain iranian financial institutions. as of november 5, 2018, sanctions on the provision of specialized financial messaging services set forth in section 220 of the iran threat reduction and syria human rights act of 2012 (tra) snap back in full. this authority provides for sanctions on specialized financial messaging services to the central bank of iran or iranian financial institutions designated in connection with iran’s support for terrorism or its proliferation of weapons of mass destruction (wmd) and wmd delivery systems, as set out in subsection 104(c)(2)(e)(ii) of the comprehensive iran sanctions, accountability, and divestment act of 2010 (cisada) (see section 220 of the tra). such iranian financial institutions are listed on the sdn list and carry the “[ifsr]” tag. furthermore, knowingly providing significant financial, material, technological, or other support to iranian persons on the sdn list, other than iranian financial institutions blocked solely pursuant to e.o. 13599 and listed on the sdn list with only the “[iran]” tag, is sanctionable for persons in countries that have not received a significant reduction exception (see subsection 1244(c)(1) of ifca). to avoid potential sanctions exposure, providers of specialized financial messaging services should discontinue the provision of such services to the central bank of iran and any iranian financial institutions designated in connection with iran’s wmd proliferation, support for terrorism, or human rights abuses. the central bank of iran and such designated iranian financial institutions will have “subject to secondary sanctions” listed in the “identifications” feature in their entry on the sdn list. given that the u.s. government will continue to apply maximum financial pressure on the iranian regime, including potential additional designations of iranian financial institutions, the sdn list should be consulted regularly to determine which iranian financial institutions have been designated. e.o. 13871authorizes sanctions with respect to the iron, steel, aluminum, and copper sectors of iran. section 1 of e.o. 13871 authorizes blocking sanctions on any person determined by the secretary of the treasury, in consultation with the secretary of state: (i) to be operating in the iron, steel, aluminum, or copper sector of iran, or to be a person that owns, controls, or operates an entity that is part of the iron, steel, aluminum, or copper sector of iran; (ii) to have knowingly engaged, on or after the effective date of the order, in a significant transaction for the sale, supply, or transfer to iran of significant goods or services used in connection with the iron, steel, aluminum, or copper sectors of iran; (iii) to have knowingly engaged, on or after the effective date of the order, in a significant transaction for the purchase, acquisition, sale, transport, or marketing of iron, iron products, aluminum, aluminum products, steel, steel products, copper, or copper products from iran; (iv) to have materially assisted, sponsored, or provided financial, material, or technological support for, or goods or services in support of any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to section 1; or (v) to be owned or controlled by, or to have acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to section 1. section 2 of e.o. 13871 authorizes correspondent and payable through account sanctions on foreign financial institutions (ffis) determined to have knowingly conducted or facilitated any significant financial transaction: (i) for the sale, supply, or transfer to iran of significant goods or services used in connection with the iron, steel, aluminum, or copper sectors of iran; (ii) for the purchase, acquisition, sale, transport, or marketing of iron, iron products, aluminum, aluminum products, steel, steel products, copper, or copper products from iran; or (iii) for or on behalf of any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to the order. sections 3 13 of e.o. 13871 contain exceptions, definitions, and other implementing provisions related to the sanctions. e.o. 13871 became effective upon signing. persons engaged in transactions that could be sanctioned under e.o. 13871 had a 90 day period after the issuance of e.o. 13871 to wind down those transactions without exposure to sanctions under e.o. 13871. those persons were advised to take the necessary steps to wind down transactions by the end of the 90 day wind down period to avoid exposure to sanctions, and that entering into new business that would be sanctionable under the e.o. on or after may 8, 2019 will not be considered wind down activity and could be sanctioned even during the wind down period. the wind down period expires on august 6, 2019. yes. e.o. 13871 expands upon existing sanctions under section 1245 of ifca on the sale, supply, or transfer, directly or indirectly, to or from iran of certain materials, including raw and semi finished metals such as aluminum and steel, as described in subsections 1245(a)(l)(b) or (c) of ifca. in addition, e.o. 13871 explicitly targets the iron and copper sectors of iran. yes. the sanctions authorized under e.o. 13871 do not apply to transactions for the conduct of the official business of the united states government or the united nations (including its specialized agencies, programmes, funds, and related organizations) by employees, grantees, or contractors thereof. the interpretation of “significant transaction or transactions; significant financial services; significant financial transaction,” as described in the correspondent account sanctions in the ifsr, provides that the department of the treasury may consider the totality of the facts and circumstances and sets forth a list of broad factors that can play a role in the determination whether transactions, financial services, and financial transactions are significant, including: (a) the size, number, and frequency of the transactions, financial services, or financial transactions; (b) the nature of the transactions, financial services, or financial transactions, including their type, complexity, and commercial purpose; (c) the level of awareness of management and whether the transactions are part of a pattern of conduct; (d) the nexus of the transactions, financial services, and financial transactions and blocked persons; (e) the impact of the transactions, financial services, and financial transactions on statutory objectives; (f) whether the transactions, financial services, and financial transactions involve deceptive practices; (g) whether the transactions solely involve the passive holdings of central bank of iran (cbi) reserves or repayment by the cbi of official development assistance or the transfer of funds required as a condition of iran’s membership in an international financial institution; and (h) other relevant factors that the secretary of the treasury deems relevant. (31 c.f.r. § 561.404). the regulatory amendment: (i) implements the correspondent or payable through account sanctions set forth in section 2 of e.o. 13871 by incorporating those provisions in the iranian financial sanctions regulations, 31 c.f.r. part 561 (ifsr); (ii) renames the iranian human rights regulations, 31 c.f.r. part 562, as the iranian sector and human rights abuses sanctions regulations (ishr); and (iii) implements the blocking sanctions set forth in section 1 of e.o. 13871 by incorporating those provisions in the ishr. the interpretation of “significant transaction or transactions,” as described in the ishr provides that the department of the treasury may consider the totality of the facts and circumstances and sets forth a list of broad factors that can play a role in the determination whether transactions are significant, including: (a) the size, number, and frequency of the transactions; (b) the nature of the transactions, or the goods or services for sale, supply, or transfer, including their type, complexity, and commercial purpose; (c) the level of awareness of management and whether the transactions are part of a pattern of conduct; (d) the nexus of the person that engaged in the transactions and the prohibited activities in sections 1(a)(ii) and 1(a)(iii) of e.o. 13871; (e) the impact of the transactions on the objectives of e.o. 13871; (f) whether the transactions attempt to obscure or conceal the actual parties or true nature of the transactions, or evade sanctions; and (g) other relevant factors that the secretary of the treasury deems relevant. (31 c.f.r. § 562.407). the term iron sector of iran means the mining, refining, processing, or manufacturing of iron or iron products in iran. (31 c.f.r. § 561.336; 31 c.f.r. § 561.317). the term steel sector of iran means the iron ore smelting, ferrous scrap melting, refining, processing, or manufacturing of steel or steel products in iran. (31 c.f.r. § 561.337; 31 c.f.r. § 562.318). the terms iron, iron products, steel, and steel products mean any raw, semi fabricated, fabricated, or finished form of iron, iron alloy, alloy steel, non alloy steel, ferroalloys, pig iron, and spiegeleisen of all grades, sizes, and thicknesses, whether or not clad, plated, or coated, including in the following forms: iron ores and concentrates, including roasted iron pyrites; pigs and blocks; ferrous products obtained by direct reduction of iron ore and other spongy ferrous products, in lumps or pellets; granules and powders; ingots, blooms billets, slabs, and beam blanks; flat rolled products (plates, sheets, strips, and foils) either cut to length or in coils; bars and rods; structural profiles (beams, channels, angles, and other shapes); sheet piling; railway or tramway track construction materials; tubes, pipes, and hollow profiles; tube or pipe fittings; reservoirs, tanks, vats, and similar containers; wire, stranded wire, ropes, cables, and plaited band; castings, stampings, and forgings; and ferrous waste and scrap, including slag. (31 c.f.r. § 561.335; 31 c.f.r. § 562.316). the term aluminum sector of iran means the mining, refining, processing, or manufacturing of aluminum or aluminum products in iran. (31 c.f.r. § 561.332; 31 c.f.r. § 562.313). the terms aluminum and aluminum products mean any raw, semi fabricated, fabricated, or finished form of aluminum or aluminum alloy of all grades, sizes, and thicknesses, including in the following forms: ores and concentrates (e.g., bauxite and alumina); unwrought aluminum including ingots, slabs, and billets; powders and flakes; wrought aluminum including bars, rods, profiles, plates, sheets, strip, foil, tubes, and pipes; tube or pipe fittings; reservoirs, tanks, vats, and similar containers; wire, stranded wire, ropes, cables, and plaited band; castings, stampings, and forgings; waste and scrap, including slag, and any aluminum and aluminum products produced from the melting or recycling of aluminum scrap. (31 c.f.r. § 561.331; 31 c.f.r. § 562.312). the term copper sector of iran means the mining, refining, processing, or manufacturing of copper or copper products in iran. (31 c.f.r. § 561.334; 31 c.f.r. § 562.314). the terms copper and copper products mean any raw, semi fabricated, fabricated, or finished form of copper or copper alloy of all grades, sizes, and thicknesses, including in the following forms: ores and concentrates; copper mattes; cement copper (precipitated copper); refined, unrefined, wrought, or unwrought copper; billets; cathodes; bars, rods, profiles, plates, sheets, strips, foil, tubes, and pipes; tube and pipe fittings; powders and flakes; reservoirs, tanks, vats, and similar containers; wire, stranded wire, ropes, cables, and plaited band; castings, stampings, and forgings; and waste and scrap, including slag. (31 c.f.r. § 561.333; 31 c.f.r. § 562.314). if a non iranian vessel is transporting sanctionable goods to or from iran (including, but not limited to, petroleum, petroleum products, or petrochemical products from iran; goods used in connection with the automotive sector of iran; or iron, iron products, aluminum, aluminum products, steel, steel products, copper, or copper products from iran), bunkering of that non iranian vessel in a country other than iran   and related payments for these bunkering services   risk being subject to sanctions unless an applicable waiver or exception applies. for example, persons providing bunkering services to a non iranian vessel transporting petroleum or petroleum products from iran could be designated under subsection 1(a)(ii) of e.o. 13846 if such activities involve the provision of material support for, or goods or services to or in support of, nioc or nico. persons that knowingly provide bunkering services to a non iranian vessel carrying only petroleum or petroleum products from iran could likewise be sanctioned under section 3(a)(ii) of e.o. 13846 if that transaction is determined to be a significant transaction for the purchase, acquisition, sale, transport, or marketing of those items. section 1244(d)(1) of ifca makes sanctionable knowingly selling, supplying, or transferring to or from iran significant goods or services used in connection with iran’s energy, shipping, or shipbuilding sectors. (see faq 289 above for an interpretation of “significant.”) the provision of bunkering services to a vessel flying the flag of the islamic republic of iran, or owned, controlled, chartered, or operated directly or indirectly by, for, or on behalf of the government of iran (goi) or an iranian person, could be sanctionable under this authority, regardless of whether the transaction involves persons that have been determined to be part of iran’s energy, shipping, or shipbuilding sectors pursuant to section 1244(c) of ifca. likewise, pursuant to section 1244(d)(2) of ifca, a foreign financial institution could be exposed to sanctions if it knowingly conducts or facilitates a significant financial transaction for the sale, supply, or transfer to or from iran of goods or services used in connection with iran’s energy, shipping, or shipbuilding sectors. payments for the provision of bunkering services to a vessel flying the flag of the islamic republic of iran or owned, controlled, chartered, or operated directly or indirectly by, for, or on behalf of the goi or an iranian person could be sanctionable under this authority, regardless of whether the transaction involves persons that have been determined to be part of iran’s energy, shipping, or shipbuilding sectors pursuant to section 1244(c) of ifca. (see faq 295). in addition, non u.s. persons that provide bunkering services for an iranian vessel that has been identified as blocked property of an iranian person on ofac’s list of specially designated nationals and blocked persons   or that make related payments for these bunkering services   risk being designated themselves​ however, the provision of bunkering services for an iranian vessel transporting goods subject to an exception, such as agricultural commodities, food, medicine, or medical devices, to iran, or subject to an applicable waiver   and the making of related payments for these bunkering services   will not be exposed to sanctions, unless the transactions involve persons on the sdn list that have been designated under e.o. 13224 or e.o. 13382 in connection with iran’s support for international terrorism or proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, including certain designated iranian financial institutions or the islamic revolutionary guard corps (irgc), as described in section 104(c)(2)(e) of cisada, or activity that is subject to other sanctions authorities. cosco shipping tanker (dalian) seaman & ship management co. was determined by the secretary of state on september 25, 2019, to meet the criteria for the imposition of sanctions under executive order (e.o.) 13846, and the secretary of state imposed certain sanctions, including blocking, on this entity. the blocking sanctions apply only to this listed entity and any entities in which it owns, directly or indirectly, a 50 percent or greater interest. sanctions do not apply to this entity’s ultimate parent, cosco shipping corporation ltd. (cosco). similarly, sanctions do not apply to cosco’s other subsidiaries or affiliates (e.g., cosco shipping holdings), provided that such entities are not owned 50 percent or more in the aggregate by one or more blocked persons. u.s. persons, therefore, are not prohibited from dealing with cosco, its non blocked subsidiaries, or non blocked affiliates to the extent the proposed dealings do not involve any blocked person, or any other activities prohibited pursuant to any ofac sanctions authorities. with respect to transactions involving non u.s. persons outside of u.s. jurisdiction, please see faq 805. no, non u.s. persons are generally not exposed to sanctions for providing goods or services to, or engaging in other transactions with, a non iranian person sanctioned under section 3 of e.o. 13846. however, please note that non u.s. persons should ensure that the provision of goods or services to, or other transactions with such non iranian persons do not involve: (1) prohibited transactions by u.s. persons (including u.s. financial institutions) or u.s. owned or  controlled foreign entities, unless the transaction is exempt from regulation, or authorized by ofac; (2) the knowing provision of significant support to an iranian person on ofac’s list of specially designated nationals and blocked persons (sdn list); or (3) the knowing facilitation of a significant transaction for a person on the sdn list that has been designated in connection with iran’s support for international terrorism or proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, including designated iranian financial institutions or the islamic revolutionary guard corps (irgc), or other activity for which sanctions have been imposed with respect to iran (e.g., knowingly engaging in a significant transaction for the purchase of petroleum from iran). for information about persons sanctioned by state department pursuant to section 3 of e.o. 13846, please see the relevant state press statement or federal register notice. on november 5, 2018, ofac identified irisl and e sail on the sdn list with the [iran] tag to indicate that they are entities meeting the definition of the government of iran whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to e.o. 13599. following their designation by the state department under e.o. 13382, on june 8, 2020 ofac will add the [npwmd] and [ifsr] tags to the entries for irisl and e sail on the sdn list. as a result, transactions by u.s. persons or within (or transiting) the united states involving irisl and e sail will be subject to the prohibitions in the weapons of mass destruction proliferators sanctions regulations, 31 c.f.r. part 544 (wmdpsr), in addition to the prohibitions in e.o. 13599 implemented through the iranian transactions and sanctions regulations, 31 c.f.r. part 560 (itsr). non u.s. persons that knowingly engage in certain transactions with irisl or e sail risk exposure to sanctions under additional authorities. the united states maintains broad authorizations and exceptions under u.s. sanctions that allow for the sale of agricultural commodities, food, medicine, and medical devices to iran by u.s. and non u.s. persons (see, e.g., faq 637). however, these authorizations and exceptions generally do not apply to transactions with persons designated pursuant to e.o. 13382. following the designations of irisl and e sail under e.o. 13382 on june 8, 2020, transactions by u.s. persons involving irisl or e sail will be subject to the prohibitions in the wmdpsr, in addition to the prohibitions in the itsr. this means that, effective june 8, 2020, unless authorized under the wmdpsr or exempt, u.s. persons will be prohibited from engaging in transactions involving irisl or e sail, including transactions for the sale of agricultural commodities, food, medicine, or medical devices by u.s. persons or from the united states that are authorized under the general licenses set forth in, or specifically licensed pursuant to, sections 560.530, 560.532, or 560.533 of the itsr. in addition, non u.s. persons that knowingly engage in certain transactions with irisl or e sail, even for the sale to iran of agricultural commodities, food, medicine, or medical devices, risk exposure to sanctions under additional authorities. to avoid sanctions risks, u.s. and non u.s. persons should ensure that transactions for the sale of agricultural commodities, food, medicine, or medical devices involving irisl or e sail are concluded no later than june 8, 2020, when the designations of irisl and e sail pursuant to e.o. 13382 come into effect. persons engaged in transactions that could be sanctioned under e.o. 13902 with respect to the construction, mining, manufacturing, and textiles sectors of the iranian economy have a 90 day period after the issuance of e.o. 13902 to wind down those transactions without exposure to sanctions under e.o. 13902. such persons should take the necessary steps to wind down transactions by the end of the 90 day wind down period to avoid exposure to sanctions, and be aware that entering into new business that would be sanctionable under the e.o. on or after january 10, 2020 will not be considered wind down activity and could be sanctioned even during the wind down period. the wind down period with respect to the construction, mining, manufacturing, and textiles sectors expires on april 9, 2020. as a result of the cbi and nioc’s designations pursuant to executive order 13224, as amended (e.o. 13224), u.s. persons are prohibited from engaging in any transaction or dealing in the property or interests in property of the cbi or nioc under the global terrorism sanctions regulations, 31 cfr part 594 (gtsr), unless exempt or authorized by ofac. in addition, u.s. persons and u.s. owned or  controlled foreign entities are subject to broad prohibitions on transactions or dealings involving the cbi or nioc under the iranian transactions and sanctions regulations, 31 cfr part 560 (itsr), unless exempt or authorized by ofac. gl 8a authorizes certain humanitarian related transactions and activities involving the cbi, nioc, or any entity in which nioc owns a 50 percent or greater interest, that would be prohibited by the gtsr or by the itsr as a result of the cbi and nioc’s designations under e.o. 13224 but that would have been authorized under the itsr prior to the relevant designation under e.o. 13224. for example, if a u.s. person could have relied on general or specific licenses pursuant to sections 560.530(a) or (b), 560.532, or 560.533 of the itsr to engage in certain activities prior to the cbi or nioc’s designations under e.o. 13224, gl 8a provides the additional authorization needed to engage in such activities. please note that gl 8a does not authorize humanitarian related transactions involving iranian financial institutions designated under e.o. 13224 other than the cbi. please further note that the authorizations at sections 560.530, 560.532, and 560.533 remain otherwise applicable according to their terms. no. as detailed in faq 821, gl 8a authorizes certain humanitarian related transactions and activities involving the cbi, nioc, or any entity in which nioc owns a 50 percent or greater interest, that would be prohibited by the gtsr or by the itsr due to the exclusion at section 560.530(d)(5) of the itsr. further authorization from ofac, beyond gl 8a, is not required for such transactions and activities involving the cbi, nioc, or any entity in which nioc owns a 50 percent or greater interest, that would have been authorized pursuant to a general license in sections 560.530(a) or (b), 560.532, or 560.533 of the itsr prior to cbi and nioc’s designations under e.o. 13224, as amended. additionally, transactions and activities authorized under specific licenses issued pursuant to sections 560.530, 560.532, or 560.533 of the itsr involving the cbi, nioc, or any entity in which nioc owns a 50 percent or greater interest, are also authorized pursuant to gl 8a. any transactions otherwise prohibited by the itsr or gtsr must be separately licensed pursuant to the itsr or gtsr, as appropriate. no. non u.s. persons generally do not risk exposure under u.s. secondary sanctions relating to iran for engaging in the sale of agricultural commodities, food, medicine, or medical devices to iran, as such transactions are generally subject to exceptions in otherwise applicable authorities, provided the transactions do not involve persons designated in connection with iran’s support for international terrorism or weapons of mass destruction (wmd) proliferation. non u.s. persons do not risk exposure under u.s. secondary sanctions for engaging in humanitarian related transactions or activities involving the cbi, nioc, or any entity in which nioc owns a 50 percent or greater interest, that would be authorized under gl 8a if engaged in by a u.s. person, provided such transactions and activities do not involve any person designated in connection with iran’s support for international terrorism or wmd proliferation, other than the cbi, nioc, or any entity in which nioc owns a 50 percent or greater interest. on october 25, 2019, the u.s. departments of state and the treasury announced a new humanitarian framework to assist foreign governments and foreign financial institutions in establishing payment mechanisms to facilitate humanitarian exports to iran that are subject to enhanced due diligence. while the united states maintains broad exceptions and authorizations for the conduct of humanitarian trade with iran, this humanitarian framework presents an additional, voluntary option for facilitating payment for exports of agricultural commodities, food, medicine, and medical devices to iran. the shta is the first operational channel to be established under this humanitarian framework, in partnership with the swiss government. initial pilot transactions were successfully conducted in late january 2020, and the shta was formally established on 27 february 2020. under the shta, participating financial institutions commit to conducting enhanced due diligence to ensure that humanitarian goods reach the people of iran and are not misused by the iranian regime. for more information on the humanitarian mechanism as announced by the u.s. government, please refer to the guidance published on the treasury’s website on october 25, 2019. additional guidance for companies and financial institutions interested in participating in the shta can be found in the treasury shta fact sheet and ofac faqs 825 and 826. the shta is overseen by switzerland’s state secretariat for economic affairs (seco) and intended for use by u.s. and non u.s. persons domiciled in switzerland. exporters within swiss jurisdiction may reach out to seco at shta@seco.admin.ch for further details on requirements and instructions for participating in the shta. in addition to any due diligence imposed under the shta, u.s. persons and their owned or controlled foreign entities must continue to comply with the iranian transactions and sanctions regulations, 31 c.f.r. part 560 (itsr), when conducting exports of humanitarian goods to iran. certain exports and sales of humanitarian goods to iran are authorized pursuant to sections 560.530, 560.532, and 560.533 of the itsr. in addition, general license 8a provides additional authorizations that may be necessary for such humanitarian related transactions due to the designations of the central bank of iran and the national iranian oil company under executive order (e.o.) 13224, as amended. for further information regarding general license 8a, please see associated faqs 821, 822, and 823. general license l also extends the authorizations, exemptions, and activity that would otherwise be excluded from prohibition under the itsr to apply to iranian financial institutions blocked pursuant to e.o. 13902, including those authorizations and exemptions for exports of humanitarian goods to iran. for further information regarding general license l, please see associated faqs 842, 843, and 844. transactions for the sale of agricultural commodities, food, medicine, and medical devices are not required to be processed through the shta. see faq 637 for guidance setting out existing exceptions to u.s. sanctions for the export of humanitarian goods to iran. foreign governments and foreign financial institutions interested in establishing a humanitarian mechanism consistent with the guidance published on october 25, 2019, should reach out to the department of the treasury’s office of foreign assets control for more information or to provide a proposed framework for evaluation. such proposals should demonstrate careful consideration of the illustrative list of enhanced due diligence and reporting expectations described in the october 25, 2019 guidance. there are a number of ways consistent with u.s. sanctions to provide humanitarian goods or assistance to the iranian people in response to public health concerns in iran, including the covid 19 outbreak. the making of humanitarian donations to recipients in iran from the united states or by u.s. persons, including the donation of medicine intended to relieve human suffering, are generally exempt from u.s. sanctions on iran under section 560.210(b) of the iranian transactions and sanctions regulations, 31 cfr part 560 (itsr), provided that such donations are not being made to the government of iran or other persons blocked pursuant to section 560.211 of the itsr, or to any individual or entity listed on ofac’s list of specially designated nationals and blocked persons (sdn list). in addition, the united states maintains broad exceptions and authorizations that allow for the commercial sale and export of humanitarian goods, including medicine and medical devices, to iran or the government of iran from the united states or by u.s. persons or u.s. owned or  controlled foreign entities, subject to certain conditions. u.s. sanctions laws provide similar allowances for sales of humanitarian goods, including medicine and medical devices, to iran by non u.s. persons. these exemptions, exceptions, and authorizations generally do not apply to transactions involving persons on ofac’s sdn list that have been designated in connection with iran’s support for international terrorism or proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, including the islamic revolutionary guard corps (irgc). for humanitarian transactions involving the central bank of iran or the national iranian oil company, which were each designated as a specially designated global terrorist pursuant to executive order (e.o.) 13224 as amended, please see general license 8a issued pursuant to the global terrorism sanctions regulations (gtsr) and the itsr, as well as ofac frequently asked questions (faqs) 821, 822, and 823. furthermore, nongovernmental organizations (ngos) are authorized under general license e to export or re export services to or related to iran in support of certain not for profit activities designed to directly benefit the iranian people, including the provision of donated health related services and distribution of donated articles such as medicine intended to be used to relieve human suffering, in iran. persons interested in providing humanitarian assistance to iran related to the covid 19 outbreak should review sections 560.210(b), 560.530, 560.532, and 560.533 and general license e of the itsr, general license l issued pursuant to e.o. 13902, and general license 8a issued pursuant to the gtsr and the itsr, the guidance provided in faqs 549, 637, 821, 822, 823, 826​, 842, 843, and 844, and the guidance provided in “guidance on the sale of food, agricultural commodities, medicine, and medical devices by non u.s. persons to iran” and “clarifying guidance on humanitarian assistance and related exports to the iranian people.” other types of humanitarian activities or exports by u.s. persons may be authorized pursuant to a specific license from ofac. please note any transfers of funds in support of activities authorized by general license e must be made by the ngos themselves, and not directly by u.s. individuals, in accordance with the conditions of general license e. updated: june 14, 2024 yes. persons engaged in activities currently permitted by the department of state’s nuclear related waivers associated with the arak reactor modernization redesign, the transfer into iran of enriched uranium for the tehran research reactor, and the transfer out of iran of certain nuclear fuel scrap and of spent research reactor fuel will have a final, 60 day wind down period in which to cease these activities without risking exposure to covered sanctions. the 60 day wind down period ends on july 27, 2020. persons engaged in such activities should take the steps necessary to wind down those activities by july 27, 2020 to avoid potential exposure to sanctions under u.s. law. persons engaged in such activities after that date may be exposed to certain sanctions under the iran freedom and counter proliferation act (ifca) absent a waiver or exception. ifca provides for sanctions on persons determined to knowingly provide significant financial, material, technological, or other support to, or goods or services in support of any activity or transaction on behalf of or for the benefit of, an iranian person on ofac’s sdn list, such as the atomic energy organization of iran (aeoi). ifca also provides for sanctions on persons determined to knowingly sell, supply, or transfer, directly or indirectly, to or from iran certain materials, including raw and semi finished metals, if the materials are provided to or from an iranian person on ofac’s sdn list, such as aeoi. for more information, please see the department of state's website. [05 27 2020] no. for the purposes of evaluating sanctions pursuant to e.o. 13902, persons in iran manufacturing medicines, medical devices, or products used for sanitation, hygiene, medical care, medical safety, and manufacturing safety, including soap, hand sanitizer, ventilators, respirators, personal hygiene products, diapers, infant and childcare items, personal protective equipment, and manufacturing safety systems, solely for use in iran and not for export from iran, will not be considered to be operating in the manufacturing sector of the iranian economy. note that persons conducting or facilitating transactions for the provision, including any sale, of agricultural commodities, food, medicine, or medical devices to iran will not be subject to sanctions under e.o. 13902. (see faqs 844 and 847 for more information.) e.o. 13902 imposes sanctions with respect to any person determined by the secretary of the treasury, in consultation with the secretary of state, to operate in the construction, mining, manufacturing, and textiles sectors of the iranian economy, and any additional sectors of the iranian economy as may be determined by the secretary of the treasury, in consultation with the secretary of state. on october 8, 2020, the secretary of the treasury identified the financial sector of the iranian economy for additional sanctions under e.o. 13902. iranian and non iranian persons operating in these sectors could be subject to sanctions pursuant to e.o. 13902. the united states maintains broad exceptions and authorizations that allow for the commercial sale and export of humanitarian goods, including medicine and medical devices, to iran or the government of iran from the united states or by u.s. persons or u.s. owned or  controlled foreign entities. similar exceptions apply to the export of such humanitarian goods to iran or the government of iran by non u.s. persons. however, these authorizations and exceptions do not apply to transactions involving persons on ofac’s list of specially designated nationals and blocked persons (sdn list) that have been designated in connection with iran’s support for international terrorism or proliferation of weapons of mass destruction (including certain designated iranian financial institutions and the islamic revolutionary guard corps), or in connection with activity that is subject to other sanctions not specific to iran, unless exempt or otherwise permitted, such as certain transactions or activities involving the central bank of iran, the national iranian oil company (nioc), or any entity in which nioc owns a 50 percent or greater interest, that are consistent with gl 8a. for further guidance related to humanitarian trade with iran and the provision of humanitarian assistance to iran, please see faq 828. e.o. 13902 imposes sanctions with respect to any person determined by the secretary of the treasury to operate in the construction, mining, manufacturing, and textiles sectors of the iranian economy, and any additional sectors of the iranian economy as may be determined by the secretary of the treasury, in consultation with the secretary of state. on october 8, 2020, the secretary of the treasury identified the financial sector of the iranian economy for additional sanctions under e.o. 13902. iranian and non iranian persons operating in these sectors of the iranian economy or sectors of the iranian economy identified in the future could be subject to sanctions. ofac expects to promulgate regulations that define the terms construction sector of the iranian economy, mining sector of the iranian economy, manufacturing sector of the iranian economy, textiles sector of the iranian economy, and financial sector of the iranian economy consistent with the following: construction sector of the iranian economy: the term construction sector of the iranian economy means the production, procurement, devising, framing, or arranging in iran of parts or materials to fabricate, shape, or form buildings or structures, including the on site development, assembly, or construction of residential, commercial, or institutional buildings in iran. the term applies to engaging in new work, additions, alterations, maintenance, and repairs of residential, commercial, or institutional buildings. persons such as for sale builders, design build firms, and project construction management firms in iran may be considered as operating in this sector. mining sector of the iranian economy: the term mining sector of the iranian economy means any act, process, or industry of extracting, at the surface or underground, ores, coal, precious stones, or any other minerals or geological materials from the earth in iran. manufacturing sector of the iranian economy: the term manufacturing sector of the iranian economy means the creation in iran of goods by manual labor or machinery that are for export from iran or for sale within iran. for the purposes of evaluating sanctions pursuant to e.o. 13902, persons in iran manufacturing medicines, medical devices, or products used for sanitation, hygiene, medical care, medical safety, and manufacturing safety, including soap, hand sanitizer, ventilators, respirators, personal hygiene products, diapers, infant and childcare items, personal protective equipment, and manufacturing safety systems, solely for use in iran and not for export from iran, will not be considered to be operating in the manufacturing sector of the iranian economy. note that persons conducting or facilitating transactions for the provision, including any sale, of agricultural commodities, food, medicine, or medical devices to iran will not be subject to sanctions under e.o. 13902. textiles sector of the iranian economy: the term textiles sector of the iranian economy means the fiber synthesis, dyeing, weaving, knitting, or felting in iran of textiles, including apparel, carpets, cloths, fabric, or related goods, that are for export from iran. financial sector of the iranian economy: the term financial sector of the iranian economy includes all iranian financial institutions as defined in section 561.320 of the iranian financial sanctions regulations, meaning any entity (including foreign branches), wherever located, organized under the laws of iran or any jurisdiction within iran, or owned or controlled by the government of iran, or in iran, or owned or controlled by any of the foregoing, that is engaged in the business of accepting deposits, making, granting, transferring, holding, or brokering loans or credits, or purchasing or selling foreign exchange, securities, commodity futures or options, or procuring purchasers and sellers thereof, as principal or agent. iranian financial institutions include but are not limited to depository institutions, banks, savings banks, money service businesses, trust companies, insurance companies, securities brokers and dealers, commodity futures and options brokers and dealers, forward contract and foreign exchange merchants, securities and commodities exchanges, clearing corporations, investment companies, employee benefit plans, dealers in precious metals, stones, or jewels, and holding companies, affiliates, or subsidiaries of any of the foregoing. persons who knowingly engage in a significant transaction for the sale, supply, or transfer to or from iran of significant goods or services used in connection with the above named sectors of the iranian economy risk exposure to blocking sanctions pursuant to e.o. 13902. in addition, persons that have materially assisted, sponsored, or provided financial, material, or technological support for, or goods or services to or in support of, persons designated pursuant to e.o. 13902 could themselves be designated. furthermore, foreign financial institutions that have knowingly conducted or facilitated any significant financial transaction for such designated persons risk exposure to u.s. correspondent account or payable through account sanctions. persons who have knowingly engaged in a significant transaction for the sale, supply, or transfer to or from iran of significant goods or services used in connection with the construction, mining, manufacturing, textiles, and financial sectors of the iranian economy as described in faq 831 risk exposure to blocking sanctions pursuant to e.o. 13902. further, foreign financial institutions that have knowingly conducted or facilitated any significant financial transaction for the sale, supply, or transfer to or from iran of significant goods or services used in connection with those sectors of the iranian economy risk exposure to u.s. correspondent account or payable through account sanctions. ofac expects to promulgate regulations defining goods and services used in connection with the construction, mining, manufacturing, textiles, and financial sectors of the iranian economy consistent with the following (see faq 833 for an interpretation of the term “significant.”): goods or services used in connection with the construction sector of the iranian economy: the term goods used in connection with the construction sector of the iranian economy means equipment or materials that enable the services described below or the activities described in faq 831 with respect to the construction sector of the iranian economy, including: building supplies, concrete, scaffolding, lifts, hoists, cranes, conveyors, and mechanized equipment for material handling. goods that ensure the protection of life and prevention of injuries to persons operating in the construction sector of the iranian economy are excluded from this definition, including personal protective equipment, safety devices, and alarm systems. the term services used in connection with the construction sector of the iranian economy include: blasting, demolition, dredging, electrical work, excavating, masonry, plumbing, rigging, welding, for sale building, design build consultations, and construction management. services that ensure the protection of life and prevention of injuries to persons operating in the construction sector of the iranian economy are excluded from this definition, including cleaning, safety inspections, and services necessary for use of protective goods described above. goods or services used in connection with the mining sector of the iranian economy: the term goods used in connection with the mining sector of the iranian economy means equipment or materials that enable the services described below or the activities described in faq 831 with respect to the mining sector of the iranian economy, including: boring equipment, conveyor belts, directional digging technology, haul trucks, hydraulic excavators, explosives, and power shovels. goods that ensure the protection of life and prevention of injuries to persons operating in mines in iran are excluded from this definition, including personal protective equipment, safety devices, ventilation systems, and alarm systems. the term services used in connection with the mining sector of the iranian economy includes: auguring, boring, backfilling, combusting, crushing, exploration, grinding, grading, irrigating, impounding, magnetic separation, mineral processing, geophysical surveying, mapping services, operating mines or quarries, site preparation, and related construction activities. services that ensure the protection of life and prevention of injuries to persons operating in the mining sector of the iranian economy are excluded from this definition, including rescue and accident response services, cleaning, safety inspections, and services necessary for use of protective goods described above. goods or services used in connection with the manufacturing sector of the iranian economy: the term goods used in connection with the manufacturing sector of the iranian economy means equipment or materials, including raw materials, tooling machinery, and components of finished products, that enable the services described below. goods that ensure the protection of life and prevention of injuries to persons operating in the manufacturing sector of the iranian economy are excluded from this definition, including personal protective equipment, safety devices, and alarm systems. the term services used in connection with the manufacturing sector of the iranian economy includes: new installment, additions, alteration, maintenance, and repair of manufacturing equipment; procurement or supply of raw materials for the manufacturing sector of the iranian economy; and distribution services to persons operating in the manufacturing sector of the iranian economy. services that ensure the protection of life and prevention of injuries to persons operating in the manufacturing sector of the iranian economy are excluded from this definition, including cleaning services, safety inspections, and services necessary for use of protective goods described above. goods or services used in connection with the textiles sector of the iranian economy: the term goods used in connection with the textiles sector of the iranian economy means equipment, machines, materials, and items used in the textiles sector of the iranian economy or that enable the services described below or the activities described in faq 831 with respect to the textiles sector of the iranian economy, including: looms, industrial sewing machines, industrial washers and dryers, and industrial embroidery machinery. goods that ensure the protection of life and prevention of injuries to persons operating in the textiles sector of the iranian economy are excluded from this definition, including personal protective equipment, safety devices, and alarm systems. the term services used in connection with the textiles sector of the iranian economy includes: procurement or supply of raw materials for textiles production, and design of textiles products. services that ensure the protection of life and prevention of injuries to persons operating in the textiles sector of the iranian economy are excluded from this definition, including cleaning services, safety inspections, and services necessary for use of protective goods described above. goods or services used in connection with the financial sector of the iranian economy: on or after november 22, 2020, persons who have knowingly engaged in a significant transaction for the sale, supply, or transfer to or from iran of significant goods or services used in connection with the financial sector of the iranian economy risk exposure to blocking or other sanctions under e.o. 13902, unless the transaction is for a permitted transaction, such as humanitarian trade or a transaction or activity authorized for u.s. persons or otherwise described in faqs 844, 847, 855, or 856. the term goods or services used in connection with the financial sector of the iranian economy includes new hardware or software, or upgrades to existing hardware or software, and related services, for use by iranian financial institutions sanctioned pursuant to e.o. 13902 or the iranian financial sector. it also includes financial services for transactions other than permitted transactions (e.g., humanitarian trade or transactions or activities authorized for u.s. persons or otherwise described in faqs 844, 847, 855, or 856. the term does not include goods or services ordinarily incident and necessary to: the department of the treasury continues to analyze goods and services used in connection with the financial sector of the iranian economy and may issue additional guidance about the types of goods and services that are considered sanctionable for purposes of e.o. 13902. we urge caution in any dealings involving the iranian financial sector or with an iranian financial institution sanctioned pursuant to e.o. 13902. as a general matter, the department of the treasury intends to rely, where applicable, on definitions of terms previously included in treasury regulations. for purposes of e.o. 13902, ofac will rely on the definition of "knowingly" included in the iranian financial sanctions regulations at 31 c.f.r. § 561.314 ("the term knowingly, with respect to conduct, a circumstance, or a result, means that a person has actual knowledge, or should have known, of the conduct, the circumstance, or the result."). in determining whether goods or services used in connection with a sector of the iranian economy identified pursuant to e.o. 13902 are “significant,” the department of the treasury may consider the totality of the facts and circumstances. as a general matter, the department of the treasury may consider some or all of the following broad factors: (a) the value and number of goods or value and frequency of services; (b) the nature of the good or services, including their type, complexity, and commercial purpose; (c) the level of awareness of management and whether the provision of goods or services is part of a pattern of conduct; (d) the involvement of designated persons in transactions involving goods and services defined in faq 832; (e) the impact of the provision of goods or services on the objectives of e.o. 13902; (f) whether the provision of the goods or services involved deceptive practices; and (g) other relevant factors that the secretary of the treasury deems relevant. gl l authorizes under e.o. 13902 all transactions and activities involving iranian fis blocked pursuant to e.o. 13902 that are authorized, exempt, or otherwise not prohibited under the iranian transactions and sanctions regulations (itsr). e.o. 13902, which was issued on january 10, 2020, is not incorporated into the itsr at this time. however, gl l effectively extends the authorizations, exemptions, and activity otherwise excluded from prohibition under the itsr to apply to those iranian fis blocked under e.o. 13902. this includes, but is not limited to, (i) transactions and activities authorized by general and specific licenses issued pursuant to the itsr and (ii) transactions and activities ordinarily incident to such transactions and activities and necessary to give effect thereto that are consistent with section 560.405 of the itsr. for example, if a u.s. person or a u.s. owned or  controlled foreign entity relied on a general or specific license issued pursuant to the itsr to engage in transactions and activities involving such iranian fis prior to these actions under e.o. 13902, gl l provides the additional ofac authorization needed to continue to engage in such transactions and activities. gl l does not authorize any transactions or activities that are otherwise prohibited by the itsr, e.o. 13902, or any other part of 31 c.f.r. chapter v. please note that the exemptions and authorizations in the itsr remain otherwise applicable according to their terms. in addition, pursuant to section 11 of e.o. 13902, the prohibitions of e.o. 13902 do not apply with respect to any person for conducting or facilitating a transaction for the provision (including any sale) of agricultural commodities, food, medicine, or medical devices to iran; pursuant to section 12 of e.o. 13902, the prohibitions of e.o. 13902 do not apply with respect to transactions for the conduct of the official business of the united nations (including its specialized agencies, programmes, funds, and related organizations) by employees, grantees, or contractors thereof. no. general license (gl) l extends authorizations provided through specific and general licenses issued under the itsr to apply to transactions and activities involving iranian fis blocked pursuant to e.o. 13902. further authorization from ofac beyond gl l is not required under e.o. 13902, so long as such transactions and activities are authorized pursuant to a general license or a specific license under the itsr, including for humanitarian related transactions and activities authorized pursuant to the itsr that are not covered by the exception in section 11 of e.o. 13902. any transactions otherwise prohibited by the itsr or any other part of 31 c.f.r. chapter v must be separately licensed, as appropriate. no. non u.s. persons generally do not risk exposure to u.s. secondary sanctions for engaging in the sale of agricultural commodities, food, medicine, or medical devices to iran, as such transactions are generally subject to exceptions in e.o. 13902 and other applicable sanctions authorities. however, such transactions should not involve persons designated on ofac’s list of specially designated nationals and blocked persons (sdn list) in connection with iran’s support for international terrorism or proliferation of weapons of mass destruction (wmd) unless otherwise permitted, such as certain transactions or activities involving the central bank of iran, the national iranian oil company (nioc), or any entity in which nioc owns a 50 percent or greater interest, that are consistent with gl 8a. additionally, non u.s. persons do not risk exposure to u.s. secondary sanctions for engaging in transactions and activities involving the iranian financial sector or an iranian fi blocked pursuant to e.o. 13902 that would be authorized under the iranian transactions and sanctions regulations (itsr) and gl l if engaged in by a u.s. person, provided such transactions and activities do not involve any person designated on the sdn list in connection with iran’s support for international terrorism or proliferation of wmd. yes. non u.s. persons engaged in transactions and activities involving the iranian financial sector or any iranian fi sanctioned pursuant to e.o. 13902 that were not previously sanctionable will have 45 days to conclude these activities without risking exposure to sanctions. the 45 day wind down period ends on november 22, 2020. non u.s. persons engaged in certain activities involving iranian fis sanctioned under e.o. 13902 after that date may be exposed to sanctions. ofac continues to analyze whether select types of transactions and activities may, nonetheless, be non significant and, thus, not sanctionable even after the end of the wind down period. ofac anticipates issuing additional guidance regarding the scope of transactions and activity by non u.s. persons that will become sanctionable after november 22, 2020. note that, even after the wind down period, non u.s. persons do not risk exposure to sanctions for engaging in humanitarian related transactions or activities, including conducting or facilitating a transaction for the provision (including any sale) of agricultural commodities, food, medicine, and medical devices to iran, with iranian fis sanctioned pursuant to e.o. 13902. in addition, gl l authorizes under e.o. 13902 those transactions and activities involving iranian fis blocked pursuant to e.o. 13902 that are authorized, exempt, or otherwise not prohibited under the iranian transactions and sanctions regulations. for more information, please see faqs 842 and 844. waivers issued by the department of state (state) and exceptions set forth in ifca remain valid and activities conducted under them involving iranian fis are not sanctionable during the wind down period described in faq 845. persons engaged in transactions or activities involving the iranian financial sector or iranian fis sanctioned pursuant to e.o. 13902 that are permitted by a current state waiver or ifca exception may continue these activities, in accordance with the conditions of those waivers or exceptions, without risking exposure to sanctions. the state department, in consultation with ofac, continues to assess whether these waivers and exceptions require modification prior to the close of the wind down period to account for actions taken pursuant to e.o. 13902 and ensure uninterrupted activity, as appropriate. for more information, please contact the department of state. for purposes of e.o. 13902, ofac would not generally view transactions or activities by non u.s. persons to be sanctionable if they are consistent with activities that would be permissible if conducted by u.s. persons. as noted in faq 842, general license (gl) l authorizes u.s. persons to engage in transactions and activities involving iranian fis blocked pursuant to e.o. 13902 that are authorized, exempt, or otherwise excluded from prohibition under the iranian transactions and sanctions regulations, 31 c.f.r. part 560 (itsr). in addition, pursuant to sections 11 and 12 of e.o. 13902, respectively, the prohibitions of e.o. 13902 do not apply: (i) with respect to any person for conducting or facilitating a transaction for the provision (including any sale) of agricultural commodities, food, medicine, or medical devices to iran; or (ii) to transactions for the conduct of the official business of the united nations (including its specialized agencies, programmes, funds, and related organizations) by employees, grantees, or contractors thereof. for purposes of secondary sanctions, as described in faq 844, non u.s. persons are not exposed to sanctions for engaging in transactions and activities involving the iranian financial sector or an iranian fi blocked pursuant to e.o. 13902 that would be authorized for u.s. persons under gl l. in addition, ofac would generally view as non sanctionable any transactions or activities by foreign financial institutions (ffis) and other non u.s. persons that involve the iranian financial sector or iranian fis sanctioned solely pursuant to e.o. 13599 and e.o. 13902, and that fall within the categories set forth below, to the extent such transactions or activities are not already exempt or otherwise excepted from sanctions: please note that the guidance above applies only with respect to transactions or activities involving the iranian financial sector or iranian fis sanctioned solely pursuant to e.o. 13599 and e.o. 13902. these transactions and activities should not involve persons designated on ofac’s list of specially designated nationals and blocked persons (sdn list) in connection with iran’s support for international terrorism or proliferation of weapons of mass destruction (wmd), unless exempt or otherwise permitted. general licenses issued under the iranian transactions and sanctions regulations (itsr) authorize certain u.s. academic institutions and other u.s. persons to provide certain services and software to iranian students. these general licenses include: to export services to iranian students that fall outside of these authorizations, u.s. persons may apply for a specific license through the ofac license application page. please note that the general licenses summarized above do not authorize the exportation of goods (including software), services, or technology to the government of iran, except as authorized under 31 cfr § 560.540(a)(6), or to persons blocked under any authority administered by ofac, including ofac’s counterterrorism or counterproliferation authorities. date updated: may 16, 2024 pursuant to section 12 of e.o. 13902, the prohibitions of e.o. 13902 do not apply to transactions for the conduct of the official business of the united nations (including its specialized agencies, programmes, funds, and related organizations) by employees, grantees, or contractors thereof. in addition, transactions and activities involving an iranian financial institution (iranian fi) blocked under e.o. 13902 are authorized under general license (gl) l to the extent they are authorized, exempt, or otherwise not prohibited by the iranian transactions and sanctions regulations, 31 c.f.r. part 560 (itsr). section 560.539 of the itsr authorizes transactions for the official business of certain international organizations, including the united nations and its specialized agencies, programmes, funds, and related organizations, including the world bank group, the international monetary fund, the international atomic energy agency, the international labor organization, and the world health organization. for purposes of secondary sanctions, as described in faq 844, non u.s. persons are not exposed to sanctions for engaging in transactions and activities involving the iranian financial sector or an iranian fi blocked pursuant to e.o. 13902 that would be authorized for u.s. persons under gl l. in addition, treasury will generally view the following additional transactions by non u.s. persons involving iranian fis blocked solely pursuant to e.o. 13599 and e.o. 13902 or the iranian financial sector, as non sanctionable: please note that the guidance above applies only with respect to transactions or activities involving the iranian financial sector or iranian fis sanctioned solely pursuant to e.o. 13599 and e.o. 13902. these transactions and activities should not involve persons designated on ofac’s list of specially designated nationals and blocked persons (sdn list) in connection with iran’s support for international terrorism or proliferation of weapons of mass destruction (wmd), unless exempt or otherwise permitted. transactions and activities involving iranian financial institutions blocked under e.o. 13902 remain authorized under general license (gl) l to the extent they are authorized, exempt, or otherwise not prohibited by the iranian transactions and sanctions regulations, 31 c.f.r. part 560 (itsr). this authorization includes certain transactions and activities relating to the initiation and conduct of legal proceedings authorized or otherwise permitted pursuant to section 560.510 or 560.525 of the itsr, such as transactions or activities related to the defense of individuals in legal proceedings in iran brought by the government of iran, including any arrest, investigation, prosecution, or detention. such permissible transactions and activities may include reasonable and customary payments for the provision of legal services, bail and/or bond payments, judicial costs and fees, costs for the production of documents and appearances of witnesses, and payment of experts. in addition, for purposes of secondary sanctions, as described in faq 844, non u.s. persons are not exposed to sanctions for engaging in transactions and activities involving the iranian financial sector or an iranian fi blocked pursuant to e.o. 13902 that would be authorized for u.s. persons under gl l. please note that, unless permitted by gl l and faq 844, payments made to iran involving blocked iranian persons   including the government of iran, including any political subdivision, agency, or instrumentality thereof   in connection with awards, orders, decisions, or settlement of claims may be subject to sanctions. ofac will assess such transactions on a case by case basis. please also note that guidance above applies only with respect to transactions or activities involving iranian fis sanctioned solely pursuant to e.o. 13599 and e.o. 13902 or the iranian financial sector. these transactions and activities should not involve persons designated on ofac’s list of specially designated nationals and blocked persons (sdn list) in connection with iran’s support for international terrorism or proliferation of weapons of mass destruction (wmd) unless exempt or otherwise permitted. urgent note: the u.s. department of state cautions against any travel by u.s. persons to iran. the department of state has issued a level four travel advisory (do not travel) for iran due to the risk of kidnapping, arbitrary arrest, and detention of u.s. citizens. see additional guidance available at https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/traveladvisories/traveladvisories/iran travel advisory.html. transactions ordinarily incident to travel to or from iran by u.s. persons fall within an exemption under the iranian transactions and sanctions regulations (itsr), 31 c.f.r. part 560, and therefore generally are not prohibited. see, e.g., 31 cfr. § 560.210(d). exempt transactions include religious pilgrimages by u.s. persons to the imam reza holy shrine and the acquisition of goods or services for personal use while traveling. furthermore, donations of articles, such as food, clothing, and medicine, by u.s. persons to the imam reza holy shrine intended to be used to alleviate human suffering also fall within an exemption and therefore generally are not prohibited under the itsr. however, u.s. persons may be prohibited from engaging in certain transactions involving persons blocked under sanctions programs or authorities outside the scope of the itsr, such as astan quds razavi (aqr) and its subsidiary, the holy shrine organization, which oversees the imam reza holy shrine. aqr was designated and added to ofac's specially designated nationals and blocked persons list on january 13, 2021 pursuant to executive order (e.o.) 13876 for being owned or controlled by the supreme leader of iran. the holy shrine organization is also considered blocked under e.o. 13876 pursuant to ofac's 50 percent rule to the extent it is 50 percent or more owned by aqr. more information about ofac's 50 percent rule is available at https://ofac.treasury.gov/faqs/401. u.s. persons are advised to act with caution when considering transactions or activities involving aqr or the holy shrine organization. those seeking additional guidance on transactions and activities involving the imam reza holy shrine may contact the ofac compliance hotline or may request a specific license or interpretive guidance from ofac's licensing division online at https://licensing.ofac.treas.gov/apply/introduction.aspx. yes. section 560.540(a)(1) of the itsr authorizes the exportation to iran of fee based or no cost cloud based services incident to the exchange of communications over the internet. in addition, 31 cfr § 560.540(a)(2) authorizes the exportation to iran of cloud based software that is incident to, or enables services incident to, communications over the internet. software exported under 31 cfr § 560.540(a)(2) either: (i) must be designated as ear99 under the export administration regulations, 15 cfr parts 730 through 774 (ear), excluded from the ear because it is described under 15 cfr § 734,3(b)(3), or classified under export control classification number (eccn) 5d992.c; or (ii) if the software is not subject to the ear because it is of foreign origin, must be the type of software that would be designated ear99 or classified under eccn 5d992.c if it were subject to the ear.for purposes of 31 cfr § 560.540, cloud based services and software are determined to be incident to the exchange of communications over the internet when they are used to support transactions authorized or exempt under the itsr, including the following categories of activities: please note that 31 cfr § 560.540(a)(1) does not authorize the exportation of cloud based services or software to the government of iran, except as specified in 31 cfr § 560.540(a)(6). date updated: may 16, 2024 a cloud based service or software provider whose non iranian customers provide services or software to persons in iran via the cloud may rely upon the authorization in 31 cfr § 560.540 to provide access to iran, provided that such provider conducts due diligence based on information available to it in the ordinary course of business to confirm that the non iranian customer: (1) is not a person whose property and interests in property are blocked, except as authorized under paragraph (a)(6) of 31 cfr § 560.540; and (2) provides software and services that fall within one of the categories described in faq 1087, including activity authorized or exempt under the itsr. in instances where cloud based services or software are used to support the exportation of services or software to iran authorized under 31 cfr § 560.540, ofac does not generally expect a cloud based service or software provider to evaluate the ultimate end use or end user of the authorized software or services, provided the cloud based provider conducts due diligence based on information available to it in the ordinary course of business. for example, if a cloud based service or software provider supports non iranian customers providing access in iran to news websites or virtual private networks (vpns) that fall within one of the categories described in faq 1087, the cloud based service or software provider need not evaluate whether the provision of access via the cloud involving iranian end users is related to communication. by contrast, if a u.s. cloud based service or software provider supports non iranian customers providing certain enterprise management software to iran, such as payroll management software, the cloud based service or software provider would be expected to evaluate whether its support of the software is a prohibited export of software or services to iran because payroll management software is not generally considered a qualifying software incident to communications. please note that 31 cfr § 560.540 does not authorize the importation into the united states of iranian origin software or the dealing in such software, including the hosting of iranian origin software on a mobile application store. persons seeking to engage in such activity may submit applications for specific licenses to ofac that describe the nature of the software and the iranian developers involved. date updated: may 16, 2024 yes, persons seeking to export software, services, or hardware to iran or conduct other activities in support of internet freedom in iran that are not exempt transactions or authorized by the general license in 31 cfr § 560.540 or other authorizations are encouraged to submit a specific license application to through the ofac license application page. date updated: may 16, 2024 on may 17, 2024, ofac amended 31 cfr § 560.540 of the iranian transactions and sanctions regulations (itsr) to incorporate the provisions of general license (gl) d 2 into 31 cfr § 560.540, with certain additional amendments. section 560.540 supersedes gl d 2, which ofac issued on september 23, 2022, to further support the provision of communication tools to ordinary iranians and assist in their efforts to resist repressive internet censorship and surveillance tools deployed by the iranian government. in addition to incorporating gl d 2 into the itsr, the amended 31 cfr § 560.540 includes several key changes: date updated: may 16, 2024 iran gl oauthorizes u.s. persons to wind down all transactions otherwise prohibited by section 5 of executive order 13846 involving any vessel blocked as part of the march 2, 2023 designation (“blocked vessels”), subject to certain conditions. this includes, among other activities, the unloading of any non iranian merchandise loaded on the blocked vessel as of march 2, 2023, provided there is no other sanctions nexus. u.s. persons are separately prohibited, pursuant to the iranian transactions and sanctions regulations, 31 cfr part 560 (itsr), from engaging in most iran related transactions. accordingly, for blocked vessels containing iranian origin merchandise or involving persons ordinarily resident in iran, iran gl o provides a separate, more limited authorization under the itsr. this narrower authorization under the itsr allows only transactions ordinarily incident and necessary to certain limited safety and environmental situations: the safe docking and anchoring of any of the blocked vessels in port; the preservation of the health and safety of the crew; or emergency repairs or environmental mitigation or protection activities. the offloading of iranian origin petroleum, petroleum products, or petrochemical products, regardless of the situation, is not authorized pursuant to iran gl o and requires a specific license from ofac. u.s. financial institutions may also process transactions conducted by non u.s. persons if such transactions would be authorized for u.s. persons pursuant to iran gl o. iran gl o is in effect until 12:01 eastern daylight time, june 30, 2023. persons unable to complete authorized transactions involving the blocked vessels specified in iran gl o before its expiration are encouraged to seek guidance from ofac in advance of that date. as with all ofac gls, iran gl o only authorizes against the authorities identified in the gl and contains certain conditions. please see iran gl o for further details. no. non u.s. persons generally do not risk exposure to sanctions for engaging in activities or facilitating transactions for such activities that would be authorized for u.s. persons pursuant to gl o . non u.s. persons unable to wind down transactions in accordance with iran gl o before 12:01 a.m. eastern daylight time, june 30, 2023, are encouraged to seek guidance from ofac in advance of that date. the humanitarian channel in qatar (hc) was established to further facilitate the flow of humanitarian assistance to the people of iran consistent with the u.s. government’s longstanding support for humanitarian trade. similar to humanitarian channels established under previous administrations, the hc is designed to support the iranian people’s access to food, agricultural goods, medicine, and medical devices under stringent due diligence measures that guard against money laundering, misuse, and evasion of u.s. sanctions. the hc offers a voluntary option for facilitating payments for humanitarian exports to iran, but parties may continue to avail themselves of existing exceptions and authorizations to conduct humanitarian trade with iran outside of the channel. the united states has long maintained broad exceptions and authorizations for the sale of food, agricultural commodities, medicine, and medical devices to iran by u.s. and non u.s. persons. ofac’s guidance on the sale of food, agricultural commodities, medicine, and medical devices by non u.s. persons to iran reflects longstanding regulations related to exports of humanitarian goods to iran. these exceptions and authorizations are also clearly stated on the iran sanctions program website maintained by the u.s. department of the treasury’s office of foreign assets control. the hc has not and does not allow funds to be released to the government of iran or payments to iranian companies. in partnership with the government of qatar and financial institutions operating the hc   all of which have committed to stringent due diligence measures   the united states will closely monitor the hc and will take appropriate action should iran attempt to use these funds for purposes other than permitted humanitarian purchases. the hc does not lift any u.s. sanctions on iran, and the u.s. government continues to impose sanctions on iran’s malign activity, including in response to iran’s weapons proliferation and its support for international terrorism. financial institutions participating in the humanitarian channel in qatar (hc) have received specific guidance from the u.s. government. companies interested in participating in transactions under the hc should coordinate directly with the qatari international media office at info@imo.gov.qa and should not hesitate to contact the ofac compliance hotline with specific questions. ofac’s requirements related to humanitarian trade with iran have not changed. companies interested in participating in transactions pursuant to existing exceptions and authorizations for the conduct of humanitarian trade with iran may continue to do so outside of the hc. for example, certain humanitarian transactions involving the central bank of iran and the national iranian oil company are permissible under general license 8a (see also faq 823). ofac faq 828 and our guidance on the sale of food, agricultural commodities, medicine, and medical devices by non u.s. persons to iran reflect ofac’s longstanding regulations related to exports of humanitarian goods to iran. iranian financial institutions designated under executive order (e.o.) 13902 are subject to the exception in e.o. 13902 with respect to conducting or facilitating transactions for the provision (including any sale) of agricultural commodities, food, medicine, or medical devices to iran. u.s. persons and their owned or controlled foreign entities must continue to comply with the iranian transactions and sanctions regulations, 31 c.f.r. part 560 (itsr), when conducting exports of humanitarian goods to iran. certain exports and sales of humanitarian goods to iran are authorized pursuant to sections 560.530, 560.532, and 560.533 of the itsr. e.o. 13722 blocks the government of north korea and the workers’ party of korea; prohibits the exportation and reexportation of goods, services (including financial services), and technology to north korea; and prohibits new investment in north korea. e.o. 13722 also adds new designation criteria, some of which are mandatory criteria from the north korea sanctions and policy enhancement act of 2016. yes. e.o. 13722 implements certain u.s. obligations under unscr 2270 and certain provisions of the north korea sanctions and policy enhancement act of 2016. u.s. sanctions against north korea are generally broader than un sanctions. yes. all property and interests in property of the government of north korea and the workers’ party of korea are blocked. u.s. persons are generally prohibited from engaging in transactions with them without authorization from ofac and must block property or interests in property that are in, or come within, the united states or the possession of a u.s. person. none. e.o. 13722 prohibits the exportation or reexportation, from the united states, or by a united states person, of any goods, services, or technology to north korea, unless authorized or exempt. bis maintains authority to license exports and reexports of items (i.e., commodities, software, or technology) subject to the export administration regulations (15 cfr parts 730 through 774) to north korea. section 510.520 provides that persons exporting or reexporting items to north korea do not need to obtain a specific license from ofac to engage in transactions ordinarily incident to such export or reexport or to service such items outside of north korea, if the export or reexport has been licensed or otherwise authorized by bis, even if the authorized export or reexport involves a person on the list of specially designated nationals and blocked persons (sdn list), the government of north korea, or the workers’ party of korea. date updated: february 15, 2024 no. unless authorized pursuant to a general or specific license from ofac and/or bis, executive order (e.o.) 13722 prohibits new investment in north korea by a u.s. person and the exportation or reexportation, from the united states, or by a u.s. person, of any goods, services, or technology to north korea. e.o. 13810 (“imposing additional sanctions with respect to north korea”) does not modify any of those prohibitions. yes. several general licenses are incorporated into subpart e of the north korea sanctions regulations. see ofac’s webpage on north korea for any additional general licenses. yes. section 510.511 of the north korea sanctions regulations authorizes u.s. depository institutions (including banks), u.s. registered brokers or dealers in securities, and u.s. registered money transmitters to process non commercial, personal remittances to or from north korea, or for or on behalf of an individual ordinarily resident in north korea, up to a maximum of $5,000 per year. such transactions do not require further authorization from ofac. this general license does not authorize any transactions by, to, or through a financial institution blocked pursuant to the weapons of mass destruction proliferators sanctions regulations, 31 c.f.r. part 544, or the global terrorism sanctions regulations, 31 c.f.r. part 594, or any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to any part of 31 c.f.r. chapter v other than part 510. yes. section 510.512(a) of the north korea sanctions regulations, 31 cfr part 510 (nksr), authorizes ngos that have filed the report specified in § 510.512 to conduct transactions that are ordinarily incident and necessary to the following activities: such ordinarily incident and necessary transactions may include payment of reasonable and customary taxes, fees, and import duties to, and purchase of receipt of permits, licenses, or public utility services from the government of north korea. in addition, for items that are not subject to the export administration regulations (ear), § 510.512(a) authorizes the export or reexport of items ordinarily incident and necessary to the activities described above, provided the items would be designated as ear99 if located in the united states. for more information about ofac and commerce licensing requirements relating to the export or reexport of items that are subject to the ear to north korea, please see faq 459. in most instances, exporters or reexporters no longer need to obtain licenses from both the department of commerce’s bureau of industry and security (bis) and ofac to engage in transactions related to the export or reexport of items to persons blocked pursuant to the nksr. section 510.520 authorizes transactions that are ordinarily incident to the exportation or reexportation of items to north korea if the exportation or reexportation of such items is authorized by bis. authorization from bis is required to export or reexport any item subject to the ear to north korea, except food and medicine classified as ear99 (see also the general license § 510.521 for transactions related to the exportation or reexportation of qualifying food and medicine to north korea that are not subject to the ear). additionally, § 510.512(c) explicitly authorizes u.s. depository institutions, u.s. registered brokers or dealers in securities, and u.s. registered money transmitters to process transfers of funds on behalf of u.s. or third country ngos, including to or from north korea, in support of the activities described above. date updated: february 15, 2024 while ofac sanctions do not prohibit u.s. persons from traveling to or from north korea, as of september 1, 2017, u.s. passports are invalid for travel into, in, or through north korea. however, in limited circumstances, applicants may be eligible for a special validation passport from the state department that will allow them to travel for specific purposes. see travel.state.gov for additional details. u.s. persons who intend to travel to north korea via a special validation passport do not require ofac authorization to engage in activities that are exempt pursuant to 50 u.s.c. § 1702(b), such as travel to or from any country or the importation or exportation of informational materials. all other activities outside the scope of this exemption would require a specific license from ofac, unless otherwise authorized by ofac. see, for example, faq 558 for additional information regarding news reporting organizations and journalists. section 510.510 of the north korea sanctions regulations authorizes the provision of goods or services in the united states to employees of the official mission of the government of north korea to the united nations or employees of the united nations, their families, or other persons forming part of their household. persons forming part of their household could include spouses, domestic partners, and dependent children. e.o. 13810 provides the secretary of the treasury, in consultation with the secretary of state, additional tools to disrupt north korea’s ability to fund its weapons of mass destruction (wmd) and ballistic missile programs. specifically, e.o. 13810: (1) establishes several new designation criteria; (2) prohibits vessels and aircraft that have called or landed at a port or place in north korea in the previous 180 days, and vessels that engaged in a ship to ship transfer with such a vessel in the previous 180 days, from entering the united states; (3) provides authority to block any funds transiting accounts linked to north korea that come within the united states or possession of a united states person; and (4) provides authority to impose sanctions on a foreign financial institution that knowingly conducted or facilitated on or after the date of the order (i) any significant transaction on behalf of certain blocked persons or (ii) any significant transaction in connection with trade with north korea. the sanctions applicable to foreign financial institutions can be restrictions on correspondent or payable through accounts or full blocking sanctions. the prohibitions in e.o. 13810 are implemented in the north korea sanctions regulations, 31 c.f.r. part 510. see particularly §§ 510.201(a) and (d), 510.208, and 510.210. section 510.518 allows vessels in distress to call at a u.s. port and aircraft to make a nontraffic stop or an emergency landing in the united states. a nontraffic stop includes a stop for any purpose other than taking on or discharging cargo, passengers, or mail. section 3 of e.o. 13810, as implemented in 31 c.f.r. § 510.201(d), authorizes the secretary of the treasury to determine that a foreign bank account is owned or controlled by a north korean person or has been used to transfer funds in which any north korean person has an interest, and to require the blocking of funds that originate from, are destined for, or pass through that account. ofac will either publish notice in the federal register or provide notice directly to affected parties. absent such a determination or notice from treasury, this provision does not create any immediate compliance obligations on u.s. persons. foreign financial institutions have for some time been prohibited from engaging in most north korea related transactions that transit the u.s. financial system. in addition, as described in § 510.201(a)(3)(vi) of the nksr, sanctionable activities of a foreign financial institution include, on or after september 21, 2017, knowingly conducting or facilitating any significant transaction: pursuant to e.o. 13810 and the north korea sanctions regulations, a finding by the treasury department that a foreign financial institution knowingly engages in one or more of the sanctionable activities is necessary before the treasury department can prohibit or impose strict conditions on the opening or maintaining in the united states of correspondent accounts or payable through accounts for that foreign financial institution. such a finding also allows the treasury department the option of blocking the foreign financial institution. this authority is in addition to that granted treasury’s financial crimes enforcement network (fincen) under section 311 of the usa patriot act. if, pursuant to the nksr, treasury decides to impose strict conditions on maintaining u.s. correspondent accounts or u.s. payable through accounts for an ffi, or decides to prohibit the opening or maintaining of u.s. correspondent accounts or u.s. payable through accounts for an ffi, treasury will add the name of the ffi, together with the actual strict condition or conditions to be imposed, to the correspondent account or payable through account sanctions (capta) list on ofac’s website (www.ofac.treasury.gov), and published in the federal register. (the capta list will be included in the consolidated sanctions list data files, and will be available for download in all consolidated sanctions list data file formats.) if the treasury department decides instead to block the property and interests in property of the ffi, the institution’s name will be placed on ofac’s list of specially designated nationals and blocked persons (sdn list). the general license at § 510.522 of the north korea sanctions regulations, 31 cfr part 510 (nksr), authorizes news reporting organizations that are u.s. persons, and their u.s. person employees to engage in certain transactions in north korea, provided that such transactions are ordinarily incident and necessary to their journalistic activities or the establishment or operation of a news bureau in north korea. the authorized activities include: hiring and compensating support staff, logistics personnel, or other office personnel as needed; leasing or renting office space; renting and using telecommunications facilities; and, under certain conditions, exporting and reexporting to north korea, and subsequently reexporting from north korea, equipment that is not subject to the export administration regulations (15 cfr parts 730 through 774) (ear). exports and reexports of items that are subject to the ear must be authorized pursuant to a license or license exception (for example, license exception tmp) issued by bis. while certain transactions ordinarily incident to travel and certain exports and imports of information and informational materials are exempt under the international emergency economic powers act, 50 u.s.c. § 1702(b) (ieepa), these exemptions do not apply to transactions prohibited pursuant to the united nations participation act. moreover, as of september 1, 2017, u.s. passports are invalid for travel into, in, or through north korea. however, in limited circumstances, applicants may be eligible for a special validation passport from the state department that will allow them to travel for specific purposes. see travel.state.gov for additional details. date updated: february 15, 2024 on february 15, 2024, ofac, in consultation with the department of state, amended the nksr to modify an existing general license (gl) and add three new gls to facilitate humanitarian related and other activities in north korea. these changes include: ofac amended the gl at § 510.512 to authorize ngos to engage in a broader range of humanitarian related activities involving north korea, including certain educational activities and activities to support disarmament, demobilization, and reintegration (ddr) programs and peacebuilding, conflict prevention, and conflict resolution programs. the general license at § 510.512 allows transactions that are ordinarily incident and necessary to such ngo activities involving certain government of north korea entities, including limited partnerships, subject to certain conditions and limitations including that the ngo must submit a report to the u.s. department of state at least 30 days before their proposed activities, as further described in faq 1162. the amended ngo gl at § 510.512 authorizes the export and reexport to north korea of items not subject to the export administration regulations (15 cfr parts 730 through 774) (ear) to north korea that are ordinarily incident and necessary to authorized ngo activities, provided the items would be designated as ear99 if located in the united states. to avoid duplicative licensing requirements, ofac added a new gl at § 510.520 to authorize all transactions ordinarily incident to the exportation or reexportation of items (i.e., commodities, software, or technology) to north korea, provided the exportation or reexportation is licensed or otherwise authorized by the department of commerce. such transactions may include transactions with the government of north korea, or any other person blocked pursuant to the nksr, and services provided outside north korea to install, repair, or replace authorized items. accordingly, u.s. persons no longer need to seek a specific license from ofac to engage in transactions ordinarily incident to exports and reexports that are already licensed or otherwise authorized by the department of commerce. ofac added a new gl at § 510.521 to authorize certain transactions related to the export and reexport to north korea of certain agricultural commodities (including food), medicine, medical devices, and replacement parts and components for medical devices, that are not subject to the ear but that would be designated ear99 if they were located in the united states, subject to certain conditions and limitations. ofac added a new gl at § 510.522 to authorize u.s. news reporting organizations and certain of their u.s. person employees to engage in certain transactions ordinarily incident and necessary to their journalistic activities or the establishment or operation of a news bureau in north korea. yes, subject to certain conditions and limitations. ngos may engage in transactions with the government of north korea to the extent ordinarily incident and necessary to the activities authorized by § 510.512(a). such transactions may not include partnerships and partnership agreements with government of north korea military, intelligence, or law enforcement entities, except as necessary to export or import items to or from north korea that are licensed or otherwise authorized pursuant to the nksr or pursuant to the export administration regulations (15 cfr parts 730 through 774) (ear). for example, ngos may engage with north korea’s ministry of public health to provide assistance to clean water projects; with customs officials to import humanitarian related items into the country; and with local jurisdictions, such as city governments and hospitals, to provide food and medical devices. however, this general license does not authorize the exportation or reexportation of services to, charitable donations to or for the benefit of, or any other transactions involving, the government of north korea, the workers’ party of korea, or any other person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to the nksr, except as ordinarily incident and necessary to an activity authorized pursuant to § 510.512(a). to be eligible for the ngo gl, an ngo must first submit a report to the u.s. department of state via email to dprk ngo gl notification dl@state.gov no fewer than 30 days before the commencement of their activities, with one of the following: (1) a copy of approval by the un security council 1718 committee (1718 committee) with respect to the ngo’s activities; (2) a copy of a 1718 committee exemption request or notification that has been or will be submitted to the 1718 committee with respect to the ngo’s activities; or (3) a detailed explanation of why the ngo’s proposed activities do not require such an exemption or notification, including details about the type and scope of the proposed activities. in the two week period following submission of this information, the u.s. department of state may notify the ngo that it is not eligible to rely upon the gl. an ngo that does not receive this type of notification may proceed with the activities described in the report. no. the general license for the exportation or reexportation of certain agricultural and medical items at § 510.521 of the north korea sanctions regulations, 31 cfr part 510, does not authorize the exportation or reexportation to north korea of luxury goods, including tobacco, as set forth in 15 cfr § 746.4(b)(1) of the export administration regulations (15 cfr parts 730 through 774). yes. please visit usaid’s website for more information about how you can help. yes, non governmental organizations may provide humanitarian assistance in somalia without the need for a license from ofac. organizations considering entering somali territory to conduct assistance operations should be aware that areas of somalia are extremely unstable and dangerous, and should review the state department’s travel warning for somalia. among the most powerful armed groups operating in somalia is al shabaab, a specially designated global terrorist and a foreign terrorist organization under u.s. law. u.s. persons should exercise caution not to provide funds or material support to this organization or other designated groups. due to the dangerous and highly unstable environment combined with urgent humanitarian needs in south and central somalia, some food and/or medicine delivered in these areas may end up in the hands of al shabaab members. such incidental benefits are not a focus for ofac sanctions enforcement. u.s. persons should be extremely cautious in making cash payments in areas under the control of al shabaab. al shabaab has, in the past, demanded “taxes” and “access” payments from assistance organizations. to the extent that such a payment is made unintentionally by an organization in the conduct of its assistance activities, where the organization did not have reason to know that it was dealing with al shabaab, that activity would not be a focus for ofac sanctions enforcement. to the extent that an organization is facing demands for large or repeated payments in al shabaab controlled areas, it should consult with ofac prior to proceeding with its operations. under the current extreme circumstances on the ground, the department of state and usaid and their contractors and grantees are authorized to engage in certain transactions in the conduct of their official assistance activities in somalia, under rigorous controls aimed at preventing diversion of assistance or cash payments to designated parties. humanitarian assistance organizations that wish to apply for a contract or grant with the state department or usaid should visit usaid’s website. yes, you can send remittances to somalia, as long as the transactions do not involve parties listed on ofac’s specially designated nationals and blocked persons list. additional information on can be found on ofac’s somalia related sanctions program page. to request additional information from ofac, please contact the the ofac compliance hotline. an entity in south sudan that is commanded or controlled by an individual designated under executive order 13664 is not considered blocked by operation of law. payments, including “taxes” or “access payments,” made to non designated individuals or entities under the command or control of an individual designated under e.o. 13664 do not, in and of themselves, constitute prohibited activity. u.s. persons should employ due diligence, however, to ensure that an sdn is not, for example, profiting from such transactions. the national emergency declared with respect to the government of sudan in executive order (e.o.) 13067 of november 3, 1997   as expanded upon in scope by subsequent e.o.s   remains in effect. as detailed below, certain sanctions have been imposed and others have been lifted pursuant to that national emergency, in response to developments in sudan. the following sanctions authorities are in effect with respect to sudan: the following sanctions authorities are no longer in effect with respect to sudan: note that the revocation of the aforementioned sanctions authorities does not affect past, present, or future ofac enforcement investigations or actions associated with any apparent violations of the ssr that occurred prior to october 12, 2017 or of the tlgsr prior to december 14, 2020. date updated: may 4, 2023 yes. the new syria executive order, executive order 13582, does not prohibit u.s. persons from engaging in transactions ordinarily incident to travel to or from any country, including importation of accompanied baggage for personal use, maintenance within any country including payment of living expenses and acquisition of goods or services for personal use, and arrangement or facilitation or such travel including nonscheduled air, sea, or land voyages. for the purposes of ofac syria general license no. 4a, "items subject to the ear" is defined at § 734.3 of the export administration regulations ("ear"), 15 c.f.r. parts 730 774.the ear are administered by the u.s. department of commerce, bureau of industry and security ("bis"). note that bis maintains authority to license exports and reexports to persons in syria whose property and interests have been blocked pursuant to executive order 13606 (the “ghravity e.o.”). for further guidance regarding the exportation or reexportation of items to syria, please consult the ear. you may also wish to review the bis syria web page or contact bis by phone at (202) 482 4252. the export or reexport of food or medicine that is subject to the ear to the government of syria, other than medicine on the commerce control list that has not been licensed by bis for export or reexport to syria, does not require a specific license from ofac. as set forth in the ear, which implements the syria accountability and lebanese sovereignty restoration act of 2003 ("saa") and executive order 13338 of may 11, 2004, bis does not require a license for the export or reexport of "ear99" food and medicine; accordingly, ear99 food and medicine can be exported or reexported to the government of syria on a "nlr" ("no license required") basis, under the regulations administered by bis. additionally, as set forth in the ear, a bis license is required for the export or reexport of medicine that is on the commerce control list ("ccl medicine"). if bis has licensed the export or reexport of ccl medicine to the government of syria, no specific ofac license is required. general license no. 4a only applies to items that are subject to the ear, as set forth in 15 c.f.r. § 734.3. if a foreign made item located abroad is not subject to the ear based on the regulations administered by bis, the exportation or reexportation of such items by u.s. persons to the government syria and the reexportation of services incident to an exportation of such items to syria are not authorized by general license no. 4a. because executive order 13582 generally prohibits u.s. persons from engaging in transactions with the government of syria and separately prohibits the exportation, reexportation, sale, or supply, directly or indirectly, by a united states person, wherever located, of any services to syria, such transactions remain prohibited. u.s. persons may donate funds to and raise funds on behalf of u.s. and third country ngos that engage in authorized activities in syria (please see § 542.516 of the syrian sanctions regulations for the full list of authorized activities). u.s. persons can also donate humanitarian goods like food and medicine to the syrian people. please note that the department of commerce, bureau of industry and security (bis) has jurisdiction over the export or reexport to syria of items (commodities, software, and technology) subject to the export administration regulations (ear), 15 cfr parts 730 774, including items that are located in the united states and certain foreign origin items located abroad that contain a certain de minimis level of u.s. origin content that require a license for export to syria. bis maintains comprehensive restrictions on the export or reexport to syria of items subject to the ear. these restrictions apply to all items subject to the ear apart from food and medicine that are designated as “ear99.” these ear restrictions apply to both u.s. persons and non u.s. persons. as a general matter, we recommend that both u.s. and non u.s. persons contact bis directly with any questions relating to syria restrictions under the ear. u.s. person individuals are not authorized to transfer funds directly to syria for the purpose of charitable donations, absent a specific license from ofac. u.s. financial institutions, as defined in 31 cfr 542.321, are authorized to process transfers of funds to or from syria on behalf of u.s. and third country nongovernmental organizations (ngos), in support of the authorized activities described in the ngo general license (gl) at § 542.516 of the syrian sanctions regulations (sysr). the sysr ngo gl does not authorize funds transfers with knowledge or reason to know the intended beneficiary is a blocked person other than the government of syria as defined in § 542.308(a), except for limited transactions ordinarily incident and necessary to the authorized activities described in § 542.516 if you have specific questions about donating funds to syria, please contact ofac. updated: june 05, 2024 the united states has sanctioned the syrian government, including the central bank of syria, senior syrian government officials, and individuals and entities supporting the assad regime and/or responsible for human rights abuses in syria, in order to reinforce the president’s call that bashar al assad step down and to disrupt the assad regime’s ability to finance its campaign of violence against the syrian people. in addition, treasury has sanctioned the commercial bank of syria and a number of other entities under executive order 13382, an authority that targets proliferators of weapons of mass destruction (wmd) and their supporters. over the years treasury has applied a broad range of sanctions using several different authorities and executive orders (e.o.s), including counter terrorism (e.o. 13224), human rights abuses (e.o. 13572), and non proliferation (e.o. 13382). the united states has also prohibited the exportation of services to syria, and there have long been legal restrictions on what goods u.s. persons can export to syria. these sanctions mean that u.s. persons are not permitted to do business with individuals or entities on ofac’s specially designated nationals and blocked persons list (sdn list), or with any entity 50 percent or more owned by an specially designated national (sdn), unless exempt or authorized by ofac through a general or specific license. yes. pursuant to 31 cfr § 542.512, u.s. persons may continue to send noncommercial, personal remittances to friends or family in syria, provided the transfer is not by, to, or through the government of syria or any other person whose property and interests in property are blocked. syria general license (gl) 24 complements this provision by authorizing transactions that are ordinarily incident and necessary to processing the transfer of noncommercial, personal remittances to syria, including through the central bank of syria, provided that the recipient is not blocked. u.s. depository institutions, u.s. registered brokers or dealers in securities, and u.s. registered money transmitters can process such transactions and may rely on the statements of their customers that such transactions are authorized unless they know or have reason to know a transaction is not authorized. (previously updated april 21, 2015. revised january 06, 2025). no. general license no. 6 does not authorize any transactions involving individuals or entities designated under e.o. 13382, which targets proliferators of weapons of mass destruction and their supporters, including the commercial bank of syria, the syrian lebanese commercial bank, and the siib. on august 10, 2011, under executive order 13382, the department of the treasury designated the commercial bank of syria for its involvement in proliferation activities, and also designated its subsidiary, the syrian lebanese commercial bank. on may 30, 2012, the department of the treasury also designated the siib. therefore, the use of these financial institutions is not authorized by general license no. 6. no. you may send u.s. origin food or medicine to syria without a specific license from ofac. the department of commerce, bureau of industry and security (“bis”), which maintains jurisdiction over the export of most items to syria, does not require a license for the export of u.s. origin food and most medicine to syria. for further guidance regarding the exportation of items to syria, including a list of such items, please review the bis syria web page, or contact bis by phone at (202) 482 4252. yes. u.s. ngos may provide services to syria in support of humanitarian projects in syria as authorized by § 542.516 of the syrian sanctions regulations. ngos carrying out activities funded by the u.s. government, as described in § 542.522, or international organizations, as described in § 542.513, may also rely on those respective authorizations for their activities. additionally, ngos may also rely on the authorization in § 542.533 for activities in certain economic sectors in non regime held areas of northeast and northwest syria. however, other u.s. government authorities, including the department of commerce, bureau of industry and security (bis) export requirements, may apply to the delivery of humanitarian assistance to syria. in particular, bis maintains comprehensive restrictions on the export or reexport to syria of items (commodities, software, and technology) subject to the export administration regulations, 15 cfr parts 730 774 (ear). these restrictions apply to all items subject to the ear apart from food and medicine that are designated as ear99. bis licenses certain categories of items for export or reexport to syria on a case by case basis. see ear § 746.9. for further guidance, please review the bis syria web page or contact bis by phone at (202) 482 4252. ngos considering entering syria to conduct assistance operations should be aware that areas of syria are extremely unstable and dangerous, and should review the state department’s travel warning for syria http://travel.state.gov/content/passports/english/alertswarnings/syria travel warning.html. u.s. persons should exercise caution not to engage in prohibited transactions with the government of syria or any individual or entity on ofac’s list of specially designated nationals and blocked persons (sdn list) or any other sanctions list maintained by ofac. updated: june 05, 2024 no. without a specific license, u.s. persons are not permitted to transfer financial donations directly to syria or to ngos in syria. if you wish to donate funds in support of humanitarian work in syria, you may do so by giving funds to u.s. or third country ngos to support non commercial activities in syria. if you still wish to send a charitable donation directly to syria or to a syrian ngo, you may apply to ofac for specific authorization to transmit such funds. you should provide as much information as possible about how the funds would be transferred, the recipients, and the end use of the funds. additionally, non commercial, personal remittances can be sent to syria under the syria remittances general license at § 542.512 of the sysr. updated: june 05, 2024 the central bank of syria (cbos) is blocked as part of the government of syria, as defined in e.o. 13582 of august 17, 2011 and the syrian sanctions regulations (sysr), 31 c.f.r. part 542. on december 22, 2020, ofac identified the cbos on the specially designated nationals and blocked persons list (sdn list), further underscoring its blocked status. this identification does not trigger new prohibitions on the cbos. all property and interests in property of the cbos remain blocked. among other things, the sysr generally prohibit u.s. persons, unless exempt or authorized, from engaging in any transaction or dealing in property and interests in property of certain blocked persons, including the cbos. this also includes the making of any contribution or provision of funds, goods, or services by, to, or for the benefit of any person whose property and interests in property are blocked, again including the cbos. the sysr also prohibit the export, reexport, sale, and supply of services to syria (unless exempt or authorized), which would include services involving the cbos in syria. pursuant to the caesar syria civilian protection act of 2019, non u.s. persons who knowingly provide significant financial, material, or technological support to, or knowingly engage in a significant transaction with the government of syria, including the cbos, or certain other persons sanctioned with respect to syria, risk exposure to sanctions. general and specific licenses under the sysr applicable to the cbos continue to apply, including authorizations for the provision of humanitarian assistance and certain trade to syria that may involve the cbos. for more information regarding authorizations for humanitarian assistance and other trade with syria by u.s. and non u.s. persons, please see faq 867. yes. the identification of the cbos on the sdn list does not trigger new prohibitions; existing general and specific licenses under the syrian sanctions regulations (sysr), 31 c.f.r. part 542, continue to apply as they did previously. u.s. persons may continue engaging with the cbos in connection with humanitarian assistance and certain other trade with syria authorized by the sysr or exempt from regulation, including: § 542.510 (exports or reexports to syria of items licensed or otherwise authorized by the department of commerce authorized; exports or reexports of certain services authorized); § 542.513 (official business of certain international organizations and entities); § 542.516 (certain transactions in support of nongovernmental organizations’ activities); and § 542.525 (exportation or reexportation of services to syria related to the exportation or reexportation of certain non u.s. origin goods authorized). of note, the export of u.s. origin food and most medicines to syria is not prohibited and does not require a commerce or ofac license (see 31 cfr § 542.510 and syria faq 229), and u.s. persons can continue engaging with the cbos in connection with these transactions. furthermore, § 542.404 of the sysr authorizes transactions ordinarily incident and necessary to a licensed transaction, with certain exceptions. in addition, ofac may issue specific licenses to authorize certain transactions involving u.s. persons or the u.s. financial system that may otherwise be prohibited by ofac sanctions, provided those transactions are in the foreign policy interests of the united states. ofac has a longstanding licensing policy supporting the provision of humanitarian assistance. with respect to non u.s. persons, ofac will not consider transactions to be “significant” for the purpose of a sanctions determination under the caesar syria civilian protection act of 2019 (caesar act) if u.s. persons would not require a specific license from ofac to participate in such a transaction. see 31 cfr § 542.414. accordingly, non u.s. persons would not risk exposure to sanctions under the caesar act for engaging in activity with the cbos that is authorized for u.s. persons under a general license in the sysr, such as transactions involving the provision of humanitarian assistance or export of humanitarian goods to syria. further, the caesar act codifies, with some exceptions, the general license in § 542.516 of the sysr, as in effect the day before enactment of the caesar act, that authorizes certain services in support of nongovernmental organizations, and includes a humanitarian waiver. ofac remains committed to ensuring that humanitarian assistance can flow to the people of syria. treasury continues to support the critical work of governments, certain international organizations and entities, non governmental organizations, and individuals delivering food, medicine, medical supplies, and humanitarian assistance to civilians in syria. if individuals, companies, or financial institutions have questions about engaging in or processing transactions related to these authorizations, they can contact ofac’s compliance division. updated: june 14, 2024 as described in faq 867, non u.s. persons would not risk exposure to sanctions for engaging in humanitarian related transactions or activity with polymedics llc and letia company that are exempt from regulation or authorized for u.s. persons by a general license in the syrian sanctions regulations (sysr), 31 c.f.r. part 542, such as transactions involving the provision of humanitarian assistance or export of humanitarian goods to syria. additionally, the caesar syria civilian protection act of 2019 (caesar act) codifies, with some exceptions, the general license in § 542.516 of the sysr, which authorizes certain services in support of nongovernmental organizations and includes a humanitarian waiver. with respect to non u.s. persons, ofac will not consider transactions to be “significant” for the purpose of a sanctions determination under the caesar act if u.s. persons would not require a specific license from ofac to participate in such a transaction. see 31 cfr § 542.414. accordingly, non u.s. persons, including ngos and foreign financial institutions, would not risk exposure to sanctions under the caesar act for engaging in activity, or facilitating transactions and payments for such activity, that is authorized for u.s. persons under a general license (gl) issued pursuant to the sysr or exempt. section 7425 of the caesar act codifies, with some exceptions, the general license in § 542.516 of the sysr that authorizes certain services in support of ngos. additionally, section 7432 of the caesar act includes a humanitarian waiver for activities not otherwise covered by gl § 542.516 of the sysr. furthermore, non u.s. persons do not risk exposure to sanctions pursuant to the caesar act for engaging in or facilitating transactions and activities authorized pursuant to the general license at § 542.533, or transactions that are ordinarily incident and necessary to give effect to the activities authorized in § 542.533, or any other general license issued pursuant to the sysr. please note that this guidance with respect to non u.s. persons does not apply to transactions and activities that may be subject to sanctions under other sanctions programs administered by ofac (e.g., transactions with blocked persons designated under executive order (e.o.) 13224, as amended (ofac’s counterterrorism authority) or e.o. 13894 (ofac’s syria related authority)), unless exempt or otherwise permitted by ofac. updated: june 14, 2024 yes. the general license at § 542.513 of the syrian sanctions regulations (sysr) authorizes, subject to certain conditions, the united nations, including its programmes, funds, and other entities and bodies, as well as its specialized agencies and related organizations, the international committee of the red cross and the international federation of red cross and red crescent societies; and the global fund to fight aids, tuberculosis, and malaria, and gavi, the vaccine alliance and their employees, contractors, or grantees to engage in all transactions and activities in support of their official business in syria, including any stabilization and early recovery related activities and transactions in support of their official business. this authorization applies to all employees, grantees, and contractors carrying out the official business of the united nations, its specialized agencies, programmes, funds, and related organizations, including nongovernmental organizations (ngos) and private sector entities that are acting as grantees or contractors. in addition, § 542.211(d) and the general license at § 542.522 exempt and authorize, respectively, subject to certain conditions, the u.s. government and its employees, grantees, or contractors to engage in all transactions in support of their official business in syria, including any stabilization and early recovery related activities and transactions in support of their official business. this exemption and authorization apply to all employees, grantees, and contractors carrying out the official business of the u.s. government, including ngos and private sector entities that are acting as grantees or contractors. for ngos that are not acting as grantees or contractors of the aforementioned international organizations or the u.s. government, please see the general license at § 542.516 for authorizations under the sysr related to certain transactions in support of certain ngo activities. additionally, organizations and entities may also rely on the authorization in § 542.533 for activities in certain economic sectors in non regime held areas of northeast and northwest syria. separately, non u.s. persons, including ngos, private sector entities, and foreign financial institutions facilitating or assisting in the aforementioned activities, do not risk exposure to u.s. secondary sanctions pursuant to the caesar syria civilian protection act of 2019 for engaging in the above activities for which a u.s. person would not require a specific license. please see 31 cfr § 542.414 and faq 884 for additional information. please note that this guidance does not apply to transactions and activities that may be subject to sanctions under other sanctions programs administered by ofac (e.g., transactions with persons blocked under ofac’s counterterrorism authority (e.o. 13224, as amended) or ofac’s syria related authority (e.o. 13894)), unless exempt or otherwise authorized by ofac. updated: june 05, 2024 the gl at § 542.516 of the sysr authorizes ngos to engage in activities in support of certain non commercial activities in syria, including: humanitarian projects to meet basic human needs; democracy building; education; non commercial development projects directly benefitting the syrian people; the preservation and protection of cultural heritage sites; environmental and natural resource protection; and disarmament, demobilization, and reintegration (ddr) programs and peacebuilding, conflict prevention, and conflict resolution programs. this includes early recovery related transactions and activities by ngos in support of transactions and activities that fall within the categories listed above, including: additionally, organizations and entities may also rely on the authorization in § 542.533 for activities in certain economic sectors in non regime held areas of northeast and northwest syria. for transactions and activities not otherwise authorized or exempt from sanctions, ofac considers license requests on a case by case basis. individuals, ngos, companies, or financial institutions with questions about engaging in or processing transactions or activities related to this authorization can contact ofac’s compliance division. updated: june 05, 2024 syria gl 22 is intended to improve the economic conditions in non regime held areas of northeast and northwest syria and support ongoing stabilization efforts in the region. this new authorization also builds upon the administration’s strategy to defeat isis in the region. no. syria gl 22 does not remove any sanctions on the assad regime and excludes transactions involving any person, including the government of syria, whose property or interests in property are blocked pursuant to the syrian sanctions regulations or the caesar syria civilian protection act of 2019 from the scope of the authorization. additional information on activities authorized pursuant to syria gl 22 can be found in faq 1043. syria gl 22 authorizes certain activities in non regime held areas of northeast and northwest syria in the following economic sectors: agriculture; information and telecommunications; power grid infrastructure; construction; finance; clean energy; transportation and warehousing; water and waste management; health services; education; manufacturing; and trade. this includes activities in the areas of northeast and northwest syria identified in the annex in syria gl 22, in support of transactions and activities that fall within the categories listed above, including: additionally, syria gl 22 authorizes u.s. financial institutions to process transfers of funds in support of the authorized transactions and activities outlined above. separately, non u.s. persons, including foreign financial institutions, do not risk exposure to u.s. secondary sanctions pursuant to the caesar syria civilian protection act of 2019 for engaging in or facilitating transactions and activities that are otherwise authorized or exempt for u.s. persons under the sysr. please see faq 884 for additional information. please note that this guidance does not apply to transactions and activities that may be subject to prohibitions under other sanctions programs administered by ofac (e.g., transactions with persons blocked under ofac’s counterterrorism authority (e.o. 13224, as amended) or ofac’s syria related authority (e.o. 13894)), unless exempt or otherwise authorized by ofac. any persons seeking to operate in non regime held areas of northeast and northwest syria must ensure their in country activities do not involve prohibited transactions and activities or blocked persons, such as the government of syria or designated terrorist organizations. for transactions and activities not otherwise authorized or exempt from sanctions, ofac will consider license requests on a case by case basis. individuals, companies, or financial institutions with questions about engaging in or processing transactions related to this authorization can contact the ofac compliance hotline. additionally, u.s. and non u.s. persons may need to obtain a license from the department of commerce’s bureau of industry and security (bis) for the export or reexport or certain items subject to export administration regulations (ear). for further guidance regarding the exportation or reexportation of items to syria, please contact bis at (202) 482 4252. yes. transactions that are ordinarily incident and necessary to give effect to the activities authorized in syria gl 22 are authorized. additionally, syria gl 22 authorizes u.s. financial institutions to process transfers of funds related to authorized transactions and activities. such financial institutions may reasonably rely upon the information available to them in the ordinary course of business with regard to compliance with syria gl 22, provided that the financial institution does not know or have reason to know that the funds transfer is not in compliance with the provisions of the gl. in addition, foreign financial institutions do not risk exposure to u.s. secondary sanctions pursuant to the caesar syria civilian protection act of 2019 for engaging in or facilitating transactions and activities that are otherwise authorized or exempt for u.s. persons under the syrian sanctions regulations. please see faq 884 for additional information. for the purposes of syria gl 22, the annex in gl 22 identifies areas of northeast and northwest syria in which activities described in gl 22 are authorized as of may 12, 2022. syria gl 22 does not authorize activities involving persons blocked pursuant to the syrian sanctions regulations, 31 c.f.r. part 542, including the government of syria, or persons that may be subject to sanctions under other sanctions programs administered by ofac (e.g., transactions with blocked persons designated under executive order (e.o.) 13224, as amended (ofac’s counterterrorism authority), or e.o. 13894 (ofac’s syria related authority)), unless exempt or otherwise authorized by ofac. persons conducting activities in certain non regime held areas in northeast and northwest syria pursuant to syria gl 22 can use ofac’s specially designated nationals and blocked persons list (sdn list) search tool to identify organizations and individuals explicitly included on the sdn list, as well as other individuals or entities explicitly subject to u.s. sanctions. for more information on using ofac’s sdn list search tool and assessing ofac name matches, please see ofac faqs 5, 82, 246 253, 287, 369, 467, and 892. in addition, according to ofac’s 50 percent rule entities are considered blocked if they are owned 50 percent or more, directly or indirectly, individually or in the aggregate, by one or more blocked persons. ofac would encourage any persons operating in certain non regime held areas of northeast and northwest syria pursuant to syria gl 22 to use all information at their disposal when assessing their risk for sanctions exposure. supplementing internal due diligence information with an array of open source material can be an effective compliance practice to aid in identifying risky counterparties involved in any in country activity. for more information on ofac due diligence expectations and compliance programs, please see faqs 25, 27 31 and a framework for ofac compliance commitments. on june 5, 2024, ofac, in consultation with the department of state, amended the sysr to, among other things, incorporate certain sanctions statutes, including the caesar syria civilian protection act of 2019, which are designed to deny the assad regime the resources it needs to support its longstanding campaign of repression against the syrian people. the amendments also incorporate a web general license (gl) and modify certain existing gls to facilitate the continued provision of legitimate humanitarian assistance and internet based communications services to civilians in syria and clarify the applicability of the sysr to persons sanctioned under certain sanctions authorities. these changes include: ofac incorporated into the sysr the caesar syria civilian protection act of 2019, the syria human rights accountability act of 2012, and the iran threat reduction and syria human rights act of 2012, as well as relevant provisions of the countering america’s adversaries through sanctions act and executive order (e.o.) 13608. ofac incorporated into the sysr, at new § 542.533, web gl 22, which authorizes activities in certain economic sectors in non regime held areas of northeast and northwest syria. ofac amended the gl related to the activities of nongovernmental organizations (ngo) at § 542.516. these changes clarify which types of persons are covered by the ngo gl; add new authorized activities; and clarify that u.s. financial institutions may rely on statements of the originator of a funds, provided that the financial institution does not know or have reason to know that the funds transfer is not in compliance with the ngo gl. ofac amended the gl related to the activities of international organizations (io) at § 542.513. these changes add new ios whose official business is authorized by the gl to include the international committee of the red cross and the international federation of red cross and red crescent societies; and the global fund to fight aids, tuberculosis, and malaria, and gavi, the vaccine alliance. ofac amended the gl related to internet based communications at § 542.511. these changes update the list of examples of communications technologies that are incident to, or enable services incident to, communications over the internet; authorize the provision of services incident to the export or reexport of certain communications software or hardware not subject to the export administration regulations (“ear”), 15 c.f.r. parts 730 774, that is incident to, or enables services incident to, communications over the internet, subject to certain conditions; and authorize the exportation and re exportation to syria of non commercial grade internet connectivity services for more information, see faqs 205, 206, 231, 232, 934, and 938. gl 24 is intended to ensure that sanctions do not impede essential governance related services in syria following the fall of bashar al assad on december 8, 2024, including for the provision of public services or certain transactions related to energy or personal remittances. gl 24 complements ofac's existing humanitarian related authorizations by authorizing the following transactions, with some conditions and exceptions, through july 7, 2025: gl 24 authorizes the foregoing under the syrian sanctions regulations (sysr), the global terrorism sanctions regulations (gtsr), and the foreign terrorist organizations sanctions regulations (ftosr). it does not relieve any person from compliance with other federal laws or regulations, including the international traffic in arms regulations (itar) or the export administration regulations (ear) administered by the department of commerce. for more information about the types of transactions covered by gl 24, see frequently asked questions 1206, 1207, and 1208. syrian governing institutions include departments, agencies, and government run public service providers (including public hospitals, schools, and utilities) at the federal, regional, or local level in syria following december 8, 2024, including entities involved with hay’at tahrir al sham (hts) across all geographic areas of syria. gl 24 does not authorize transactions involving military or intelligence entities, or any persons acting on behalf of such entities. gl 24 authorizes transactions under the syrian sanctions regulations (sysr), the global terrorism sanctions regulations (gtsr), and the foreign terrorist organizations sanctions regulations (ftosr). gl 24 generally authorizes the following transactions, with the exclusion of military or intelligence entities or those acting for or on their behalf: gl 24 does not authorize the following: yes. gl 24 authorizes transactions with governing institutions in syria, with some conditions and exceptions, through july 7, 2025, even if a designated individual has a leadership role in that governing institution. for example, if a company engaging in otherwise authorized activity needs to make a customs payment to a governing institution led by a blocked individual following december 8, 2024, that payment is authorized. however, gl 24 does not authorize financial transfers to blocked persons other than for the purpose of effecting certain payments to governing institutions or for the purchase or receipt of permits, licenses, public utility services, or other public services in syria. please see faqs 1206 and 1207. yes. the authorization in gl 24 may overlap with the authorizations in existing gls issued under the syrian sanctions regulations (sysr), the global terrorism sanctions regulations (gtsr), and the foreign terrorist organizations sanctions regulations (ftosr), including: ofac general licenses are "self executing," meaning that persons who determine that certain activities are authorized under a gl may proceed without further assurance from ofac. where multiple authorizations may apply, u.s. persons may rely on the broadest applicable authorization. with respect to transactions in support of certain nongovernmental organizations’ activities, u.s. depository institutions, u.s. registered brokers or dealers in securities, and u.s. registered money transmitters can process such transactions and may rely on the statements of their customers that such transactions are authorized unless they know or have reason to know a transaction is not authorized. for more information, including an overview of authorized humanitarian activities in addition to gl 24, please review faqs 231 and 938, and the ofac syria compliance communique. no. sst restrictions on syria remain in place. yes. syria general license (gl) 24 authorizes transactions in support of the sale, supply, storage, or donation of energy, including petroleum, petroleum products, natural gas, and electricity, to or within syria. this may include, for example, the donation of gasoline to syrian refineries, and power plants. however, authorizations for this activity under the general license do not relieve persons from compliance with any other laws or requirements of other federal agencies or international organizations. for example, the export or reexport of petroleum, petroleum products, natural gas, and other commodities to syria may require additional authorization from the department of commerce if such items are u.s. origin or otherwise subject to the export administration regulations (ear). yes. activities to support the rule of law, accountability, and transparency are broadly authorized under the syrian sanctions regulations (sysr), the global terrorism sanctions regulations (gtsr), and the foreign terrorist organizations sanctions regulations (ftosr), including transactions in support of certain nongovernmental (ngo) activities (31 cfr §§ 594.520; 597.516; 542.516), official business of the u.s. government (31 cfr §§ 594.518; 597.514; 542.522), and official business of certain international organizations (31 cfr §§ 594.519; 597.515; 542.513) by employees, grantees, or contractors thereof. for example, the ngo activities general licenses authorize transactions in support of activities to support democracy building, including activities to support rule of law, citizen participation, government accountability and transparency, human rights and fundamental freedoms, access to information, and civil society development projects; and activities to support disarmament, demobilization, and reintegration (ddr) programs and peacebuilding, conflict prevention, and conflict resolution programs. the sectoral sanctions imposed on specified persons operating in sectors of the russian economy identified by the secretary of the treasury were done under executive order 13662 through directives issued by ofac pursuant to its delegated authorities. directive 1, as amended on september 29, 2017 in accordance with section 223(b) of the countering america’s adversaries through sanctions act of 2017 (caatsa) (pub. l. 115 44), prohibits transacting in, providing financing for, or otherwise dealing in debt of specified tenors or equity if that debt or equity was or is issued on or after the relevant sanctions effective date ("new debt" or "new equity") by, on behalf of, or for the benefit of the persons operating in russia’s financial sector named under directive 1, their property, or their interests in property. there were two prior (and now superseded) versions of directive 1, which were issued on july 16, 2014 and september 12, 2014. the prior versions of directive 1 prohibited the same activities, but involving debt of longer than 90 days maturity (july 16, 2014 version) and 30 days maturity (september 12, 2014 version) or equity if that debt or equity was issued on or after the date a person was determined to be subject to directive 1. the relevant tenors of prohibited debt under directive 1 are noted in the table below. period when the debt was issued applicable tenor of prohibited debt on or after july 16, 2014 and before september 12, 2014 longer than 90 days maturity on or after september 12, 2014 and before november 28, 2017 longer than 30 days maturity on or after november 28, 2017 longer than 14 days maturity directive 2, as amended on september 29, 2017 in accordance with section 223(c) of caatsa, prohibits transacting in, providing financing for, or otherwise dealing in new debt of specified tenors by, on behalf of, or for the benefit of the persons operating in russia’s energy sector named under directive 2, their property, or their interests in property. there were two prior (and now superseded) versions of directive 2, which were issued on july 16, 2014 and september 12, 2014. the prior versions of directive 2 prohibited the same activities, but involving debt of longer than 90 days maturity if that debt was issued on or after the date a person was determined to be subject to directive 2. the relevant tenors of prohibited debt under directive 2 are noted in the table below. period when the debt was issued applicable tenor of prohibited debt on or after july 16, 2014 and before november 28, 2017 longer than 90 days maturity on or after november 28, 2017 longer than 60 days maturity directives 1 and 2 prohibit transactions by u.s. persons as defined in e.o. 13662, wherever they are located, and transactions within the united states. directives 1 and 2 do not require u.s. persons to block the property or interests in property of the entities identified in the directives, nor will persons identified in directives 1 and 2 automatically be added to the specially designated nationals (sdn) list. u.s. persons should reject transactions or dealings that are prohibited by directives 1 or 2, and to the extent required by section 501.604 of the reporting, procedures and penalties regulations (31 c.f.r. part 501), u.s. persons must report to ofac any rejected transactions within 10 business days. the term debt includes bonds, loans, extensions of credit, loan guarantees, letters of credit, drafts, bankers acceptances, discount notes or bills, or commercial paper. the term equity includes stocks, share issuances, depositary receipts, or any other evidence of title or ownership. the prohibitions of directive 1 apply to all transactions involving new debt of specified tenors (see faq 370) or new equity; all financing in support of such new debt or new equity; and any dealing in, including provision of services in support of, such new debt or new equity. for example, for debt that is issued on or after november 28, 2017, on behalf of or for the benefit of a person subject to directive 1, the maturity of such instrument must be 14 days or less in order for a u.s. person to transact in, to provide financing for, or to otherwise deal in such debt. for debt that is issued on or after september 12, 2014 but before november 28, 2017, on behalf of or for the benefit of a person subject to directive 1, the maturity of such instrument must be 30 days or less in order for a u.s. person to transact in, to provide financing for, or to otherwise deal in such debt. if the terms of the agreement do not subsequently change as described in faq 394, then a u.s. person may deal in such debt even after the 14 day debt limit came into effect on november 28, 2017, because such debt would not constitute “new debt” for purposes of the sanctions applicable on or after november 28, 2017. likewise, for debt that is issued on or after july 16, 2014 but before september 12, 2014, on behalf of or for the benefit of a person subject to directive 1, the maturity of such instrument must be 90 days or less in order for a u.s. person to transact in, to provide financing for, or to otherwise deal in such debt. if the terms of the agreement do not subsequently change as described in faq 394, then a u.s. person may deal in such debt even after the revised tenors came into effect on september 12, 2014 or november 28, 2017, because such debt would not constitute “new debt” for purposes of the sanctions applicable on those dates. the prohibitions of directive 2 apply to all transactions involving new debt of specified tenors (see faq 370); all financing in support of such new debt; and any dealing in, including provision of services in support of, such new debt. for example, for debt that is issued on or after november 28, 2017, on behalf of or for the benefit of a person subject to directive 2, the maturity of such instrument must be 60 days or less in order for a u.s. person to transact in, to provide financing for, or to otherwise deal in such debt. for debt that is issued on or after july 16, 2014 but before november 28, 2017, on behalf of or for the benefit of a person subject to directive 2, the maturity of such instrument must be 90 days or less in order for a u.s. person to transact in, to provide financing for, or to otherwise deal in such debt. if the terms of the agreement do not subsequently change as described in faq 394, then a u.s. person may deal in such debt even after the 60 day debt limit comes into effect on november 28, 2017 because such debt would not constitute “new debt” for purposes of the sanctions applicable on or after november 28, 2017. the prohibitions of directive 3 apply to all transactions involving new debt with a maturity of longer than 30 days; all financing in support of such new debt; and any dealing in, including provision of services in support of, such new debt. all the prohibitions of these directives extend to rollover of existing debt, if such rollover results in the creation of new debt with a maturity of longer than the applicable tenor specified in the relevant directive (see faq 394). transacting in, providing financing for, or otherwise dealing in any debt issued by, on behalf of, or for the benefit of persons subject to directives 1, 2, or 3, or equity issued by, on behalf of, or for the benefit of persons subject to directive 1, is permissible if the debt or equity was issued prior to the date on which the person became subject to the relevant directive. in addition, transacting in, providing financing for, or otherwise dealing in debt instruments with tenors shorter than the specified tenors, even if they are issued after the sanctions effective date, is permissible. transacting in, providing financing for, or otherwise dealing in new equity instruments of persons subject to directives 2 and 3 is permissible. u.s. financial institutions may continue to maintain correspondent accounts and process u.s. dollar clearing transactions for the persons subject to the directives, so long as those activities: (i) do not involve transacting in, providing financing for, or otherwise dealing in transaction types prohibited by these directives; and (ii) are not prohibited by other sanctions authorities (see, e.g., faqs 964 and faqs 967   973). in the case of directive 1, transacting in, providing financing for, or otherwise dealing in debt with a maturity of 90 days or less (if issued on or after july 16, 2014 but prior to september 12, 2014) or 30 days or less (if issued on or after september 12, 2014 but prior to november 28, 2017) that was issued by, on behalf of, or for the benefit of the persons subject to directive 1 is not prohibited if the terms of such instruments do not change subsequently (see faq 394 for additional detail on what constitutes the changing of terms). similarly, in the case of directive 2, transacting in, providing financing for, or otherwise dealing in debt with a maturity of 90 days or less (if issued on or after july 16, 2014 but prior to november 28, 2017) that was issued by, on behalf of, or for the benefit of the persons subject to directive 2 is not prohibited if the terms of such instruments do not change subsequently. rollovers of such instruments must comply with the new directive 1 and 2 maturity limits that came into effect on november 28, 2017. date updated: february 24, 2022 on november 28, 2017, ofac issued general license 1b, which continues to authorize certain transactions involving derivative products that would otherwise be prohibited pursuant to directives 1, 2, or 3. general license 1b replaced and superseded general license no. 1a, dated september 12, 2014. yes, these prohibitions apply to the named persons, their property, and their interests in property, which includes entities owned 50 percent or more by one or more persons identified as subject to the directives. on october 31, 2017, ofac amended and reissued directive 4 in accordance with section 223(d) of the countering america’s adversaries through sanctions act (caatsa) (pub. l. 115 44). for additional information regarding what amended directive 4 prohibits, see faq #412. the amendments to directive 4 do not change the applicability of ofac’s 50 percent rule in the directive 4 context. the references to “33 percent or greater ownership” and “ownership of a majority of the voting interests” in subsection 2 of directive 4 refer to a directive 4 ssi entity’s ownership interest in a deepwater, arctic offshore, or shale project. if a u.s. person is in possession of a kalashnikov concern product that was bought and fully paid for prior to the date of designation (i.e., no payment remains due to kalashnikov concern), then that product is not blocked and ofac sanctions would not prohibit the u.s. person from keeping or selling the product in the secondary market, so long as kalashnikov concern has no interest in the transaction. new transactions by u.s. persons with kalashnikov concern are prohibited, however, and any property in which kalashnikov concern has an interest is blocked pursuant to ofac’s designation of kalashnikov concern on july 16, 2014. if a u.s. person has an inventory of kalashnikov concern products in which kalashnikov concern has an interest (for example, the products are not fully paid for or are being sold on consignment), we advise that u.s. person to contact ofac for further guidance on handling of the inventory. if a u.s. person has an inventory of kalashnikov concern products in which kalashnikov concern has an interest (for example, the products are not fully paid for or are being sold on consignment), we advise that u.s. person to contact ofac for further guidance on handling of the inventory. in certain circumstances, yes. u.s. persons, including u.s. financial institutions, may issue and deal in depositary receipts that are based on equity issued by a person subject to directive 1 prior to the date the person became subject to directive 1. u.s. persons may not, however, deal in or issue depositary receipts that are based on equity issued by a person subject to directive 1 on or after the sanctions effective date. such transactions would constitute prohibited transactions or dealings in new equity under directive 1. there are no equity related prohibitions contained within directives 2, 3, or 4, and thus u.s. persons are not prohibited from issuing or dealing in depositary receipts that are based on equity issued by persons subject only to those directives. directive 1 prohibits u.s. persons from transacting in, providing financing for, or otherwise dealing in new equity for named persons, their property, or their interests in property. directive 1 also prohibits such transactions from occurring in the united states. if a u.s. person decides to transact or otherwise deal in equity issued by an ssi entity prior to the sanctions effective date, the u.s. person should ensure that it is not transacting in, providing financing for, or otherwise dealing in the newly issued equity. to the extent that a u.s. person does in fact transact in, provide financing for, or otherwise deal in newly issued equity, such activity would constitute a violation of the prohibition set forth in directive 1. ofac does not consider normal counterparty credit exposure encountered by a u.s. person to be an extension of credit when the u.s. person enters into an otherwise permissible derivatives transaction. u.s. persons engaging in such transactions should ensure that they do not hold, purchase, or sell the underlying asset in such transactions as described in paragraph (b) of general license 1b. if a u.s. person entered into a long term credit facility or loan agreement prior to the sanctions effective date, drawdowns and disbursements with repayment terms of shorter than the applicable tenor specified in the relevant directive are permitted. in addition, drawdowns and disbursements whose repayment terms exceed the applicable authorized tenor are not prohibited if the terms of such drawdowns and disbursements (including the length of the repayment period, the interest rate applied to the drawdown, and the maximum drawdown amount) were contractually agreed to prior to the sanctions effective date and are not modified on or after the sanctions effective date. u.s. persons may not deal in a drawdown or disbursement initiated after the sanctions effective date with a repayment term that is longer than the applicable tenor specified in the relevant directive if the terms of the drawdown or disbursement were negotiated on or after the sanctions effective date. such a newly negotiated drawdown or disbursement would constitute a prohibited extension of credit. u.s. persons may deal in (including act as the advising or confirming bank or as the applicant (i.e., the purchaser of the underlying goods or services)) or process transactions under a letter of credit in which an entity subject to directive 1, 2, or 3 is the beneficiary (i.e., the exporter or seller of the underlying goods or services) because the subject letter of credit does not represent an extension of credit to the ssi entity. u.s. persons may deal in (including act as the advising or confirming bank or as the applicant or beneficiary) or process transactions under a letter of credit where the issuing bank is an ssi entity provided that the terms of all payment obligations under the letter of credit conform with the debt prohibitions under the applicable directives. for example, a u.s. bank acting as the negotiating bank for a letter of credit issued after november 28, 2017 by an ssi entity subject to directive 1 should ensure that it receives reimbursement from the ssi entity within the allowable 14 day debt limit. u.s. persons may not deal in (including act as the advising or confirming bank or as the beneficiary) or process transactions under a letter of credit if all of the following three conditions are met: (1) the letter of credit was issued on or after the sanctions effective date, (2) the letter of credit carries a term of longer than the applicable tenor specified in the relevant directive, and (3) an ssi entity is the applicant of the letter of credit. this would constitute prohibited activity because the subject letter of credit would represent an extension of credit to the ssi entity. the ssi list available on ofac's website is the latest version of the list and contains the most updated information on entities determined to be subject to one or more of the directives. ofac also maintains "changes files" that record all significant changes to the ssi list. any addition, alteration, or removal of an ssi record is considered a significant change and will appear in these files along with the date that such an action occurred. these files are offered in two formats and are called ssinew14.pdf and ssinew14.txt. the changes files are produced by year, thus future file names will be ssinew15.pdf and ssinew15.txt and so on. the equity prohibitions in directive 1 pertain to equity issued directly or indirectly, by an ssi entity on or after the sanctions effective date. directive 1 does not prohibit u.s. persons from dealing with an ssi entity as counterparty to transactions involving equity issued by a non sanctioned party. directives 1, 2, and 3 only prohibit u.s. persons from dealing in new debt that is issued by a person subject to the relevant directive (and only where the debt has a tenor that exceeds the applicable tenor specified in the relevant directive). directives 1, 2, and 3 do not prohibit u.s. persons from dealing with an ssi entity as counterparty to transactions involving debt issued on or after the sanctions effective date by a non sanctioned party. u.s. persons are not prohibited from dealing in new equity with an entity subject to directive 1 if the entity is not the issuer of the equity. for instance, u.s. persons are not prohibited from transacting with an entity subject to directive 1 in support of new equity where the entity subject to directive 1 is the underwriter of the equity and not the issuer. a u.s. person is not prohibited by directives 1, 2, or 3 from engaging in transactions necessary to exit or replace its participation in a long term loan facility that was extended to an ssi entity prior to the sanctions effective date. this would not constitute dealing in new debt. u.s. persons involved in such facilities should ensure that all newly negotiated drawdowns or disbursements from the facility utilize repayment terms that are not prohibited by the applicable sanctions effective date. see faq 394 for additional information on what constitutes a permitted drawdown or disbursement from an existing long term loan obligation. directives 1, 2, and 3 do not prohibit u.s. persons from extending credit for longer than the applicable tenor specified in the relevant directive to non sanctioned parties for the purpose of purchasing goods or services from an ssi entity, so long as the ssi entity is not the indirect borrower. two conditions must be met for short term facilities created after the sanctions effective date to be permissible. as long as (1) each individual disbursement has a maturity of no longer than the applicable tenor specified in the relevant directive and the disbursement is paid back in full before the next disbursement, and (2) the lender is not contractually required to roll over the balance for a cumulative period of longer than the applicable tenor specified in the relevant directive at the borrower’s request (i.e., it has the option to refuse the request for a new short term loan and terminate the facility), the loan is not prohibited, even though the same borrower may obtain a series of short term loans from the same lender over a cumulative period exceeding the applicable tenor specified in the relevant directive. u.s. persons may not deal in a drawdown or disbursement initiated after the sanctions effective date with a repayment term of longer than the applicable authorized tenor if the terms of the drawdown or disbursement are negotiated or re negotiated on or after the sanctions effective date. such a newly negotiated drawdown or disbursement would constitute a prohibited extension of credit. directives 1, 2, and 3 prohibit new extensions of credit to ssi entities of greater than the applicable tenor specified in the relevant directive, and these prohibitions include deferred purchase agreements extending payment terms of longer than the applicable tenor specified in the relevant directive to an ssi entity. such agreements would constitute a prohibited extension of credit to an ssi entity if the terms were longer than the permissible number of days and the agreement was entered into on or after the sanctions effective date. ofac does not consider the inclusion of an interest rate to be a necessary condition for establishing whether a transaction represents new debt. ofac issued directive 3, introducing new prohibitions on all transactions in, provision of financing for, and other dealings in new debt of longer than 30 days maturity of persons determined to be subject to the directive, their property, or their interests in property. transactions by u.s. persons or within the united states involving derivative products whose value is linked to an underlying asset that constitutes new debt with maturity of longer than 30 days issued by a person subject to directive 3 are authorized by general license 1b pursuant to executive order 13662. directive 4, as amended on october 31, 2017 in accordance with caatsa, imposes two prohibitions on the provision, exportation, or reexportation of goods, services (except for financial services), or technology for certain activities involving persons subject to directive 4, their property, or their interests in property, operating in the energy sector of the russian federation. first, directive 4 prohibits the direct or indirect provision, exportation, or reexportation of goods, services (except for financial services), or technology in support of exploration or production for deepwater, arctic offshore, or shale projects that have the potential to produce oil in the russian federation, or in maritime area claimed by the russian federation and extending from its territory, and that involve any person determined to be subject to directive 4 or such person’s property or interests in property. second, pursuant to section 223(d) of title ii of caatsa, directive 4 further prohibits the direct or indirect provision, exportation, or reexportation of goods, services (except for financial services), or technology in support of exploration or production for deepwater, arctic offshore, or shale projects that meet all three of the following criteria: (1) the project was initiated on or after january 29, 2018; (2) the project has the potential to produce oil in any location; and (3) any person determined to be subject to directive 4 or any earlier version thereof, including their property or interests in property, either has a 33 percent or greater ownership interest in the project or owns a majority of the voting interests in the project. the prohibitions on the exportation of services include, for example, drilling services, geophysical services, geological services, logistical services, management services, modeling capabilities, and mapping technologies. the prohibitions do not apply to the provision of financial services, e.g., clearing transactions or providing insurance related to such activities. when directive 4 was implemented on september 12, 2014, ofac contemporaneously issued general license 2, which authorized for 14 days all services and activities prohibited by directive 4 that are ordinarily incident and necessary to the wind down of operations, contracts, or other agreements involving persons determined to be subject to directive 4. in order to qualify under this general license, a transaction must have (1) occurred prior to 12:01 a.m. eastern daylight time on september 26, 2014, and (2) been related to operations, contracts, or agreements that were in effect prior to september 12, 2014. general license 2 did not authorize any new provision, exportation, or re exportation of goods, services, or technology except as needed to cease operations, contracts, or other agreements involving affected projects. see section 746.5 of the export administration regulations (15 c.f.r. parts 730 through 774) for the department of commerce’s related license requirement on exports of certain goods for specified deepwater, arctic offshore, or shale projects. a project is considered to be a deepwater project if the project involves underwater activities at depths of more than 500 feet. if a deepwater, arctic offshore, or shale project has the potential to produce oil, and the other requirements for either of the directive 4 prohibitions are fully satisfied, then the relevant directive 4 prohibition applies, irrespective of whether the project also has the potential to produce gas. if the project has the potential to produce gas only, then the directive 4 prohibitions do not apply. each directive operates independently of the others. if a transaction involves a person subject to two directives, for example, a u.s. person engaging in that transaction must comply with the requirements of both directives. exemptions in one directive apply only to the prohibitions contained in that directive and do not carry over to another directive. for example, if a person is subject to both directive 2 and directive 4, the exemption for the provision of financial services by u.s. persons or in the united states under directive 4 does not supersede the prohibition in directive 2 on dealing in debt of longer than the applicable tenor specified in directive 2 of such a person (the relevant tenor under directive 2 varies depending upon when the debt was issued   see faq 370). for purposes of the sectoral sanctions, "sanctions effective date" means the date a person is determined to be subject to the prohibition(s) of the relevant directive. when a person has been previously determined to be subject to a directive and the prohibitions in the directive are subsequently amended, (1) the sanctions effective date for the prohibitions of the original directive remains the date on which the person was identified as subject to the prohibitions of that directive, and (2) the sanctions effective date for the prohibitions in the amended directive is the date of the amendment (or other date specified in the amended directive). the term "shale projects," as defined in § 589.334 of the ursr, includes projects that have the potential to produce oil from resources located in shale formations as well as projects that have the potential to produce oil from resources located in fine grained sedimentary rock formations including shale, limestone, dolomites, sandstones, and clay. date updated: april 29, 2022 u.s. persons may engage in commercial transactions with ssi entities provided that any such transactions do not represent a direct or indirect dealing in prohibited debt or equity. because offering payment terms of longer than the applicable tenor specified in the relevant directive to an ssi entity generally constitutes a prohibited dealing in debt of the ssi entity, u.s. persons should ensure that payment terms conform with the applicable debt prohibitions. for sales of goods to an ssi entity, u.s. persons may extend payment terms of up to the applicable tenor specified in the relevant directive from the point at which title or ownership of the goods transfers to the ssi entity. for example, for a directive 1 ssi entity, if the title or ownership of the goods transfers to the ssi entity on december 1, 2017, the u.s. person may give the ssi entity 14 days from december 1 to pay for those goods. for the provision of services to, subscription arrangements involving, and progress payments for long term projects involving ssi entities, u.s. persons may extend payment terms of up to the applicable tenor specified in the relevant directive from the point at which a final invoice (or each final invoice) is issued. payments made under these types of payment terms should utilize a value date of not later than the applicable tenor specified in the relevant directive from either the point at which title or ownership has transferred (for payments relating to sales of goods) or the date of each final invoice (for payments relating to services, subscription arrangements, and progress payments). for example, if a u.s. person is providing services for a long term project involving a directive 2 ssi entity, and a final invoice is dated december 1, then the ssi entity must pay the invoice within 60 days of december 1 (i.e. the value date of the payment should be not later than 60 days from december 1). in the event that a u.s. person believes that it may not receive payment in full by the end of the relevant payment period, the u.s. person should contact ofac to determine whether a license or other authorization is required. for the purposes of directive 4, the term "production" refers to the lifting of oil to the surface and the gathering, treating, field processing, and field storage of such oil. the production stage of a project ends when extracted oil is transported out of a field production storage tank or otherwise off of a field production site. directive 4 does not prohibit the provision by u.s. persons or within the united states of goods, technology, or services to ssi entities when such transactions relate only to the transportation, refining, or other dealings involving oil that has already been extracted from a deepwater, arctic offshore, or shale project and transported out of a field production storage tank or otherwise off of a field production site. the term "arctic offshore projects" applies to projects that have the potential to produce oil in areas that (1) involve drilling operations originating offshore, and (2) are located above the arctic circle. the prohibitions do not apply to horizontal drilling operations originating onshore where such drilling operations extend under the seabed to areas above the arctic circle. yes. u.s. depository institutions, u.s. registered brokers or dealers in securities, and u.s. registered money transmitters are authorized to process noncommercial, personal remittances pursuant to general license 6 regardless of whether the originator or beneficiary is an individual who is a u.s. person. for example, general license 6 authorizes a u.s. depository institution to act as the intermediary financial institution and sole u.s. party in a payment representing a personal remittance originated by a non u.s. person located outside of the united states for the benefit of an individual located in or ordinarily resident in crimea. general license no. 9 authorizes the exportation or reexportation, directly or indirectly, of certain services and software to persons in the crimea region of ukraine, including to individuals and entities identified on the ssi list or who are otherwise subject to directives under executive order 13662. however, general license no. 9 does not authorize the exportation or reexportation, directly or indirectly, of services or software with knowledge or reason to know that such services or software are intended for any person whose property and interests in property are blocked. accordingly, u.s. persons engaging in transactions pursuant to general license no. 9 should conduct due diligence to ensure that such transactions do not involve individuals or entities identified on ofac’s list of specially designated nationals and blocked persons or whose property and interests in property are otherwise blocked. for purposes of subsection 2 of directive 4, a project is “initiated” when a government or any of its political subdivisions, agencies, or instrumentalities (including any entity owned or controlled directly or indirectly by any of the foregoing) formally grants exploration, development, or production rights to any party. no. the prohibition in subsection 2 of directive 4 applies to any deepwater, arctic offshore, or shale project: (1) that is initiated on or after january 29, 2018; (2) that has the potential to produce oil; and (3) in which a person subject to directive 4 (including its property or interests in property) either (a) owns a 33 percent or more interest, or (b) owns a majority of the voting interests. this prohibition applies to persons determined to be subject to directive 4 as well as to entities owned 50 percent or more by one or more persons determined to be subject to directive 4. the following examples illustrate the relationship between amended directive 4 and ofac’s 50 percent rule. example 1: an ssi entity listed under directive 4 (“entity a”) has a 33 percent ownership interest in a deepwater, arctic offshore, or shale project initiated on or after january 29, 2018 that has the potential to produce oil (“project x”). the prohibition of subsection 2 of directive 4 applies to project x. consequently, u.s. persons are prohibited from providing goods, services (except for financial services), or technology in support of exploration or production for project x. example 2: instead of holding a direct interest in project x, entity a now owns 50 percent of entity b, and entity b holds a 33 percent interest in project x. as a result of ofac’s 50 percent rule, entity b is subject to directive 4. because entity b is subject to directive 4 and owns a 33 percent or greater interest in project x, the prohibition of subsection 2 of directive 4 applies to project x. consequently, u.s. persons are prohibited from providing goods, services (except for financial services), or technology in support of exploration or production for project x. example 3: entity a now owns only 33 percent of entity b, and entity a is the only ssi entity that owns any interest in entity b. entity b holds a 100 percent ownership interest in project x. entity a owns less than 50 percent of entity b, and so, in accordance with the 50 percent rule, entity b is not subject to directive 4. the prohibition of subsection 2 of directive 4 would therefore not apply to project x, even though entity b owns an interest in the project that is 33 percent or greater. yes. the prohibition of subsection 2 of directive 4 applies to projects owned 33 percent or more in the aggregate by one or more directive 4 ssi entities, their property, and their interests in property, including entities owned 50 percent or more by one or more persons determined to be subject to directive 4. the prohibition also applies to projects in which one or more directive 4 ssi entities, their property, or their interests in property own an aggregated majority of the voting interests. accordingly, if two ssi entities listed under directive 4 each hold a 20 percent ownership interest in project x, or together own a majority of the voting interests in the project, then the prohibition of subsection 2 of directive 4 applies to project x. section 223(a) of caatsa does not require the imposition of sanctions. while sanctions may be imposed on potential targets in any sector of the economy of the russian federation in the future, maintaining unity with partners on sanctions implemented with respect to the russian federation is important to the u.s. government. the point of the sectoral sanctions is to impose costs on the russian federation for its aggression in ukraine. the united states will continue to work closely with our allies to address unintended consequences arising as a result of such sanctions. for purposes of implementing section 233 of caatsa, ofac anticipates interpreting these key terms as follows: “investment”   for purposes of implementing section 233 of caatsa, ofac will interpret the term “investment” broadly as a transaction that constitutes a commitment or contribution of funds or other assets or a loan or other extension of credit to an enterprise. for purposes of this interpretation, a loan or extension of credit is any transfer or extension of funds or credit on the basis of an obligation to repay, or any assumption or guarantee of the obligation of another to repay an extension of funds or credit, including: overdrafts, currency swaps, purchases of debt securities issued by the government of russia, purchases of a loan made by another person, sales of financial assets subject to an agreement to repurchase, renewals or refinancings whereby funds or credits are transferred or extended to a borrower or recipient described in the provision, the issuance of standby letters of credit, and drawdowns on existing lines of credit. “facilitates”   for purposes of implementing section 233 of caatsa, ofac will interpret “facilitates” to mean the provision of assistance for certain efforts, activities, or transactions, including the provision of currency, financial instruments, securities, or any other transmission of value; purchasing, selling, transporting, swapping, brokering, financing, approving, or guaranteeing; the provision of other services of any kind; the provision of personnel; or the provision of software, technology, or goods of any kind. “unjustly benefits”   for purposes of implementing section 233 of caatsa, ofac will interpret the term “unjustly benefits” broadly to refer to activities such as public corruption that result in any direct or indirect advantage, value, or gain, whether the benefit is tangible or intangible, by officials of the government of the russian federation, or their close associates or family members. such public corruption could include, among other things, the misuse of russian public assets or the misuse of public authority. “close associates or family members”   for purposes of implementing section 233 of caatsa, ofac will interpret the term “close associate” of an official of the government of the russian federation as a person who is widely or publicly known, or is actually known by the relevant person engaging in the conduct in question, to maintain a close relationship with that official. ofac will interpret the term “family member” of an official of the government of the russian federation to include parents, spouses (current and former), extramarital partners, children, siblings, uncles, aunts, grandparents, grandchildren, first cousins, stepchildren, stepsiblings, parents in law, and spouses of any of the foregoing. section 226 of caatsa amended section 5 of ufsa to make the sanctions in that section, which were previously discretionary, mandatory. this section is implemented in § 589.209 of the ursr. under § 589.209, ffis face sanctions if the secretary of the treasury determines that they knowingly engage in significant transactions involving certain defense  and energy related activities or knowingly facilitate significant financial transactions on behalf of any russian person added to ofac’s sdn list pursuant to ufsa, executive order (e.o.) 13660, e.o. 13661, e.o. 13662, e.o. 13865, or any other e.o. addressing the crisis in ukraine. ffis will not be subject to sanctions under § 589.209 solely on the basis of knowingly facilitating significant financial transactions on behalf of persons listed on ofac’s sectoral sanctions identification list pursuant to § 589.202, 589.203, 589.204, or 589.205, or any earlier version of directives 1 4 of e.o. 13662. unless the secretary of state makes a determination that it is not in the national interest of the united states to do so, the secretary of the treasury shall prohibit the opening and prohibit or impose strict conditions on the maintaining in the united states of correspondent accounts or payable through accounts for any ffi that the secretary of the treasury, in consultation with the secretary of state, determines has engaged in sanctionable activity. date updated: april 29, 2022 “significant transaction” and “significant financial transaction”  section 589.413 of the ursr states that for purposes of the ufsa prohibitions in § 589.209, the secretary of the treasury will consider the totality of the facts and circumstances when determining whether transactions or financial transactions are “significant.” as a general matter, some or all of the following factors may be considered: (1) the size, number, and frequency of the transaction(s); (2) the nature of the transaction(s); (3) the level of awareness of management and whether the transaction(s) are part of a pattern of conduct; (4) the nexus between the transaction(s) and a person subject to sanctions imposed by the united states with respect to the russian federation as described in § 589.413(d)(2) (3); (5) the impact of the transaction(s) on statutory objectives; (6) whether the transaction(s) involve deceptive practices; and (7) such other factors that the secretary of the treasury deems relevant on a case by case basis. for purposes of section 5 of ufsa as implemented by § 589.209, a transaction is not significant if u.s. persons would not require a specific license from ofac to participate in it. for purposes of § 589.209(b), a transaction in which the person subject to sanctions is identified on the sectoral sanctions identifications (ssi) list or the non sdn menu based sanctions (ns mbs) list will only be potentially considered significant if: 1) the transaction involves deceptive practices (i.e., attempts to obscure or conceal the actual parties or true nature of the transaction(s), or to evade sanctions); and 2) such person is subject to sanctions pursuant to section of ufsa, as described in § 589.413(d)(2). ofac will generally interpret the term “financial transaction” broadly to encompass any transfer of value involving a financial institution. for example, the following is a non exhaustive list of activities that ofac would consider to be a “financial transaction”: “facilitated”   for purposes of implementing section 5 of ufsa, ofac will generally interpret the term “facilitated” broadly. “facilitated” refers to the provision of assistance for certain efforts, activities, or transactions, including the provision of currency, financial instruments, securities, or any other transmission of value; purchasing; selling; transporting; swapping; brokering; financing; approving; guaranteeing; the provision of other services of any kind; the provision of personnel; or the provision of software, technology, or goods of any kind. date updated: april 29, 2022 if, pursuant to § 589.209 of the ursr, treasury decides to impose strict condition(s) on maintaining u.s. correspondent accounts or u.s. payable through accounts for an ffi, or decides to prohibit the opening or maintaining of u.s. correspondent accounts or u.s. payable through accounts for an ffi, treasury will add the name of the ffi to the list of foreign financial institutions subject to correspondent account or payable through account sanctions (capta list) on ofac’s website and publish the name of the ffi in the federal register along with the applicable prohibition or strict condition(s). the capta list will be included in the consolidated sanctions list data files and will be available for download in all consolidated sanctions list data file formats. date updated: april 29, 2022 section 228 of caatsa adds two sections to ssides that impose mandatory sanctions. “foreign person”   as stated in § 589.317 of the ukraine /russia related sanctions regulations (ursr), the term foreign person for purposes of the ssides section 10 provisions in §§ 589.201(a)(6) and 589.413 means any citizen or national of a foreign state (including any such individual who is also a citizen or national of the united states), or any entity not organized solely under the laws of the united states or existing solely in the united states, but does not include a foreign state. this definition is consistent with section 10(f)(2) of ssides. “knowingly”   section 589.322 states that the term knowingly, with respect to conduct, a circumstance, or a result, means that a person has actual knowledge, or should have known, of the conduct, the circumstance, or the result. this definition is consistent with section 221(4) of caatsa. “materially violate”   for purposes of section 10(a)(1) of ssides, ofac will interpret the term “materially violate” to refer to an “egregious” violation. a determination about whether a violation is egregious will be based on an analysis of the applicable general factors as described in ofac’s economic sanctions enforcement guidelines, located in subsection (b)(1), section v of appendix a to 31 c.f.r. part 501. “facilitate[ion] . . . for or on behalf of”   for purposes of section 10(a)(2) of ssides, facilitating a significant transaction for or on behalf of a person will be interpreted to mean providing assistance for a transaction from which the person in question derives a particular benefit of any kind (as opposed to a generalized benefit conferred upon undifferentiated persons in aggregate). assistance may include the provision or transmission of currency, financial instruments, securities, or any other value; purchasing, selling, transporting, swapping, brokering, financing, approving, or guaranteeing; the provision of other services of any kind; the provision of personnel; or the provision of software, technology, or goods of any kind. “significant transaction”   section 589.413 states that for purposes of the ssides prohibitions in § 589.201(a)(6)(vii), the secretary of the treasury or the secretary’s designee will consider the totality of the facts and circumstances when determining whether transactions are “significant.” as a general matter, some or all of the following factors may be considered: (1) the size, number, and frequency of the transaction(s); (2) the nature of the transaction(s); (3) the level of awareness of management and whether the transaction(s) are part of a pattern of conduct; (4) the nexus between the transaction(s) and the person subject to sanctions imposed by the united states with respect to the russian federation, as defined in ssides, or any child, spouse, parent, or sibling of such an individual; (5) the impact of the transaction(s) on the objectives of the ukraine freedom support act, ssides, caatsa, executive order (e.o.) 13660, e.o. 13661, e.o. 13662, e.o. 13685, or any other executive order issued pursuant to the national emergency declared in e.o. 13660; (6) whether the transaction(s) involve deceptive practices; and (7) such other factors that the secretary of the treasury or the secretary’s designee deems relevant on a case by case basis. furthermore, § 589.413(i) states a transaction is not significant if u.s. persons would not require specific licenses from ofac to participate in it. a transaction in which the person subject to sanctions is identified on the sectoral sanctions identifications (ssi) list or the non sdn menu based sanctions (ns mbs) list will only be potentially considered significant if: 1) the transaction involves deceptive practices (i.e., attempts to obscure or conceal the actual parties or true nature of the transaction(s), or to evade sanctions); and 2) such person is “subject to sanctions imposed by the united states with respect to the russian federation” or a child, spouse, parent, or sibling of such an individual, as described in § 589.413(d)(1) (see also faq 546). a transaction involving an entity solely on the ssi list or ns mbs list is not automatically significant simply because a u.s. person would require a specific license from ofac to participate in it and it involves deceptive practices. in all cases, the totality of the circumstances, including the other factors listed above, will shape the final determination of significance. “deceptive or structured transaction”   the term structured, with respect to a transaction, has the meaning given the term “structure” in 31 cfr 1010.100 (xx) (or any corresponding similar regulation or ruling). see 31 c.f.r. § 589.336. structured transactions are a type of deceptive transaction. a “deceptive transaction” is one that involves deceptive practices. as described in 31 c.f.r. § 589.413(f), “deceptive practices” are attempts to obscure or conceal the actual parties or true nature of a transaction, or to evade sanctions. date updated: april 29, 2022 for purposes of section 10(a)(2)(a) of ssides and § 589.201(a)(6)(vii)(b)(1) of the ursr, ofac will interpret the phrase “subject to sanctions imposed by the united states with respect to the russian federation” to be persons subject to sanctions under ssides, as amended, the ukraine freedom support act (ufsa), as amended, provisions of caatsa with respect to the russian federation, and any covered executive order as defined in § 589.305 and section 10(f)(1) of ssides. section 10(f)(1) of ssides and § 589.305 define the term “covered executive order” to mean any of the following: executive order (e.o.) 13660, e.o. 13661, e.o. 13662, e.o. 13685, e.o. 13694, relating to the russian federation, or e.o. 13757, relating to the russian federation. persons “subject to sanctions imposed by the united states with respect to the russian federation” includes persons who are listed on the sdn list, ssi list, or ns mbs list pursuant to the authorities listed above, and associated persons subject to sanctions pursuant to ofac’s 50 percent rule. date updated: april 29, 2022 when ofac uses the term "ssi entity" in these faqs or in other guidance, it is referring to an entity subject to the directive(s) at issue in a particular faq or piece of guidance. no. pursuant to section 241 of countering america’s adversaries through sanctions act of 2017 (pub. l. 115 44), the treasury department, in consultation with secretary of state and the director of national intelligence, delivered a report on january 29, 2018 to the specified congressional committees regarding significant senior political figures and oligarchs in the russian federation and russian parastatal entities. this report is not a “sanctions list.”while some persons mentioned in the report may have been sanctioned pursuant to other authorities, the inclusion of individuals or entities in this report, its appendices, or its classified annex does not and in no way should be interpreted to impose sanctions on those individuals or entities.inclusion in this report also does not constitute a determination by any agency that any of those individuals or entities meet the criteria for designation under any sanctions program.moreover, the inclusion of individuals or entities in this report, its appendices, or its classified annex does not, in and of itself, imply, give rise to, or create any restrictions, prohibitions, or limitations on dealings with such persons by either u.s. or foreign persons.neither does inclusion in the unclassified report indicate that the u.s. government has information about the individual’s involvement in malign activities. in issuing general license 12a, ofac is authorizing a time limited maintenance or wind down of operations, contracts, or other agreements that were in effect prior to april 6, 2018 and in which the blocked entities listed in general license 12a have an interest, provided that any payment made directly or indirectly to the blocked entities listed in general license 12a be deposited in a blocked account at a u.s. financial institution. in general, general license 12a would authorize all transactions ordinarily incident to the continuity of operations or to facilitate a wind down, including the provision of salary payments, pension payments, or other benefits, by the blocked entities listed in general license 12a, or the provision of services by the employee to such blocked entities, until the expiry of general license 12a. u.s. person employees are encouraged to review the applicable ofac regulations, authorizations, and public guidance. if, after conducting that review, you are concerned that your activities as an employee are not authorized by general license, you may contact ofac. if you are a u.s. person employee of an individual or entity that is not among the blocked entities listed in general license 12a, including entities blocked pursuant to ofac’s 50 percent rule, you are prohibited from engaging in transactions with such individual or entity, including the provision or receipt of goods or services, or otherwise transacting or dealing in any property in which the individual or entity has an interest. if you wish to seek authorization to maintain or wind down operations, contracts, or other agreements with such individual or entity, contact ofac. absent authorization from ofac, your continued employment or board membership with such an entity is prohibited. you should review the actions you view as necessary to sever your ties with the blocked entity against applicable ofac regulations, authorizations, and public guidance. if, after conducting that review, you decide that any of the contemplated activities necessary to sever the relationship are prohibited, you should apply for a specific license. if you are unsure about whether authorization is required, contact ofac. yes, provided that the importation is in accordance with the requirements and limitations specified in general license 12a. for the limited period of time specified in the general license, general license 12a authorizes all transactions ordinarily incident and necessary to the maintenance or wind down of operations, contracts, or other agreement, which includes authorization for u.s. persons to import goods into the united states from the blocked entities listed in general license 12a, provided that any outstanding payment for the goods be deposited in a blocked account at a u.s. financial institution until 12:01 a.m. eastern daylight time, may 25, 2022, general license (gl) 13r authorizes certain divestment and transfer activities related to debt, equity, or other holdings in gaz group, or in entities in which gaz group owns, directly or indirectly, a 50 percent or greater interest, that were issued by gaz auto plant (“other issuer holdings”), subject to certain conditions and exceptions. specifically, gl 13r authorizes u.s. persons to divest or transfer to a non u.s. person, or to facilitate the transfer by a non u.s. person to another non u.s. person, debt, equity, or other holdings in gaz group or other issuer holdings as described in gl13r. however, such divestment, transfer, or facilitation must not result in u.s. persons selling debt, equity, or other holdings to; purchasing or investing in debt, equity, or other holdings in; or facilitating such transactions with, directly or indirectly, any blocked person, including gaz group, other than transactions and activities involving gaz group, or entities in which gaz group owns, directly or indirectly, a 50 percent or greater interest that are ordinarily incident and necessary to the divestment or transfer of debt, equity, or other holdings in the entities identified in gl 13r. please see gl 13r for further details. gl 13r superseded gl 13q on april 25, 2022. after the expiration of gl 13r, u.s. persons will be prohibited from engaging in any divestment or transfer activities on behalf of u.s. persons or non u.s. persons related to debt, equity, or other holdings that previously were authorized in gl 13r. date updated: april 25, 2022 no. until 12:01 a.m. eastern daylight time, may 25, 2022, gl 13r authorizes certain divestment and transfer activities related to debt, equity, or other holdings in gaz group, or in entities in which gaz group owns, directly or indirectly, a 50 percent or greater interest, that were issued by gaz auto plant (“other issuer holdings”), subject to certain conditions and exceptions. it does not authorize u.s. persons to sell debt, equity, or other holdings to; to purchase or invest in debt, equity, or other holdings in; or to facilitate such transactions with, directly or indirectly, gaz group or any other blocked person, other than transactions and activities involving gaz group, or entities in which gaz group owns, directly or indirectly, a 50 percent or greater interest that are ordinarily incident and necessary to the divestment or transfer of debt, equity, or other holdings in these entities. gl 13r superseded gl 13q on april 25, 2022. after the expiration of gl 13q, u.s. persons will be prohibited from engaging in any divestment or transfer activities on behalf of u.s. persons or non u.s. persons related to debt, equity, or other holdings that previously were authorized by gl 13q. date updated: april 25, 2022 although e.o. 13662 provides ofac the authority to impose sectoral sanctions on specified persons operating in sectors of the russian economy as implemented through directives 1 4, ofac may also designate persons as blocked under e.o. 13662. unlike with ssi entities, u.s. persons must block the property and interests in property of any person designated as blocked pursuant to e.o. 13662. persons designated as blocked under e.o. 13662 are added to the sdn list. ssi entities on the ssi list are identified with the descriptive text “executive order 13662 directive determination,” followed by the applicable directive. if one or more blocked persons in such a scenario does not hold a 50 percent or more interest in the u.s. company, the u.s. company is not itself blocked, but the u.s. company must block all property and interests in property in which the blocked person has an interest. see ofac’s 50 percent rule guidance. depending on the nature of the property blocked by the u.s. company, the u.s. company may be able to continue operating, but any payments, dividends, or disbursement of profits to the blocked person would be prohibited and, to the extent such payments are required, must be placed in a blocked account at a u.s. financial institution. if a u.s. company is in such a scenario, the u.s. company is encouraged to contact ofac to determine whether a license or other authorization is required. section 228 of caatsa amends ssides by inserting a mandatory sanctions provision on foreign persons that treasury determines, inter alia, knowingly facilitate significant transactions, including deceptive or structured transactions, for or on behalf of any person subject to u.s. sanctions with respect to the russian federation, or their child, spouse, parent, or sibling. additionally, section 226 of caatsa amends ufsa by making the sanctions in that section mandatory. under the amended section 5 of ufsa, foreign financial institutions face correspondent account or payable through account sanctions if the secretary of the treasury determines, inter alia, that they knowingly facilitate significant financial transactions on behalf of any russian person added to ofac’s sdn list pursuant to ufsa, e.o. 13660, e.o. 13661, e.o. 13662, e.o. 13685, or any other e.o. addressing the crisis in ukraine. as described in faqs 542 and 545, a transaction is not “significant” if u.s. persons would not require specific licenses from ofac to participate in it. therefore, activity authorized by ukraine /russia related general licenses 12a and 13, and occurring within the time period authorized in these general licenses, would not be considered “significant” for the purposes of a sanctions determination under section 10 of ssides, as amended by caatsa, and section 5 of ufsa, as amended by caatsa. nothing in the general licenses should be construed as authorizing deceptive or structured transactions. the intent of the designations on april 6, 2018 is to impose costs on russia for its malign behavior. the united states remains committed to coordinating with our allies and partners in order to mitigate adverse and unintended consequences of these designations. the purpose of general license 14 is to allow united company rusal plc (rusal) or any other entity in which rusal owns, directly or indirectly, a 50 percent or greater interest, to continue maintenance or wind down activities until october 23, 2018. although all funds blocked prior to 12:01 a.m. eastern daylight time, april 23, 2018 remain blocked, the general license authorizes the use of these blocked funds for the maintenance and wind down activities described in general license 14. in addition, u.s. persons are not required to block transactions authorized by general license 14 that occur on or after april 23, 2018, except for transactions involving blocked persons other than rusal or any other entity in which rusal owns, directly or indirectly, a 50 percent or greater interest. for a discussion of the relationship between general license 14 and foreign persons, please see faqs 579 and 580. consistent with ofac regulations, parties may be removed by demonstrating a change in the circumstances that led to their designation. in the case of rusal, absent other adverse information and consistent with the facts and circumstances of any petition for delisting, the path for the united states to provide sanctions relief is through divestment and relinquishment of control of rusal by any specially designated nationals, including oleg deripaska. no. all accounts or other property of rusal or any other entity in which rusal owns, directly or indirectly, a 50 percent or greater interest blocked as of april 23, 2018 remain blocked, except for the use in maintenance and wind down activities described in general license 14. u.s. persons, however, may engage in transactions authorized by general license 14 that occur on or after april 23, 2018 without blocking payments associated with such transactions, except for transactions involving blocked persons other than rusal (including any other entity in which rusal owns, directly or indirectly, a 50 percent or greater interest). general license 12a was amended to reflect the authorization in general license 14. specifically, u.s. persons were no longer required to place into a blocked account payments to or for rusal, or any other entity in which rusal owns, directly or indirectly, a 50 percent or greater interest, for activities authorized by general license 14. activities necessary to the maintenance or wind down of operations or existing contracts of rusal and any other entity in which rusal owns, directly or indirectly, a 50 percent or greater interest, are authorized pursuant to general license 14 through october 23, 2018. on may 1, 2018, ofac issued amended general license 12b. see faq 583. ofac issued amended general license 12c on may 22, 2018 to make conforming edits in light of the issuance of general license 15. as described in faqs 542, 545, and 574, a transaction will not be considered “significant” for the purposes of a sanctions determination under section 10 of ssides, as amended by section 228 of caatsa, and section 5 of ufsa, as amended by section 226 of caatsa, if u.s. persons would not require specific licenses from ofac to participate in such a transaction. therefore, activity authorized by general license 14, and occurring within the time period authorized by general license 14, would not be considered “significant” for the purposes of a sanctions determination under section 10 of ssides, as amended by caatsa, or section 5 of ufsa, as amended by caatsa. no. u.s. persons may engage in activities authorized by general license 14 that occur on or after april 23, 2018, except for activities involving blocked persons other than rusal (or any other entity in which rusal owns, directly or indirectly, a 50 percent or greater interest) without making associated payments into a blocked account. similarly, foreign persons may engage in activities that would be authorized by general license 14 if engaged in by a u.s. person without making associated payments into a blocked account. yes. general license 14 does not restrict exports to rusal (or any other entity in which rusal owns, directly or indirectly, a 50 percent or greater interest), provided that the activity is for maintenance or wind down and consistent with the requirements of other federal agencies. no. although general license 12b​ does not authorize the exportation of goods from the united states, paragraph (d)(4) of general license 12b does not similarly apply to the exportation of goods from a third country to another location. ofac issued general license 12b to address difficulties blocked u.s. persons are having accessing funds needed for authorized wind down and maintenance activities. general license 12b explicitly permits originating and intermediary u.s. financial institutions to process funds transfers that they would otherwise block to an account held by a blocked u.s. person at a u.s. financial institution. in addition, general license 12b clarifies that u.s. financial institutions can release such funds for authorized maintenance and wind down purposes only. on may 22, 2018, ofac issued amended general license 12c to make conforming edits in light of the issuance of general license 15. if one or more blocked persons does not hold, individually or in the aggregate, a 50 percent or greater interest in a foreign company, the foreign company is not itself blocked by virtue of ofac’s 50 percent rule, and u.s. persons generally are not prohibited from engaging in transactions with the foreign company unless otherwise prohibited (for example, a transaction with the foreign company that specifically involves a blocked person). likewise, as described in faqs 542 and 545, if foreign persons, including foreign financial institutions, are engaging in transactions with such a foreign company, such transactions would not be considered “significant​” for the purposes of a sanctions determination under section 10 of ssides, as amended by caatsa, or section 5 of ufsa, as amended by caatsa. the foregoing does not apply if the ownership in the foreign company by one or more blocked persons, individually or in the aggregate, rises to or above 50 percent. gl 15l superseded gl 15k on april 25, 2022. while gl 15k authorized certain transactions and activities that were ordinarily incident and necessary to the maintenance or wind down of operations, contracts, or other agreements involving gaz group, or any entity in which gaz group owns, directly or indirectly, a 50 percent or greater interest, and that were in effect prior to april 6, 2018, gl 15l only authorizes certain transactions and activities that are ordinarily incident and necessary to the wind down of transactions involving gaz group and any entity in which gaz group owns, directly or indirectly, a 50 percent or greater interest through 12:01 a.m. eastern daylight time, may 25, 2022. all funds blocked prior to 12:01 a.m. eastern daylight time, may 22, 2018, remain blocked. unlike its predecessors, this general license no longer authorizes the use of these blocked funds for the activities it authorizes. in addition, u.s. persons have not been required to block transactions authorized by gl 15l or its predecessors that occurred on or after may 22, 2018; however, transactions involving blocked persons other than gaz group or any entity in which gaz group owns, directly or indirectly, a 50 percent or greater interest, must be blocked. for information regarding the relationship between gl 15l and foreign persons, please see faqs 589 and 590. after the expiration of gl 15l, unless exempt or authorized by ofac, u.s. persons will be prohibited from engaging in transactions involving gaz group, or any entity in which gaz group owns, directly or indirectly, a 50 percent or greater interest, and must block property or interests in property of such persons that are in, or come within, the united states, or the possession or control of a u.s. person. date updated: april 25, 2022 consistent with ofac regulations, parties may be removed by demonstrating a change in the circumstances that led to their designation. in the case of gaz group, absent other adverse information and consistent with the facts and circumstances of any petition for delisting, the path for the united states to provide sanctions relief is through divestment and relinquishment of control of gaz group by any specially designated nationals, including oleg deripaska. as described in faqs 542, 545, 574, and 579, a transaction will not be considered “significant” for the purposes of a sanctions determination under section 10 of ssides, as amended by section 228 of caatsa, and section 5 of ufsa, as amended by section 226 of caatsa, if a u.s. person would not require a specific license from ofac to participate in such a transaction. therefore, activity authorized by general license (gl) 15l, and occurring within the time period authorized by gl 15l, would not be considered “significant” for the purposes of a sanctions determination under section 10 of ssides, as amended by section 228 of caatsa, or section 5 of ufsa, as amended by section 226 of caatsa. date updated: april 25, 2022 no. u.s. persons may engage in activities authorized by gl 15l that occur on or after may 22, 2018, except for activities involving blocked persons other than gaz group (or any entity in which gaz group owns, directly or indirectly, a 50 percent or greater interest) without making associated payments into a blocked account. similarly, foreign persons may engage in activities that would be authorized by gl 15l if engaged in by a u.s. person without making associated payments into a blocked account. date updated: april 25, 2022 gl 15l authorizes transactions and activities that are ordinarily incident and necessary to the wind down of transactions involving gaz group (or any entity in which gaz group owns, directly or indirectly, a 50 percent or greater interest), including exports. any exports to gaz group must be consistent with gl 15l and must also be consistent with the requirements of other u.s. federal agencies. after the expiration of gl 15l, unless exempt or authorized by ofac, u.s. persons will be prohibited from engaging in any transactions (including those related to wind down and exports) involving gaz group, or any entity in which gaz group owns, directly or indirectly, a 50 percent or greater interest, and must block property or interests in property of such persons that are in, or come within, the united states, or the possession or control of a u.s. person. date updated: april 25, 2022 yes, gl 15l authorizes u.s. persons to receive regularly scheduled payments of principal and interest from gaz group (or any entity in which gaz group owns, directly or indirectly, a 50 percent or greater interest) only to the extent such transactions are ordinarily incident and necessary to the wind down of transactions involving gaz group (or any entity in which gaz group owns, directly or indirectly, a 50 percent or greater interest) through 12:01 a.m. eastern daylight time, may 25, 2022, and provided the other terms and conditions of gl 15l are met. as a general matter, gl 15l also would authorize u.s. persons to receive accelerated payments or voluntary prepayments from gaz group (or any entity in which gaz group owns, directly or indirectly, a 50 percent or greater interest) so long as such accelerated payments or voluntary prepayments were ordinarily incident and necessary to the wind down of transactions as authorized by gl 15l. however, gl 15k does not authorize u.s. persons to send accelerated payments or voluntary prepayments to gaz group (or any entity in which gaz group owns, directly or indirectly, a 50 percent or greater interest). if you are unsure about whether gl 15l authorizes such accelerated payments or voluntary prepayments, you may contact ofac. date updated: april 25, 2022 whether paying dividends to a blocked person who holds an equity interest in the foreign company of less than fifty percent, individually or in the aggregate, would result in ofac imposing sanctions under these authorities on the payer of the dividends depends on whether ofac determines that such a transaction is “significant.” for information on how ofac determines whether a transaction is significant, see faqs 542, 545, 579, and 589. paying dividends into a blocked account or in a manner that does not provide economic benefit, directly or indirectly, to the blocked person, such as an escrow account, will not be considered “significant” for the purposes of a sanctions determination under section 10 of ssides, as amended by caatsa, or section 5 of ufsa, as amended by caatsa. title ii of the countering america’s adversaries through sanctions act, as amended (caatsa), and the ukraine freedom support act of 2014, as amended (ufsa), provide for the imposition of certain sanctions with respect to the russian federation. the e.o. of september 20, 2018 provides authority under the international emergency economic powers act (ieepa) to the secretary of the treasury to take certain actions to further implement those sanctions and directs agencies of the united states government to take all appropriate measures within their authority to ensure the full implementation of those sanctions. specifically, the e.o., among other things, (i) delegates the implementation of listed sanctions menu items in section 235 of caatsa and section 4(c) of ufsa regardless of whether that agency is delegated the authority to select the sanctions under section 235 of caatsa or section 4(c) of ufsa, as applicable, and (ii) authorizes the secretary of the treasury to employ all powers granted to the president by ieepa and relevant provisions of ufsa and caatsa to carry out the purposes of the e.o. section 4(c) of ufsa provides a menu of nine sanctions from which the secretary of the treasury or the secretary of state must select when imposing sanctions on persons pursuant to sections 4(a) or 4(b) of ufsa. furthermore, section 235 of caatsa provides a menu of 12 sanctions from which the secretary of the treasury or the secretary of state must select when imposing sanctions on persons pursuant to sections 224(a)(2), 231(a), 232(a), and 233(a) of caatsa. the u.s. department of the treasury’s office of foreign assets control (ofac) anticipates promulgating regulations to implement these sanctions. the e.o. provides for comprehensive implementing and penalties provisions that enable ofac, among other things, to promulgate regulations and issue administrative subpoenas, licenses, and the full range of civil enforcement actions with respect to sanctions violations. e.o. 13883 delegates to the secretary of the treasury the implementation of the sanctions related to multilateral development bank assistance and to united states bank loans that are contained in the chemical and biological weapons control and warfare elimination act of 1991, as amended (“cbw act”). 22 u.s.c. §5605(b)(2)(a) (b). e.o. 13883 also provides authority pursuant to the international emergency economic powers act to the secretary of the treasury to take certain actions to implement the sanctions related to bank loans. following the chemical weapons attack in salisbury, united kingdom, the department of state, acting under the cbw act pursuant to authority delegated to the secretary of state, made a determination on august 6, 2018 that the government of the russian federation had used chemical weapons in violation of international law or had used lethal chemical weapons against its own nationals. effective as of august 27, 2018, the united states imposed a first round of sanctions against russia. on november 6, 2018, the department of state determined that the government of the russian federation had failed to meet the conditions described in the cbw act to avoid the imposition of a second round of sanctions, including failing to provide reliable assurances that it would not engage in future chemical weapons attacks. on august 2, 2019, the department of state selected three additional sanctions to impose on russia pursuant to the cbw act, specifically, the sanctions related to u.s. bank loans, opposition to multilateral development bank assistance, and further export restrictions administered by the department of commerce. pursuant to executive order (e.o.). 13883, 31 cfr § 544.802, and the cbw act, on august 2, 2019, ofac issued a russia related directive (the “cbw act directive”), which prohibits u.s. banks from participating in the primary market for non ruble denominated bonds issued by the russian sovereign and also prohibits u.s. banks from lending non ruble denominated funds to the russian sovereign. the prohibitions under the cbw act directive do not apply to bonds or loans denominated in rubles. the prohibitions in the cbw act directive only apply to “u.s. banks,” as that term is defined in the cbw act directive and consistent with section 4(c) of e.o. 13883 and consistent with the definition of u.s. financial institution at 31 cfr § 544.311. the cbw act directive includes a definition of the term “russian sovereign.” the cbw act directive is effective as of august 26, 2019. independent of the cbw act directive, ofac has imposed additional prohibitions on certain russia related sovereign entities subject to the cbw act directive, pursuant to russia related directives under e.o. 14024 (see faq 1000). date updated: march 02, 2022 the cbw act directive defines the term “u.s. banks.” this definition is consistent with section 4(c) of executive order (e.o.) 13883, and with the definition of “u.s. financial institution” at 31 cfr § 544.311. the cbw act directive defines the term “russian sovereign” as any ministry, agency, or sovereign fund of the russian federation, including the central bank of the russian federation, the national wealth fund, and the ministry of finance of the russian federation. this term does not include state owned enterprises of the russian federation. independent of the cbw act directive, ofac has imposed prohibitions on certain russia related sovereign entities subject to the cbw act directive, pursuant to russia related directives under e.o. 14024 (see faq 1000). date updated: march 02, 2022 the cbw act directive imposes long term costs on russia for its brazen use of chemical weapons and its failure to meet the conditions described in the cbw act, including the failure to provide reliable assurances that russia would not engage in future chemical weapons attacks. the government of the russian federation cannot leverage u.s. banks for future non ruble denominated sovereign bond offerings or benefit from non ruble denominated loans provided by u.s. banks. no, the cbw act directive does not prohibit u.s. banks from participating in the secondary market for russian sovereign debt. however, independent of the cbw act directive, ofac has imposed prohibitions on certain russia related sovereign entities subject to the cbw act directive, pursuant to russia related directives under executive order (e.o.) 14024 (see faq 1000). date updated: march 02, 2022 no. if a person is listed on ofac’s non sdn menu based sanctions list (ns mbs list) as subject to only a combination of the sanctions described in section 235(a)(1 8) and (10 11) of caatsa, as implemented by executive order (e.o.) 13849, these non blocking sanctions do not apply to an entity owned 50 percent or more, individually or in the aggregate, directly or indirectly, by such sanctioned person or persons, unless ofac separately lists the owned entity on the ns mbs list as subject to the same sanctions. however, section 235(a)(9) of caatsa, as implemented by section 1(a)(iv) of e.o. 13849, blocks the property and interests in property of the sanctioned person, and a person subject to that sanction will be added to ofac’s specially designated nationals and blocked persons list (sdn list). the property and interests in property of persons on the sdn list are blocked, and any entity owned 50 percent or more, individually or in the aggregate, directly or indirectly, by blocked persons is itself blocked, as described in ofac’s 50 percent rule. individuals sanctioned under section 235(a)(12) of caatsa (sanctions on principal executive officers), as implemented by section 1(a)(vi) of e.o. 13849, may be subject to any of the sanctions described in section 235(a). to the extent that the sanctions selected are solely non blocking sanctions, such person will be listed on the ns mbs list. conversely, if the sanctioned individual is subject to the sanction described in section 235(a)(9), the individual is blocked and placed on the sdn list, and the 50 percent rule applies. with respect to a person on the ns mbs list subject to section 235(a)(3) of caatsa, as implemented by section 1(a)(i) of executive order (e.o.) 13849, u.s. financial institutions are prohibited from making loans or providing credits to the identified person totaling more than $10,000,000 in any 12 month period, unless the person is engaged in activities to relieve human suffering and the loans or credits are provided for such activities. this is not a blocking sanction, but rather a limit on the total amount of loans or credits that can be provided to the identified person within the specified time period by a u.s. financial institution, excluding loans or credit provided to such identified person for activities to relieve human suffering. each u.s. financial institution must limit its provision of loans or credits to the identified person to $10,000,000 in any 12 month period, regardless of whether part or all the loans or credits in question has been repaid during the period. this sanction is not a limit on the total loans or credits from all united states financial institutions collectively in the specific time period, but rather an institution by institution limit. the prohibitions announced by the state department on august 20, 2021 related to u.s. bank loans have the same scope as those imposed by ofac in august 2019 under the cbw act directive. please see faqs 675 678 for additional information. independent of the cbw act directive, ofac has imposed prohibitions on certain russia related sovereign entities subject to the cbw act directive, pursuant to russia related directives under executive order (e.o.) 14024 (see faq 1000). date updated: march 02, 2022 the announced import restrictions related to the permanent importation of firearms and ammunition that are the growth, product, or manufacture of the russian federation will be implemented by the u.s. department of justice, bureau of alcohol, tobacco, firearms and explosives (atf). ofac has concurred with the deputy secretary of state’s determination pursuant to the cbw act regarding the imposition of import restrictions, and with atf’s implementation of the restrictions according to state department guidance. for information about the sanctions announced by the state department pursuant to the cbw act on august 20, 2021, please see the relevant state department press statement and federal register notice. for additional guidance regarding the import restrictions, please review the related fact sheet published by the state department. e.o. 14065 prohibits the following activities with the so called donetsk people’s republic and luhansk people’s republic regions of ukraine and such other regions of ukraine as may be determined by the secretary of the treasury, in consultation with the secretary of state (collectively, the “covered regions”): (i) new investment in the covered regions by a u.s. person, wherever located; (ii) the importation into the united states, directly or indirectly, of any goods, services, or technology from the covered regions; (iii) the exportation, reexportation, sale, or supply, directly or indirectly, from the united states or by a u.s. person, wherever located, of any goods, services, or technology to the covered regions; and (iv) any approval, financing, facilitation, or guarantee by a u.s. person, wherever located, of a transaction by a foreign person where the transaction by that foreign person would be prohibited if performed by a u.s. person, or within the united states. in addition, e.o. 14065 authorizes sanctions against persons that: operate or have operated in the covered regions since february 21, 2022; are or have been a leader, official, senior executive officer, or member of the board of directors since february 21, 2022 of an entity operating in the covered regions; are owned or controlled by, or to have acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to e.o. 14065; or have materially assisted, sponsored, or provided financial, material, or technological support for, or goods or services to or in support of, any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to e.o. 14065. all property and interests in property of persons designated pursuant to e.o. 14065 that are or come within the united states or the possession or control of u.s. persons are blocked, and u.s. persons are generally prohibited from engaging in transactions with them. additionally, any entities 50 percent or more owned, directly or indirectly, by one or more blocked persons are also blocked. u.s. persons are authorized through a variety of ukraine related general licenses (gls) to support certain humanitarian efforts and other activity in the covered regions, including transactions related to the export of food or medicine, the response to the coronavirus disease 2019 (covid 19) pandemic, the official business of an international organization, or the activities of nongovernmental organizations, as well as personal remittances, telecommunications, internet services, and mail. date updated: 03/11/2022 yes. through 12:01 a.m. eastern daylight time on march 23, 2022, ukraine related general license 17 authorizes transactions that are ordinarily incident and necessary to the wind down of transactions involving the so called donetsk people’s republic (dnr) and luhansk people’s republic (lnr) regions of ukraine. given the comprehensive nature of the sanctions on these regions, these activities include the divestiture or transfer to a non u.s. person of a u.s. person’s share of ownership in any pre february 21, 2022 investment located in the dnr or lnr regions of ukraine, and the winding down of operations, contracts, or other agreements in effect prior to february 21, 2022 involving the exportation, reexportation, sale, or supply of goods, services, or technology to, or importation of any goods, services, or technology from, the dnr or lnr regions of ukraine. no. e.o. 14065 targets the so called donetsk people’s republic and luhansk people’s republic regions of ukraine or such other regions of ukraine as may be determined by the secretary of the treasury, in consultation with the secretary of state (collectively, the “covered regions”). in determining whether a location is within the regions subject to sanctions, u.s. persons may reasonably rely on vetted information from reliable third parties, such as postal codes and maps. u.s. persons engaging in activity that does not involve the covered regions are not subject to the prohibitions in e.o. 14065. please see faq 1006 for what prohibitions apply to the covered regions. date updated: may 05, 2022 no. the designation of an official of the government of venezuela does not mean that the government itself is also blocked. the prohibitions apply to transactions or dealings only with the individuals and entities whose property and interests in property are blocked. however, u.s. persons should be cautious in dealings with the government to ensure that they are not engaged in transactions or dealings, directly or indirectly, with an sdn, for example by entering into contracts that are signed by an sdn, entering into negotiations with an sdn, or by processing transactions, directly or indirectly, on behalf of the sdn, absent authorization or an applicable exemption. yes, but prohibitions on dealing in new debt vary based on whether the entity involved is a pdvsa entity or another part of the government of venezuela. subsection 1 (a)(i) of e.o. 13808 prohibits engaging in transactions related to, providing financing for, or otherwise dealing in debt if (1) that debt is issued on or after the sanctions effective date ("new debt"); (2) has a maturity of longer than 90 days; and (3) is issued by, on behalf of, or for the benefit of pdvsa, its property, or its interests in property. subsection 1 (a)(ii) of e.o. 13808 prohibits engaging in transactions related to, providing financing for, or otherwise dealing in new debt with a maturity of longer than 30 days issued by, on behalf of, or for the benefit of any other segment of the government of venezuela, its property, or its interests in property. subsection 1(a)(ii) of e.o. 13808 further prohibits engaging in transactions related to, providing financing for, or otherwise dealing in equity issued on or after the sanctions effective date ("new equity") by, on behalf of, or for the benefit of the government of venezuela (including pdvsa), its property, or its interests in property no. e.o. 13808, as amended by e.o. 13857, does not authorize the blocking of property. e.o. 13808, however, should be read in conjunction with other venezuela related authorities, such as the e.o. 13884, which blocks the government of venezuela, and e.o. 13850, as amended, under which certain government of venezuela entities, including petróleos de venezuela, s.a. (pdvsa), are designated. subsection 1(a)(i) of e.o. 13808 prohibits engaging in transactions related to, providing financing for, or otherwise dealing in debt issued on or after august 25, 2017, with a maturity of longer than 90 days and issued by, on behalf of, or for the benefit of pdvsa, its property, or its interests in property. subsection 1(a)(ii) of e.o. 13808 prohibits engaging in transactions related to, providing financing for, or otherwise dealing in debt issued on or after august 25, 2017, with a maturity of longer than 30 days and issued by, on behalf of, or for the benefit of any other segment of the government of venezuela, its property, or its interests in property. that subsection further prohibits engaging in transactions related to, providing financing for, or otherwise dealing in equity issued on or after august 25, 2017, and issued by, on behalf of, or for the benefit of the government of venezuela (including pdvsa), its property, or its interests in property. subsection 1(a)(iii) of e.o. 13808 prohibits engaging in transactions related to, providing financing for, or otherwise dealing in bonds issued by the government of venezuela prior to august 25, 2017. subsection 1(a)(iv) of e.o. 13808 prohibits engaging in transactions related to, providing financing for, or otherwise dealing in dividend payments or other distributions of profits to the government of venezuela by any entity owned or controlled, directly or indirectly, by the government of venezuela. section 1(b) of e.o. 13808 prohibits purchasing any securities from the government of venezuela other than securities issued on or after august 25, 2017, with a maturity of less than or equal to 90 days (for pdvsa) or 30 days (for the rest of the government of venezuela). e.o. 13808 prohibits transactions by u.s. persons wherever they are located, and transactions within the united states. for transactions involving blocked persons, including the government of venezuela and any entity in which it owns, directly or indirectly, a 50 percent or greater interest, u.s. persons are prohibited from engaging in any activity or transaction with such blocked persons unless exempt or otherwise authorized by ofac. if there is a venezuela related general license authorizing dealings with such blocked persons, but the transactions or dealings fall within the prohibitions of e.o. 13808, u.s. persons should reject such transactions, unless an authorization allowing transactions and other dealings otherwise prohibited by e.o. 13808 also applies. u.s. persons must report to ofac any blocked or rejected transactions within 10 business days. general license 1, which expired on september 25, 2017, provided a wind down period with respect to contracts and other agreements that were in effect prior to august 25, 2017. that general license provided 30 days in which to conduct all transactions and activities otherwise prohibited by subsections 1(a)(i) (iii) and (b) of e.o.13808 that were ordinarily incident and necessary to winding down such agreements.there is no wind down authorization for subsection 1(a)(iv) of e.o. 13808 ofac has issued four general licenses related to e.o.13808. general license 1, which expired on september 25, 2017, applied to contracts and other agreements that were in effect prior to august 25, 2017. it provided 30 days in which to conduct all transactions and activities otherwise prohibited by subsections 1 (a)(i) (iii) and (b) of e.o. 13808 that were ordinarily incident and necessary to winding down such agreements. general license 2 authorizes all transactions otherwise prohibited by subsections 1(a)(i), (a)(ii), and (b) of e.o.13808 provided that the only government of venezuela entities involved in the transactions are citgo holding, inc. and any of its subsidiaries. general license 3 authorizes all transactions related to, the provision of financing for, and other dealings in bonds contained in the annex to general license 3 that would otherwise be prohibited by section 1(a)(iii) of e.o. 13808. the annex is also available as a stand alone document on the venezuela related sanctions page of ofac’s website. general license 3 further authorizes all transactions related to, the provision of financing for, and other dealings in bonds issued prior to august 25, 2017, if such bonds were issued by u.s. person entities owned or controlled, directly or indirectly, by the government of venezuela, such as citgo holding, inc. general license 4 authorizes all transactions related to the provision of financing for, and other dealings in debt issued on or after august 25, 2017 related to the exportation or reexportation of agricultural commodities, medicine, medical devices, or replacement parts and components for medical devices, to venezuela, or to persons in third countries purchasing specifically for resale to venezuela, provided that the exportation or reexportation is licensed or otherwise authorized by the department of commerce. all of the general licenses are available on ofac's website on the venezuela related sanctions page. review them for details. the term debt includes bonds, loans, extensions of credit, loan guarantees, letters of credit, drafts, bankers acceptances, discount notes or bills, or commercial paper. the term equity includes stocks, share issuances, depositary receipts, or any other evidence of title or ownership. the prohibitions in subsections 1(a)(i) of e.o. 13808 apply to all transactions involving debt issued on or after august 25, 2017, with a maturity of longer than 90 days; all financing in support of such new debt; and any dealing in, including provision of services in support of, such new debt. the prohibitions in subsections 1(a)(ii) of e.o.13808 apply to all transactions involving debt issued on or after august 25, 2017, with a maturity of longer than 30 days or equity issued on or after august 25, 2017; all financing in support of such new debt or new equity; and any dealing in, including provision of services in support of, such new debt or new equity. these e.o. 13808 prohibitions extend to rollover of existing debt, if such rollover results in the creation of new debt with a maturity of longer than 90 days (with respect to pdvsa debt) or longer than 30 days (with respect to the rest of the government of venezuela debt). engaging in transactions related to, providing financing for, or otherwise dealing in any equity issued by, on behalf of, or for the government of venezuela is permissible, if the equity was issued prior to august 25, 2017 and the transactions, financing, or other dealings are not prohibited by any other venezuela related e.o. or other applicable laws or regulations. engaging in transactions related to, providing financing for, or otherwise dealing in any debt issued by, on behalf of, or for the government of venezuela is permissible if the debt was issued prior to august 25, 2017, and, in the case of bonds, either (1) the bonds are included in the annex to general license 3, or (2) the bonds were issued by u.s. person entities owned or controlled, directly or indirectly, by the government of venezuela (such as citgo holding, inc.). the annex to general license 3 is available as a stand alone document on the venezuela related sanctions page of ofac's website. the list will also be published in the federal register, as will any changes to the list. e.o. 13808 prohibits u.s. persons from purchasing securities of any kind   including debt and equity securities   from the government of venezuela. the exception to this prohibition is purchasing securities that qualify as (a) debt of pdvsa issued on or after august 25, 2017, with a maturity of less than or equal to 90 days, or (b) debt of any other part of the government of venezuela issued on or after august 25, 2017, with a maturity of less than or equal to 30 days. u.s. persons may deal with the government of venezuela as counterparty to transactions involving securities that fall into either of these two categories. u.s. persons are not authorized to purchase, directly or indirectly, bonds in the annex to general license 3 from the government of venezuela. unlike the debt related prohibitions of e.o. 13808, which address certain debt of the government of venezuela, including pdvsa, the debt related provisions of e.o. 13835 address debt that is owed to the government of venezuela. the prohibitions in subsections 1(a)(i) and (ii) of e.o. 13835 apply to all transactions related to, provision of financing for, and other dealings in (i) the purchase of any debt owed to the government of venezuela, including accounts receivable, and (ii) any debt owed to the government of venezuela that is pledged as collateral after may 21, 2018, including accounts receivable, respectively. the equity related prohibition in subsection 1(a)(iii) of e.o. 13835 applies to any sale, transfer, assignment, or pledging as collateral by the government of venezuela of any equity interest in any entity in which the government of venezuela has a 50 percent or greater ownership interest; and any dealing in, including provision of services in support of, such transactions. u.s. financial institutions may continue to maintain correspondent accounts and process u.s. dollar clearing transactions for the government of venezuela, so long as those activities do not involve engaging in transactions prohibited by e.o. 13692 or any subsequent venezuela related e.o., or other applicable laws or regulations. the government of venezuela is selling assets for much less than they are worth at the expense of the venezuelan people and using proceeds from these sales to enrich supporters of the regime. bonds and other securities are among the assets being sold. the prohibitions and related general licenses are meant to prevent u.s. persons from contributing to the government of venezuela's corrupt and shortsighted financing schemes while mitigating market disruptions and harm to investors. in general, yes. these prohibitions apply to transactions related to the government of venezuela, which is defined in e.o. 13808 to include all entities owned or controlled by the government of venezuela. this would normally include entities owned 50 percent or more by the government of venezuela because in most instances such entities would be considered controlled by the government of venezuela. also included are any entities that are less than 50% owned, but otherwise controlled, by the government of venezuela. note, however, that general license 2 authorizes all transactions otherwise prohibited by subsections 1(a)(i), (a)(ii), and (b) of e.o. 13808 provided that the only government of venezuela entities involved in the transactions are citgo holding, inc. or its subsidiaries. general license 3 also authorizes all transactions related to, provision of financing for, and other dealings in bonds issued prior to august 25, 2017, by u.s. person entities owned or controlled, directly or indirectly, by the government of venezuela. if a u.s. person entered into a long term credit facility or loan agreement prior to august 25, 2017, drawdowns and disbursements with repayment terms of 90 days or less (for pdvsa) or 30 days or less (for the rest of the government of venezuela) are not prohibited. drawdowns and disbursements whose repayment terms exceed the applicable authorized tenor are also not prohibited if the terms of such drawdowns and disbursements (including the length of the repayment period, the interest rate applied to the drawdown, and the maximum drawdown amount) were contractually agreed to prior to august 25, 2017, and are not modified on or after august 25, 2017. u.s. persons may not deal in a drawdown or disbursement initiated after august 25, 2017 with a repayment term of longer than 90 days (for pdvsa) or 30 days (for the rest of the government of venezuela), if the terms of the drawdown or disbursement were negotiated on or after august 25, 2017. such a newly negotiated drawdown or disbursement would constitute a prohibited transaction related to new debt under e.o. 13808. note that general license 2 authorizes all transactions in new debt of the government of venezuela of any tenor provided that the only government of venezuela entities involved in the transactions are citgo holding, inc. and any of its subsidiaries. under e.o. 13808, the term "new equity" pertains to equity issued, directly or indirectly, by the government of venezuela on or after august 25, 2017. that said, e.o. 13808 also prohibits u.s. persons from purchasing any securities   including equity securities issued by a non sanctioned party   from the government of venezuela. the exception to this prohibition is purchasing securities that qualify as (1) debt of pdvsa issued on or after august 25, 2017, with a maturity of less than or equal to 90 days, or (2) debt of any other part of the government of venezuela issued on or after august 25, 2017, with a maturity of less than or equal to 30 days. u.s. persons are not prohibited from dealing with the government of venezuela as counterparty to transactions involving securities that fall into either of these two categories. general license 2 authorizes u.s. persons to deal in such new equity issued by citgo holding, inc. or any of its subsidiaries, or to purchase securities from citgo holding, inc. or any of its subsidiaries, provided that no other entities owned or controlled by the government of venezuela are involved. e.o.13808 prohibits u.s. persons from dealing in debt of longer than 90 days maturity (for pdvsa) and longer than 30 days maturity (for the rest of the government of venezuela) issued on or after august 25, 2017. e.o. 13808 does not prohibit u.s. persons from dealing with the government of venezuela as counterparty to most transactions involving debt issued on or after august 25, 2017 by a non sanctioned party. for example, under e.o. 13808, u.s. persons are not prohibited from dealing with the government of venezuela when it plays the role of underwriter on new debt of a non sanctioned third party exceeding the applicable authorized tenor or accepting payment under a letter of credit with terms exceeding the applicable authorized tenor that is issued, advised, or confirmed by the government of venezuela, so long as the government of venezuela is not the borrower. e.o.13808 does not prohibit a u.s. person from engaging in transactions necessary to exit or replace its participation in a long term loan facility that was extended to the government of venezuela prior to august 25, 2017, provided that such transactions do not otherwise run afoul of the order's prohibitions. this would not constitute dealing in new debt. however, u.s. persons involved in such facilities should ensure that all newly negotiated drawdowns or disbursements from the facility utilize repayment terms that are not prohibited by e.o. 13808. see faq 394 for additional information on what constitutes a permitted drawdown or disbursement from an existing long term loan obligation. e.o.13808 does not prohibit u.s. persons from extending credit for longer than 90 days (for pdvsa) or 30 days (for the rest of the government of venezuela) to non sanctioned parties for the purpose of purchasing goods or services from the government of venezuela, so long as the government of venezuela is not the indirect borrower. while e.o. 13884 blocks all property and interests in property of the government of venezuela that come into the possession or control of u.s. persons or u.s. jurisdiction, the venezuelan people are not subject to comprehensive u.s. sanctions. sanctions do not preclude u.s. persons from exporting or reexporting items to venezuela provided that the transactions do not involve sanctioned individuals or entities or certain prohibited activities. those involved in exports or reexports to venezuela, including exports or reexports related to activity authorized by ofac, should also consult the department of commerce’s bureau of industry and security to ensure eligibility of exportation or reexportation under its authorities. likewise, the e.o. of august 5, 2019 does not prohibit transactions involving the government of venezuela that relate to the provision of articles such as food, clothing, and medicine intended to be used to relieve human suffering. ofac has also issued general license 4c to authorize further transactions ordinarily incident and necessary to the exportation or reexportation of agricultural commodities, medicine, medical devices, replacement parts and components for medical devices, or software updates for medical devices to venezuela, or to persons in third countries purchasing specifically for resale to venezuela. see general license 4c for details and relevant definitions. in addition, ofac maintains several complementary general licenses designed to support assistance to the venezuelan people. general license 16b authorizes transactions and activities ordinarily incident and necessary to processing noncommercial, personal remittances involving certain financial institutions. general license 20a authorizes official activities of certain international organizations to engage in transactions with the government of venezuela. general license 24 authorizes transactions involving the government of venezuela incident to the receipt and transmission of telecommunications, as well as transactions of common carriers involving the government of venezuela incident to the receipt or transmission of mail and packages between the united states and venezuela. general license 25 authorizes the exportation or reexportation, directly or indirectly, from the united states or by u.s. persons, wherever located, to or involving the government of venezuela of services, software, hardware, and technology incident to the exchange of communications over the internet. general license 26 authorizes the provision and receipt of nonscheduled emergency medical services, and the provision of other medical services involving the government of venezuela. general license 29 authorizes nongovernmental organizations to engage in activities with the government of venezuela in support of humanitarian projects, democracy building, education, non commercial development projects directly benefiting the venezuelan people, and environmental protection in venezuela. in addition to these general licenses, ofac can also issue specific licenses to authorize particular transactions that may otherwise be prohibited by the sanctions, as long as those transactions are in the foreign policy interests of the united states. for additional information, please see faq 665 and ofac’s “guidance related to the provision of humanitarian assistance and support to the venezuelan people.” no, as long as your transaction or other dealing does not involve property or interests in property of a specially designated national. that said, you should make sure that your proposed export is authorized by the u.s. department of commerce, bureau of industry and security ("bis"), which maintains jurisdiction over the export of items to venezuela. for further guidance regarding the exportation of items to venezuela, contact bis by phone at (202) 482 4252. yes. general license 4 authorizes all financing and other dealings in new debt related to the exportation or reexportation of agricultural commodities, medicine, medical devices, components, or replacement parts for medical devices, to venezuela, or to persons in third countries purchasing specifically for resale to venezuela, provided that the exportation or reexportation is licensed or otherwise authorized by the department of commerce. note, however, that general license 4 does not otherwise authorize any transaction that is prohibited by e.o. 13808, e.o. 13692, or any part of 31 c.f.r. chapter v. in the lima declaration of august 8, 2017, 12 countries across the americas refused to recognize the constituent assembly or the laws it adopts because of its illegitimate nature, while at the same time fully backing the democratically elected iv venezuelan national assembly seated on january 5, 2016 (“iv national assembly”). we stand in solidarity with our friends and allies in the region. if the democratically elected iv national assembly approved a new debt issuance by the government of venezuela that executive order (e.o.) 13808 would prohibit u.s. persons from dealing in, the united states would consider using licensing authority to allow u.s. persons to deal in the issuance. date updated: january 09, 2023 ofac intentionally excluded the venezuela government international bond issued on december 29, 2016 (isin usp97475aq39, cusip am1108092) (“the 2036 bond”) from the annex to general license 3 because available information indicates that the government of venezuela is both the bond’s issuer and sole holder. at this time, the 2036 bond is the only bond we have identified and purposely omitted from the annex to general license 3. parties who identify additional bonds that they believe should be added to the annex to general license 3 should contact ofac compliance hotline. with information about the bond (including its isin, cusip, description, issuance date, maturity date, and prospectus/terms and conditions) and provide their rationale for adding it to the annex (e.g., a party other than the government of venezuela holds the bond). no particular characteristics or circumstances will guarantee a bond’s addition to the annex to general license 3; ofac will evaluate each request on a case by case basis. paragraph (b) of general license 3 (this content is no longer available) authorizes all transactions related to, the provision of financing for, and other dealings in bonds that were issued both (i) prior to august 25, 2017, and (ii) by u.s. person entities owned or controlled, directly or indirectly, by the government of venezuela. consequently, while bonds that meet both of these criteria may not be included in the annex to general license 3, u.s. persons are nevertheless authorized to deal in these bonds paragraphs (a) and (b) of general license 3 (this content is no longer available) authorize all transactions related to, the provision of financing for, and other dealings in bonds that are either listed in the annex to general license 3 or that were issued both (i) prior to august 25, 2017, and (ii) by u.s. person entities owned or controlled, directly or indirectly, by the government of venezuela (“general license 3 bonds”). buying, selling, or otherwise dealing in a derivative that references a general license 3 bond is a transaction related to the bond itself. general license 3 therefore authorizes such purchases and sales, as well as related transactions. one corollary to this authorization is that u.s. persons are not authorized to buy, sell, or otherwise deal in derivatives that reference bonds that (i) were issued by the government of venezuela prior to august 25, 2017, but (ii) are not general license 3 bonds. for purposes of subsection 1(a)(iv) of e.o. 13808, “profit” is net income after taxes. for a business, this is generally total sales minus total costs and expenses. for example, transactions involving the government of venezuela, including pdvsa, related to payments for goods and services, taxes, or royalties are not considered “profit.” similarly, principal and interest payments related to bonds and promissory notes are not considered “distributions of profit” for purposes of subsection 1(a)(iv) of e.o. 13808, and so that subsection does not prohibit u.s. persons from making such payments. restrictions imposed under other subsections of e.o. 13808, however, may still apply. for example, pursuant to subsection 1(a)(iii), u.s. persons are prohibited from dealing in principal and interest payments related to bonds that were issued by the government of venezuela before august 25, 2017 unless u.s. persons are authorized to deal in the relevant bonds under general license 3 (this content is no longer available). u.s. persons are generally prohibited from engaging in transactions or dealings with persons named on ofac’s sdn list, including dealing with an sdn in the context of efforts to restructure venezuelan and petroleos de venezuela, s.a. (pdvsa) debt. provided there is no sdn involvement, venezuela related general license 3 authorizes u.s. persons to engage in all transactions related to bonds specified in the annex to general license 3, including participating in negotiations regarding such bonds. general license 3 does not authorize any transaction by a u.s. person or within the united states that involves the creation or subsequent dealing in new debt of pdvsa or debt otherwise of the government of venezuela with a maturity of greater than 90 days or 30 days, respectively, absent a license from ofac. ofac would consider license applications involving any such new debt or equity on a case by case basis, and base licensing determinations on the facts and circumstances of the particular application. as stated in faq 522, the united states government would consider using licensing authority to allow u.s. persons to deal in new debt of the government of venezuela approved by the democratically elected iv venezuelan national assembly seated on january 5, 2016. date updated: january 09, 2023 yes. for purposes of e.o. 13808, the prohibition in subsection 1(a)(i) would apply to pdvsa and extend to all pdvsa subsidiaries, unless authorized by ofac. note that general license 2 authorizes certain activities involving specified pdvsa subsidiaries. ofac considers “new debt” to be debt created on or after august 25, 2017. see faq 511 for examples of “debt,” which includes loans and extensions of credit. ofac does not consider debt that was created prior to august 25, 2017 to be “new debt” for purposes of e.o. 13808 so long as the terms of the debt instrument (including, for example, the length of the repayment period or any interest rate applied) agreed to by the parties do not change on or after august 25, 2017. such preexisting debt does not need to conform to the 30  or 90 day tenors imposed under e.o. 13808, and u.s. persons may collect and accept payment for such debt regardless of whether the relevant segment of the government of venezuela, including pdvsa, pays during the agreed upon payment period. no, absent a specific license or other authorization from ofac. as explained in faq 553, debt   which includes extensions of credit for sales of goods or services   created on or after august 25, 2017 constitutes “new debt,” and e.o. 13808 prohibits u.s. persons and persons within the united states from engaging in transactions related to, providing financing for, or otherwise dealing in new debt with a maturity of longer than 90 days for pdvsa or 30 days for other segments of the government of venezuela. because receiving payments outside of these specified maturity periods generally constitutes a prohibited dealing in debt, u.s. persons should ensure that payment terms accord with the applicable debt prohibition. in circumstances where pdvsa or another segment of the government of venezuela fails to pay a debt in full within 90 or 30 days, as applicable, u.s. persons must obtain a specific license from ofac before accepting payment after the expiration of the applicable period. to mitigate potential harm to u.s. persons who have not received payment related to new debt incurred by pdvsa or another segment of the government of venezuela within the applicable maturity period, ofac will, on a case by case basis, grant specific licenses to u.s. persons to deal in the collection or receipt of such payment, provided that: (1) pdvsa or another segment of the government of venezuela is in debt to the applicant based on an agreement that complies with applicable sanctions requirements and prohibitions; (2) the debt is “new debt” created before march 14, 2018; (3) the relevant segment of the government of venezuela failed to pay its debt within the agreed upon, authorized payment period; and (4) the transaction is not otherwise prohibited under e.o. 13808, e.o. 13692, or any part of 31 c.f.r. chapter v. license applications involving circumstances that do not meet these criteria will be reviewed on a case by case basis with a presumption of denial, with the exception of activity that is in u.s. national security or foreign policy interests, including humanitarian related transactions, legal services, or personal communication related services. consistent with faq 553, debt created prior to august 25, 2017   including extensions of credit related to goods or services provided to pdvsa or another segment of the government of venezuela   would not constitute “new debt,” provided that the parties do not change the terms of the debt. answer: yes. answer: no. absent authorization from ofac, u.s. persons are prohibited from engaging in transactions related to, providing financing for, and otherwise dealing in any “digital currency, digital coin, or digital token” that was issued by, for, or on behalf of the government of venezuela on or after january 9, 2018. ofac would consider license applications involving government of venezuela issued “digital currency, digital coin, or digital token” on a case by case basis and base licensing determinations on the facts and circumstances of the particular application. the president issued executive order (e.o.) 13835 on may 21, 2018. subsection 1(a)(iii) of e.o. 13835 prohibits u.s. persons from engaging in transactions related to the sale, transfer, assignment, or pledging as collateral by the government of venezuela (gov) of any equity interest in an entity owned 50 percent or more by the gov. one effect of subsection 1(a)(iii) is to require authorization before u.s. persons may engage in certain transactions regarding any equity interest in an entity owned 50 percent or more by the gov. subsequent to the issuance of e.o. 13835, ofac received inquiries about how and whether subsection 1(a)(iii) of e.o. 13835 could affect the ability to enforce bondholder rights to the citgo shares serving as collateral for the petróleos de venezuela, s.a. (pdvsa) 2020 8.5 percent bond. ofac issued general license (gl) 5 on july 19, 2018, which removed e.o. 13835 as an obstacle to holders of the pdvsa 2020 8.5 percent bond gaining access to their collateral. general license 5 was replaced and superseded by general license 5a on october 24, 2019 with a delay in the effectiveness of the authorization in the general license. since that date, ofac has extended the delay in effectiveness multiple times. most recently, ofac issued general license 5q on november 7, 2024, which further delays the effectiveness of the authorization in gl 5 until march 7, 2025. between october 24, 2019 and march 7, 2025 (the date the authorization in general license 5q becomes effective), there is no authorization in effect that licenses against subsection 1(a)(iii) of e.o. 13835 applicable to the holders of the pdvsa 2020 8.5 percent bond. as a result, during such period, transactions related to the sale or transfer of citgo shares in connection with the pdvsa 2020 8.5 percent bond are prohibited, unless specifically authorized by ofac. to the extent an agreement may be reached on proposals to restructure or refinance payments due to the holders of the pdvsa 2020 8.5 percent bond, additional licensing requirements may apply. ofac would encourage parties to apply for a specific license and would have a favorable licensing policy toward such an agreement. date updated: november 7, 2024 date updated: august 12, 2024 date updated: october 18, 2023 no, provided that the attachment does not involve (i) debt owed to the government of venezuela (including accounts receivable) that was pledged as collateral after the effective date of e.o. 13835 (per subsection 1(a)(ii) of the e.o.), or (ii) an equity interest in any entity in which the government of venezuela has a 50 percent or greater ownership interest (per subsection 1(a)(iii) of the e.o.). ofac authorization would likely be required for attachment of equity interest in any entity in which the government of venezuela has a 50 percent or greater ownership interest. ofac would consider license applications seeking to attach and execute against such equity interests on a case by case basis. e.o. 13850 is designed to counter rampant corruption within the government of venezuela, which continues to exacerbate the economic and humanitarian crises afflicting the venezuelan people. as we have worked to disrupt the government of venezuela’s sources of corrupt patronage, the maduro regime has sought new means by which to enrich itself at the expense of its people. by issuing this e.o., the u.s. government is acting to prevent the regime and its corrupt associates from further exploiting venezuela’s people and resources. the e.o. provides a powerful tool to impose costs on those who unjustly benefit from dishonest or fraudulent conduct, illicit activity, and/or deceptive transactions within venezuela’s gold sector or other identified sectors, or in relation to the government of venezuela or its projects or programs. ofac expects to use its discretion to target in particular those who operate corruptly in the gold or other identified sectors of the venezuela economy, and not those who are operating legitimately in such sectors. this includes, for example, persons engaging in dishonest or fraudulent conduct, illicit activity, or deceptive transactions within venezuela’s gold sector or other identified venezuela sectors, with the purpose or effect of misappropriating venezuelan resources in those sectors for personal, professional, or political gain. date updated: february 02, 2024 executive order 13857 of january 25, 2019 “taking additional steps to address the national emergency with respect to venezuela”​ broadens the definition of the term “government of venezuela” to include persons that have acted, or have purported to act, on behalf of the government of venezuela, including members of the maduro regime, for purposes of executive orders 13692, 13808, 13827, 13835, and 13850. all existing venezuela related sanctions remain in effect. bonds issued by pdvsa or any entity in which it owns, directly or indirectly, a 50 percent or greater interest that was previously listed in the annex to general license 3 (this content is no longer available) (which has been superseded by general license 3b (this content is no longer available)​) are now listed in the annex to general license 9 (this content is no longer available). all venezuela related general licenses are provided on ofac’s website on the venezuela related sanctions page. no. a fund that is a u.s. person may not buy, sell, or otherwise engage in transactions related to debt, equity, or other holdings in blocked persons and must block such holdings, unless authorized by ofac via general or specific license. a u.s. fund that contains such blocked holdings generally is not itself considered a blocked entity, and u.s. persons may continue to invest in the fund and the fund may continue to operate. the fund may divest itself of blocked holdings only with ofac authorization. yes, so long as the underlying basket being tracked includes less than a predominant share by value of debt, equity, or other holdings in blocked persons. u.s. and non u.s. persons may continue to constitute, offer, and trade in funds that include only synthetic risk in debt, equity, or other holdings in blocked persons, provided the underlying basket being tracked includes less than a predominant share by value of debt, equity, or other holdings in blocked persons. general license 11 authorizes, with certain exceptions, u.s. person employees of non u.s. entities located in a country other than the united states or venezuela to engage in transactions and activities prohibited by executive order 13850 that are ordinarily incident and necessary to the maintenance or wind down of operations, contracts, or other agreements involving pdvsa or entities owned, directly or indirectly, 50 percent or more by pdvsa that were in effect prior to january 28, 2019. the authorization is valid through 12:01 a.m. eastern daylight time on march 29, 2019. in accordance with paragraph (b) of general license 11, and for purposes of activities authorized under general license 11 only, u.s. financial institutions are authorized to reject, rather than block, funds transfers that involve both pdvsa or any entity owned, directly or indirectly, 50 percent or more by pdvsa and a non u.s. entity located in a country other than the united states or venezuela, provided that: (i) the funds transfers originate and terminate outside the united states; (ii) the originator and the beneficiary are non u.s. persons; (iii) the funds are not destined for a blocked account on the books of a u.s. person; and (iv) the funds transfers otherwise are effected in accordance with paragraph (c) of general license 11. u.s. financial institutions are not required to block funds transfers meeting the conditions in paragraph (b) of general license 11, but they are prohibited from processing such transactions. until 12:01 a.m. eastern daylight time, april 28, 2019, u.s. persons are authorized to engage in all transactions and activities that are ordinarily incident and necessary to the purchase and importation of petroleum and petroleum products from pdvsa or from entities owned 50 percent or more by pdvsa, provided that any payments to pdvsa, entities in which it owns, directly or indirectly, a 50 percent or greater interest, or other blocked persons for such purchases are made into a blocked, interest bearing account located in the united states in accordance with 31 c.f.r. § 591.203 (unless authorized by other venezuela related general licenses). after the expiration of the 90 day wind down period, as described in general license 7 and general license 12, the purchase by u.s. persons of petroleum and petroleum products from pdvsa or any entity in which it owns, directly or indirectly, a 50 percent or greater interest will be prohibited absent authorization from ofac (see also general license 10 and faq 656​ authorizing the purchase of refined petroleum products by u.s. persons in venezuela, and general license 8 authorizing purchases of petroleum and petroleum products from pdvsa or any entity in which it owns, directly or indirectly, a 50 percent or greater interest for certain listed entities that are ordinarily incident and necessary to their operations in venezuela). yes. venezuela related general license 10 authorizes u.s. persons in venezuela to purchase refined petroleum products, including gasoline, for personal, commercial, or humanitarian uses from pdvsa, or any entity in which it owns, directly or indirectly, a 50 percent or greater interest. general license 10 authorizes, among other things, purchases of refined petroleum products by u.s. commercial airlines providing passenger or cargo services in venezuela for the purposes of fueling aircraft in venezuela. general license 10 also would authorize purchase for use to power a means of conveyance or a household good (such as a generator) in venezuela. general license 10, however, does not authorize u.s. persons to purchase refined petroleum products in venezuela from pdvsa for purposes of executing a commercial transaction to resell, transfer, export, or reexport such refined petroleum products. transactions to purchase petroleum and petroleum products from pdvsa or any entity in which pdvsa owns, directly or indirectly, a 50 percent or greater interest, and that involve u.s. persons or any other u.s. nexus (e.g., transactions involving the u.s. financial system or u.s. commodity brokers) must be wound down by april 28, 2019 pursuant to venezuela related general license 12. in addition, under general license 11​, u.s. person employees and contractors of non u.s. companies located in a country other the united states or venezuela are authorized to engage in certain maintenance or wind down transactions with pdvsa, or any entity in which pdvsa owns, directly or indirectly, a 50 percent or greater interest, through 12:01 a.m. eastern daylight time, march 29, 2019. (see faq 654.) after 12:01 a.m. eastern daylight time, april 28, 2019, as described in venezuela related general license 7 and general license 12, any transactions (including swaps and non cash transactions) involving the purchase or exchange of petroleum or petroleum products in which pdvsa or any entity in which it owns, directly or indirectly, a 50 percent or greater interest has a direct or indirect interest will be prohibited for u.s. persons absent authorization from ofac (see also general license 10 and faq 656​). prior to april 28, 2019, any funds or tangible proceeds of a swap or non cash agreement owed to pdvsa or any entity in which it owns, directly or indirectly, a 50 percent or greater interest as a result of such purchases or exchanges must be blocked, and, in the case of blocked funds, must be placed into a blocked interest bearing account in the united states. in the case of blocked non cash proceeds, please reach out to ofac for further guidance. general license 12​ authorizes, until 12:01 a.m. eastern standard time, february 27, 2019, all transactions and activities that are ordinarily incident and necessary to the wind down of operations, contracts, or other agreements that were in effect prior to january 28, 2019. this authorization includes the importation into, or the exportation from, the united states of goods, services, or technology (other than the exportation of diluents) involving pdvsa or any entity in which it owns, directly or indirectly, a 50 percent or greater interest (other than alba de nicaragua (albanisa) or any entity in which albanisa owns, directly or indirectly, a 50 percent or greater interest) the path to sanctions relief for pdvsa and its subsidiaries is through the expeditious transfer of control of the company to a democratically elected government that is committed to taking concrete and meaningful actions to combat corruption, restore democracy, and respect human rights. a bona fide transfer of control will ensure that the assets of venezuela are preserved for the country’s people, rather than misused and diverted by former president nicolas maduro. treasury will continue to use its economic tools to support the iv venezuelan national assembly seated on january 5, 2016 and the venezuelan people’s efforts to restore their democracy. date updated: january 09, 2023 general license (gl) 9h authorizes u.s. persons to engage in all transactions prohibited by subsection 1(a)(iii) of executive order (e.o.) 13808 or by e.o. 13850, each as amended by e.o. 13857, or by e.o. 13884, as collectively incorporated into the venezuela sanctions regulations, 31 cfr part 591 (the vsr), that are ordinarily incident and necessary to dealings in any debt of, or equity in, pdvsa, or any entity directly or indirectly owned 50 percent or more by pdvsa, that was issued prior to august 25, 2017 (together, “pdvsa securities”). this includes bonds issued by pdv holding, inc. and citgo holding, inc., or any of their subsidiaries. the authorization in gl 9h includes, for example, engaging in transactions related to the receipt and processing of interest or principal payments, and acting as a custodian for u.s. and non u.s. persons’ holdings in pdvsa securities. gl 9h also authorizes divestment of the pdvsa securities, including, on or after october 18, 2023, to other u.s. persons. paragraph (c) of gl 9h authorizes all transactions prohibited by subsection 1(a)(iii) of e.o. 13808 or by e.o. 13850, each as amended by e.o. 13857, or by e.o. 13884, that are ordinarily incident and necessary to facilitating, clearing, and settling trades of holdings in pdvsa securities, provided such trades were placed prior to 4:00 p.m. eastern standard time on january 28, 2019; this authorization aims to ensure that trades that were placed prior to the imposition of blocking sanctions on pdvsa are allowed to settle in the ordinary course. date updated: october 18, 2023 general license 3i (gl 3i) authorizes u.s. persons to engage in all transactions related to, the provision of financing for, and other dealings in the bonds specified in the annex to gl 3i (gl 3i bonds) that would be prohibited by subsection 1(a)(iii) of executive order (e.o.) 13808 or by e.o. 13850, each as amended by e.o. 13857, or by e.o. 13884, as collectively incorporated into the venezuela sanctions regulations, 31 cfr part 591 (the vsr). the authorization in gl 3i includes, for example, engaging in transactions related to the receipt and processing of interest or principal payments, and acting as a custodian for u.s. and non u.s. persons’ holdings in gl 3i bonds. gl 3i also authorizes divestment of the gl 3i bonds, including, on or after october 18, 2023, to other u.s. persons. paragraph (b) of gl 3i authorizes all transactions prohibited by subsection 1(a)(iii) of e.o. 13808 or by e.o. 13850, each as amended by e.o. 13857, or by e.o. 13884, that are ordinarily incident and necessary to facilitating, clearing, and settling trades of holdings in the gl 3i bonds, provided such trades were placed prior to 4:00 p.m. eastern standard time on february 1, 2019; this authorization aims to ensure that trades that were placed prior to february 1, 2019, are allowed to settle in the ordinary course. paragraph (d) of gl 3i authorizes all transactions related to, the provision of financing for, and other dealings in bonds that were issued both (i) prior to august 25, 2017 (the effective date of e.o. 13808), and (ii) by u.s. person entities owned or controlled, directly or indirectly, by the government of venezuela, other than pdv holding, inc., citgo holding, inc., and any of their subsidiaries, that would be prohibited by e.o. 13808 or e.o. 13850, each as amended, or by e.o. 13884. date updated: october 18, 2023 no. only those persons listed on ofac’s sdn list, and entities that they own, directly or indirectly, 50 percent or more of, are blocked persons and subject to sanctions pursuant to e.o. 13580, as amended. u.s. financial institutions and u.s. registered money transmitters are authorized to process transactions involving banco de venezuela, s.a. banco universal (banco de venezuela) or banco bicentenario del pueblo, de la clase obrera, mujer y comunas, banco universal c.a. (banco bicentenario del pueblo) for purposes of venezuela general licenses 4a, 15, 16, and 17, banco prodem s.a. for purposes of general license 17, and integracion administradora de fondos de ahorro previsional, s.a. for purposes of general license 18​, in each case so long as the underlying transaction or activity is authorized under the relevant general license. u.s. financial institutions that maintain correspondent accounts for banco de venezuela or banco bicentenario del pueblo for purposes of general licenses 4a, 15, 16, and 17, banco prodem s.a. for purposes of general license 17, and integracion administradora de fondos de ahorro previsional, s.a. for purposes of general license 18 may debit or credit such accounts for transactions consistent with the activity authorized in the relevant general license. no. ofac is committed to ensuring that humanitarian assistance and non commercial, personal remittances can flow to the people of venezuela. to that end, concurrent with the blocking of the government of venezuela, ofac has issued amendments to current venezuela related general licenses and issued new general licenses to ensure that u.s. persons may continue to engage in and facilitate non commercial, personal remittances, and the export or reexport of humanitarian items (agricultural commodities, medicine, medical devices, replacement parts and components for medical devices, and software updates for medical devices) to venezuela. likewise, e.o. 13884 does not prohibit transactions involving the government of venezuela that relate to the provision of articles such as food, clothing, and medicine intended to be used to relieve human suffering. for additional information, please see faq 519 and ofac’s “guidance related to the provision of humanitarian assistance and support to the venezuelan people.” ofac also issued amended general license 20a to authorize official activities of certain international organizations such as the united nations (including its programmes and funds, and its specialized agencies and related organizations) and the international committee of the red cross, among others, to engage in transactions involving banco central de venezuela, or involving other government of venezuela persons to the extent the transactions are subject to u.s. jurisdiction. sanctions do not prohibit u.s. persons from engaging in exports or reexports of items to venezuela, provided that the transactions do not involve sanctioned individuals or entities or certain prohibited activity. those involved in exports or reexports to venezuela, including exports or reexports related to activity authorized by ofac, should also consult the department of commerce’s bureau of industry and security to ensure eligibility of exportation or reexportation under its authorities. if individuals, companies, or financial institutions have questions about engaging in or processing transactions related to these authorizations, they can contact ofac’s ofac compliance hotline. no. diluents (including, for example, crude oil and naphtha) play a key role in the transportation and exportation of venezuelan petroleum, a primary source of revenue for the illegitimate and corrupt maduro regime, which the united states seeks to restrict further. ofac is amending general licenses (gls) 7a, 8, and 13 effective as of june 6, 2019, to restrict u.s. persons engaging in transactions and activities authorized by those gls from exporting or reexporting diluents, directly or indirectly, to venezuela, or from engaging in transactions or activities related thereto. absent authorization from ofac, all u.s. persons continue to be prohibited from engaging in any dealings with petróleos de venezuela, s.a. (pdvsa), or any entity in which pdvsa owns, directly or indirectly, a 50 percent or greater interest. in addition, non u.s. persons could be subject to designation pursuant to executive order 13850, as amended, for operating within the oil sector of the venezuelan economy, or for having materially assisted, sponsored, or provided financial, material, or technological support for, or goods or services to or in support of pdvsa, including the exportation or reexportation of diluents to pdvsa. given pdvsa’s role as venezuela’s state owned oil company, exports or reexports of diluents to venezuela likely include a direct or indirect interest of pdvsa. as a result, persons directly or indirectly exporting or reexporting diluents to venezuela should exercise enhanced due diligence to verify the ultimate end user and ensure that the transaction does not involve a direct or indirect interest of a sanctioned person, including pdvsa, even if the sanctioned person is not identified as a participant in the transaction. the united states stands with the venezuelan people and the iv national assembly in opposition to the maduro regime. on january 09, 2023, ofac issued venezuela related general license 31b authorizing all transactions involving the iv national assembly, its delegated commission, any entity established by, or under the direction of, the iv national assembly to exercise its mandate (“iv national assembly entity”), or involving any person appointed or designated by, or whose appointment or designation is retained by, the iv national assembly, its delegated commission, or a iv national assembly entity, to act on behalf of the government of venezuela, including their respective members and staff, that are otherwise prohibited by e.o. 13884. the authorization also covers transactions prohibited by e.o. 13850, as amended, with respect to any person appointed or designated by, or whose appointment or designation is retained by, the iv national assembly, its delegated commission, or a iv national assembly entity to the board of directors (including any ad hoc board of directors) or as an executive officer of a government of venezuela entity (including entities owned or controlled, directly or indirectly, by the government of venezuela). effective january 09, 2023, general license 31b replaced and superseded general license 31a in its entirety. date updated: january 09, 2023 yes. unless exempt or authorized by ofac, all property and interests in property of persons meeting the definition of the government of venezuela (see section 6(d) of e.o. 13884​ of august 5, 2019) that are in, or come within, the united states or the possession or control of a united states person are blocked, pursuant to e.o. 13884. the term “government of venezuela,” as defined in e.o. 13884, includes the state and government of venezuela, any political subdivision, agency, or instrumentality thereof, including the central bank of venezuela and petroleos de venezuela, s.a. (pdvsa), any person owned or controlled, directly or indirectly, by the foregoing, and any person who has acted or purported to act directly or indirectly for or on behalf of, any of the foregoing, including as a member of the maduro regime. ofac has issued several general licenses (gls) that provide authorization for categories of persons blocked by e.o. 13884. gl 34a authorizes transactions with certain government of venezuela individuals, including united states citizens; permanent resident aliens of the united states; individuals who have a valid u.s. immigrant or nonimmigrant visa, other than individuals in the united states as part of venezuela’s mission to the united nations; former employees and contractors of the government of venezuela; and current employees and contractors of the government of venezuela who provide health or education services in venezuela, including at hospitals, schools, and universities. in addition, gl 22 authorizes certain transactions related to venezuela’s mission to the united nations, and gl 31b provides authorization related to the iv venezuelan national assembly seated on january 5, 2016 (“iv national assembly”). please see faq 679 regarding the scope of gl 31b. without authorization from ofac, u.s. persons are generally prohibited from engaging in transactions with the government of venezuela, or persons in which the government of venezuela owns, directly or indirectly, a 50 percent or greater interest. u.s. persons are not prohibited from engaging in transactions involving the country or people of venezuela, provided blocked persons or any conduct prohibited by any other executive order imposing sanctions measures related to the situation in venezuela, are not involved. please note that persons meeting the definition of government of venezuela and persons that are owned, directly or indirectly, 50 percent or more by the government of venezuela are blocked pursuant to e.o. 13884, regardless of whether the person appears on the specially designated nationals and blocked persons list (sdn list), unless exempt or authorized by ofac. as a general matter, ofac expects financial institutions to conduct due diligence on their own direct customers (including, for example, their ownership structure) to confirm that those customers are not persons whose property and interests in property are blocked. for other types of transactions where a financial institution is acting solely as an intermediary and fails to block transactions involving a sanctions target, ofac will consider the totality of the circumstances surrounding the bank’s processing of the transaction to determine what, if any, regulatory response is appropriate. date updated: january 09, 2023 no. general license 28, “authorizing certain activities necessary to the wind down of operations or existing contracts involving the government of venezuela,” only authorizes dealings with persons blocked solely pursuant to e.o. of august 5, 2019; general license 28 does not authorize dealings with persons blocked under e.o.s 13692 or 13850, as amended, or any activities or transactions prohibited under e.o.s 13808, 13827, or 13835, each as amended. general licenses authorizing wind down periods for previously designated government of venezuela entities (e.g., general license 11 pertaining to pdvsa and general license 19 pertaining to bcv) have expired, and all transactions and activities with such designated persons should have been wound down by the expiration of the applicable general license, absent specific authorization from ofac. for clarity on the scope of each general license (including its expiration and the executive orders or prohibitions the general license authorizes against), please refer to the header of each general license, relevant notes, and any specified expiration date. u.s. persons are authorized to engage in certain administrative transactions with the government of venezuela that are prohibited by e.o. 13884 of august 5, 2019, where such transactions are necessary and ordinarily incident to such persons’ day to day operations. general license 35 authorizes u.s. persons to pay taxes, fees, and import duties to the government of venezuela, and to purchase or receive permits, licenses, registrations, certifications, and public utility services from the government of venezuela, so long as these transactions are necessary and ordinarily incident to such persons’ day to day operations. u.s. persons should remain cautious when engaging in authorized activity with blocked persons to ensure all criteria for use of the general license are met. the illegitimate former maduro regime has a long history of corruption, and we encourage u.s. persons who rely on the authorization in general license 35 to exercise appropriate due diligence to ensure compliance with the terms of the authorization. the u.s. government will continue to target corruption by the illegitimate former maduro regime. as with any general or specific license, ofac is prepared to revoke this authorization if appropriate to support u.s. foreign policy and national security priorities. no. a specific license from ofac is not required to initiate or continue u.s. legal proceedings against a person designated or blocked pursuant to the venezuela sanctions regulations, 31 cfr part 591 (vsr), or for a u.s. court, or its personnel, to hear such a case. similarly, creditors may file for writs of attachment without the need for ofac authorization for matters involving property blocked under the vsr. however, a specific license from ofac is required for the entry into a settlement agreement, or for the enforcement of any lien, judgment, or other order through execution, garnishment, or other judicial process purporting to transfer or otherwise alter or affect property or interests in property blocked pursuant to the vsr. for additional information, see 31 cfr §§ 591.309, 591.310, 591.407 and 591.506. with respect to the specific facts and circumstances in crystallex int’l corp. v. bolivarian republic of venezuela, 17 mc 00151, before the u.s. district court for the district of delaware, please see frequently asked question (faq) 1123. for information on general licenses that may authorize certain settlement negotiations involving persons designated or blocked pursuant to the vsr, please see ofac faqs 1124 and 1125. date updated: may 01, 2023 on february 18, 2020, ofac designated rosneft trading s.a. pursuant to e.o. 13850 for operating in the oil sector of the venezuelan economy. likewise, on march 12, 2020, ofac designated tnk trading international s.a. pursuant to e.o. 13850 for operating in the oil sector of the venezuelan economy. general license 36a authorizes u.s. persons to engage in certain activities prohibited by e.o. 13850 necessary for the wind down of transactions involving rosneft trading s.a. or tnk trading international s.a., or any entity in which rosneft trading s.a. or tnk trading international s.a. owns, directly or indirectly, a 50 percent or greater interest, through 12:01 a.m. eastern daylight time, may 20, 2020. after the expiration of this authorization, unless exempt or authorized by ofac, u.s. persons will be prohibited from engaging in transactions with rosneft trading s.a. or tnk trading international s.a., or any entity in which rosneft trading, s.a. or tnk trading international s.a. owns, directly or indirectly, a 50 percent or greater interest, and must block property or interests in property of rosneft trading s.a. and tnk trading international s.a. that are in, or come within, the united states, or the possession or control of a u.s. person. as rosneft trading s.a. and tnk trading international s.a. are also identified on the sectoral sanctions identifications list (ssi list) pursuant to directives 2 and 4 to e.o. 13662 under the ukraine /russia related sanctions program, those winding down transactions with rosneft trading s.a. or tnk trading international s.a. should ensure that all activities comply with any applicable directive 2 and 4 prohibitions, because general license 36a only authorizes certain activities necessary to the wind down of transactions prohibited by e.o. 13850. the e.o. 13850 blocking sanctions apply only to rosneft trading s.a. and tnk trading international s.a., or any entity in which rosneft trading s.a. or tnk trading international s.a. owns, directly or indirectly, a 50 percent or greater interest. blocking sanctions do not apply to these entities’ ultimate parent, rosneft oil company. similarly, blocking sanctions do not apply to rosneft oil company or other subsidiaries or affiliates, provided that such entities are not owned 50 percent or more in the aggregate by one or more blocked persons or otherwise explicitly designated or identified by ofac. u.s. persons, therefore, are not prohibited under e.o. 13850 from dealing with rosneft oil company, its non blocked subsidiaries, or non blocked affiliates to the extent the proposed dealings do not involve any blocked persons or any other activities prohibited pursuant to any ofac sanctions authorities. as rosneft oil company, rosneft trading s.a., and tnk trading international s.a. have been listed on the ssi list since july 2014, july 2015, and march 2020 respectively, they are subject to ukraine /russia related directives 2 and 4. u.s. persons should be mindful of the relevant ukraine /russia related prohibitions that would be applicable as a result of dealings with both rosneft oil company, rosneft trading s.a., and tnk trading international s.a. see, generally,faqs 370 373, 391 396, 405 410, 412 421, and 536 538 for prohibitions on u.s. persons dealing with entities listed on the ssi list. see alsofaqs 398 and 400 for information regarding dealings with blocked persons representing non blocked entities. ofac issued general license(gl) 36a, which authorizes u.s. persons to engage in certain activities prohibited by e.o. 13850​ necessary for the wind down of transactions involving rosneft trading s.a. or tnk trading international s.a., or any entity in which rosneft trading s.a. or tnk trading international s.a., owns, directly or indirectly, a 50 percent or greater interest, through 12:01 a.m. eastern daylight time, may 20, 2020 (a prior version of this gl, gl 36, was issued concurrently with the designation of rosneft trading s.a. and authorized certain wind down activities as well). after the expiration of this authorization, unless exempt or authorized by ofac, u.s. persons will be prohibited from engaging in transactions with rosneft trading s.a. or tnk trading international s.a., or any entity in which rosneft trading s.a. or tnk trading international s.a. owns, directly or indirectly, a 50 percent or greater interest, and must block property or interests in property of rosneft trading s.a. and tnk trading international s.a. that are in, or come within, the united states, or the possession or control of a u.s. person. non u.s. persons may wind down transactions with rosneft trading s.a. or tnk trading international s.a. without exposure to sanctions under e.o. 13850, provided that such wind down activity is: (i) consistent with general license 36a; and (ii) completed prior to 12:01 a.m. eastern daylight time, may 20, 2020. entering into new business involving rosneft trading s.a. or tnk trading international s.a. will not be considered wind down activity. non u.s. persons unable to wind down activities with rosneft trading s.a. or tnk trading international s.a. before 12:01 a.m. eastern daylight time, may 20, 2020, may seek guidance from ofac. on june 18, 2020, ofac designated pursuant to e.o. 13850, among other entities and individuals, two entities for operating in the oil sector of the venezuelan economy and identified two vessels owned by these entities as blocked property. concurrent with this action, ofac issued general license (gl) 37​, which authorizes u.s. persons to engage in transactions and activities prohibited by e.o. 13850, as amended by e.o. 13857​ and incorporated into the venezuela sanctions regulations, that are ordinarily incident and necessary to the wind down of transactions involving the blocked persons or vessels listed in paragraph (b) of gl 37 through 12:01 am eastern daylight time, july 21, 2020. the wind down authorization in gl 37 includes, for example, completion of ongoing voyages, including discharge of cargo aboard such vessels as of june 18, 2020; docking or anchoring of the vessels at third country, non sanctioned ports; transactions related to the safety and maintenance of the vessels, such as entering into contracts and paying for insurance coverage, flagging, and safety and compliance inspections; and transactions related to the health and safety of any crew, including the provision and processing of wages or other employee benefits, or other provision of crewing services. after the expiration of this authorization u.s. persons will be prohibited from engaging in all transactions with the persons or vessels listed in paragraph (b) of gl 37 that are not exempt or authorized by ofac. u.s. persons unable to wind down transactions with the persons or vessels listed in paragraph (b) of gl 37 before 12:01 a.m. eastern daylight time, july 21, 2020, are encouraged to seek guidance from ofac. non u.s. persons may wind down transactions with the persons or vessels listed in paragraph (b) of gl 37 without exposure to sanctions under e.o. 13850, provided that such wind down activity is consistent with gl 37. entering into new contracts involving the persons or vessels listed in paragraph (b) of gl 37 is not authorized under gl 37, unless such contracts are for wind down activity authorized in paragraph (a). non u.s. persons unable to wind down transactions with the persons or vessels listed in paragraph (b) of gl 37 before 12:01 a.m. eastern daylight time, july 21, 2020, are encouraged to seek guidance from ofac. on november 30, 2020, ofac designated ceiec pursuant to executive order (e.o.) 13692 for its role in undermining democracy in venezuela. concurrent with this action, ofac issued venezuela general license (gl) 38 (“authorizing the wind down of transactions involving ceiec”). gl 38 authorizes u.s. persons to engage in all transactions and activities prohibited by e.o. 13692 that are ordinarily incident and necessary to the wind down of transactions and activities involving ceiec, or any entity in which ceiec owns, directly or indirectly, a 50 percent or greater interest (collectively, blocked ceiec entities), through 12:01 a.m. eastern standard time, january 14 , 2021. after the expiration of this authorization, unless exempt or authorized by ofac, u.s. persons will be prohibited from engaging in transactions with the blocked ceiec entities, and must block property or interests in property of such entities that are in, or come within, the united states, or the possession or control of a u.s. person. non u.s. persons may wind down transactions and activities with the blocked ceiec entities without exposure to sanctions under e.o. 13692, provided that such wind down activity is: (i) consistent with gl 38; and (ii) completed prior to 12:01 a.m. eastern standard time, january 14, 2021. entering into new business involving the blocked ceiec entities will not be considered wind down activity. non u.s. persons unable to wind down activities with the blocked ceiec entities before 12:01 a.m. eastern standard time, january 14, 2021, may seek guidance from ofac. no. non u.s. persons would not risk exposure under u.s. sanctions for engaging in activities or facilitating transactions or payments for such activities that would be authorized for u.s. persons pursuant to venezuela gl 40c. for purposes of venezuela gl 40c, the term liquefied petroleum gas refers to the definition provided by the u.s. energy information administration   a group of hydrocarbon gases, primarily propane, normal butane, and isobutane, derived from crude oil refining or natural gas processing. these gases may be marketed individually or mixed. they can be liquefied through pressurization (without requiring cryogenic refrigeration) for convenience of transportation or storage. the definition excludes ethane and olefins. no. the authorizations in paragraph (a) of venezuela related general licenses (gls) 7c (“authorizing certain activities involving pdv holding, inc. and citgo holding, inc.”) and 20b (“authorizing official activities of certain international organizations involving the government of venezuela”), respectively, have not expired and remain in effect. the activities described in paragraph (a) of gls 7c and 20b, respectively, are authorized for an 18 month period, which renews automatically for an additional 18 months on the first day of each month, unless the respective gl is modified or revoked. in the case of gl 7c, the authorization in paragraph (b), which relates to the purchase and importation of petroleum and petroleum products from petróleos de venezuela, s.a., expired on april 28, 2019. the authorization in gl 7c paragraph (b) does not automatically renew and is no longer in effect. yes, provided that such goods and services are for certain activities related to the operation and management of chevron’s joint ventures in venezuela, as specified in gl 41. such activities include, among others, the production and lifting of petroleum or petroleum products produced by the chevron’s jvs; related maintenance, repair, or servicing of the chevron jvs; sale of petroleum or petroleum products to the united states produced by the chevron jvs , provided that the petroleum and petroleum products produced by the chevron jvs are first sold to chevron; the procurement and import into venezuela of goods or other inputs for authorized activities; and the processing of payments by u.s. financial institutions related to the foregoing activities. please see gl 41 for a complete list of authorized activities and associated conditions. no. non u.s. persons, including foreign financial institutions, generally do not risk exposure to u.s. sanctions for facilitating transactions or payments for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, chevron, its subsidiaries, joint ventures, or contractors that are authorized pursuant to venezuela gl 41. non u.s. persons generally do not risk exposure to u.s. blocking sanctions under the venezuela sanctions regulations, 31 cfr part 591, for engaging in transactions with blocked persons, where those transactions would not require a specific license if engaged in by a u.s. person. ofac will not take enforcement action against any individuals or entities for participating in, facilitating, or complying with the prefatory steps set out in the court’s sale procedures order, or for engaging in transactions that are ordinarily incident and necessary to participating in, facilitating, or complying with such steps (such as serving as potential or actual credit counterparties). see also general license 42 and ofac frequently asked question (faq) 1125. as recognized by the judge in the crystallex case, an additional license will be required before any sale is executed. as is standard for ofac’s process before providing a license for the disposition of blocked property, the united states government will engage in due diligence about the identity of a potential purchaser and will consider relevant details of the proposed transaction. before a potential purchaser has been identified, it would be premature to issue any such license or express a definitive view on the issuance of a specific license in a future scenario. ofac nevertheless intends to implement a favorable licensing policy toward such license applications in connection with the execution of a sale as contemplated in the sale procedures order. as with all ofac licenses and statements of licensing policy, this licensing policy would be without prejudice to reconsideration if u.s. foreign policy and national security interests materially change. in making these licensing determinations, ofac is committed to fair and equivalent treatment of potential creditors. this non enforcement posture applies to ofac sanctions only and does not relieve persons of obligations to comply with any other applicable regulatory requirements, reviews, or approvals that may be necessary to finalize any sale. ofac will not take enforcement action against any person for taking steps to preserve the ability to enforce bondholder rights to the citgo shares serving as collateral for the pdvsa 2020 8.5 percent bond (see also ofac frequently asked question (faq) 1123; general license 42 and ofac faq 1125). this non enforcement policy governs ofac sanctions only and does not relieve persons of obligations to comply with any other applicable regulatory requirements, reviews, or approvals that may be necessary to finalize any sale. as noted in faq 1125, parties that have negotiated a settlement agreement pursuant to general license 42 will still need to seek a specific license for entry into that agreement. venezuela general license (gl) 42 generally authorizes transactions prohibited by the venezuela sanctions regulations, 31 cfr part 591 (vsr), that are ordinarily incident and necessary to the negotiation of settlement agreements with the iv national assembly, its delegated commission, an iv national assembly entity, or a person appointed or designated by, or whose appointment or designation is retained by, an iv national assembly entity relating to any debt of the government of venezuela, pdvsa, or any entity in which pdvsa owns, directly or indirectly, a 50 percent or greater interest (a "pdvsa subsidiary"). for the purposes of gl 42, the term “iv national assembly” means the iv venezuelan national assembly seated on january 5, 2016; gl 42 does not authorize transactions involving the venezuelan national constituent assembly convened by nicolas maduro or the national assembly seated on january 5, 2021. the term “iv national assembly entity” includes any entity established by, or under the direction of, the iv national assembly to exercise its mandate, including persons appointed or designated by, or whose appointment or designation is retained by, an iv national assembly entity to the board of directors (including any ad hoc boards of directors), or as an executive officer of a government of venezuela entity (including entities owned or controlled, directly or indirectly, by the government of venezuela). settlement agreements relating to debt include settlement agreements relating to bonds, promissory notes, and other receivables of the government of venezuela, pdvsa, or a pdvsa subsidiary. gl 42 does not authorize the entry into settlement agreements, contingent or otherwise. parties that have negotiated a settlement agreement pursuant to gl 42 will need seek a specific license for entry into that agreement. ofac intends to implement a favorable licensing policy for license applications in connection with the negotiation of a settlement agreement, but as with all ofac licenses and statements of licensing policy, specific licenses will only be granted after due diligence as to the parties and transaction, and this licensing policy would be without prejudice to reconsideration if u.s. foreign policy and national security interests materially change and may be revoked or modified at any time. gl 42 also does not authorize any transactions, including negotiation of settlement agreements, with persons blocked pursuant to the vsr other than those blocked persons enumerated in gl 42, unless separately authorized. yes. on october 18, 2023, ofac issued amended general licenses (gls) 3i and 9h, to remove the restriction that any divestment by u.s. persons of holdings in gl 3i bonds (as defined in gl 3i and faq 662) or pdvsa securities (as defined in gl 9h and faq 661) must be to non u.s. persons. gl 3i replaces and supersedes in its entirety gl 3h, which did not authorize u.s. persons to purchase or invest in, or to facilitate the purchase of or investment in, directly or indirectly, the bonds specified in the annex to gl 3h, with certain exceptions. under gl 3i, u.s. persons are no longer subject to the restriction that any divestment of holdings in gl 3i bonds must be to non u.s. persons. for more information on gl 3i, please see faq 662. gl 9h replaces and supersedes in its entirety gl 9g, which did not authorize u.s. persons to purchase or invest in, or to facilitate the purchase of or investment in, directly or indirectly, pdvsa securities, with certain exceptions. under gl 9h, u.s. persons are no longer subject to the restriction that any divestment of holdings in pdvsa securities must be to non u.s. persons. all sanctions related to the primary bond market remain in place. for more information on gl 9h, please see faq 661. for the purposes of gl 45b, ofac considers the term “western hemisphere” to mean those countries and areas identified by the department of state on its website as comprising the western hemisphere. please see: bureau of western hemisphere affairs   united states department of state. date updated: march 01, 2024 yes. date updated: march 01, 2024 on february 29, 2024, ofac issued venezuela gl 45b, “authorizing certain repatriation transactions involving consorcio venezolano de industrias aeronáuticas y servicios aéreos, s.a.,” which narrowed the scope of transactions previously authorized by gl 45a. gl 45b no longer authorizes transactions ordinarily incident and necessary to non commercial flights (i.e., not for profit flights that are not intended to generate a profit for conviasa) between non u.s. jurisdictions in the western hemisphere and venezuela that are not exclusively for the purposes of repatriation. in addition, ofac is removing the annex and authorization related to the general maintenance (including repair) of aircraft previously listed in it, limiting the authorization for general maintenance to the aircraft being used for repatriation flights. if you are calling about a wire transfer or other "live" transaction: step 1. is the "hit" or "match" against ofac's specially designated nationals (sdn) list, one of its other sanctions lists, or targeted countries, or is it "hitting" for some other reason (i.e., "control list" or "pep," "cia," "non cooperative countries and territories," "canadian consolidated list (osfi)," "world bank debarred parties," "blocked officials file," or "government official of a designated country"), or can you not tell what the "hit" is? step 2. now that you've established that the hit is against one of ofac's sanctions lists or targeted countries, you must evaluate the quality of the hit. compare the name in your transactions with the name on the sanctions list. is the name in your transaction an individual while the name on the sanctions list is a vessel, organization or company (or vice versa)? step 3. how much of the listed entry's name is matching against the name in your transaction? is just one of two or more names matching (i.e., just the last name)? step 4. compare the complete sanctions list entry with all of the information you have on the matching name in your transaction. an entry often will have, for example, a full name, address, nationality, passport, tax id or cedula number, place of birth, date of birth, former names and aliases. are you missing a lot of this information for the name in your transaction? step 5. are there a number of similarities or exact matches? if you are calling about an account: step 1. is the "hit" or "match" against ofac's sdn list, one of ofac's other sanctions lists or targeted countries, or is it "hitting" for some other reason (i.e., "control list" or "pep," "cia," "non cooperative countries and territories," "canadian consolidated list (osfi)," "world bank debarred parties," or "government official of a designated country"), or can you not tell what the "hit" is? step 2. now that you've established that the hit is against one of ofac's sanctions lists or targeted countries, you must evaluate the quality of the hit. compare the name of your customer with the name on the sanctions list. is the name of your customer an individual while the name on the sanctions list is a vessel, organization or company (or vice versa)? step 3. how much of the listed entry's name is matching against the name of your account holder? is just one of two or more names matching (i.e., just the last name)? step 4. compare the complete entry with all of the information you have on the matching name of your account holder. an entry often will have, for example, a full name, address, nationality, passport, tax id or cedula number, place of birth, date of birth, former names and aliases. are you missing a lot of this information for the name of your account holder? step 5. are there a number of similarities or exact matches? * if you have reason to know or believe that processing this transfer or operating this account would violate any of the regulations, you must call the hotline and explain this knowledge or belief. strong and weak aliasesfor additional information regarding strong and weak aliases on ofac's sanctions lists, please see the weak aliases following topic. no. there is no single compliance program suitable for every financial institution. ofac is not itself a bank regulator; its basic requirement is that financial institutions not violate the laws that it administers. financial institutions should check with their regulators regarding the suitability of specific programs to their unique situations. this is primarily a question for your regulator. what constitutes an adequate compliance program depends in large part on who your customers are and what kinds of business you do. certain areas of bank operations, such as international wire transfers and trade finance, are at a higher risk than others. there are numerous interdiction software packages that are commercially available. they vary considerably in cost and capabilities. if your bank feels it needs to invest in software in its attempt to comply with ofac regulations, ofac recommends that you talk to your counterparts in other banks about the systems they have in place and contact vendors for an assessment of your needs. it should be noted that *.txt and *.pdf versions of all of ofac's sanctions lists can be manually scanned; ofac also offers a free, online search engine at the following url: sanctions list search (treas.gov) the frequency of running an ofac scan must be guided by your organization's internal policies and procedures. keep in mind, however, that if your organization fails to identify and block a target account (of a terrorist, for example), there could be serious consequences such as a transfer of funds or other valuable property to an specially designated national, an enforcement action against your organization, and negative publicity. there is no prepackaged compliance program that fits the needs of every bank. banks, obviously, range in size from small to some of the largest institutions in the world. a good starting point is to go to the ofac website and look under "regulations by industry." then read the brochure for the financial community. this brochure provides insight as to how your particular bank could set up a compliance program. there are also a number of articles written for banking industry publications available on ofac's website. banks should also review ofac's frequently asked questions, its sdn and other sanctions list pages and finally, ofac's dedicated sanctions program pages. it may be helpful to contact your counterparts in other banks to see what they are doing and talk to your regulator. the following information will provide you with areas to consider as you review your ofac procedures. there are a wide variety of software packages available to the financial community. the size and needs of each institution help to determine what to look for in a package. some packages are used to interdict sanctioned countries and names on the specially designated nationals or other sanctions lists in wire transfers. others are used to check the names of new customers or to routinely filter the names of all account holders. one suggestion for finding the right software for your bank is to research what your peer banks are using and determine if the software package is working for them. your bank also could talk to a variety of software vendors who can easily be located by doing an internet search. once it has been determined that funds need to be blocked, they must be placed into an interest bearing account on your books from which only ofac authorized debits may be made. the blocking also must be reported to ofac compliance within 10 business days. some banks have opted to open separate accounts for each blocked transaction, while others have opted for omnibus accounts titled, for example, "blocked libyan funds." either method is satisfactory, so long as there is an audit trail which will allow specific funds to be unblocked with interest at any point in the future. ofac regulations require that funds earn interest at a commercially reasonable rate, i.e., at a rate currently offered to other depositors on deposits or instruments of comparable size and maturity. generally yes. in most cases (excluding iraq, for instance) ofac regulations contain provisions to allow a bank to debit blocked accounts for normal service charges, which are described in each set of regulations. the charges must be in accordance with a published rate schedule for the type of account in which the funds are maintained. no. ofac regulations are tailored to further the requirements and purposes of specific executive orders or statutes which provide the basic outline of each program. in some cases, the president has determined that a comprehensive asset freeze is appropriate, and in others the president has determined that more limited restrictions (for example, import bans) are in order. the individual program web pages outline the restrictions for each program. special attention should be given when reviewing sanctions list targets that are included on one of ofac's non specially designated nationals sanctions lists. in some cases, an underlying transaction may be prohibited, but there is no blockable interest (i.e., that of a specially designated national (sdn) or blocked person or government) in the transaction. in these cases, the transaction is simply rejected, or not processed and returned to the originator. for example, a u.s. financial institution would have to reject a wire transfer between two third country companies (non sdns) involving an export to a company in iran that is not otherwise subject to sanctions. since there is no interest of the blocked person (e.g., the government of iran, and iranian financial institution, or an sdn), there is no blockable interest in the funds. however, the u.s. financial institution cannot process the transaction because that would constitute a prohibited export of services to iran pursuant to the iranian transactions and sanctions regulations (itsr), unless authorized by ofac or exempt from regulation. similarly, a u.s. financial institution is prohibited under the itsr from an engaging in trade related transactions or dealings with iran, including financing a prohibited transaction. a u.s. financial institution cannot so much as advise a letter of credit if the underlying transaction is in violation of ofac regulations. in addition, u.s. persons are prohibited from facilitating transactions by foreign persons that would be prohibited if performed by a u.s. person. the following examples may help illustrate which transactions should be blocked and which should be rejected. a u.s. financial institution interdicts a commercial payment destined for the account of xyz import export co. at the bank of xyz in iran. the bank of xyz is an iranian financial institution and wholly owned by the government of iran; accordingly, bank of xyz is blocked under section 560.211 of the itsr. this payment must be blocked. a u.s. financial institution interdicts a commercial payment destined for abc import export in tehran, iran. unlike the bank of xyz, abc import export in tehran is not a blocked person, so there is no blockable interest in this payment. however, processing the payment would mean facilitating trade with iran, exporting a service to iran, and engaging in trade related transactions with iran; therefore, the u.s. financial institution must reject the payment. blocked and rejected transactions must be reported to ofac within 10 days (see 31 c.f.r. §§ 501.603 and 501.604). questions about whether a transaction should be blocked or rejected should be directed to ofac’s sanctions compliance & evaluation division at ofacreport@treasury.gov. you need to discuss this with your state authorities and with ofac. updated on april 20, 2022 an institution may notify its customer that it has blocked funds in accordance with ofac's instructions. the customer has the right to apply for the unblocking and release of the funds. to apply online to have the funds released, please go to our online application page. a u.s. financial institution, its foreign branches, and   in some cases   its wholly owned or  controlled foreign subsidiaries, cannot open an account for a person named on ofac’s list of specially designated nationals and blocked persons (sdn list) or a person who is otherwise blocked (e.g., a blocked government or an entity that is subject to the 50 percent rule). this is a prohibited service. however, the institution or its affiliates should pay careful attention to ensure the person trying to open the account is the same person as the one named on ofac’s sdn list or is otherwise subject to blocking. in many cases, an institution may identify a “false positive,” where the name is similar to a sanctioned person’s name, but the rest of the information provided by the applicant does not match the descriptor information on ofac’s sdn list. if a u.s. financial institution does come into the possession or control of any property in which a blocked person has an interest, the u.s. financial institution is obligated to block that property. in other words, if you receive an application to open an account from a person who matches the information on the sdn list, together with an opening deposit, you are obligated to block the funds. the same is true for other banking transactions. if, for example, a customer asks if he or she is allowed to send money to a relative’s account with bank of xyz, which appears on the sdn list, the bank can say “no, that’s illegal.” if, on the other hand, a bank receives instructions from its customer to debit his or her account and send the funds to bank of xyz, the bank must act on the instructions by blocking the funds that contain a future interest of the sdn bank. you might think of the analogy of a bouncing ball. once the ball starts moving, you must stop it if it comes into your possession. when your interdiction software or account holder checking service shows a potential match, ofac recommends that you do an initial analysis prior to contacting ofac. if you have a reasonably close match to a name on the specially designated nationals (sdn) list (or one of ofac's other sanctions lists) and your customer is located in the same vicinity as the sdn, feel free to contact ofac. computer software may flag some transactions that are not actually associated with ofac targets. this is where human intervention becomes critical and some hands on research may be necessary. please look at the following "due diligence" steps before calling ofac. unless you have an exact match or are otherwise privy to information indicating that the hit is a sanctions target, it is recommended that you do not actually block a transaction without discussing the matter with ofac. in those programs with blocking provisions, ofac's regulations block all "property" in which a target has an interest. the term "property" is very broadly defined, including present, future or contingent interests. in the case of a wire transfer, the bank will be holding blocked property upon the receipt of concrete instructions from its customer to send the funds. in this case, the funds must be blocked and reported to ofac within ten days. if, on the other hand, a customer simply asks "can i send money to cuba?" there is no blockable interest in the inquiry and the bank can answer the question or direct the customer to ofac. the same logic applies to cases where the transaction would be required to be rejected under ofac regulations. there is not technically a "reject" item until the bank receives instructions from its customer to debit its account and send the funds. 31 c.f.r. parts §§501.603 and 501.604 require blocking and reject reports to be submitted to ofac within 10 business days of the date of the action. optional reporting forms are available at this link and complete information may be emailed to ofac’s sanctions compliance and evaluation division at ofacreport@treasury.gov. blocking and reject reports must contain a copy of the original transfer instructions. yes. a report of blocked property is to be submitted annually by september 30 to ofac compliance, department of the treasury, washington, d.c., 20220. the standardized form can be accessed by visiting this link. if you wish to use a different format, please contact the ofac compliance hotline with any questions. for guidance on filing the annual report of blocked property, visit this link. yes, effective june 21, 2019, ofac amended the reporting, procedures and penalties regulations, 31 cfr part 501 (rppr), to provide updated instructions and incorporate new requirements for parties filing reports on blocked property, unblocked property, or rejected transactions. in addition, this rule includes information regarding ofac’s electronic license application procedures and provides additional instructions regarding applications for the release of blocked funds. ofac expects all u.s. persons and persons otherwise subject to u.s. jurisdiction, including parties that are not u.s. financial institutions, to comply fully with all requirements of this rule, including the expanded requirement in section 501.604 of the rppr to provide reports to ofac regarding rejected transactions within 10 business days of the rejected transaction. (previously, only u.s. financial institutions were required to submit reports to ofac for rejected funds transfers.) reports on rejected transactions are to be submitted to ofac, preferably electronically, as specified by ofac’s reporting and license application forms webpage.​ ofac accepted comments from the public on this rule, which it continues to review. in addition, ofac welcomes further feedback as we assess whether any clarification or modification to the rule is appropriate, including: additional information regarding the business impact of this rule; examples of rejected transactions that are proving challenging to report; the quantity of rejected transactions; and the types of information in the filer’s possession for a rejected transaction report. feedback and questions regarding the rule should be submitted to ofac compliance hotline. ofac expects u.s. persons and persons otherwise subject to u.s. jurisdiction to provide all information required by section 501.604(b) of the rppr​ that is in the filer’s possession in a rejected transaction report, and generally does not expect reporters to seek further information from their counterparty solely to obtain additional information required to be reported under section 501.604(b). however, ofac would expect at a minimum that all rejected transaction reports include required information that is applicable in all reject scenarios (e.g., information regarding the submitter of the report, the date the transaction was rejected, the legal authority or authorities under which the transaction was rejected, and any relevant documentation received in connection with the transaction). if you have blocked and reported property due to mistaken identity or typographical or similar errors, you may unblock such property and file an unblocking report with ofac consistent with the procedures described in 31 cfr 501.603(b)(3). with respect to the information described in 31 cfr 501.603(b)(3)(ii)(f), the reporting person can cite faq 1196 in their unblocking report to indicate that the property was released due to mistaken identity or typographical errors, rather than an ofac authorization like a general or specific license. please note, unblocking property in which a blocked person does in fact have an interest without authorization from ofac could expose u.s. persons to civil penalties. alternatively, you may seek to have such property unblocked pursuant to the administrative procedures detailed at 31 cfr 501.806, known as a "compliance release." ofac strongly encourages organizations subject to u.s. jurisdiction to develop risk based sanctions compliance programs that allow for the proper evaluation and adjudication of potential name matches to blocked persons. organizations should not use the compliance release process as a substitute for internal controls to mitigate the risk of transactions or dealings in blocked property. organizations should not request a compliance release in situations in which property was correctly blocked, but the status of the property has subsequently changed (e.g., a change in the portion of ownership by a blocked person). in such scenarios, organizations should apply for a specific license. the compliance release process is solely for cases of mistaken identity or typographical or similar error, in which there was never a blockable interest in the subject property (e.g., a name match to a blocked person that the reporting organization later determines, with reliable supporting evidence, to be a false positive). please note neither a specific license nor a compliance release is required to unblock property when a person is delisted from the specially designated nationals and blocked persons list. the compliance release process is only available to the organization who blocked the property; thus, if a financial institution or other organization has blocked your property and you are requesting that the property be unblocked, you should engage directly with the financial institution or other organization that blocked your property in cases of mistaken identity or apply for a specific license. organizations must retain records as related to the transactions described above. see 31 cfr 501.601 and 31 cfr 501.602 of the reporting, procedures and penalties regulations for applicable recordkeeping and reporting requirements. you cannot do something indirectly that you would not be able to do directly. therefore, these sites can be used to facilitate authorized transactions, but you cannot use them to perform a transaction which would be in violation of u.s. law. for example, the cuban assets control regulations (cacr) authorize any u.s. person to send $1,000 per quarter to close relatives in cuba, provided that the recipient is not a prohibited official of the government of cuba, as defined in § 515.337 or a prohibited member of the cuban communist party, as defined in § 515.338, or a close relative of such persons, as defined in § 515.339. see 31 cfr § 515.570(a) and (j) for additional applicable conditions. subject to those conditions, the u.s. remitter can use a third country provider to send these funds to cuba. if the person attempts to send more than $1000 per quarter to any one individual, however, he or she may be in violation of u.s. law and subject to penalties. another example is booking unauthorized travel to cuba using an internet travel service provider in a third country. spending money on unauthorized travel related transactions involving cuba is prohibited by the cacr, regardless of how the travel is booked or how it is paid for. the fact that the trip was booked through a third country company, either in person or over the internet, is irrelevant. complying with united states sanctions policy presents unique challenges to institutions that operate exclusively on the internet. the internet has often been thought of as an "anonymous venue" in that e commerce transactions can be conducted in relative privacy with little or no face to face contact among the parties in a transaction. this anonymity creates a significant challenge for internet businesses that wish to satisfy their due diligence requirements. in order to be compliant with ofac governed sanctions regulations, us jurisdiction entities must ensure that they are not: a. engaging in trade or transaction activities that violate the regulations behind ofac’s country based sanctions programs, and; b. engaging in trade or transaction activities with sanctions targets named on ofac's list of specially designated nationals and blocked persons (sdn's). a number of internet based financial service companies already developed internet protocol (ip) address blocking procedures. these companies use publicly available data to maintain tables of ip addresses based on geographic region. users attempting to initiate an online transaction or access an account from a sanctioned country are blocked based on their ip address. while this approach is effective, it does not fully address an internet firm’s compliance risks. the fact that international distribution authorities can reassign ip blocks makes the geographic location of an ip potentially dynamic. the anonymous character of internet based transactions often places obstacles in the path of rigorous compliance practices. firms that facilitate or engage in e commerce should do their best to know their customers directly. in order to minimize their liabilities, internet remittance and account service firms should attempt to gather authentic identification information on their customers before a new account is opened or new transaction is initiated. this information will help confirm the customer’s identity and help the e commerce firm ensure it is not conducting business with a sanctions target. currently many internet remittance companies use credit card authentication as the primary method of confirming a customer's identity. while this method is technologically expedient, it does not meet the standards of due diligence normally found in the non internet based financial community. a company cannot rely on another firm’s compliance program in order to mitigate risk. it is recommended that e commerce firms gather and record "purpose of payment" information on each transaction they process. in the non internet sector, financial institutions are able to stop in process transactions and gather more information on them. due to the level of automation found within the internet financial sector, this type of in process information gathering is not always possible. collecting information on the purpose of payments up front will allow internet firms to better screen outgoing and incoming transactions for potential violations. the exportation to iran of apps that are designated ear99 or classified under export control classification number (eccn) 5d992.c, as specified in category (8) of the 31 cfr § 560.540 list of services, software, and hardware incident to communications, is authorized under 31 cfr § 560.540(a)(3), including apps downloaded via online app stores, to the extent not authorized under 31 cfr § 560.540(a)(1) or (2) or exempt. date updated: may 16, 2024 yes. section 560.540(a)(3) authorizes the exportation of certain anti virus, anti malware, anti tracking, anti censorship software, and related services, as specified in categories (6), (7), and (9) of the31 cfr § 560.540 list of services, software, and hardware incident to communications. date updated: may 16, 2024 ssls, as described in category (11) of the 31 cfr § 560.540 list of services, software, and hardware incident to communications (“31 cfr § 560.540 list”) encompass “provisioning and verification software for secure socket layer (ssl) certificates designated ear99 or classified under eccn 5d992.c, and services necessary for the operation of such software.” additional provisioning and verification software not subject to the ear may be included under 31 cfr § 560.540’s authorization for, in relevant part, software not subject to the ear that is exported, reexported, or provided, directly or indirectly, by a u.s. person located outside the united states, that is of a type described in the 31 cfr § 560.540 list, provided that it would be designated as ear99 or would meet the criteria for classification under the relevant eccn specified therein if it were subject to the ear. date updated: may 16, 2024 yes. accessories for use in conjunction with hardware specified in categories (1) and (5) of the 31 cfr § 560.540 list of services, software, and hardware incident to communications (the “31 cfr § 560.540 list), and peripherals for use in conjunction with hardware specified in category (5) of the same are authorized for export to iran under 31 cfr § 560.540. authorized accessories for mobile phones include headsets, cases, holsters, mounts, chargers, docks, display protectors, cables, adapters, and batteries. authorized accessories for computers include keyboards and mice; authorized peripherals for computers include consumer disk drives and other data storage devices. as set forth in a note to the 31 cfr § 560.540 list, for the purposes of the 31 cfr § 560.540 list, the term “consumer” refers to items that are: (1) generally available to the public by being sold, without restriction, from stock at retail selling points by means of any of the following: (a) over the counter transactions; (b) mail order transactions; (c) electronic transactions; or (d) telephone call transactions; and (2) designed for installation by the user without further substantial support by the supplier. date updated: may 16, 2024 no. while the exportation of certain accessories and peripherals specified in categories (1) and (5) of the 31 cfr § 560.540 list of services, software, and hardware incident to communications is authorized under 31 cfr § 560.540(a)(3), the exportation to iran of hardware parts or components is not. hardware that requires repair or replacement may be repaired or replaced outside iran pursuant to 31 cfr § 560.540(a)(5) or (a)(7). requests for specific licenses to export to iran parts or components, including replacement parts, will be considered on a case by case basis. date updated: may 16, 2024 no. to qualify for 31 cfr § 560.540, all individual software items in a bundled package must fall within one of the 31 cfr § 560.540 authorizations. if some software in a bundled package is authorized by 31 cfr § 560.540 but other software is not, the portion of the software falling outside the authorizations in 31 cfr § 560.540 would need to be otherwise exempt or authorized or would require a specific license for export. a bundle of software that included exclusively software authorized by 31 cfr § 560.540 could be exported. please see faqs 1087 1088 for guidance on certain types of cloud based software authorized by 31 cfr § 560.540. date updated: may 16, 2024 yes. fee based desktop publishing software and productivity software suites have been determined to fall within the scope of fee based software that enables services incident to the exchange of communications as described in 31 cfr § 560.540(a)(2), provided that the software meets the additional criteria in those paragraphs (e.g., for software subject to the ear, the software is designated ear99 or is classified by the u.s. department of commerce on the commerce control list, 15 cfr part 774, supplement no. 1 (“ccl”) under eccn 5d992.c). by contrast, enterprise management software has been determined not to fall within the scope of fee based software that enables services incident to the exchange of communications as described in 31 cfr § 560.540(a)(2). date updated: may 16, 2024 yes. section 560.540(a)(1) of the itsr authorizes the provision to iran of fee based cloud computing services that support the exchange of communications over the internet. in addition, paragraph (a)(2)(i) of 31 cfr § 560.540 authorizes the provision to iran of software that is incident to, or enables services incident to, the exchange of communications over the internet, and paragraph (a)(3) authorizes the provision to iran of software described in the 31 cfr § 560.540 list of services, software, and hardware incident to communications and services necessary for the operation of such software, in both cases provided that such software is designated ear99 or classified by the u.s. department of commerce on the ccl under eccn 5d992.c or, in the case of software that is not subject to the ear, would be designated ear99 if it were located in the united states or would meet the criteria for classification under eccn 5d992.c if it were subject to the ear. please see faqs 1087 1089 for additional guidance. date updated: may 16, 2024 “software required for effective consumer use” consists of software essential to the operation of the hardware listed in category (5) of the 31 cfr § 560.540 list of services, software, and hardware incident to communications, including, for example, drivers and patches. operating systems are separately authorized in category (5) of the 31 cfr § 560.540 list of services, software, and hardware incident to communications. in addition, effective june 16, 2024, ofac is amending the 31 cfr § 560.540 list of services, software, and hardware incident to communications to exclude laptops, tablets, and personal computing devices with an “adjusted peak performance” (“app”) exceeding 1 weighted teraflop (wt). after this change is effective, the only laptops, tablets, and other computing devices that may be exported to iran are ones with an app of 1 wt or less. date updated: may 16, 2024 satellite terminals and other equipment listed in category (4) of the 31 cfr § 560.540 list of services, software, and hardware incident to communications, shall be deemed “residential consumer” if the equipment is designated ear99 or classified under eccn 5a992.c, 5a991.b.2, or 5a991.b.4 or, in the case of equipment that is not subject to the ear, would be designated ear99 if it were located in the united states or would meet the criteria for classification under eccn 5a992.c, 5a991.b.2, or 5a991.b.4 if it were subject to the ear. date updated: may 16, 2024 user authentication services are services used to login or verify the identity of a user to a particular software or service, such as a user identification account often used to login to email, mobile app stores, or other activities authorized by 31 cfr § 560.540. yes. ofac's regulations under the trading with the enemy act (twea) and the international emergency economic powers act (ieepa) are based on presidential declarations of national emergency and preempt state insurance regulations. for more information on who must comply with ofac sanctions, see faq 11. date updated: november 13, 2024 insurance industry participants, including underwriters, brokers, and agents, are responsible for compliance with ofac sanctions throughout the lifecycle of their involvement with an insurance policy or other product or service. if a u.s. insurer receives an application for a policy from a person whose property and interests in property are blocked, such as a person on ofac’s specially designated nationals and blocked persons list (sdn list), ofac sanctions prohibit the insurer from issuing the policy, unless authorized or exempt, because doing so would provide a service (i.e., coverage) to the blocked person. if the blocked person sends a deposit to the insurer along with the application, the deposit must be blocked and reported to ofac within 10 business days, unless authorized or exempt. if an insurer receives an application from a party on one of ofac's other sanctions lists, please review the relevant prohibitions carefully before taking any action. for information on specific prohibitions, authorizations, or exemptions under a particular ofac sanctions program, please see the relevant ofac implementing regulations and the sanctions programs and country information page on ofac's website. date updated: november 13, 2024 if an existing policyholder or a named beneficiary is blocked by ofac and the provision of insurance services is not authorized or exempt, then the insurer is required to block the policy or relevant portion of the policy (e.g., the individual's policy under a group health insurance plan), report such blocking to ofac within 10 business days from the date the policy becomes blocked, place any future premium payments into a blocked interest bearing account at a u.s. financial institution, and, if applicable, seek an ofac specific license to make any payments under the policy. for guidance on how to request and apply for a specific license, please see 31 cfr § 501.801 and the license application page on ofac's website. in the case of sanctions that prohibit the provision of services to a particular jurisdiction, in most cases insurers should cease providing coverage to the relevant policyholder or named beneficiary located within the jurisdiction or with respect to the particular jurisdiction unless authorized by ofac or otherwise exempt. (for more information on travel related insurance coverage, see faq 104.) the insurance company may contact ofac with specific questions related to the policy. date updated: november 13, 2024 if an insurer has knowledge that a person covered under a group policy, for example a worker's compensation policy, is blocked pursuant to ofac sanctions, the insurer’s coverage of that person pursuant to the worker's compensation policy is blocked. if a claim is made under the blocked portion of the policy, the claim cannot be paid without authorization from ofac. any premium payments made by or on behalf of the blocked person should be blocked and placed in a blocked interest bearing account at a u.s. financial institution. alternatively, under some group policies, for example, a group travel policy issued to a company for their employees, an insurer may not know the names of those covered until a claim is filed. in this scenario, once a claim is filed by a blocked person, the insurer would then have reason to know of their requirement to block that individual’s coverage pursuant to the policy and any other property of that person, such as unearned premium payments. accordingly, the insurer would be required to block that individual’s coverage and place any payments made by or on behalf of the blocked person in a blocked interest bearing account at a u.s. financial institution. if a person covered under a group policy is on one of ofac's other sanctions lists or is located in a jurisdiction where ofac has imposed broad sanctions prohibitions, a different set of restrictions may apply. if a claim is filed by an individual on one of ofac's other sanctions lists, please see the relevant ofac implementing regulations and the sanctions programs and country information page on ofac's website for program specific information or contact ofac for additional guidance. date updated: november 13, 2024 ofac may impose civil penalties for sanctions violations based on strict liability, meaning that a person subject to u.s. jurisdiction may be held civilly liable even if such person did not have knowledge that it was engaging in a transaction that was prohibited under sanctions laws and regulations administered by ofac. ofac recommends insurers use a risk based approach to sanctions compliance consistent with ofac’s framework for compliance commitments. sanctions compliance programs, including screening frequency, will vary depending on the size and nature of an insurer’s business (including the particular risk factors of its products and customer base) and its relevant regulator. routine screening of all issued policies, policyholders, beneficiaries, and other relevant counterparties improves an insurer’s ability to comply with applicable ofac regulatory requirements. in addition to screening all relevant policyholders, beneficiaries, and counterparties to an insurance policy upon issuance (as described in faq 62), insurers should also consider screening against ofac sanctions at policy renewal, policy amendment (including, but not limited to, the addition of insured parties or beneficiaries to the policy), claim submission, claim payment, updates by ofac to its sanctions or sanctions lists, and at any other time when an insurer may be exposed to sanctions risk. ofac's sanctions programs and lists are updated frequently. screening only at the point of policy issuance may expose insurers to sanctions risk, for example, providing financial benefit to subsequently blocked persons. date updated: november 13, 2024 yes. the insurer may notify the policyholder that the policy is blocked without obtaining a specific license from ofac. date updated: november 13, 2024 the insurer may instruct the policyholder that in accordance with applicable u.s. laws and regulations administered by ofac, the insurer must place any subsequent premium payments into a blocked account. for funds, such as unearned premium payments, that are blocked in addition to the policy, an insurer may notify the policyholder that it has blocked funds in accordance with ofac's regulations. the insurer may identify to the policyholder the corresponding sanctions program pursuant to which the insured took action. any individual or entity whose funds or other property have been blocked due to ofac administered sanctions may apply for the release of the funds or other property via the license application page on ofac's website. for additional questions about ofac sanctions, you are encouraged to have the policyholder contact ofac directly. date updated: november 13, 2024 the best and most reliable approach for issuing policies with global risk coverage without violating u.s. sanctions law is to include a clause ensuring there is no coverage for risks that violate u.s. sanctions law. the exact wording of such clauses may vary depending on the type of policy (e.g., open marine cargo policies versus personal accident policies), but the legal effect of the clause should prevent the extension of a prohibited service (e.g., insurance coverage or indemnification) to sanctioned persons or jurisdictions, or for prohibited activities. insurers should also ensure such clauses do not create future economic benefit for a sanctioned person or jurisdiction by allowing for indemnification if or when relevant prohibitions no longer apply; there should be no coverage at the time of loss if, at that time, such coverage would have violated u.s. sanctions law. in the event of a loss occurring, and there is a question of whether a counterparty to the loss (e.g., the insured) was in violation of u.s. sanctions, the insurer should contact ofac directly. date updated: november 13, 2024 ofac recognizes that u.s. insurers and reinsurers often compete in international markets where non u.s. insurers are willing and able to issue global insurance policies without an exclusion that applies to u.s. sanctions, or where such clauses may be prohibited under local law. in cases where an exclusionary clause, as described in faq 102, is not commercially feasible, but the policy would involve the provision of coverage to a sanctioned person or jurisdiction, or prohibited activity, the insurer should apply to ofac for a specific license prior to issuing the global insurance policy. in determining whether to issue a license, ofac will review the facts and circumstances of each global insurance policy, including the market position of the applicant and the relevant risk frequency and risk severity, to assure that issuance of the policy will not undermine u.s. foreign policy goals. a separate license would typically be required for the insurer to pay claims that would be prohibited under u.s. sanctions arising under any authorized global insurance policy. for guidance on how to request and apply for a specific license, please see 31 cfr § 501.801 and the ofac license application page on ofac's website. date updated: november 13, 2024 yes, provided that the provision of global travel insurance and travel assistance relate to travel that is exempt or authorized. the authority granted to the president by the international emergency economic powers act (ieepa) does not include the authority to regulate or prohibit, directly or indirectly, transactions ordinarily incident to travel to or from any country. see 50 u.s.c. §1702 (b)(4). ofac sanctions programs issued pursuant to ieepa generally do not prohibit transactions ordinarily incident to travel to or from any country, including the issuance and provision of travel related insurance coverage related to exempt travel. although the trading with the enemy act (twea) does not exempt travel from the president’s authority, the twea based cuban assets control regulations (cacr) authorize travel in limited circumstances. travel related services, including travel insurance coverage, may only be provided in cuba pursuant to a valid general or specific ofac license. for example, if the traveler is a u.s. person traveling to cuba pursuant to a valid ofac authorization, a u.s. insurer may issue travel insurance to the traveler without obtaining a separate authorization. similarly, u.s. persons may issue or provide coverage for global health, life, or travel insurance policies for individuals ordinarily resident in a country outside of cuba who travel to or within cuba, pursuant to the general license at 31 c.f.r. § 515.580 of the cacr, as well as service such policies and pay claims arising from events that occurred while the individual was traveling in, or to or from, cuba. (for more information, see faq 774.) additionally, insurers should check ofac's list of specially designated nationals and blocked persons list (sdn list) and other sanctions lists to ensure that no prohibited services are rendered to persons or entities on those lists. date updated: november 13, 2024 the insurance company should contact ofac for additional guidance. ofac will work with you on the specifics of the case. although authorizing payments to blocked persons is rarely aligned with the u.s. foreign policy and national security objectives of ofac sanctions, circumstances may weigh in favor of authorizing payments to innocent third parties. ultimately, the insurance policy itself is a blocked contract, so all otherwise prohibited dealings related to the policy would require ofac authorization. ofac is aware that insurers at times receive claims from non sanctioned persons in non comprehensively sanctioned jurisdictions for losses caused by individuals or entities on ofac's list of specially designated nationals and blocked persons (sdn list). for example, a u.s. insurance company may receive a claim request for death, injury, or property damage caused by a specially designated global terrorist. under this scenario, the mere fact that a blocked person has caused the loss does not in and of itself create a blocked interest in the policy or any claim or payment under the policy, nor does it constitute a dealing involving the blocked person. therefore, u.s. insurers may pay such claims to non sanctioned recipients, provided the payment is not prohibited by other ofac sanctions regulations (e.g., the recipient resides in a sanctioned jurisdiction and no other authorization applies). this guidance does not apply to scenarios in which a person is seeking reimbursement for payments that were made or will be made to a blocked person. ofac encourages insurers who receive claims for losses caused by a blocked person to conduct necessary due diligence to ensure there are no other potential sanctions risks associated with making or facilitating related claim payments (e.g., the involvement of a blocked financial institution). ofac is aware that some insurance policies may include subrogation rights, which provide a legal right for the insurer to pursue reimbursement from the liable third party for payment of the claim. the mere existence of such rights in a situation involving a loss caused by a blocked person does not create an interest of the blocked person in the policy or claims made under the policy. however, claims paid as described above and all other obligations of the insurer on behalf of the insured (or their non sanctioned beneficiaries) under a given policy must not be contingent on the successful pursuit of a subrogated claim by the insurer against a blocked person. ofac does not require u.s. persons to obtain a specific license to initiate legal proceedings against a blocked person. for example, a u.s. attorney, insurer, or other service provider initiating arbitral proceedings against a specially designated global terrorist does not require a specific license. in most ofac programs, however, a license would generally be required to enter a settlement agreement with a blocked person, to accept payment from a blocked person, or to enforce an order or award transferring blocked property. please see the relevant ofac implementing regulations and the sanctions programs and country information page on ofac's website for further program specific information. for guidance on how to request and apply for a specific license, please see 31 cfr § 501.801 and the license application page on ofac's website. this depends on the program. if you have a payment involving an embassy in a targeted country, please contact ofac compliance's hotline for directions. there is no legal or regulatory requirement to use software or to scan. there is a requirement, however, not to violate the law by doing business with a target or failing to block property. ofac realizes that financial institutions use software that does not always provide an instantaneous response and may require some analysis to determine if a customer is indeed on ofac's specially designated nationals list (or any of ofac's other sanctions lists). the important thing is not to conclude transactions before the analysis is completed. there is no minimum or maximum amount subject to the regulations. every transaction that a u.s. financial institution engages in is subject to ofac regulations. if a bank knows or has reason to know that a target is party to a transaction, the bank's processing of the transaction would be unlawful. if you have confirmed with ofac that you have a "good hit" on the sdn list or one of ofac's other sanctions lists, there is no reason not to explain that to the customer. the customer can contact ofac directly for further information. donations to charitable institutions must be handled as any other financial transaction. the donating bank or institution should crosscheck the recipient names against ofac's sanctions lists and assure that the donations are in compliance with ofac sanctions programs. yes, u.s. financial institutions are authorized to open correspondent accounts for, and process funds transfer to or on behalf of iraqi financial institutions. "property," as defined in ofac regulations, includes most products that financial institutions offer to their clients. "property interest," as defined by ofac, includes any interest whatsoever, direct or indirect, present, future or contingent. given these definitions and as a matter of sound banking practice, it is prudent for financial institutions to screen account beneficiaries upon account opening, while updating account information, when performing periodic screening and, most definitely, upon disbursing funds. where there is a property interest of a sanctions target under a blocking program, the property must be blocked. beneficiaries include, but are not limited to, trustees, children, spouses, non spouses, entities and powers of attorney. a wire transfer in which an entity has an interest is blocked property if the entity is 50% or more owned by a person whose property and interests in property are blocked. this is true even in instances where such a transaction is passing through a u.s. bank that (1) is operating solely as an intermediary, (2) does not have any direct relationship with the entity (e.g., the entity is a non account party), and (3) does not know or have reason to know the entity’s ownership or other information demonstrating the blocked status of the entity’s property. in instances where all three conditions are met, notwithstanding the blocked status of the wire transfer, ofac would not expect the bank to research the non account parties listed in the wire transfer that do not appear on the sdn list and, accordingly, would not pursue an enforcement action against the bank for having processed such a transaction. if a bank handling a wire transfer currently has information in its possession leading the bank to know or have reason to know that a particular individual or entity involved with or referenced in the wire transfer is subject to blocking, then the bank will be held responsible if it does not take appropriate steps to ensure that the wire transfer is blocked. ofac expects banks to conduct due diligence on their own direct customers (including, for example, their ownership structure) to confirm that those customers are not persons whose property and interests in property are blocked. with regard to other types of transactions where a bank is acting solely as an intermediary and fails to block transactions involving a sanctions target, ofac will consider the totality of the circumstances surrounding the bank’s processing of the transaction, including the factors listed above, to determine what, if any, enforcement action to take against the bank. ofac encourages firms operating in the securities industry, including securities intermediaries and custodians, to implement measures that mitigate the risk of providing services to, or dealing in property in which there is an ownership or other interest of, parties subject to u.s. sanctions. such measures should be tailored to and commensurate with the sanctions risk posed by a firm’s business activities. best practices include: making customers aware of the firm’s u.s. sanctions compliance obligations and having customers agree in writing not to use their account(s) with the firm in a manner that could cause a violation of ofac sanctions. sanctions may be implicated when the united states is the jurisdiction of issuance or custody of an underlying security or when a u.s. person acts as a custodian or other service provider. conducting due diligence, including through the use of questionnaires and certifications, to identify customers who do business in or with countries or persons subject to u.s. sanctions. such customers may warrant enhanced due diligence because of an increased risk that they will use their accounts to hold assets or conduct transactions for third parties subject to sanctions. imposing restrictions and heightened due diligence requirements on the use of certain products or services by customers who are judged to present a high risk from an ofac sanctions perspective. restrictions might include limitations on the use of omnibus accounts, where a lack of transparency can be exploited in order to circumvent ofac regulations. making efforts to understand the nature and purpose of non proprietary accounts, including requiring information regarding third parties whose assets may be held in the accounts. red flags may arise relating to geographic areas or the nesting of third party assets. monitoring accounts to detect unusual or suspicious activity   for example, unexplained significant changes in the value, volume, and types of assets within an account. these types of changes may indicate that a customer is facilitating new business for third parties that has not been vetted for possible sanctions implications. digital currency includes sovereign cryptocurrency, virtual currency (non fiat), and a digital representation of fiat currency. a digital currency wallet is a software application (or other mechanism) that provides a means for holding, storing, and transferring digital currency. a wallet holds the user's digital currency addresses, which allow the user to receive digital currency, and private keys, which allow the user to transfer digital currency. the wallet also maintains the user’s digital currency balance. a wallet provider is a person (individual or entity) that provides the software to create and manage wallets, which users can download. a hosted wallet provider is a business that creates and stores a digital currency wallet on behalf of a customer. most hosted wallets also offer exchange and payments services to facilitate participation in a digital currency system by users. a digital currency address is an alphanumeric identifier that represents a potential destination for a digital currency transfer. a digital currency address is associated with a digital currency wallet. virtual currency is a digital representation of value that functions as (i) a medium of exchange; (ii) a unit of account; and/or (iii) a store of value; and is neither issued nor guaranteed by any jurisdiction. yes, the obligations are the same. u.s. persons (and persons otherwise subject to ofac jurisdiction) must ensure that they block the property and interests in property of persons named on ofac’s sdn list or any entity owned in the aggregate, directly or indirectly, 50 percent or more by one or more blocked persons, and that they do not engage in trade or other transactions with such persons. as a general matter, u.s. persons and persons otherwise subject to ofac jurisdiction, including firms that facilitate or engage in online commerce or process transactions using digital currency, are responsible for ensuring that they do not engage in unauthorized transactions prohibited by ofac sanctions, such as dealings with blocked persons or property, or engaging in prohibited trade or investment related transactions. prohibited transactions include transactions that evade or avoid, have the purpose of evading or avoiding, cause a violation of, or attempt to violate prohibitions imposed by ofac under various sanctions authorities. additionally, persons that provide financial, material, or technological support for or to a designated person may be designated by ofac under the relevant sanctions authority. persons including technology companies; administrators, exchangers, and users of digital currencies; and other payment processors should develop a tailored, risk based compliance program, which generally should include sanctions list screening and other appropriate measures. an adequate compliance solution will depend on a variety of factors, including the type of business involved. there is no single compliance program or solution suitable for every circumstance. the united states’ whole of government strategies to combat global threats such as terrorism, transnational organized crime, malicious cyber activity, narcotics trafficking, weapons of mass destruction (wmd) proliferation, and human rights abuses include targeting an array of activities, including the use of digital currencies or other emerging payment systems to conduct proscribed financial transactions and evade u.s. sanctions. the strategies draw from a broad range of tools and authorities to respond to the growing and evolving threat posed by malicious actors using new payment mechanisms. ofac will use sanctions in the fight against criminal and other malicious actors abusing digital currencies and emerging payment systems as a complement to existing tools, including diplomatic outreach and law enforcement authorities. to strengthen our efforts to combat the illicit use of digital currency transactions under our existing authorities, ofac may include as identifiers on the sdn list specific digital currency addresses associated with blocked persons. ofac may add digital currency addresses to the sdn list to alert the public of specific digital currency identifiers associated with a blocked person. ofac’s digital currency address listings are not likely to be exhaustive. parties who identify digital currency identifiers or wallets that they believe are owned by, or otherwise associated with, an sdn and hold such property should take the necessary steps to block the relevant digital currency and file a report with ofac that includes information about the wallet’s or address’s ownership, and any other relevant details. digital currency addresses listed on the sdn list include their unique alphanumeric identifier (up to 256 characters) and identify the digital currency to which the address corresponds (e.g., bitcoin (xbt), ethereum (eth), litecoin (ltc), neo (neo), dash (dash), ripple (xrp), iota (miota), monero (xmr), and petro (ptr)). each digital currency address listed on the sdn list will have its own field: the structure will always begin with “digital currency address”, followed by a dash and the digital currency’s symbol (e.g., “digital currency address   xbt”, “digital currency address   eth”). this information is followed by the unique alphanumeric identifier of the specific address. yes, it is possible to query for digital currency addresses using ofac’s sanctions list search tool. users of the tool may search for digital currency addresses by inputting the hash value into the "id #" field and then clicking "search." the id # field does not use fuzzy logic, so only exact matches will be returned when searching for digital currency addresses with the sanctions list search tool. alternatively, ofac’s sdn list and other ofac sanctions lists are available in a number of file formats and downloads, which can be used to identify and screen for listed digital currency addresses. additional information on ofac's list file formats and downloads, can be accessed by visiting the faq topic titled "information on list file formats and downloads." once a u.s. person determines that they hold virtual currency that is required to be blocked pursuant to ofac's regulations, the u.s. person must deny all parties access to that virtual currency, ensure that they comply with ofac regulations related to the holding and reporting of blocked assets, and implement controls that align with a risk based approach. (see 31 c.f.r. 501.603 for reporting requirements related to blocked and unblocked property.) for example, a u.s. virtual currency company that maintains multiple virtual currency wallets in which a blocked person has an interest may choose to block each virtual currency wallet or opt to consolidate wallets that contain blocked virtual currency (similar to an omnibus account). each of these solutions is consistent with ofac requirements for holding blocked property, so long as there are controls that will allow the virtual currency to be unblocked and returned to its owner only pursuant to an ofac authorization or when the legal prohibition requiring the blocking of the virtual currency ceases to apply. for those with questions about blocking funds related to traditional funds transfers, see faq 32. u.s. persons are not obligated to convert the blocked virtual currency into traditional fiat currency (e.g., u.s. dollars), and are not required to hold such blocked property in an interest bearing account. blocked virtual currency must be reported to ofac within 10 business days, and thereafter on an annual basis, so long as the virtual currency remains blocked. questions about whether a transaction should be blocked may be directed to the ofac compliance hotline. owners of blocked virtual currency may also contact ofac regarding the treatment of their virtual currency pursuant to this guidance. an institution may notify its customer that it has blocked digital currency pursuant to ofac regulations. the customer has the right to apply for the unblocking and release of the digital currency. to apply online to have the virtual currency released, please go to ofac’s online application page. as part of its enforcement efforts, ofac publishes a list of individuals and companies owned or controlled by, or acting for or on behalf of, targeted countries. it also lists individuals, groups, and entities, such as terrorists and narcotics traffickers designated under programs that are not country specific. collectively, such individuals and companies are called "specially designated nationals" or "sdns." their assets are blocked and u.s. persons are generally prohibited from dealing with them. the best way to get the sdn list is from ofac's website. the list is disseminated in a number of different formats, including xml and fixed field/delimited files that can be integrated into databases. the sdn list is frequently updated. there is no predetermined timetable, but rather names are added or removed as necessary and appropriate. all changes for the current calendar year are cumulatively available in the sdn list pdf file. the entire list may also be browsed using ofac's sanctions list search tool​. cumulative changes for prior years back to 1994 are also available in ascii format on the archive of changes to the sdn list page. the same link will take you to a *.pdf version of the file for calendar years back to 2001. date updated: may 9, 2024 if you have checked a name manually or by using software and find a match, you should do a little more research. is it an exact name match, or very close? is your customer located in the same general area as the sdn or another entry on one of ofac's sanctions lists? if not, it may be a "false hit." if there are many similarities, contact ofac's hotline for verification. sdns are individuals and entities located throughout the world that are blocked pursuant to the various sanctions programs administered by ofac. sdns can be front companies, parastatal entities, or individuals determined to be owned or controlled by, or acting for or on behalf of, targeted countries or groups. they also can be specially identified individuals such as terrorists or narcotics traffickers. u.s. persons are prohibited from engaging in any transactions with sdns and must block any property in their possession or under their control in which an sdn has an interest. sdns are designated primarily under the statutory authority of the trading with the enemy act, the international emergency economic powers act, the anti terrorism and effective death penalty act and the foreign narcotics kingpin designation act. ofac also administers several other sanctions lists including the foreign sanctions evaders (fse) list and the sectoral sanctions identifications (ssi) list. u.s. persons are not required to block the property of individuals and entities on these fse and ssi lists (unless the targets are also on the sdn list), but other prohibitions and investment restrictions apply. the bureau of industry and security ("bis") of the u.s. department of commerce maintains separate lists for the purposes of the programs that it administers (including the denied persons list and the entity list). the denied persons list consists of individuals and companies that have been denied export and reexport privileges by bis. the entity list consists of foreign end users who pose an unacceptable risk of diverting u.s. exports and the technology they contain to alternate destinations for the development of weapons of mass destruction. accordingly, u.s. exports to those entities may require a license. authority for the denied persons list and the entity list can be found in title 15, part 764, supplement no. 2 and title 15, part 744, supplement no.4 of the u.s. code of federal regulations, respectively. the foreign policy objectives and legal requirements of ofac's lists are significantly different from those of the bis lists. the unique goals of the ofac and bis programs preclude the creation of a combined ofac and bis list. for historical information about names that have been added to, updated, or removed from ofac’s specially designated nationals list or one of ofac’s other sanctions lists, please see our archive of changes page. designation, removal, and update information is organized chronologically by list and by year. in addition, all changes to ofac’s lists are announced on ofac’s recent actions pages and ofac maintains all of its recent actions records going back to 2001. users can now search the entire collection of recent actions notices by using the search field at the top right of the recent actions page. consistent with ofac regulations, persons may seek to be removed from the specially designated nationals and blocked persons list or other ofac sanctions lists. for information concerning the process for seeking such removal, please refer to ofac’s filing a petition for removal from an ofac list webpage, which references the delisting petition procedures set forth at 31 c.f.r. § 501.807. the procedures set forth at 31 c.f.r. § 501.807 are available to any person seeking to be removed from any ofac list, regardless of whether that person is a “blocked person” within the meaning of that rule. yes, ofac does maintain its own web based search service. it can be accessed by clicking here. in addition to returning results that are exact matches (when the match threshold slider bar is set to 100%), sanctions list search can also provide a broader set of results using fuzzy logic. this logic uses character and string matching as well as phonetic matching. only the name field of sanctions list search invokes fuzzy logic when the tool is run. the other fields on the tool use character matching logic. for more information on what a true sanctions list match is, see faq 5. for more information on the slider bar, see faq 247. the score field indicates the similarity between the name entered and resulting matches on one of ofac's sanctions lists. it is calculated using two matching logic algorithms: one based upon phonetics, and a second based upon the similarity of the characters in the two strings. the slider bar defaults to a score of 100, which indicates an exact match. lower scores indicate potential matches. the minimum name score field limits the number of names returned by the search. a value of 100 will return only names that exactly match the characters entered into the name field. a value of 50 will return all names that are deemed to be 50% similar based upon the matching logic of the search tool. by lowering the match threshold the system will return a broader result set. sanctions list search will first look for potential matches based on the first letter of input search terms and by checking for matches at least 50% or more similar based on edit distance (edit distance is the minimum number of operations required to transform the input string of characters into the string that it is being compared to on the list). sanctions list search then uses two matching logic algorithms, and two matching logic techniques to calculate the score. the two algorithms are jaro winkler, a string difference algorithm, and soundex, a phonetic algorithm. the first technique involves using the jaro winkler algorithm to compare the entire name string entered against full name strings of potential match entries on ofac's sanctions lists. the second technique involves splitting the name string entered into multiple name parts (for example, john doe would be split into two name parts). each name part is then compared to name parts on all of ofac's sanctions lists using the jaro winkler and soundex algorithms. the search calculates a score for each name part entered, and a composite score for all name parts entered. sanctions list search uses both techniques each time the search is run and returns the higher of the two scores in the score column. ofac cannot make such a recommendation because each search has its own unique set of facts surrounding it. users of sanctions list search must make their own match threshold determinations based upon their own internal risk assessments and established compliance practices. only the name field influences the score. only the name field uses the fuzzy searching logic. sanctions list search’s id field uses exact character matching to provide users with a result. in order to receive the broadest number of results, users should conduct id field searches both with and without any non alphanumeric characters. sanctions list search is a free tool provided by ofac to assist the public in complying with sanctions programs. it is intended to be used by individual users that are looking for potential matches on ofac's sanctions lists. it should not be utilized by automated systems that are configured to continually run searches through the tool. for a copy of files that can be easily interpreted by automated systems and software programs, please see the list of xml, csv, pip, del, and ff files on the specially designated nationals (sdn) and consolidated sanctions list pages. sanctions list search will look for and return potential matches from the specially designated nationals (sdn) and consolidated sanctions lists. the user can look under the list column to see which list(s) a potential match is on. please see the consolidated list page for more detailed information on what is included in the consolidated list. ofac's sanctions list search is updated frequently and always contains the latest versions of ofac's sanctions lists. like ofac's other list related publications, sanctions list search does not contain historical information. names that have been removed from ofac's specially designated nationals (sdn) or consolidated lists are not included in sanctions list search. likewise, targets that have been updated only appear with their most up to date entry information. for historical information about a target on one of ofac's sanctions lists, please see our archive page. ofac’s sanctions list search application has been available to the public since 2011. over the years the tool’s userbase grew to a point where the original infrastructure and design for the application could not keep up with demand. in late 2020, ofac took steps to increase the tool’s efficiency to improve its performance. the primary update was the addition of a new algorithm to the tool’s fuzzy logic search functionality. the upgraded application still utilizes the original soundex and jaro winkler algorithms in addition to the new algorithm (see this link for more information on the upgrade). as a result of this update, users may see differences in search results when compared to an earlier version of the tool. if users had previously tested sanctions list search in order to determine how the tool could assist in their due diligence, it is recommended that such testing be repeated on the current version of the tool. ofac may continue to periodically update and/or make changes to the tool. while ofac has no immediate plans to further upgrade the application’s fuzzy logic functionality users should watch ofac’s website for information about future upgrades. as such, users are to advised that they are using a free service at their own risk, and that best practice dictates each user performs baseline checks to see how updates/changes to the tool may affect search results. for more information regarding how the tool works and calculates scores, please refer to faqs 246, 247 and 249. for more information on who may use the tool, please see faq 287. ofac has long maintained such a list. the file is available on ofac's sdn page under the link "sdn list sorted by country." it is important to understand that many sdn individuals and entities may operate in countries other than those in which they are based. the relevant regulations prohibit transactions with and/or block the property of sdns wherever they are located yes. ofac's sdn list is available in xml, fixed field and delimited formats that can be imported into a variety of software programs. ofac publishes the sdn data in a comma separated values format (csv). this format is recognized by excel and other spreadsheet programs and can be imported into spreadsheet format by simply opening the file in your default spreadsheet application. the delimiter varies based upon the file type. files that end in .csv have a comma delimiter. files that end in .ff have a fixed width delimiter. all of ofac's delimited files are described in ofac's sdn data file specification guide and non sdn data specification guide. in addition, ofac published a tutorial on how to construct a basic relational database using ofac’s delimited list files ofac cannot give specific advice on how to design an automated system for downloading its sanctions list data. many institutions solve this problem by setting up a scheduled download of the sdn list and other sanctions lists. these firms conduct their own risk assessments and decide how often they need to download the lists in order to comply with u.s. law. institutions should be aware that ofac is updating its sanctions lists at an ever increasing pace. if an institution has set up a periodic download schedule, the institution should occasionally reevaluate that schedule to ensure that it remains an effective risk mitigation technique the sdn list and ofac's non sdn consolidated lists are comprehensive. database administrators can overwrite any old data in their systems with the latest versions of the list's data files, thus ensuring that their database is current no. ofac records changes to the sdn and other sanctions lists in human readable form in the recent actions section of its website. an archive of changes files found on this page. database administrators interested in refreshing their databases with new sdn and other sanctions list data should use the comprehensive data files available on ofac's website and completely refresh the list. ofac has rigorous quality control procedures in place to ensure that all sanctions list data are current and accurate when they are released (including all of its human readable list formats [in pdf and text]). all of the sanctions list information is downloaded and checked by ofac personnel using the same interface that any member of the public might employ. a number of local issues can impact a user’s ability to download current information; many of these issues are associated with caching done by a user’s browser or by the firewall/security systems that protect a specific enterprise. ofac can only offer technical support when it comes to ofac provided data and ofac managed systems (like the ofac website). if you continue to have difficulty downloading the latest sdn information, ofac recommends that you contact your internal is/it support and request their assistance in resolving a caching issue. ofac maintains other sanctions lists in addition to its specially designated nationals (sdn) list. the names on these lists may also appear on the sdn list when such targets have a blocking provision associated with them. however, when the treatment of sanctions targets is unique and stops short of the blocking treatment, these names will appear on the one of ofac's non sdn lists. links to the human readable versions of these lists can be found here. data versions of these lists are now being disseminated in a single, consolidated data file (known as the consolidated sanctions list). these data files can be located on ofac's consolidated sanctions list (non sdn list) page. throughout ofac’s sanctions list data products, such as the xml file, each entry is assigned a unique identification number (uid) as a means to help make sorting and filtering through information easier. in ofac’s files, a uid is a numeric string that is associated with a single entry within a given system. ofac's sanctions list data products are designed to be integrated into a relational database. as such, uids (which are typically considered “primary” or “foreign” keys) are assigned to all primary entries on the sanctions list(s) and are used to link the primary entry to its addresses, aliases, and other identifiers. occasionally, ofac may only provide a list of uids in a recent actions notice when a clerical update is made to the sanctions list(s). the purpose of such is to underscore the fact that these types of actions are solely administrative and that there have been no new entries added to ofac's list(s). for more information regarding the data specification and formatting of ofac's files or on the use of uids within ofac's files, please visit the following links: a "weak aka" is a term for a relatively broad or generic alias that may generate a large volume of false hits when such names are run through a computer based screening system. ofac includes these akas because, based on information available to it, the sanctions targets refer to themselves, or are referred to, by these names. as a result, these akas may be useful for identification purposes, particularly in confirming a possible "hit" or "match" triggered by other identifier information. realizing, however, the large number of false hits that these names may generate, ofac qualitatively distinguishes them from other akas by designating them as weak. ofac has instituted procedures that attempt to make this qualitative review of aliases as objective as possible. before issuing this updated guidance, ofac conducted a review of all aliases on the specially designated nationals (sdn) list. each sdn alias was run through a computer program that evaluated the potential of an alias to produce false positives in an automated screening environment. names were evaluated using the following criteria: aliases that met one or more of the above criteria were flagged for human review. ofac subject matter experts then reviewed each of the automated recommendations and made final decisions on the flagging of each alias. ofac intends to use these procedures to evaluate all new aliases added to its sanctions lists. weak akas appear differently depending on which file format of the sanctions list is being utilized. in the txt and pdf versions of the specially designated nationals (sdn) or other sanctions lists, weak akas are encapsulated in double quotes within the aka listing: allane, hacene (a.k.a. abdelhay, al sheikh; a.k.a. ahcene, cheib; a.k.a. "abu al foutouh"; a.k.a. "boulahia"; a.k.a. "hassan the old"); dob 17 jan 1941; pob el menea, algeria (individual) [sdgt] in the del, ff, pip, and csv file formats, weak akas are listed in the remarks field (found at the end of the record) of the primary name file. in these formats, weak akas are bracketed by quotation marks. please see the data specification documents for more information on the sdn and consolidated lists. sdn list data specifications: https://ofac.treasury.gov/system/files/126/dat_spec.txt consolidated list data specifications: https://www.treasury.gov/ofac/downloads/consolidated/cons_dat_spec.txt 8219 @"allane, hacene"@"individual"@"sdgt"@ 0  @ 0  @ 0  @ 0  @ 0  @ 0 @ 0  @"dob 17 jan 1941; pob el menea, algeria; a.k.a. 'abu al foutouh'; a.k.a. 'boulahia'; a.k.a. 'hassan the old'." in the legacy xml version of ofac's sanctions lists, there is a type element for each aka. the type can either be 'weak' or 'strong' (see the xml sdn and consolidated list schemas (xsd files) at: https://ofac.treasury.gov/system/files/126/sdn.xsd and https://www.treasury.gov/ofac/downloads/consolidated/consolidated.xsd for more information). in the advanced xml list standard, alias quality is represented as a boolean attribute of the alias element. this attribute, "lowquality" can be flagged as either "true" or "false." if the lowquality attribute is false then the alias is strong. if the lowquality attribute is true then the alias is weak. for more information on the advanced xml standard, please visit ofac’s sdn data formats page at https://ofac.treasury.gov/specially designated nationals list data formats data schemas. ofac’s regulations do not explicitly require any specific screening regime. financial institutions and others must make screening choices based on their circumstances and compliance approach. as a general matter, though, ofac does not expect that persons will screen for weak akas, but expects that such akas may be used to help determine whether a “hit” arising from other information is accurate a person who processes an unauthorized transaction involving a sanctions list entry has violated u.s. law and may be subject to an enforcement action. generally speaking, however, if (i) the only sanctions reference in the transaction is a weak aka, (ii) the person involved in the processing had no other reason to know that the transaction involved an entry on one of ofac's sanctions lists or was otherwise in violation of u.s. law, and (iii) the person maintains a rigorous risk based compliance program, ofac will not issue a civil penalty against an individual or entity for processing such a transaction. yes. in general, any transaction or dealing by a u.s. person in any property or interests in property of persons designated as sdgts under or otherwise blocked pursuant to e.o. 13224 is prohibited. such property includes artwork and other information and information materials. certain exemptions available under the international emergency economic powers act (ieepa) relating to personal communications, humanitarian donations, information or informational materials, and travel do not apply to transactions with sdgts or persons otherwise blocked pursuant to e.o. 13224. for purposes of these prohibitions, u.s. persons include all u.s. citizens and permanent resident aliens regardless of where they are located, all persons and entities within the united states, and all u.s. incorporated entities and their foreign branches. u.s. persons who engage in prohibited transactions with sdgts or with persons otherwise blocked pursuant to e.o. 13224 may be subject to civil or criminal penalties. non u.s. persons who engage in prohibited transactions or dealings subject to u.s. jurisdiction with sdgts or with persons otherwise blocked pursuant to e.o. 13224 may be subject to civil or criminal penalties, and may also risk being sanctioned by ofac. foreign financial institutions may also be subject to correspondent and payable through account sanctions if they knowingly facilitate significant transactions for or on behalf of an sdgt. u.s. persons (including galleries, museums, private art collectors, auction companies, and others that conduct or facilitate transactions involving artwork) must ensure that they do not engage in transactions with persons listed as specially designated global terrorists (sdgts) on ofac’s sdn list or with persons otherwise blocked pursuant to e.o. 13224, unless authorized by ofac. u.s. persons should develop a tailored, risk based compliance program, which may include sanctions list screening or other appropriate measures. an adequate compliance solution will depend on a variety of factors, including the type of business involved, and there is no single compliance program or solution suitable for every circumstance. for purposes of these requirements, u.s. persons include all u.s. citizens and permanent resident aliens regardless of where they are located, all persons and entities within the united states, and all u.s. incorporated entities and their foreign branches. u.s. persons who engage in prohibited transactions may be subject to civil or criminal penalties. non u.s. persons who engage in prohibited transactions subject to u.s. jurisdiction with sdgts or persons otherwise blocked pursuant to e.o. 13224 may be subject to civil or criminal penalties, and also risk being sanctioned by ofac. foreign financial institutions may be subject to correspondent and payable through account sanctions if they knowingly facilitate significant transactions for or on behalf of a sdgt. the names of, and identifying information for, all individuals and entities included on ofac’s sanctions lists may be located via ofac’s free, online search engine at the following url: http://sanctionssearch.ofac.treas.gov. in addition, ofac offers text and pdf versions of these lists for manual review and a number of data file versions of its lists that are designed to facilitate automated screening. depending on the scale, sophistication, and risk profile of your business, you may consider one of the numerous commercially available screening software packages. once it has been determined that you or your institution is holding or is in possession of artwork that is the property of an sdgt or a person otherwise blocked pursuant to e.o. 13224, or in which such a person has an interest, you or your institution must ensure that access to that artwork is denied to the sdgt or blocked person and that your institution complies with ofac regulations related to blocked assets, including restrictions on the sale or transfer of the artwork to third parties. pursuant to 31 cfr section 501.603, blocked property, physical or financial, must be reported to ofac within 10 business days; u.s. persons must also comply with all other applicable reporting obligations. see faqs 49 and 50. questions about whether a transaction should be blocked should be directed to the ofac compliance hotline. gl 21b authorizes all activities otherwise prohibited by the global terrorism sanctions regulations (gtsr), 31 cfr part 594, that are ordinarily incident and necessary to the limited safety and environmental activities described in paragraph (a) of gl 21b involving certain blocked persons and vessels through 12:01 a.m. eastern daylight time, april 13, 2023. gl 21b does not authorize the offloading of any cargo onboard any of the blocked vessels listed in gl 21b, and any payment of claims to or for the benefit of any blocked persons or vessels would require a specific license from ofac. after the expiration of gl 21b, u.s. persons will be prohibited from engaging in any transactions with the blocked persons or vessels listed in gl 21b, unless otherwise exempt or authorized by ofac. u.s. persons unable to conclude transactions authorized by gl 21b before 12:01 a.m. eastern daylight time, april 13, 2023, are encouraged to seek guidance from ofac. non u.s. persons, including foreign financial institutions, generally do not risk exposure to sanctions for engaging in transactions with blocked persons where those transactions would not require a specific license if engaged in by a u.s. person. non u.s. persons unable to conclude transactions authorized by gl 21b before 12:01 a.m. eastern daylight time, april 13, 2023, are encouraged to seek guidance from ofac. date updated: january 12, 2023 following the designation of ansarallah (commonly referred to as "the houthis") under e.o. 13224, as amended, on february 16, 2024, ofac will add the group to the list of specially designated nationals and blocked persons (sdn list) as a specially designated global terrorist. as a result of the designation, transactions by u.s. persons or within (or transiting) the united states involving ansarallah will be blocked, unless they are otherwise authorized. note that yemen is not subject to jurisdiction based sanctions, nor will it become subject to jurisdiction based sanctions on february 16, 2024. in order to ensure that the humanitarian aid community and commercial actors can continue providing humanitarian aid and commercial goods in yemen, on january 17, 2024, ofac issued five general licenses (gls) to authorize certain categories of transactions, including: (1) agriculture, medicine, and medical devices; (2) telecommunications mail, and certain internet communications; (3) personal remittances; (4) refined petroleum products (including fuel); and (5) operation and use of ports and airports for import of goods. these gls will take effect on february 16, 2024, the same date on which the designation will take effect. the above gls supplement broad preexisting humanitarian gls in the global terrorism sanctions regulations (gtsr) covering the united states government, certain international organizations and entities, nongovernmental organizations (ngos), and for the provision of food, other agricultural commodities, medicine, and medical devices. for more information on these baseline humanitarian general licenses, please consult ofac's supplemental guidance for the provision of humanitarian assistance, and faqs 1105, 1106, 1107, and 1108. other humanitarian related guidance documents are available in the ngo section of ofac's information for industry groups webpage. ofac also intends to issue further public guidance specifically related to the ansarallah designation on or before february 16, 2024. non u.s. persons may engage in or facilitate transactions for which a u.s. person would not require a specific license pursuant to the gtsr without exposure to sanctions under the gtsr or e.o. 13224, as amended. ofac prioritizes specific license applications and requests for guidance related to humanitarian activity. ofac encourages anyone with questions to reach out to the ofac compliance hotline. wind down transactions: gl 27 authorizes all transactions prohibited by the gtsr that are ordinarily incident and necessary to the wind down of any transaction involving fly baghdad through 12:01 a.m. eastern daylight time, march 22, 2024, provided that any payment to fly baghdad must be made into a blocked account in accordance with the gtsr. this includes transactions necessary to wind down leases, refueling contracts, and other commercial agreements with fly baghdad or to repossess aircraft leased to fly baghdad. u.s. persons are not required to seek a license from ofac to initiate legal proceedings against fly baghdad, including lawsuits for the repossession of aircraft from fly baghdad, although a specific license is required to enter into a settlement or enforce an order transferring property blocked pursuant to the gtsr. civil aviation safety transactions: gl 27 authorizes all transactions prohibited by the gtsr that are ordinarily incident and necessary to the provision, exportation, or re exportation of goods, technology, or services to ensure the safety of civil aviation involving fly baghdad through 12:01 a.m. eastern daylight time, march 22, 2024, provided that the goods, technology, or services are for use on aircraft operated solely for civil aviation purposes. this includes transactions necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft crew and passengers and the safe operation of aircraft owned or operated by fly baghdad and used solely for civil aviation purposes, including maintenance, insurance, and ground services ordinarily incident and necessary to such activities. u.s. and non u.s. persons may need to obtain a license from the department of commerce’s bureau of industry and security (bis) for the export or reexport or certain items subject to the export administration regulations (ear) involving fly baghdad or other specially designated global terrorists (sdgts). for further guidance regarding the exportation or re exportation of items involving sdgts, please contact bis at foreign.policy@bis.doc.gov. gl 2 authorizes the wind down of transactions involving the nicaraguan national police (nnp), including the processing of salary payments from the nnp to its employees, so long as no other blocked persons are involved in the transaction, through 12:01 a.m. eastern daylight time, may 6, 2020. this authorization also covers wind down transactions involving any entity in which nnp owns, directly or indirectly, a 50 percent or greater interest. ofac’s designation of the nnp is directed at the nnp as an institution for the violent abuses carried out against the people of nicaragua. the blocking sanctions apply to the nnp, as well as to the three named nnp commissioners who were designated on the same day, and not to individual, non designated nnp police officers nicaragua gl 3authorizes u.s. persons to engage in transactions prohibited by the nicaragua sanctions regulations, 31 cfr part 582 (the nsr), that are ordinarily incident and necessary to the wind down of transactions involving empresa nicaraguense de minas (eniminas), or any entity in which eniminas owns, directly or indirectly, a 50 percent or greater interest (collectively, “blocked eniminas entities”), through 12:01 a.m. eastern daylight time, july 18, 2022, provided that any payment to a blocked person must be made into a blocked account in accordance with the nsr. after the expiration of this authorization, unless exempt or authorized by the office of foreign assets control, u.s. persons will be prohibited from engaging in transactions with the blocked eniminas entities and must block such entities’ property or interests in property that are in, or thereafter come within, the united states, or the possession or control of a u.s. person. non u.s. persons generally do not risk exposure to u.s. blocking sanctions under the nsr for engaging in transactions with blocked persons, where those transactions would not require a specific license if engaged in by a u.s. person. nicaragua gl 4 authorizes u.s. persons to engage in transactions prohibited by the nicaragua sanctions regulations, 31 cfr part 582 (the nsr), that are ordinarily incident and necessary to the wind down of any transaction involving the directorate general of mines (dgm) of the nicaraguan ministry of energy and mines, or any entity in which dgm owns, directly or indirectly, a 50 percent or greater interest (collectively, “blocked dgm entities”), through 12:01 a.m. eastern standard time, november 23, 2022, provided that any payment to a blocked person must be made into a blocked account in accordance with the nsr. after the expiration of this authorization, unless exempt or authorized by the office of foreign assets control, u.s. persons will be prohibited from engaging in transactions with the blocked dgm entities and must block property or interests in property of any blocked dgm entities that are in, or thereafter come within, the united states, or the possession or control of a u.s. person. non u.s. persons generally do not risk exposure to u.s. blocking sanctions under the nsr for engaging in transactions with blocked persons where those transactions would not require a specific license if engaged in by a u.s. person. on july 31, 2020, ofac designated, pursuant to e.o. 13818, the xinjiang production and construction corps (xpcc) for its connection to serious human rights abuse in the xinjiang uyghur autonomous region (xuar). concurrent with this action, ofac issued global magnitsky general license (gl) 2. gl 2 was replaced and superseded by global magnitksy general license 2a on september 25, 2020. gl 2a does not authorize any transactions involving the xpcc itself; however, gl 2a does authorize, subject to certain conditions, u.s. persons to engage in transactions and activities prohibited by the global magnitsky sanctions regulations (gsmr) that are ordinarily incident and necessary to the wind down of transactions involving any entity in which the xpcc owns, directly or indirectly, a 50 percent or greater interest (blocked xpcc subsidiary), through 12:01 a.m. eastern standard time, november 30, 2020. gl 2a also authorizes, subject to certain conditions, transactions and activities that are ordinarily incident and necessary to (1) divest or transfer debt, equity, or other holdings of any blocked xpcc subsidiary to a non u.s. person, or (2) facilitate the transfer of debt, equity, or other holdings in any blocked xpcc subsidiary by a non u.s. person to another non u.s. person, through 12:01 a.m. eastern standard time, november 30, 2020. gl 2 does not authorize divestment activities involving the xpcc itself, nor does it authorize u.s. persons to sell to, purchase or invest in, or facilitate such transactions with any blocked person   including blocked xpcc subsidiaries, except for such purchases of or investments in blocked xpcc subsidiaries that are ordinarily incident and necessary to effectuate authorized divestment transactions. further, gl 2a does not authorize any debit to the account of any blocked xpcc subsidiary on the books of a u.s. financial institution. after the expiration of this general authorization, u.s. persons will be prohibited from engaging in or facilitating transactions with blocked xpcc subsidiaries unless exempt or authorized by ofac. u.s. persons unable to wind down transactions with, or divest from, any blocked xpcc subsidiary before 12:01 a.m. eastern standard time, november 30, 2020, are encouraged to seek guidance from ofac. non u.s. persons may wind down transactions with, or divest from, a blocked xpcc subsidiary without exposure to sanctions under e.o. 13818, provided that such wind down activity is consistent with gl 2a. wind down transactions involving non u.s. persons may be processed through the u.s. financial system or involve u.s. persons as long as the transactions comply with the terms and conditions in gl 2a. non u.s. persons unable to wind down transactions with, or divest from, a blocked xpcc subsidiary before 12:01 a.m. eastern standard time, november 30, 2020, are encouraged to seek guidance from ofac. the unblocking of any property blocked pursuant to any other part of 31 c.f.r. chapter v is not authorized under gl 2a. pursuant to global magnitsky general license (gl) 3, u.s. persons are authorized to engage in certain transactions that would otherwise be prohibited by the global magnitsky sanctions regulations, 31 cfr part 583, ordinarily incident and necessary to the divestment or transfer, or facilitation of the divestment or transfer, of debt or equity of pme to a non u.s. person through 12:01 a.m. eastern standard time, march 9, 2023. gl 3 also authorizes transactions ordinarily incident and necessary to facilitating, clearing, and settling trades of debt or equity of pme that were placed prior to 4:00 p.m. eastern standard time, december 9, 2022, through 12:01 a.m. eastern standard time, march 9, 2023. gl 3 also authorizes, through 12:01 a.m. eastern standard time, march 9, 2023, transactions ordinarily incident and necessary to the wind down of financial contracts or other agreements linked to the debt or equity of pme and entered into prior to 4:00 p.m. eastern standard time, december 9, 2022, provided that any payments to a blocked person are made into a blocked account in accordance with ofac sanctions regulations. this authorization includes transactions ordinarily incident and necessary to the delisting of pme from a u.s. securities exchange. however, gl 3 does not authorize u.s. persons to sell or facilitate the sale of debt or equity of pme to, directly or indirectly, any person whose property and interests in property are blocked, including xinrong zhuo, who was designated on the same day and is pme’s chairman and ceo, among other things. u.s. persons unable to wind down transactions in accordance with gl 3 before 12:01 a.m. eastern standard time, march 9, 2023, are encouraged to seek guidance from ofac before that date. please see gl 3 for further details. on december 9, 2022, ofac designated, pursuant to executive order (e.o.) 13818, several persons, including dalian ocean fishing co., ltd.; fujian provincial pingtan county ocean fishing group co., ltd.; fuzhou honglong ocean fishing co. ltd.; and pingtan marine enterprise ltd. concurrent with this action, ofac issued global magnitsky general license (gl) 4, which authorizes all transactions ordinarily incident and necessary to the wind down of any transaction involving any vessel in which any of these blocked entities have an interest that would otherwise be prohibited by the global magnitsky sanctions regulations, 31 cfr part 583, through 12:01 a.m. eastern standard time, march 9, 2023, provided that any payment to a blocked person must be made into a blocked account in accordance with ofac sanctions regulations. the wind down authorization in gl 4 contemplates, for example, completion of ongoing voyages, including the discharge of cargo aboard such vessels to non blocked persons; docking or anchoring of the vessels at third country, non sanctioned ports; transactions related to the safety and maintenance of such vessels, such as entering into certain contracts to pay for insurance coverage, flagging, and safety and compliance inspections during the wind down period; and transactions related to the health and safety of any crew, including the provision and processing of wages or other employee benefits, or other provision of crewing services. after the expiration of this authorization, persons will be prohibited from engaging in such wind down transactions with the blocked persons or vessels, unless exempt or otherwise authorized by ofac. persons unable to wind down transactions with the blocked persons or vessels specified in gl 4 before 12:01 a.m. eastern standard time, march 9, 2023, are encouraged to seek guidance from ofac before that date. please see gl 4 for further details. no. non u.s. persons may engage in the transactions authorized for u.s. persons by global magnitsky general license (gl) 3 and wind down transactions with the blocked persons specified in gl 4, without exposure to sanctions under executive order (e.o.) 13818 or the global magnitsky sanctions regulations, 31 cfr part 583, provided that such activity is consistent with those gls. further, such transactions involving non u.s. persons may be processed through the u.s. financial system or involve u.s. persons as long as the transactions comply with the terms and conditions in gls 3 and 4. non u.s. persons unable to wind down transactions in accordance with gls 3 and 4 before 12:01 a.m. eastern standard time, march 9, 2023, are encouraged to seek guidance from ofac before that date. on january 26, 2023, ofac designated frigorifico chajha s.a.e. (frigorifico chajha), pursuant to e.o. 13818. concurrent with this action, ofac issued general license (gl) 5 , which authorizes certain transactions ordinarily incident and necessary to the divestment or transfer, or the facilitation of the divestment or transfer, of debt or equity of frigorifico chajha to a non u.s. person, through 12:01 a.m. eastern daylight time, march 27, 2023. gl 5 also authorizes certain transactions ordinarily incident and necessary to facilitating, clearing, and settling trades of debt or equity of frigorifico chajha that were placed prior to 4:00 p.m. eastern standard time, january 26, 2023, through 12:01 a.m. eastern daylight time, march 27, 2023. gl 5 also authorizes certain transactions that are ordinarily incident and necessary to the wind down of derivative contracts entered into prior to 4:00 p.m. eastern standard time, january 26, 2023, that (1) include frigorifico chajha as a counterparty, or (2) are linked to the debt or equity of frigorifico chajha, through 12:01 a.m. eastern daylight time, march 27, 2023, provided that any payments to a blocked person are made into a blocked account in accordance with the global magnitsky sanctions regulations, 31 cfr part 583. however, gl 5 does not authorize u.s. persons to sell, or to facilitate the sale of, debt or equity of frigorifico chajha to, directly or indirectly, any person whose property and interests in property are blocked. gl 5 also does not authorize u.s. persons to purchase or invest in, or to facilitate the purchase of or investment in, directly or indirectly, debt or equity of frigorifico chajha, other than purchases of or investments in debt or equity of frigorifico chajha that are ordinarily incident and necessary to the divestment or transfer of debt or equity of frigorifico chajha as described in gl 5. non u.s. persons generally do not risk exposure to u.s. sanctions for engaging in activities that would be exempt or authorized for u.s. persons pursuant to gl 5. on january 26, 2023, ofac designated, pursuant to e.o. 13818, horacio manuel cartes jara (cartes) for his involvement in corruption in paraguay. also on that day, ofac designated four entities owned or controlled by cartes, pursuant to e.o. 13818: tabacos usa inc., bebidas usa inc., dominicana acquisition s.a., and frigorifico chajha s.a.e. (collectively, “designated cartes entities”). concurrent with this action, ofac issued global magnitsky general license (gl) 6 , which authorizes, subject to certain conditions, transactions prohibited by the global magnitsky sanctions regulations, 31 cfr part 583 (gmsr), that are ordinarily incident and necessary to the wind down of any transaction involving any of the designated cartes entities, or any entity in which cartes or the designated cartes entities own, directly or indirectly, a 50 percent or greater interest (collectively, “blocked cartes entities”), through 12:01 a.m. eastern daylight time, march 27, 2023, provided that any payment to a blocked person must be made into a blocked account in accordance with the gmsr. gl 6 does not authorize any transactions involving cartes himself. after the expiration of this general authorization, u.s. persons will be prohibited from engaging in such wind down transactions with blocked cartes entities, unless exempt or otherwise authorized by ofac. u.s. persons unable to wind down transactions with blocked cartes entities before 12:01 a.m. eastern daylight time, march 27, 2023, are encouraged to seek guidance from ofac. non u.s. persons may wind down transactions with blocked cartes entities without exposure to sanctions under e.o. 13818, provided that such wind down activity is consistent with gl 6. wind down transactions involving non u.s. persons may be processed through the u.s. financial system or involve u.s. persons as long as the transactions comply with the terms and conditions in gl 6. non u.s. persons unable to wind down transactions with blocked cartes entities before 12:01 a.m. eastern daylight time, march 27, 2023, are encouraged to seek guidance from ofac. global magnitsky general license 7 authorizes certain transactions involving the blocked entities tabacos usa inc. (tabacos) and tabacalera del este s.a. (tabesa) (or any entity in which tabesa or tabacos owns, directly or indirectly, individually or in the aggregate, a 50 percent or greater interest) that are ordinarily incident and necessary to payments under the master settlement agreement (msa) entered into on november 23, 1998 between certain u.s. state and territory attorneys general and certain tobacco companies. on january 26, 2023, ofac designated former paraguayan president horacio manuel cartes jara (cartes) pursuant to executive order 13818 for involvement in corruption and also designated tabacos for being owned or controlled by cartes. on march 31, 2023, ofac identified tabesa as an entity that is owned, directly or indirectly, 50 percent or more by cartes and added tabesa to the sdn list. global magnitsky general license 7 does not authorize debits to any blocked account on the books of a u.s. financial institution or any other transactions otherwise prohibited by the global magnitsky sanctions regulations. generally, the designation of an individual with a leadership role in a governing institution does not itself block the governing institution. accordingly, engaging in a routine interaction with a governing institution in which a blocked individual is an official, but that does not directly or indirectly involve the blocked individual in question, is not prohibited. this applies to any designated individual in afghanistan who has a leadership role in a governing institution in afghanistan, including any individual blocked pursuant to the global magnitsky sanctions regulations (gmsr). for example, making a customs payment to a governing institution in afghanistan led by a blocked individual would not be prohibited by the gmsr. however, engaging directly or indirectly with that blocked individual, such as receiving an invoice bearing the blocked individual's signature for a commercial transaction, would be prohibited by the gmsr unless authorized by ofac or exempt. in addition, certain humanitarian related transactions involving individuals blocked pursuant to the gmsr may be authorized by general licenses (gl) in the gmsr related to certain international organizations (ios), nongovernmental organizations (ngos), official business of the united states government (usg), or agricultural commodities, medicine, medical devices, replacement parts and components, or software updates for personal, non commercial use (ag med). for more information on these gls, please consult ofac's supplemental guidance for the provision of humanitarian assistance and faqs 1105, 1106, 1107, and 1108. for information on transactions involving governing institutions in afghanistan led by an individual or entity designated under the global terrorism sanctions regulations, the foreign terrorist organizations sanctions regulations, or executive order 13224, please consult afghanistan related gl 20 and faq 993. if individuals or entities, including ios, ngos, or financial institutions, have questions about engaging in or processing transactions related to these authorizations, they can contact the ofac compliance hotline. yes. although transactions or other dealings involving ly and l.y.p. group are prohibited as a result of ofac's designation, ofac concurrently issued global magnitsky general license (gl) 8 authorizing u.s. persons to engage in all transactions with any entity owned 50% or more by ly or the l.y.p. group that is not listed on sdn list. non u.s. persons may engage in the transactions authorized by gl 8 without exposure to sanctions. gl 8 does not authorize transactions with any entity listed on the sdn list, including the following entities that were designated on september 12, 2024: o smach resort, garden city hotel, koh kong resort, and phnom penh hotel. ofac will continue to closely monitor ly's and l.y.p. group's activities and may designate or identify additional entities, as appropriate. the designation of an official of the government of the hksar does not itself block the hksar government or any government agency where the sdn is an official or otherwise exercises control. accordingly, engaging in a routine interaction with an agency in which an sdn is an official, but which does not involve the sdn directly or indirectly, is not prohibited. u.s. persons are prohibited from engaging in transactions or dealings with, and dealing in the property or interests in property of, designated hksar government officials, including any entities that are directly or indirectly owned 50 percent or more in the aggregate by one or more blocked persons. u.s. persons should be cautious in dealings with hksar government agencies in which an sdn is an official to ensure that they are not engaged in transactions or dealings, directly or indirectly, with an sdn (e.g., by entering into contracts that are signed by an sdn, entering into negotiations with an sdn, or processing transactions, directly or indirectly, on behalf of the sdn), absent authorization from ofac or an applicable exemption. however, u.s. persons may, for example, enter into hksar government contracts signed by a non sdn official of the hksar to whom the hksar government has delegated the authority to enter such contracts. pursuant to section 5(a) of the hkaa, the secretary of state submitted a report (“section 5(a) report”) on october 14, 2020 to the appropriate congressional committees and leadership identifying foreign persons that the secretary of state, in consultation with the secretary of the treasury, determined are materially contributing to, have materially contributed to, or attempt to materially contribute to the failure of the government of china to meet its obligations under the joint declaration or the basic law. section 6 of the hkaa requires blocking sanctions to be imposed on each foreign person identified in the section 5(a) report, or in an update to that report under section 5(e) of the hkaa. the individuals identified in the october 14, 2020 section 5(a) report were designated by ofac on august 7, 2020 pursuant to executive order (e.o.) 13936, and the property and interests in property of those individuals that are in the united states or in the possession or control of u.s. persons are blocked. further, section 5(b) of the hkaa requires the secretary of the treasury, in consultation with the secretary of state, to submit a report to congress 30 60 days after the section 5(a) report is submitted, identifying any foreign financial institution (ffi) that knowingly conducts a significant transaction with a foreign person identified in the section 5(a) report. for the purposes of the report under section 5(b) (“section 5(b) report”), the treasury department will only identify ffis that knowingly conduct a significant transaction with a foreign person identified in the section 5(a) report or any update to that report following the person’s listing in the section 5(a) report. as a general matter, transactions with persons identified in the section 5(a) report that constitute a good faith wind down within 30 days of a person’s identification on such report will not be considered “significant” for purposes of the section 5(b) report. in addition, the treasury department will reach out to an ffi to inquire about its conduct before identifying it in a section 5(b) report. pursuant to section 7(a) of the hkaa, within one year of an ffi’s inclusion in the section 5(b) report, five out of 10 of the sanctions set out in section 7(b) of the hkaa must be imposed on that ffi. not later than two years after an ffi has been included in the section 5(b) report, all 10 sanctions set out in section 7(b) must be imposed on that ffi. any ffi that knowingly conducts a significant transaction with a foreign person named in the section 5(a) report or an update to that report is potentially subject to mandatory secondary sanctions under the hkaa. accordingly, with respect to foreign persons in the section 5(a) report that also appear on the list of specially designated nationals and blocked persons (sdn list), ofac has updated the sdn list to include the language, “secondary sanctions risk: pursuant to the hong kong autonomy act of 2020   public law 116 149.” pursuant to section 5(d)(2) of the hkaa, an ffi may be excluded from the section 5(b) report or an update to that report under section 5(e) of the hkaa, or may be removed from the section 5(b) report or an update to that report prior to the imposition of sanctions under section 7(a), if the significant transaction or transactions of the ffi that merited inclusion in that report: (a) does not have a significant and lasting negative effect that contravenes the obligations of china under the joint declaration and the basic law; (b) is not likely to be repeated in the future; and (c) has been reversed or otherwise mitigated through positive countermeasures taken by that ffi. for purposes of implementing section 5(b) of the hkaa, the secretary of the treasury may consider the totality of the facts and circumstances when determining whether transactions are “significant.” as a general matter, the treasury department may consider some or all of the following factors in determining whether a transaction is “significant”: (1) the size, number, and frequency of the transaction(s); (2) the nature of the transaction(s); (3) the level of awareness of management and whether the transaction(s) are part of a pattern of conduct; (4) the nexus between the transaction(s) and a foreign person identified in a report submitted by the secretary of state under section 5(a) of the hkaa or in updates to that report; (5) the impact of the transaction(s) on statutory objectives, including whether the transaction(s) (a) have a significant and lasting negative effect that contravenes the obligations of china under the joint declaration and the basic law, (b) are likely to be repeated in the future, and (c) have been reversed or otherwise mitigated through positive countermeasures taken by that ffi; (6) whether the transaction(s) involve deceptive practices; and (7) such other factors that the secretary of the treasury deems relevant on a case by case basis. for purposes of section 5(b) of hkaa, a transaction will not be considered significant if a u.s. person would not require a specific license from ofac to conduct or participate in the transaction. section 2 of hkaa defines these terms as follows, which ofac intends to incorporate into relevant regulations: “financial institution”   the term “financial institution” is defined to have the same meaning as a financial institution specified in section 5312(a)(2) of title 31, united states code. “knowingly”   the term “knowingly”, with respect to conduct, a circumstance, or a result, means that a person has actual knowledge of the conduct, the circumstance, or the result. the prohibitions in e.o. 13959, as amended, apply to a subsidiary of a chinese military industrial complex company (cmic) listed on the ns cmic list only if such subsidiary itself is publicly listed on the ns cmic list by treasury pursuant to e.o. 13959, as amended, or identified in the annex of e.o. 13959, as amended. ofac’s 50 percent rule does not apply to entities listed solely pursuant to e.o. 13959, as amended. accordingly, the prohibitions on any subsidiaries listed on the ns cmic list would go into effect beginning 12:01 a.m. eastern time on the date that is 60 days after such subsidiary is added to the ns cmic list. for purposes of e.o. 13959, as amended, the term “publicly traded securities” includes any “security,” as defined in section 3(a)(10) of the securities exchange act of 1934, public law 73 291 (as codified as amended at 15 u.s.c. 78c(a)(10)), denominated in any currency that trades on a securities exchange or through the method of trading that is commonly referred to as “over the counter,” in any jurisdiction. examples of financial instruments covered by this provision include, but are not limited to, derivatives (e.g., futures, options, swaps), warrants, american depositary receipts (adrs), global depositary receipts (gdrs), exchange traded funds (etfs), index funds, and mutual funds, to the extent such instruments also meet the definition of "publicly traded security" as defined in section 3(c) of e.o. 13959, as amended. yes. under e.o. 13959, as amended, any purchase or sale of publicly traded securities, or any publicly traded securities that are derivative of such securities or are designed to provide investment exposure to such securities, of any cmic listed on the ns cmic list is prohibited, regardless of such securities' share of the underlying index fund, etf, or derivative thereof. for purposes of e.o. 13959, as amended, activity by u.s. persons related to the following services are considered permissible, to the extent that such support services are not provided to u.s. persons in connection with prohibited purchases or sales: clearing, execution, settlement, custody, transfer agency, back end services, as well as other such support services. yes. market intermediaries, including market makers, and other participants may engage in ancillary or intermediary activities that are necessary to effect divestiture during the relevant wind down periods or that are not otherwise prohibited under e.o. 13959, as amended. purchases or sales by u.s. persons (including investors and intermediaries) involving investment funds that are seeking to divest during the relevant wind down periods are permitted. see faq 901 with respect to the due diligence expectations associated with determining whether a particular purchase or sale is permissible. consistent with faq 865, which clarifies that market intermediaries and other participants may engage in ancillary or intermediary activities that are necessary to effect divestiture during the relevant wind down periods or that are not otherwise prohibited under e.o. 13959, as amended, transactions and activities by securities exchanges operated by u.s. persons involving the purchase or sale of publicly traded securities (or any publicly traded securities that are derivative of such securities or are designed to provide investment exposure to such securities) of any entity listed on the non sdn chinese military industrial complex companies list (the “ns cmic list”) are not prohibited. e.o. of june 3, 2021 amends e.o. 13959 by replacing sections 1 through 5 of e.o. 13959, as amended, and revokes e.o. 13974. in particular, e.o. of june 3, 2021 amends e.o. 13959 to prohibit the purchase or sale by u.s. persons of any publicly traded securities, or any publicly traded securities that are derivative of such securities or are designed to provide investment exposure to such securities, of any person listed in the annex to e.o. 13959, as amended by e.o. of june 3, 2021, or of any person determined by the secretary of the treasury, in consultation with the secretary of state, and, as appropriate, the secretary of defense: to implement e.o. of june 3, 2021, ofac has published a list on its website containing the names of entities identified in or pursuant to e.o. 13959, as amended by e.o. of june 3, 2021, titled the non sdn chinese military industrial complex companies list (the “ns cmic list”). in addition, ofac is removing and replacing all previously issued frequently asked questions (faqs) related to e.o. 13959, as amended. ofac will refer to e.o. 13959 as amended by e.o. of june 3, 2021 as “e.o. 13959, as amended.” ofac has published a list on its website containing the names of entities that are subject to the prohibitions of e.o. 13959, as amended, as the non sdn chinese military industrial complex companies list (the “ns cmic list”), along with additional identifying information where possible. effective june 3, 2021, the ns cmic list replaced and superseded in its entirety the non sdn communist chinese military companies list (ns ccmc list), which has been deleted from ofac’s website. only entities whose names exactly match the names of the entities on the ns cmic list are subject to the prohibitions in e.o. 13959, as amended. ofac will refer to entities listed on the ns cmic list as “chinese military industrial complex companies” or “cmics.” for any entity listed in the annex to e.o. 13959, as amended, the prohibitions go into effect beginning at 12:01 a.m. eastern time on august 2, 2021. for any entity not listed in the annex to e.o. 13959, as amended, the prohibitions go into effect beginning at 12:01 a.m. eastern time on the date that is 60 days after the date the entity is listed on the ns cmic list. purchases or sales of publicly traded securities of cmics listed in or pursuant to e.o. 13959, as amended, made solely to divest, in whole or in part, such securities by a u.s. person are permitted until 12:01 a.m. eastern time on the date that is 365 days after the date the entity is listed in the annex to e.o. 13959, as amended, or added to the ns cmic list. pursuant to e.o. 13959, as amended, ofac expects to use its discretion to target, in particular, persons whose operations include or support, or have included or supported, (1) surveillance of persons by chinese technology companies that occurs outside of the prc; or (2) the development, marketing, sale, or export of chinese surveillance technology that is, was, or can be used for surveillance of religious or ethnic minorities or to otherwise facilitate repression or serious human rights abuse. for purposes of assessing whether certain purchases or sales are permissible under e.o. 13959, as amended, u.s. persons   including financial institutions, registered broker dealers in securities, securities exchanges, and other market intermediaries and participants   may rely upon the information available to them in the ordinary course of business. u.s. persons are not prohibited from providing investment advisory, investment management, or similar services to a non u.s. person, including a foreign entity or foreign fund, in connection with the non u.s. person’s purchase or sale of a covered security, provided that the underlying purchase or sale would not otherwise violate e.o. 13959, as amended. for example, a u.s. individual acting as the fund manager for a non u.s. investment fund, or a u.s. entity that is the investment adviser or investment manager for a non u.s. investment fund, is not prohibited from advising on, authorizing, directing, or approving purchases or sales of covered securities by the non u.s. investment fund, provided that the underlying purchase or sale would not otherwise violate e.o. 13959, as amended (e.g., neither the purchase nor sale of the covered security is for the ultimate benefit of a u.s. person, the purchase or sale is not a willful attempt to evade the prohibitions of e.o. 13959, as amended, etc.). see faq 901 with respect to the due diligence expectations associated with determining whether a particular purchase or sale is permissible. for purposes of e.o. 13959, as amended, u.s. persons employed by non u.s. entities are not prohibited from being involved in, or otherwise facilitating, purchases or sales related to a covered security on behalf of their non u.s. employer, provided that such activity is in the ordinary course of their employment and the underlying purchase or sale would not otherwise violate e.o. 13959, as amended, (e.g., neither the purchase nor sale of the covered security is for the ultimate benefit of a u.s. person; neither the purchase or sale is a willful attempt to evade the prohibitions of e.o. 13959, as amended, etc.). yes. u.s. market makers, and non u.s. market makers who employ u.s. persons, are permitted to engage in activities that are necessary to effect divestiture during the during the 365 day periods in which divestment transactions are permitted or that are not otherwise prohibited under e.o. 13959, as amended, including the conversion of american depositary receipts (adrs) of a cmic into underlying securities of the cmic on the foreign exchange where the underlying securities are listed. see faq 865 with respect to the permissibility of market intermediaries and other participants engaging in ancillary or intermediary activities that are necessary to effect divestiture of covered securities. no. the prohibitions of e.o. 13959, as amended, apply only with respect to certain purchases or sales of publicly traded securities of entities listed on the ns cmic list. e.o. 13959, as amended, does not prohibit activity with entities listed on the ns cmic list that is unrelated to such securities, such as the purchase or sale of goods or services. e.o. 13959, as amended, also does not prohibit the purchase or sale of goods or services with respect to subsidiaries of such entities. u.s. persons are not required to divest their holdings of cmic securities during the relevant 365 day divestment period and may continue to hold such securities after the divestment period. e.o. 13959, as amended, permits purchases or sales made solely to effect the divestment of cmic securities, but only during the 365 day divestment period. accordingly, any such purchase or sale is prohibited after the 365 day divestment period, absent ofac authorization. u.s. persons who hold securities of cmics identified pursuant to e.o. 13959, as amended, may continue to receive cash dividends and stock splits related to such covered securities, and u.s. financial institutions may continue to process such transactions. however, purchases of cmic securities effected through dividend reinvestments constitute purchases that are prohibited pursuant to e.o. 13959, as amended. u.s. persons may, however, continue to facilitate the distribution of dividend reinvestments for non u.s. persons after the relevant divestment period. no. e.o. 13959, as amended, does not require u.s. financial institutions to block transactions. however, transactions that would be prohibited under e.o. 13959, as amended (including an attempted sale of covered securities by a u.s. person made to effect the divestment of cmic securities after the 365 day divestment period), must be rejected and reported to ofac within 10 business days. consistent with faq 863, u.s. financial institutions may continue to intermediate purchases or sales by or from non u.s. persons to or for non u.s. persons. e.o. 14024 establishes a new national emergency under which sanctions may be imposed against individuals and entities furthering specified harmful foreign activities of the russian federation. this national emergency is separate from the national emergency relating to the crisis in ukraine, declared in e.o. 13660 and further addressed in e.o.s 13661, 13662, 13685, and 13849. e.o. 14024 addresses national security threats posed by specified harmful foreign activities of the russian federation, including: its efforts to undermine the conduct of free and fair democratic elections and democratic institutions in the united states and its allies and partners; engaging in and facilitating malicious cyber enabled activities against the united states and its allies and partners; fostering and using transnational corruption to influence foreign governments; pursuing extraterritorial activities targeting dissidents or journalists; undermining security in countries and regions important to united states national security; and violating well established principles of international law, including respect for the territorial integrity of states. like any other blocking executive order, e.o. 14024 permits the united states to impose blocking and short of blocking sanctions. the office of foreign assets control (ofac) issued several directives under e.o. 14024 specifying certain prohibitions relating to persons determined to be subject to the applicable directive. ofac recommends reviewing the sanctions lists maintained by ofac, including the specially designated nationals and blocked persons list (sdn list), the list of foreign financial institutions subject to correspondent account or payable through account sanctions (capta list), and the non sdn menu based sanctions list (ns mbs list), to determine which sanctions are applicable. on december 22, 2023, the president issued e.o. 14114, “taking additional steps with respect to the russian federation’s harmful activities,” which amended e.o. 14024 to further address the russian federation’s continued use of its military industrial base to aid its effort to undermine security in countries and regions important to united states national security. see faq 1147 for information on how e.o. 14114 amended e.o. 14024. date updated: february 23, 2024 persons identified pursuant to e.o. 13662 as subject to directive 3 for operating in the defense and related materiel sector of the russian federation economy are not subject to prohibitions under e.o. 14024 unless those persons are also sanctioned pursuant to e.o. 14024. for more information regarding directive 3, please review applicable ofac public guidance, such as faq 411. e.o. 14024 provides for blocking sanctions on persons operating in the technology sector or the defense and related materiel sector of the russian federation economy, or any other sectors determined by the secretary of the treasury, in consultation with the secretary of state. the identification of a sector pursuant to e.o. 14024 provides notice that persons operating in the identified sector are exposed to sanctions risk; however, such identification does not automatically block all persons operating in the sector. only persons designated pursuant to e.o. 14024 for operating in the defense and related materiel sector of the russian economy (or any other sector identified under the e.o.) are subject to blocking sanctions and will appear on the sdn list. e.o. 14024, as amended by e.o. 14114, also authorizes the imposition of sanctions on foreign financial institutions that have conducted or facilitated certain transactions involving russia’s military industrial base. see faqs 1147, 1148, 1149, 1150 and 1151 for information. date updated: february 23, 2024 pursuant to the russia related sovereign debt directive, the following activities by a u.s. financial institution are prohibited: further, except to the extent otherwise provided by law or unless authorized by ofac or exempt, the following are also prohibited pursuant to the russia related sovereign debt directive: (1) any transaction that evades or avoids, has the purpose of evading or avoiding, causes a violation of, or attempts to violate any of the prohibitions of the russia related sovereign debt directive; and (2) any conspiracy formed to violate any of the prohibitions of the russia related sovereign debt directive. independent of the russia related sovereign debt directive, ofac has imposed prohibitions on certain russia related entities subject to the russia related sovereign debt directive, pursuant to russia related directives under executive order (e.o.) 13883 and e.o. 14024. date updated: march 02, 2022 yes (see faq 888 and faq 965). date updated: february 22, 2022 even prior to june 14, 2021, “u.s. banks” were prohibited from participating in the primary market for non ruble denominated bonds issued by the russian sovereign (including the central bank of the russian federation, the national wealth fund of the russian federation, and the ministry of finance of the russian federation), and from lending non ruble denominated funds to the russian sovereign pursuant to the russia related directive under executive order 13883 (“cbw act directive”), which was issued on august 2, 2019 and went into effect on august 26, 2019. however, the cbw act directive does not prohibit “u.s. banks” (as defined in the cbw act directive) from participating in the primary market for ruble denominated bonds issued by the russian sovereign, or the lending of ruble denominated funds to the russian sovereign. pursuant to directive 1a under (e.o.) 14024 , “prohibitions related to certain sovereign debt of the russian federation” (russia related sovereign debt directive), after june 14, 2021, u.s. financial institutions (as defined in the russia related sovereign debt directive) are prohibited from participating in the primary market for ruble or non ruble denominated bonds issued by, or the lending of ruble or non ruble denominated funds to, the central bank of the russian federation, the national wealth fund of the russian federation, or the ministry of finance of the russian federation, unless otherwise authorized by ofac or exempt. pursuant to the russia related sovereign debt directive, as of march 1, 2022, u.s. financial institutions are also prohibited from participating in the secondary market for ruble or non ruble denominated bonds issued after march 1, 2022 by these entities. note that the prohibitions found in the cbw act directive remain in effect and are separate from the prohibitions of the russia related sovereign debt directive, or other directives under e.o. 14024. for more information on the cbw act directive, please see faqs 673   678. date updated: march 02, 2022 no. the prohibitions of the russia related sovereign debt directive apply only to bonds issued by, or loans made to, the central bank of the russian federation, the national wealth fund of the russian federation, or the ministry of finance of the russian federation. the prohibitions of the russia related sovereign debt directive do not apply to the property or interests in property of those three entities. date updated: february 22, 2022 russia related gl 1b authorizes u.s. persons to engage in certain transactions and activities involving the federal state budgetary institution marine rescue service (mrs) that are otherwise prohibited by executive order (e.o.) 14039 of august 20, 2021, "blocking property with respect to certain russian energy export pipelines," the protecting europe's energy security act of 2019, 22 u.s.c. 9526 note, as amended (peesa), or e.o. 14024. an earlier version of this gl was issued on may 21, 2021 (gl 1) and amended on august 20, 2021 (gl 1a) concurrent with the promulgation of e.o. 14039. on december 18, 2024, gl 1a was amended and re issued following the designation of mrs under e.o. 14024. russia related gl 1b replaces and supersedes gl 1a effective december 18, 2024. gl 1b authorizes u.s. persons to engage in transactions and activities involving mrs, or any entity in which mrs owns, directly or indirectly, a 50 percent or greater interest, that are not related to the construction of the nord stream 2 pipeline project, the turkstream pipeline project, or any project that is a successor to either such project. gl 1b does not, however, authorize any transactions or activities with any vessels identified on the office of foreign assets control’s list of specially designated nationals and blocked persons (sdn list) as blocked property of mrs, including vessels identified as blocked property of any entity in which mrs owns, directly or indirectly, a 50 percent or greater interest. date updated: december 18, 2024 the protecting europe’s energy security act of 2019, 22 u.s.c. 9526 note, as amended (peesa), requires the imposition of sanctions with respect to the provision of vessels engaged in specified activities for the construction of certain russian energy export pipelines, including the nord stream 2 pipeline project, the turkstream pipeline project, or any project that is a successor to either such project. e.o. of august 20, 2021, issued under the international emergency economic powers act (ieepa), authorizes the secretary of the treasury and the secretary of state to further implement those sanctions and directs agencies of the united states government to take all appropriate measures within their authority to ensure the full implementation of those sanctions. among other things, e.o. of august 20, 2021 enables treasury to promulgate regulations and provides for blocking of peesa designated persons without the exception relating to the importation of goods in section 7503(e) of peesa. all property and interests in property of persons designated pursuant to e.o. of august 20, 2021 that are or come within the united states or the possession or control of u.s. persons are blocked, and u.s. persons are generally prohibited from engaging in transactions with them. additionally, entities owned 50 percent or more, individually or in the aggregate, directly or indirectly, by one or more blocked persons are also blocked. directive 1 under e.o. 14024 of april 15, 2021 imposed prohibitions on participation in the primary market for ruble or non ruble denominated bonds issued by, or the lending of ruble or non ruble denominated funds to, the central bank of the russian federation, the national wealth fund of the russian federation, or the ministry of finance of the russian federation. the russia related sovereign debt directive replaces and supersedes directive 1 under e.o. 14024 of april 15, 2021. it expands upon the existing prohibitions to also prohibit, as of march 1, 2022 , participation in the secondary market for ruble or non ruble denominated bonds issued by these entities after march 1, 2022. please see faq 888 for additional details on the effective dates of these prohibitions. the russia related sovereign debt directive also includes technical revisions to the definition of “u.s. financial institution” to expand the definition. independent of the russia related sovereign debt directive, ofac has imposed prohibitions on certain russia related entities subject to the russia related sovereign debt directive, pursuant to russia related directives under e.o. 13883 and e.o. 14024. date updated: march 02, 2022 treasury took expansive sanctions actions related to russia’s financial services sector in february 2022 as detailed below. date updated: march 02, 2022 the russia related capta directive prohibits u.s. financial institutions from: (i) the opening or maintaining of a correspondent account or payable through account for or on behalf of foreign financial institutions determined to be subject to the prohibitions of the russia related capta directive; and (ii) the processing of transactions involving foreign financial institutions determined to be subject to the prohibitions of the russia related capta directive. please see the russia related capta directive for the definition of the terms "u.s. financial institution" and "foreign financial institution" for purposes of this directive. please see faq 969 regarding the applicability of ofac’s 50 percent rule with respect to this directive. annex 1 to the russia related capta directive lists the foreign financial institutions determined to be subject to the prohibitions as of march 26, 2022. foreign financial institutions determined to be subject to the prohibitions of the russia related capta directive, including the foreign financial institutions listed in annex 1, can be found on the office of foreign assets control's (ofac) list of foreign financial institutions subject to correspondent account or payable through account sanctions (capta list). relevant entries on the capta list will denote when a foreign financial institution became subject to the prohibitions of the russia related capta directive, as well as when the prohibitions of the russia related capta directive come into effect with respect to that foreign financial institution. the below table identifies the dates the prohibitions of the russia related capta directive take effect for (i) foreign financial institutions listed in annex 1 to the russia related capta directive, and (ii) foreign financial institutions otherwise determined to be subject to its prohibitions and added to the capta list. u.s. financial institutions must close any correspondent or payable through account maintained for or on behalf of foreign financial institutions determined to be subject to the prohibitions of the russia related capta directive, or their property or interests in property, by the relevant effective date. separately, as of the relevant effective date, u.s. financial institutions may not process transactions involving foreign financial institutions determined to be subject to the prohibitions of the russia related capta directive, or their property or interests in property, and must reject such transactions unless exempt or authorized by ofac. accordingly, after the relevant effective date, u.s. financial institutions must reject any transaction involving a foreign financial institution determined to be subject to the prohibitions of the russia related capta directive or involving that foreign financial institution's property or interests in property. this includes rejecting transactions related to any securities (including depositary receipts) issued by a foreign financial institution determined to be subject to the prohibitions of the russia related capta directive, including secondary market trading. for certain authorized securities related transactions, see gl 9c and faq 981. by virtue of the prohibition on the processing of transactions for or on behalf of foreign financial institutions determined to be subject to the prohibitions of the russia related capta directive, u.s. financial institutions are also prohibited from engaging in transactions with a covered foreign financial institution in connection with the foreign financial institution's role as a local custodian for depositary receipt issuances. the russia related capta directive does not impose blocking sanctions and, thus, does not require u.s. financial institutions (or other u.s. persons) to block the assets of foreign financial institutions determined to be subject to the prohibitions of this directive. however, u.s. persons should be aware that foreign financial institutions subject to the prohibitions of the russia related capta directive may also be subject to additional prohibitions under other sanctions authorities, such as additional directives under e.o. 14024 or e.o. 13662. ofac issued several russia related general licenses (gls) authorizing certain transactions involving the foreign financial institutions subject to the prohibitions of the russia related capta directive, including: on march 1, 2022, ofac issued the russian harmful foreign activities sanctions regulations, 31 cfr part 587 (ruhsr), which incorporate gl 5 in section 587.510 of the ruhsr. for additional information, please see faqs 976, 977, 978, 979, 981, 982 and 990. date updated: january 10, 2025 annex 1 to the russia related capta directive identifies public joint stock company sberbank of russia as well as many of its foreign financial institution subsidiaries. the foreign financial institutions listed in annex 1 have been determined to be subject to the prohibitions of the russia related capta directive for operating or having operated in the financial services sector of the russian federation economy, or for being foreign financial institutions that are 50 percent or more owned, directly or indirectly, individually or in the aggregate, by one or more foreign financial institutions subject to the prohibitions of the russia related capta directive. please see faq 969 regarding the applicability of ofac’s 50 percent rule to these entities. yes. the prohibitions of the russia related capta directive apply to any foreign financial institution listed in annex 1 to the russia related capta directive or otherwise determined to be subject to the prohibitions of the russia related capta directive, “or their property or interests in property,” which includes foreign financial institutions 50 percent or more owned, directly or indirectly, individually or in the aggregate, by one or more foreign financial institutions determined to be subject to the prohibitions of the russia related capta directive. as stated in the russia related capta directive, the prohibitions of this directive apply only with respect to a u.s. financial institution’s opening or maintaining of a correspondent account or payable through account for or on behalf of, or processing of a transaction involving, a “foreign financial institution,” as defined in the russia related capta directive. thus, for purposes of the russia related capta directive, the prohibitions of this directive do not apply to non “foreign financial institutions,” even if those non “foreign financial institutions” are 50 percent or more owned, directly or indirectly, individually or in the aggregate, by one or more “foreign financial institutions” determined to be subject to this directive. yes. the prohibitions of the russia related capta directive apply to a u.s. financial institution’s opening or maintaining of a correspondent account or payable through account for or on behalf of, or processing of a transaction involving, any ffi, wherever located outside of the united states, determined to be subject to the prohibitions of the russia related capta directive, or their property or interests in property which includes ffis 50 percent or more owned, directly or indirectly, individually or in the aggregate, by one or more ffis determined to be subject to the prohibitions of the russia related capta directive. this includes, for example, banking subsidiaries that are 50 percent or more owned by public joint stock company sberbank of russia and located outside of the united states. no. the prohibitions of the russia related capta directive apply with respect to any currency. for example, a foreign branch of a u.s. financial institution may not open or maintain a correspondent account for or on behalf of, or process a transaction involving, a foreign financial institution determined to be subject to the prohibitions of the russia related capta directive, even if that account is denominated in a currency other than u.s. dollars, such as euros. under the russia related capta directive, u.s. financial institutions are prohibited from the opening or maintaining of a correspondent account or payable through account for or on behalf of, or from processing of a transaction involving, a foreign financial institution determined to be subject to the prohibitions of the russia related capta directive. the term “u.s. financial institution,” as defined in the directive, includes foreign branches of u.s. financial institutions, but not their foreign subsidiaries. note, however, that the russia related capta directive prohibits any transaction that evades or avoids, has the purpose of evading or avoiding, causes a violation of, or attempts to violate any of the prohibitions of this directive, as well as any conspiracy formed to violate any of the prohibitions of this directive. ofac will not view as “evading or avoiding” efforts by non u.s. persons to comply with u.s. sanctions by replacing sanctioned suppliers or service providers (including financial institutions) with non sanctioned persons. with respect to foreign financial institutions subject to the prohibitions of directive 2 under e.o. 14024, “prohibitions related to correspondent or payable through accounts and processing of transactions involving certain foreign financial institutions” (russia related capta directive), including public joint stock company sberbank of russia, obligations under this directive apply to u.s. financial institutions only. u.s. individuals and companies that are not “u.s. financial institutions,” as defined in the russia related capta directive, are not prohibited from processing transactions involving foreign financial institutions solely subject to the russia related capta directive. with respect to the russian financial institutions blocked on february 22 and 24, 2022 pursuant to e.o. 14024, general licenses (gls) 3 and 11 authorized u.s. persons to engage in transactions ordinarily incident and necessary to terminate their relationship with specified blocked russian financial institutions, including withdrawing funds and securities, cancelling letters of credit, and amending or cancelling performance guarantees. for additional information, please see faq 975. upon the respective expiration of gls 3 and 11, u.s. persons were prohibited from transacting with the blocked russian financial institutions, unless exempt or authorized by ofac. date updated: december 22, 2023 on february 22, 2022, the office of foreign assets control (ofac) designated specified russian financial institutions pursuant to e.o. 14024 , including the state corporation bank for development and foreign economic affairs vnesheconombank (veb), promsvyazbank public joint stock company, and many of their subsidiaries. ofac designated additional russian financial institutions on february 24, 2022, including vtb bank public joint stock company, public joint stock company bank financial corporation otkritie (otkritie), sovcombank open joint stock company (sovcombank), joint stock commercial bank novikombank, and many of these financial institutions’ subsidiaries. as a result, all property and interests in property of these entities in the possession or control of u.s. persons, including u.s. financial institutions, or within u.s. jurisdiction, are blocked and must be reported to ofac. in addition, all property and interests in property of any entity that is owned, directly or indirectly, individually or in the aggregate, 50 percent or more by one or more blocked persons are also blocked. accordingly, u.s. persons, including u.s. financial institutions, are prohibited from transacting with these entities unless exempt or authorized by ofac. ofac issued several russia related general licenses (gls) authorizing transactions involving specified blocked russian financial institutions, including: • gl 2 : authorizing certain transactions involving veb related to servicing obligations of certain russian sovereign debt; • gl 3: authorizing the wind down of certain transactions involving veb until 12:01 a.m. eastern daylight time, march 24, 2022; • gl 11: authorizing the wind down of certain transactions involving vtb bank public joint stock company, otkritie, and sovcombank until 12:01 a.m. eastern daylight time, march 26, 2022; and • gl 12: authorizing the rejection (rather than blocking) of certain transactions involving vtb bank public joint stock company, otkritie, and sovcombank until 12:01 a.m. eastern daylight time, march 26, 2022. note that these gls do not authorize certain activities with all blocked russian financial institutions; nor does each gl authorize certain activities with the same group of blocked russian financial institutions. for example, the gls listed above do not authorize any transactions involving promsvyazbank public joint stock company or joint stock commercial bank novikombank, and gls 2 and 3 relate only to veb. other gls that may be applicable to one or more of the russian financial institutions blocked in february 2022 include: • gl 5: authorizing transactions related to the official business of certain international organizations and other entities; • gl 6: authorizing certain transactions related to the exportation or reexportation of agricultural commodities, medicine, medical devices, replacement parts and components, or software updates, or the prevention, diagnosis, or treatment of covid 19; • gl 7: authorizing overflight payments, emergency landings, and air ambulance services; • gl 8a: authorizing transactions related to energy; • gl 9a: authorizing transactions related to dealings in certain debt and equity until 12:01 a.m. eastern daylight time, may 25, 2022; and • gl 10a: authorizing certain transactions related to derivative contracts until 12:01 a.m. eastern daylight time, may 25, 2022. please consult each gl for further information regarding its scope. on march 1, 2022, ofac issued the russian harmful foreign activities sanctions regulations, 31 cfr part 587 (ruhsr), which incorporate gl 5 in section 587.510 of the ruhsr. additionally, consistent with section 9 of e.o. 14024, transactions for the conduct of the official business of the federal government or the united nations (including its specialized agencies, programs, funds, and related organizations) by employees, grantees, and contractors thereof are exempt from the sanctions prohibitions of e.o. 14024. date updated: march 02, 2022 for certain russian financial institutions blocked in february 2022 pursuant to e.o. 14024, a short term wind down period is authorized. general license (gl) 3 authorizes a wind down period of 30 days for transactions involving state corporation bank for development and foreign economic affairs vnesheconombank (veb), and gl 11 authorizes a wind down period of 30 days for transactions involving vtb bank public joint stock company, public joint stock company bank financial corporation otkritie, or sovcombank open joint stock company. these authorizations also apply to any entity in which these financial institutions own, directly or indirectly, individually or in the aggregate, a 50 percent or greater interest. gls 3 and 11 authorize u.s. persons to engage in transactions ordinarily incident and necessary to exit operations, contracts, or other agreements that were in effect prior to the date of blocking involving the specified blocked russian financial institutions, provided that such transactions do not involve a debit to a blocked account on the books of a u.s. financial institution (see faq 990). for example, a u.s. financial institution may take steps necessary to collect on outstanding loans made to a blocked person, including exercising rights to any collateral related thereto, as authorized wind down activity, provided the transaction does not involve a debit to a blocked account on the books of a u.s. financial institution (unless separately authorized). a u.s. financial institution may also take steps necessary to pay outstanding loans, provided that, if such payment is for the benefit of a blocked person, it must be transferred into a blocked account. similarly, a u.s. financial institution may take steps necessary to close a correspondent account maintained for a blocked person; however, funds in the correspondent account may not be returned to the blocked person, and must remain blocked, absent separate authorization from ofac. gls 3 and 11 authorize only new or continued business activities that are ordinarily incident and necessary to wind down activities. wind down activities do not include the continued processing of funds transfers, securities trades, or other transactions involving a blocked person that were part of ongoing business activities prior to the imposition of sanctions, unless separately authorized (see, e.g., gls 8, 9, and 10). moreover, gls 3 and 11 do not apply to all russian financial institutions blocked in february 2022, such as promsvyazbank public joint stock company or joint stock commercial bank novikombank, or transactions involving other persons blocked pursuant to e.o. 14024, other than the blocked russian financial institutions specified in gls 3 and 11. in addition to gls 3 and 11, ofac issued gl 12 to authorize u.s. persons to reject, rather than block, prohibited transactions involving specified blocked russian financial institutions for 30 days. this authorizes, for example, a u.s. financial institution to reject, rather than block, an attempted unauthorized funds transfer until the expiration of gl 12. the authorization provided in gl 3 expires at 12:01 eastern daylight time, march 24, 2022. the authorizations provided in gls 11 and 12 expire at 12:01 a.m. eastern daylight time, march 26, 2022. for more information on the prohibitions that apply to russian financial institutions blocked pursuant to e.o. 14024 in february 2022, or related authorizations, please see faq 974. for guidance regarding transactions involving securities and derivatives contracts related to the blocked persons listed above, see faq 982. on january 10, 2025, ofac issued amended general license (gl) 8l to authorize the wind down of transactions related to energy involving certain russian financial institutions sanctioned pursuant to e.o. 14024 through 12:01 a.m. eastern daylight time, march 12, 2025. gl 8l authorizes certain transactions "related to energy" (as defined in the gl; see also faq 977) involving the following entities (collectively, "covered entities"): gl 8l does not authorize any transaction prohibited by directive 1a under e.o. 14024, "prohibitions related to certain sovereign debt of the russian federation" (russia related sovereign debt directive). in addition, gl 8l does not authorize any debit to an account on the books of a u.s. financial institution of the central bank of the russian federation. further, gl 8l does not authorize a u.s. financial institution to maintain (or open) a correspondent account or payable through account for or on behalf of foreign financial institutions subject to the prohibitions of directive 2 under e.o. 14024, "prohibitions related to correspondent or payable through accounts and processing of transactions involving certain foreign financial institutions" (the "russia related capta directive"). consequently, in order for a u.s. financial institution to engage in transactions authorized by gl 8l, all funds transfers related to energy involving one or more covered entities must be processed indirectly through a non sanctioned, non u.s. financial institution. please see faq 978 for examples of authorized and prohibited transactions flows under certain gls, including gl 8l. for purposes of assessing whether certain transactions are authorized under gl 8l, u.s. persons may rely upon the information available to them in the ordinary course of business, including reasonable reliance on information about the underlying transaction provided by the parties thereto. gl 8l is valid until 12:01 eastern daylight time, march 12, 2025. persons unable to wind down prohibited transactions with the covered entities by march 12, 2025 are encouraged to approach the office of foreign assets control. gl 8l provides authorization solely under e.o. 14024. therefore, u.s. financial institutions that rely on the authorization provided in gl 8l to process transactions related to energy must also comply with the prohibitions of e.o. 14066, e.o. 14068, and e.o. 14071 (see faqs 1013, 1014, and 1015). on november 21, 2024, ofac also issued amended gl 55c to authorize all transactions prohibited by e.o. 14024 involving gazprombank, or any entity in which gazprombank owns, directly or indirectly, a 50 percent or greater interest, that are related to the sakhalin 2 project (including such transactions involving sakhalin energy llc) until june 28, 2025. gl 55c does not authorize transactions prohibited by the russia related capta directive, directive 4 under e.o. 14024 "prohibitions related to transactions involving the central bank of the russian federation, the national wealth fund of the russian federation, and the ministry of finance of the russian federation" ("russia related sovereign transactions directive"), or transactions otherwise prohibited by the russia harmful foreign activities sanctions regulations, 31 cfr part 587 (ruhsr). on january 10, 2025, ofac also issued amended gl 115a to authorize transactions related to civil nuclear energy involving the covered entities as well as gazprombank joint stock company (see faq 1203). date updated: january 10, 2025 on january 10, 2025, ofac issued amended gl 8l to authorize the wind down of transactions related to energy involving certain russian financial institutions sanctioned pursuant to e.o. 14024 through 12:01 a.m. eastern daylight time, march 12, 2025. for the purposes of gl 8l, the term "related to energy" means the extraction, production, refinement, liquefaction, gasification, regasification, conversion, enrichment, fabrication, transport, or purchase of petroleum, including crude oil, lease condensates, unfinished oils, natural gas liquids, petroleum products, natural gas, or other products capable of producing energy, such as coal, wood, or agricultural products used to manufacture biofuels, or uranium in any form, as well as the development, production, generation, transmission, or exchange of power, through any means, including nuclear, thermal, and renewable energy sources. this definition remains unchanged from gl 8. updated: january 10, 2025 on january 10, 2025, ofac issued amended general license (gl) 8l to authorize the wind down of transactions related to energy involving certain russian financial institutions sanctioned pursuant to e.o. 14024 through 12:01 a.m. eastern daylight time, march 12, 2025. gls 6d, 7a, 8l, or 115a do not authorize a u.s. financial institution to maintain (or open) a correspondent account or payable through account for or on behalf of entities subject to the prohibitions of directive 2 under e.o. 14024, “prohibitions related to correspondent or payable through accounts and processing of transactions involving certain foreign financial institutions” (russia related capta directive). consequently, in order for a u.s. financial institution to engage in transactions authorized under these gls (e.g., a funds transfer related to energy), all such funds transfers must be processed indirectly through a non sanctioned, non u.s. financial institution. examples of authorized and prohibited funds transfers under gls 6d, 7a, 8l, and 115a include: authorized payment from third country originator to beneficiary with an account at a sanctioned institution: prohibited payment from third country originator to beneficiary with an account at a sanctioned institution: authorized payment from u.s. originator to beneficiary with an account at a sanctioned institution: prohibited payment from u.s. originator to beneficiary with an account at a sanctioned institution: in each of the above examples, the underlying funds transfer must be authorized under the applicable gl. updated: january 10, 2025 yes, u.s. persons supporting activities undertaken for the official business of certain international organizations or entities, certain humanitarian related trade, or the response to the covid 19 pandemic may continue to engage in such activity involving persons sanctioned pursuant to e.o. 14024 through a variety of ofac authorizations or exemptions, as described below. consistent with section 9 of e.o. 14024, transactions for the conduct of the official business of the federal government or the united nations (including its specialized agencies, programs, funds, and related organizations) by employees, grantees, and contractors thereof are exempt from the sanctions prohibitions of e.o. 14024. additionally, ofac has issued general license (gl) 5, authorizing transactions for the conduct of the official business of certain international organizations and entities. ofac also issued gl 6, which authorizes, subject to certain conditions, transactions that are ordinarily incident and necessary to: (1) the exportation or reexportation of agricultural commodities, medicine, medical devices, replacement parts and components for medical devices, or software updates for medical devices to, from, or transiting the russian federation; or (2) the prevention, diagnosis, or treatment of covid 19 (including research or clinical studies relating to covid 19). while certain russian financial institutions are subject to sanctions under e.o. 14024, the financial services sector of the russian federation economy is not comprehensively sanctioned (see faq 964). accordingly, u.s. persons may also use non sanctioned russian financial institutions to process these transactions. note that the authorizations and exemptions described above do not extend to prohibitions applied to persons sanctioned pursuant to any other sanctions authorities implemented by ofac, such as e.o. 13662. ofac evaluates a range of factors when developing sanctions targets, consistent with foreign policy and national security goals. in the context of blocking sanctions, non u.s. persons may be exposed to sanctions risk in relation to activities with persons subject to blocking sanctions pursuant to e.o. 14024. under e.o. 14024, non u.s. persons may be designated if they have materially assisted, sponsored, or provided financial, material, or technological support for, or goods or services to or in support of, certain activities, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to e.o. 14024, or (in certain circumstances) a blocked government. please see sections 1(a)(vi) and 1(b) of e.o. 14024. non u.s. persons generally do not risk exposure to u.s. blocking sanctions under e.o. 14024 for engaging in transactions with persons subject to the prohibitions of the directives under e.o. 14024. moreover, non u.s. persons generally do not risk exposure to u.s. blocking sanctions under e.o. 14024 for engaging in transactions with blocked persons, where those transactions would not require a specific license if engaged in by a u.s. person. note, however, that e.o. 14024 and the directives under e.o. 14024 prohibit any transaction that evades or avoids, has the purpose of evading or avoiding, causes a violation of, or attempts to violate any of the prohibitions of those directives, as well as any conspiracy formed to violate any of the prohibitions of those directives. ofac will not view as “evading or avoiding” efforts by non u.s. persons to comply with u.s. sanctions by replacing sanctioned suppliers or service providers (including financial institutions) with non sanctioned persons. general license (gl) 9a authorizes u.s. persons, until 12:01 a.m. eastern daylight time may 25, 2022, to engage in transactions prohibited by the russian harmful foreign activities sanctions regulations, 31 cfr part 587, that are ordinarily incident and necessary to dealings in debt or equity issued prior to february 24, 2022 of one or more of the following entities (“covered debt or equity”), provided that any divestment or transfer of, or facilitation of divestment or transfer of, covered debt or equity must be to a non u.s. person: this authorization includes the facilitation, clearing, and settling of transactions ordinarily incident and necessary to divest covered debt or equity to a non u.s. person, including on behalf of u.s. persons. also, as part of a divestment transaction to a non u.s. person, u.s. persons may engage in purchases of or investment in covered debt or equity if ordinarily incident and necessary to buy to cover a short position in such holdings. to allow the closing of trades initiated before february 24, 2022, paragraph (b) of gl 9a authorizes all transactions that are ordinarily incident and necessary to facilitating, clearing, and settling trades of covered debt or equity through 12:01 a.m. eastern daylight time may 25, 2022, provided such trades were placed prior to 4:00 p.m. eastern standard time on february 24, 2022, including debits to accounts on the books of u.s. financial institutions of certain blocked entities. gl 9a also authorizes u.s. persons to receive interest, dividend, or maturity payments on debt or equity of the central bank of the russian federation, the national wealth fund of the russian federation, and the ministry of finance of the russian federation through 12:01 a.m. eastern daylight time on may 25, 2022. after may 25, 2022, u.s. persons would require a specific license to continue to receive such payments. certain transactions otherwise prohibited by the russian harmful foreign activities sanctions regulations, 31 cfr part 587, are not authorized by gl 9a. please see gl 9a for additional details. please also see gl 10a with respect to authorizations related to certain derivative contracts. for purposes of assessing whether certain transactions are authorized under gl 9a or gl 10a, u.s. persons including financial institutions, registered broker dealers in securities, securities exchanges, and other market intermediaries and participants may rely upon the information available to them in the ordinary course of business, including reasonable reliance on information about the underlying transaction provided by the parties thereto. however, u.s. persons should also exercise caution in engaging in foreign exchange transactions on the moscow exchange given the current heightened risk that the central bank of the russia federation could be a counterparty to such transactions (see faq 1002). date updated: march 02, 2022 unless otherwise authorized, u.s. persons may not buy or sell debt or equity of the russian financial institutions blocked pursuant to executive order (e.o.) 14024. accordingly, a u.s. fund may not buy, sell, or otherwise engage in transactions related to debt or equity of such blocked russian financial institutions, and must block such holdings, unless exempt or otherwise authorized by the office of foreign assets control (ofac). a u.s. fund that contains such blocked holdings generally is not itself considered a blocked entity unless such blocked holdings represent a 50 percent or more share by value of the fund. if such blocked holdings do not represent a 50 percent or more share by value of the fund, u.s. persons may continue to invest in it, and the fund is not considered blocked. the fund may divest itself of blocked holdings to the extent authorized by ofac. date updated: january 17, 2023 in february 2022, ofac issued two directives under e.o. 14024 regarding restrictions related to new debt or equity involving certain russian federation or russia related entities: entities determined to be subject to the prohibitions of these directives will be listed on the non sdn menu based sanctions list (ns mbs list) (in addition to any other applicable sanctions lists maintained by ofac). please see faq 985 regarding the applicability of ofac’s 50 percent rule with respect to the russia related entities directive. listings on the ns mbs list will denote when an entity has been determined to be subject to prohibitions, as well as when the prohibitions come into effect with respect to each entity. the russia related entities directive prohibits certain dealings by u.s. persons or within the united states in new debt of longer than 14 days maturity or new equity of russian entities determined to be subject to the prohibitions of the directive or their property or interests in property. the prohibitions of the russia related entities directive are effective beginning on 12:01 a.m. eastern daylight time, march 26, 2022 for entities listed in annex 1 to the russia related entities directive, or their property or interests in property. for entities subsequently determined to be subject to the prohibitions of the russia related entities directive, the prohibitions are effective 12:01 a.m. eastern time 30 days following such determination. specifically, the russia related entities directive prohibits the following activities by u.s. persons or within the united states: all transactions in, provision of financing for, and other dealings in new debt with a maturity of greater than 14 days or new equity of entities listed in annex 1 to the russia related entities directive or otherwise determined to be subject to the prohibitions of the russia related entities directive, or their property or interests in property, where such debt or equity is issued on or after the relevant sanctions effective date. please see faq 985 regarding the applicability of ofac’s 50 percent rule with respect to this directive. entity type relevant sanctions effective date entities listed in annex 1 to the russia related entities directive, or their property or interests in property on or after 12:01 a.m. eastern daylight time on march 26, 2022 entities otherwise determined to be subject to the prohibitions of the russia related entities directive, or their property or interests in property on or after 12:01 a.m. eastern time on the date that is 30 days after the date of such determination these prohibitions apply to all new debt with a maturity of greater than 14 days and new equity irrespective of currency denomination. in addition, the russia related entities directive prohibits: (1) any transaction that evades or avoids, has the purpose of evading or avoiding, causes a violation of, or attempts to violate any of the prohibitions of the russia related entities directive; and (2) any conspiracy formed to violate any of the prohibitions of the russia related entities directive. some entities determined to be subject to the prohibitions of the russia related entities directive may also be subject to prohibitions in other sanctions authorities, such as prohibitions of other directives issued under e.o. 14024, or directives issued under e.o. 13662. it is important to note that each directive operates independently of the others. for example, if a transaction involves a person subject to two separate directives, a u.s. person engaging in that transaction must comply with both directives. yes. the prohibitions of the russia related entities directive apply to any entity listed in annex 1 to the russia related entities directive or otherwise determined to be subject to the prohibitions of the russia related entities directive, or their property or interests in property, which includes entities 50 percent or more owned, directly or indirectly, individually or in the aggregate, by one or more entities determined to be subject to the prohibitions of the russia related entities directive. the term “debt” includes bonds, loans, extensions of credit, loan guarantees, letters of credit, drafts, bankers acceptances, discount notes or bills, or commercial paper. the term “equity” includes stocks, share issuances, depositary receipts, or any other evidence of title or ownership. if a u.s. person entered into a long term credit facility or loan agreement prior to the relevant sanctions effective date described in the russia related entities directive, drawdowns and disbursements with repayment terms of 14 days or less are permitted. in addition, drawdowns and disbursements whose repayment terms exceed 14 days are not prohibited if the terms of such drawdowns and disbursements (including the length of the repayment period, the interest rate applied to the drawdown, and the maximum drawdown amount) were contractually agreed to prior to the relevant sanctions effective date and are not modified on or after the relevant sanctions effective date. u.s. persons may not deal in a drawdown or disbursement initiated on or after the relevant sanctions effective date with a repayment term that is longer than 14 days if the terms of the drawdown or disbursement were negotiated on or after the relevant sanctions effective date. such a newly negotiated drawdown or disbursement would constitute a prohibited extension of credit. no. the russia related entities directive prohibits u.s. persons from engaging in only certain activities related to new debt of longer than 14 days maturity or new equity of the entities listed in annex 1 to the russia related entities directive, or of entities otherwise determined to be subject to the prohibitions of the russia related entities directive, as explained in faq 984. please see faq 985 regarding the applicability of ofac’s 50 percent rule with respect to this directive. some entities determined to be subject to the prohibitions of the russia related entities directive may also be subject to additional prohibitions under other sanctions authorities, such as additional directives under e.o. 14024 or e.o. 13662. it is important to note that each directive operates independently of the others. for example, if a transaction involves a person subject to two separate directives, a u.s. person engaging in that transaction must comply with both directives. no, so long as the terms of such debt (including the repayment period, the interest rate, and the amount) were contractually agreed to before the relevant sanctions effective date described in the russia related entities directive and are not modified on or after the relevant sanctions effective date (faq 984). as stated in faq 956, loans, contracts, or other agreements that use london interbank offered rate (libor) as a reference rate that are modified to replace such benchmark reference rate will not be treated as new debt for ofac sanctions purposes, so long as no other material terms of the loan, contract, or agreement are modified. some entities determined to be subject to the prohibitions of the russia related entities directive may also be subject to additional prohibitions under other sanctions authorities, such as additional directives under e.o. 14024 or e.o. 13662. it is important to note that each directive operates independently of the others. for example, if a transaction involves a person subject to two separate directives, a u.s. person engaging in that transaction must comply with both directives. an authorization for transactions that are ordinarily incident and necessary to a transaction licensed pursuant to e.o. 14024 does not implicitly authorize a debit to a blocked account on the books of a u.s. financial institution. debits to an account on the books of a u.s. financial institution of a blocked person are only authorized as transactions ordinarily incident and necessary to a licensed transaction if such license explicitly authorizes such debits. for example, general licenses (gls) 9 and 10 explicitly state that debits to accounts on the books of a u.s. financial institution of the blocked entities listed in the gls are authorized to the extent ordinarily incident and necessary to effect the specified transactions authorized therein. by contrast, gls 3 and 11 do not explicitly authorize debits to accounts on the books of a u.s. financial institution of the blocked entities. the russia related sovereign transactions directive prohibits u.s. persons from engaging in any transaction involving the central bank of the russian federation, the national wealth fund of the russian federation, or the ministry of finance of the russian federation (collectively, “directive 4 entities”), including any transfer of assets to such entities or any foreign exchange transaction for or on behalf of such entities. effective february 28, 2022, u.s. persons may not engage in any transactions involving these entities unless exempt or authorized by the office of foreign assets control (ofac). this includes both direct and indirect transactions involving any directive 4 entity. prohibited transactions include trade or financial transactions and other dealings in which u.s. persons may not engage unless exempt or expressly authorized by ofac. the russia related sovereign transactions directive also prohibits: (1) any transaction that evades or avoids, has the purpose of evading or avoiding, causes a violation of, or attempts to violate any of the prohibitions of the russia related sovereign transactions directive; and (2) any conspiracy formed to violate any of the prohibitions of the russia related sovereign transactions directive. this action effectively immobilizes any assets of the directive 4 entities that are held in the united states or by u.s. persons, wherever located, unless exempt or authorized by ofac. effective february 28, 2022, u.s. financial institutions must reject transactions involving any directive 4 entity, unless exempt or authorized by ofac, and file a report within 10 business days in accordance with 31 cfr § 501.604. ofac issued general licenses that authorize certain limited transactions involving the directive 4 entities (see faq 999). on may 19, 2023, ofac amended directive 4 to require u.s. persons to submit a report to ofacreport@treasury.gov on or before june 18, 2023, and annually thereafter by june 30, regarding property in their possession or control in which any directive 4 entity has an interest of any nature whatsoever, direct or indirect. this reporting requirement is intended to identify assets of directive 4 entities held by u.s. persons as of may 31, 2023, and annually thereafter, and is separate from the above noted requirement under 31 cfr 501.604 to file reports on rejected transactions involving any directive 4 entity. entities determined to be subject to the russia related sovereign transactions directive are listed on ofac’s non sdn menu based sanctions (ns mbs) list. date updated: may 19, 2023 ofac issued russia related general licenses (gls) 8l and 115a to authorize the wind down of certain energy related transactions and civil nuclear energy related transactions, including those involving the central bank of the russian federation, that would be prohibited by the russia related sovereign transactions directive (see faqs 976 and 977). ofac issued gl 13l to authorize u.s. persons to pay taxes, fees, or import duties and purchase or receive permits, licenses, registrations, or certifications, to the extent such transactions are prohibited by the russia related sovereign transactions directive, provided such transactions are ordinarily incident and necessary to such persons' day to day operations in the russian federation. for further information on the types of transactions authorized by gl 13l, see faq 1118. ofac also issued gl 14, authorizing certain transactions involving any directive 4 entity where the directive 4 entity's sole function in the transaction is to act as an operator of a clearing and settlement system. gl 14 does not authorize any transfer of assets to or from any directive 4 entity, or any transaction where a directive 4 entity is either a counterparty or beneficiary to the transaction. in addition, gl 14 does not authorize any debit to an account on the books of a u.s. financial institution of any directive 4 entity. see faq 1003. note that gl 8l, gl 13l, gl 14, and gl 115a continue to authorize against the russia related sovereign transactions directive. date updated: january 10, 2025 the central bank of the russian federation, the national wealth fund of the russian federation, and the ministry of finance of the russian federation are subject to several restrictions under the following directives: the russia related sovereign transactions directive includes prohibitions more expansive than the russia related sovereign debt directive and the cbw act directive; however, it is important to note that each directive operates independently of the others and may have different effective dates. transactions involving these entities must comply with all three directives described above. date updated: may 19, 2023 no. date updated: may 19, 2023 no. the russia related sovereign transactions directive prohibits u.s. persons from engaging in any transaction involving the central bank of the russian federation, the national wealth fund of the russian federation, or the ministry of finance of the russian federation, including any transfer of assets to such entities or any foreign exchange transaction for or on behalf of such entities. effective february 28, 2022, u.s. persons may not engage in any transactions involving these entities unless exempt or authorized by the office of foreign assets control (ofac), including debiting funds from restricted accounts. this includes both direct and indirect transactions. the russia related sovereign transactions directive also prohibits: (1) any transaction that evades or avoids, has the purpose of evading or avoiding, causes a violation of, or attempts to violate any of the prohibitions of the russia related sovereign transactions directive; and (2) any conspiracy formed to violate any of the prohibitions of the russia related sovereign transactions directive. in light of the current economic situation in russia, u.s. persons should be on alert for nonroutine foreign exchange transactions that may indirectly involve entities subject to the russia related sovereign transactions directive, including transactions that are inconsistent with activity over the 12 months prior to february 28, 2022. for example, the central bank of the russian federation may seek to use import or export companies to engage in foreign exchange transactions on its behalf and obfuscate its involvement. u.s. persons should also exercise caution in engaging in foreign exchange transactions on the moscow exchange given the current heightened risk that the central bank of the russia federation could be a counterparty to such transactions. date updated: may 19, 2023 yes. please see general license 14 and faq 999. no. although the prohibitions of the russia related sovereign transactions directive effectively immobilize any assets of the central bank of the russian federation, the national wealth fund of the russian federation, or the ministry of finance of the russian federation (collectively, the “directive 4 entities”) that are held in the united states or by u.s. persons, wherever located, the russia related sovereign transactions directive does not impose blocking sanctions on the directive 4 entities. rather, u.s. persons must reject transactions involving the directive 4 entities, unless exempt or authorized by ofac. date updated: may 19, 2023 no, the russia related sovereign transactions directive does not prohibit trading in the secondary markets for debt or equity of the central bank of the russian federation, the national wealth fund of the russian federation, or the ministry of finance of the russian federation (collectively, “directive 4 entities”), provided that no directive 4 entity is a counterparty to such a transaction. please note, however, that directive 1a under e.o. 14024, “prohibitions related to certain sovereign debt of the russian federation” (russia related sovereign debt directive), prohibits u.s. financial institutions from participation in the secondary market for ruble or non ruble denominated bonds issued after march 1, 2022 by the directive 4 entities. however, the “new investment” prohibitions of e.o.14066, e.o. 14068, and e.o. 14071 prohibit u.s. persons from purchasing debt and equity securities issued by an entity in the russian federation. please see faq 1054. date updated: may 19, 2023 the energy sector of the russian federation economy itself is not subject to comprehensive sanctions. however, prohibitions or restrictions may apply to certain energy related transactions under several sanctions authorities, including prohibitions issued pursuant to e.o. 13662, e.o. 14024, e.o. 14066, e.o. 14071, and e.o. 14068. pursuant to e.o. 14066, the import into the united states of crude oil; petroleum; petroleum fuels, oils, and products of their distillation; liquefied natural gas; coal; and coal products of russian federation origin is prohibited; and u.s. persons, wherever located, are prohibited from new investment in the energy sector in the russian federation, among other things. e.o. 14066 does not prohibit transactions such as the unwinding of contracts or other business related activities by u.s. persons to comply with the import ban imposed under e.o. 14066. likewise, e.o. 14066 does not prohibit u.s. persons from engaging in transactions to sell or re direct shipments that were laden on or after march 8, 2022 and previously destined for the united states. the office of foreign assets control (ofac) has also authorized until april 22, 2022 certain transactions prohibited by e.o. 14066 (see faqs 1013   1020). in addition, pursuant to e.o. 14024, ofac has imposed expansive sanctions on persons that operate or have operated in the financial services sector of the russian federation economy (see faq 966). to limit the degree to which these financial services sector sanctions may inhibit energy related transactions, ofac has issued russia related general license (gl) 8c authorizing u.s. persons to process energy related transactions involving the sanctioned russian financial institutions identified in gl 8c. gl 8c expires at 12:01 a.m. eastern standard time, december 5, 2022, unless renewed (see faqs 976, 977, 978, 1011, and 1012). energy related transactions authorized in gl 8c include payments connected with a variety of upstream and downstream activities, including the extraction, production, refinement, liquefaction, gasification, regasification, conversion, enrichment, fabrication, transport, or purchase of energy for import from the russian federation to countries other than the united states or for export to the russian federation, as well as financing, loading, or unloading related to such processes (see faq 977). however, transactions related to new investment in the energy sector in the russian federation are not authorized pursuant to gl 8c. updated: june 14, 2022 the office of foreign assets control (ofac) encourages persons to connect with their financial institution regarding the status of any payment. in addition, persons with questions about engaging in or processing transactions related to gl 115a can contact the ofac compliance hotline. updated: january 10, 2025 on january 10, 2025, the office of foreign assets control (ofac) amended gl 8l to authorize the wind down of energy related transactions through 12:01 a.m. eastern daylight time, march 12, 2025. ofac issued gl 115a to authorize transactions related to civil nuclear energy involving certain sanctioned russian financial institutions, including those listed in gl 8l. updated: january 10, 2025 e.o. of march 8, 2022 prohibits the following activities: no, only imports of crude oil; petroleum; petroleum fuels, oils, and products of their distillation; liquefied natural gas; coal; and coal products of russian federation origin into the united states are prohibited by e.o. of march 8, 2022, “prohibiting certain imports and new investments with respect to continued russian federation efforts to undermine the sovereignty and territorial integrity of ukraine.” imports of other forms of energy of russian federation origin are not prohibited by e.o. of march 8, 2022. in addition, e.o. of march 8, 2022 does not prohibit imports of non russian federation origin, even if such items transit through or depart from the russian federation. however, targeted prohibitions or restrictions may apply to certain energy related dealings with specified russian persons under other sanctions authorities, such as e.o. 13662 or e.o. 14024. through 12:01 eastern daylight time, april 22, 2022, russia related general license (gl) 16 authorizes all transactions prohibited by e.o. of march 8, 2022 that are ordinarily incident and necessary to the importation of crude oil; petroleum; petroleum fuels, oils, and products of their distillation; liquefied natural gas; coal; and coal products of russian federation origin pursuant to written contracts or written agreements entered prior to march 8, 2022. gl 16 does not authorize entry into new contracts. additionally, e.o. of march 8, 2022 does not prohibit transactions such as the unwinding of contracts or other business related activities by u.s. persons to comply with the import ban imposed under e.o. of march 8, 2022. likewise, e.o. of march 8, 2022 does not prohibit u.s. persons from engaging in transactions to sell or re direct shipments that were laden on or after march 8, 2022 and previously destined for the united states. note that all other prohibitions specified in e.o. of march 8, 2022 are effective immediately. yes. e.o. of march 8, 2022 prohibits the importation into the united states of crude oil; petroleum; petroleum fuels, oils, and products of their distillation; liquefied natural gas; coal; and coal products of russian federation origin. it does not prohibit u.s. persons from engaging in transactions to sell or re direct shipments that were previously destined for the united states. in addition, the office of foreign of assets control (ofac) has issued general license (gl) 16 to authorize the limited import of these items pursuant to pre existing written contracts or written agreements through april 22, 2022 (see faq 1015). such shipments into the united states can still be imported in compliance with e.o. of march 8, 2022. ofac may issue specific licenses on a case by case basis to authorize shipments occurring after april 22, 2022 or other activity outside the scope of gl 16. yes. gl 8l, which authorizes the wind down of energy related transactions involving specified russian financial institutions, remains in effect until 12:01 a.m. eastern daylight time, march 12, 2025, unless renewed. however, gl 8l does not authorize any transactions prohibited by e.o. 14066 (see faqs 976 978 and 1010 1012). updated: january 10, 2025 e.o. of march 8, 2022 prohibits the importation into the united states of crude oil; petroleum; petroleum fuels, oils, and products of their distillation; liquefied natural gas; coal; and coal products of russian federation origin. to the extent the import of such products of russian federation origin outside of the united states does not involve a sanctioned person or an otherwise prohibited transaction, non u.s. persons are not exposed to sanctions under e.o. of march 8, 2022. however, targeted prohibitions or restrictions may apply to certain energy related dealings with specified russian persons under other sanctions authorities, such as e.o. 13662 or e.o. 14024. for the purposes of e.o. 14066, “prohibiting certain imports and new investments with respect to continued russian federation efforts to undermine the sovereignty and territorial integrity of ukraine", e.o. 14068, as amended by e.o. 14114, “taking additional steps with respect to the russian federation’s harmful activities,” and the determination “prohibitions on certain services for the acquisition of aluminum, copper, or nickel of russian federation origin” pursuant to e.o. 14071, the office of foreign assets control (ofac) anticipates publishing regulations defining the term “russian federation origin” to include goods produced, manufactured, extracted, or processed in the russian federation, excluding any russian federation origin good that has been incorporated or substantially transformed into a foreign made product. for information on prohibitions related to new investment pursuant to russia related e.o. 14066, e.o. 14068, and e.o. 14071, please see faqs 1049 1055. for information on the amendment to e.o. 14068, see faq 1154. updated: april 12, 2024 no. the importation prohibition of e.o. 14066 applies to the import of certain products of russian federation origin to the united states and excludes imports that are not of russian federation origin, even if such items transit through or depart from the russian federation. the cpc transports crude oil through the cpc pipeline that is predominantly of kazakh origin and that is marketed and loaded with a certificate of origin verifying that the crude is of kazakh origin. any crude oil that is primarily of russian federation origin is marketed and loaded separately and certified as russian origin. for purposes of assessing whether crude oil marketed by the cpc is of russian origin, u.s. persons may reasonably rely upon a certificate of origin, but should exercise caution if they have a reason to believe such certificate has been falsified. date updated: 03/18/2022 yes. the office of foreign assets control (ofac) has imposed expansive sanctions actions against certain russian entities and individuals pursuant to e.o. 14024, in addition to other authorities. all u.s. persons are required to comply with ofac regulations, regardless of whether a transaction is denominated in traditional fiat currency or virtual currency (see faq 560). sanctioned russian persons are known to employ a wide variety of measures in their efforts to evade u.s. and international sanctions. as such, u.s. persons, wherever located, including firms that process virtual currency transactions, must be vigilant against attempts to circumvent ofac regulations and must take risk based steps to ensure they do not engage in prohibited transactions. for additional information regarding sanctions compliance best practices for the virtual currency industry, please see ofac’s sanctions compliance guidance for the virtual currency industry. u.s. persons, including virtual currency exchanges, virtual wallet hosts, and other service providers, such as those that provide nested services for foreign exchanges, are generally prohibited from engaging in or facilitating prohibited transactions, including virtual currency transactions in which blocked persons have an interest. u.s. persons are further prohibited from engaging in or facilitating any transaction by a non u.s. person that would be prohibited if performed by a u.s. person or within the united states, including virtual currency transactions involving the central bank of the russian federation, national wealth fund of the russian federation, or the ministry of finance of the russian federation. among other activities, u.s. financial institutions are also generally prohibited from processing transactions, including virtual currency transactions, involving foreign financial institutions that are determined to be subject to the prohibitions of directive 2 under executive order 14024, “prohibitions related to correspondent or payable through accounts and processing of transactions involving certain foreign financial institutions” (russia related capta directive). for additional information regarding the russia related capta directive, please see faq 967. non u.s. persons are also subject to certain ofac prohibitions. such persons, for example, are prohibited from causing or conspiring to cause u.s. persons to violate u.s. sanctions, as well as engaging in conduct that evades or avoids a violation of ofac sanctions. violations of ofac regulations may result in criminal or civil penalties. e.o. 14024 further authorizes sanctions against persons determined to be responsible for or complicit in, or to have directly or indirectly engaged or attempted to engage in, deceptive or structured transactions or dealings to circumvent u.s. sanctions, including through the use of digital currencies or assets, or the use of physical assets. e.o. 14024 also authorizes sanctions against persons determined to operate or to have operated in the financial services or technology sectors of the russian federation economy, as well as persons that have materially assisted, sponsored, or provided financial, material, or technological support for, or goods or services to or in support of, blocked persons. ofac is closely monitoring any efforts to circumvent or violate russia related sanctions, including through the use of virtual currency, and is committed to using its broad enforcement authorities to act against violations and to promote compliance. for additional information regarding the application of sanctions to virtual currency, please see faqs 559, 560, 561, 562, 563, 594, 646, 647, and 971, as well as ofac’s sanctions compliance guidance for the virtual currency industry. for additional treasury guidance on russia and sanctions evasion, please see fincen’s alert on increased vigilance for potential russian sanctions evasion attempts. e.o. 14068 prohibits the following activities: on december 22, 2023, e.o. 14068 was amended to provide for additional prohibitions on the importation and entry into the united states of certain categories of products. see faq 1154 for additional information on how e.o. 14114 amends e.o. 14068. date updated: february 23, 2024 yes. e.o. 14068 prohibits the importation into the united states of fish, seafood, and preparations thereof; alcoholic beverages; and non industrial diamonds of russian federation origin. it does not prohibit u.s. persons from engaging in transactions to sell or re direct shipments outside the united states that were previously destined for the united states. in addition, the office of foreign of assets control (ofac) has issued russia related general license (gl) 17a to authorize the import, for a limited time, of certain items pursuant to pre existing written contracts or written agreements (see faq 1023). gl 17a provides such authorization for importing alcoholic beverages or non industrial diamonds of russian federation origin until march 25, 2022 and authorization for importing fish, seafood, and preparations thereof of russian federation origin until june 23, 2022. ofac may issue specific licenses on a case by case basis to authorize shipments occurring after the expiry of gl 17a or for other activity outside the scope of this gl. (updated march 24, 2022) russia related gl 6c (“transactions related to agricultural commodities, medicine, medical devices, replacement parts and components, or software updates, the coronavirus disease 2019 (covid 19) pandemic, or clinical trials”) remains valid and authorizes, among other things, certain transactions prohibited by the russian harmful foreign activities sanctions regulations, 31 cfr part 587, ordinarily incident and necessary to (1) the production, manufacturing, sale, transport, or provision of agricultural commodities, including products such as fish, seafood, or preparations thereof   to the extent they fall within the definition of agricultural commodities provided in gl 6c   to, from, or transiting the russian federation (see faq 979). however, gl 6c does not authorize any transactions prohibited by e.o. 14068, including transactions prohibited by the determination of december 22, 2023 (seafood determination). in particular, e.o. 14068 prohibits the importation into the united states of, among other things, russian federation origin fish, seafood, and preparations thereof. the seafood determination further prohibits the importation of salmon, cod, pollock, or crab produced wholly or in part in the russian federation, or harvested in waters under the jurisdiction of the russian federation or by russia flagged vessels, notwithstanding whether such salmon, cod, pollock, or crab has been incorporated or substantially transformed into another product outside of the russian federation. as such, u.s. persons cannot rely on gl 6c for transactions that are for the importation into the united states of russian federation origin fish, seafood, or preparations thereof, or salmon, cod, pollock, or crab covered by the seafood determination, unless otherwise authorized by ofac. however, u.s. persons may continue to rely on gl 6c for transactions otherwise prohibited by e.o. 14024 involving agricultural commodities. date updated: february 23, 2024 e.o. of march 11, 2022 prohibits the importation into the united states of fish, seafood, and preparations thereof; alcoholic beverages; and non industrial diamonds of russian federation origin. to the extent the import of such products of russian federation origin to jurisdictions outside of the united states does not involve a sanctioned person or an otherwise prohibited transaction, non u.s. persons are not exposed to sanctions under e.o. of march 11, 2022. for the purposes of e.o. 14068, as amended by e.o. 14114, the office of foreign assets control anticipates publishing regulations defining these terms to include the following: with respect to the export prohibitions set forth in section 1(a)(ii) of e.o. 14068, please consult the u.s. department of commerce, bureau of industry and security, for guidance. date updated: february 23, 2024 e.o. of march 11, 2022 prohibits the exportation, reexportation, sale, or supply, directly or indirectly, from the united states, or by a united states person, wherever located, of u.s. dollar denominated banknotes to the government of the russian federation or any person located in the russian federation. however, russia related general license (gl) 18 authorizes certain transactions that are ordinarily incident and necessary to the transfer of u.s. dollar denominated banknotes for noncommercial, personal remittances from: (i) the united states or a u.s. person, wherever located, to an individual located in the russian federation; or (ii) a u.s. person who is an individual located in the russian federation. gl 18 authorizes methods of payment including withdrawals of u.s. dollar denominated banknotes via automated teller machines and the hand carrying of u.s. dollar denominated banknotes. note that gl 18 does not authorize u.s. financial institutions to process transactions for the provision of u.s. dollar denominated banknotes to foreign financial institutions for further distribution or supply to the government of the russian federation or any person located in the russian federation. gold related transactions involving the russian federation may be sanctionable under e.o. 14024 or other russia related sanctions authorities. for example, e.o. 14024 authorizes sanctions against: in addition, gold related transactions involving russia or the russian federation may be prohibited under e.o. 14024 or other russia related sanctions authorities. for example: sanctioned russian persons are known to employ a wide variety of measures in their efforts to evade u.s. and international sanctions. as such, u.s. persons, wherever located, including persons that process or facilitate gold related transactions, must be vigilant against attempts to circumvent ofac regulations and must take risk based steps to ensure they do not engage in prohibited transactions. violations of ofac regulations may result in criminal or civil penalties. ofac is closely monitoring any efforts to circumvent or violate russia related sanctions, including through the use of gold or other precious metals, and is committed to using its authorities to act against sanctions evaders, and promote compliance. date updated: june 28, 2022 pursuant to the ruhsr and bsr, u.s. persons, including u.s. operators of credit card systems and u.s. acquirers, are prohibited from processing transactions involving certain sanctioned foreign financial institutions, unless exempt or authorized by ofac. non u.s. operators of credit card systems whose payment cards are issued by sanctioned foreign financial institutions may also be in violation of ofac administered sanctions regulations if they allow those cards to be used in the united states. ofac encourages u.s. persons, including u.s. operators of credit card systems and u.s. acquirers, to exercise caution and due diligence in dealing with non u.s. operators of credit card systems that are known to host payment cards issued by sanctioned foreign financial institutions and whose payment cards are accepted in the united states. examples of due diligence measures may include requesting bank identification numbers (bins) associated with sanctioned foreign financial institutions, disabling those bins from operation in the united states, and requesting that non u.s. operators of credit card systems prevent the use of payment cards issued by sanctioned foreign financial institutions in the united states at the network level. on may 8, 2022, the director of ofac, in consultation with the department of state, issued a determination pursuant to executive order (e.o.) 14071, "prohibitions related to certain accounting, trust and corporate formation, and management consulting services," prohibiting the exportation, reexportation, sale, or supply, directly or indirectly, from the united states, or by a united states person, wherever located, of certain accounting, trust and corporate formation, and management consulting services to any person located in the russian federation. this determination takes effect june 07, 2022. for more information, please see faq 1034. on may 08, 2022, the director of ofac, in consultation with the department of state, also issued a sectoral determination pursuant to e.o. 14024 that authorizes the imposition of economic sanctions on individuals and entities that operate or have operated in the accounting, trust and corporate formation services, or management consulting sectors of the russian federation economy. this determination takes effect on may 08, 2022. for further information, please see faq 1034. on june 12, 2024, the department of the treasury issued a determination that restricts the provision of certain it and software related services to russia, including prohibiting the exportation, reexportation, sale, or supply, directly or indirectly, from the united states, or by a united states person, wherever located, to any person located in the russian federation of it support services and cloud based services for the following categories of software: enterprise management software and design and manufacturing software (collectively, "covered software"). these prohibitions took effect on september 12, 2024. see faqs 1184   1188 for additional information. date updated: september 12, 2024 for the purposes of the determination of may 8, 2022 made pursuant to e.o. 14071, ofac anticipates publishing regulations defining these terms to include the following: this determination excludes from the scope of the aforementioned services: (1) any service to an entity located in the russian federation that is owned or controlled, directly or indirectly, by a united states person; and (2) any service in connection with the wind down or divestiture of an entity located in the russian federation that is not owned or controlled, directly or indirectly, by a russian person. for the purposes of the prohibitions set forth in in the determination of may 8, 2022 made pursuant to e.o. 14071, ofac anticipates publishing regulations defining the term “person located in the russian federation” as set forth in faq 1058. for the purposes of the exclusion set forth in the determination of may 8, 2022 made pursuant to e.o. 14071, ofac anticipates publishing regulations defining the term “russian person” to mean an individual who is a citizen or national of the russian federation, or an entity organized under the laws of the russian federation. date updated: september 15, 2022 the term “credit rating services” means services related to assessments of a borrower’s ability to meet financial commitments, including analysis of general creditworthiness or with respect to a specific debt or financial obligation. the term “auditing services” means examination or inspection of business records by an auditor, including checking and verifying accounts, statements, or other representation of the financial position or regulatory compliance of the auditee. general license 35 authorizes certain transactions ordinarily incident and necessary to the exportation, reexportation, sale, or supply, directly or indirectly, from the united states, or by a united states person, wherever located, of credit rating or auditing services to any person located in the russian federation through 12:01 a.m. eastern daylight time, august 20, 2022. updated: may 11, 2022 the prohibitions imposed by the determination of may 8, 2022 made pursuant to e.o. 14071take effect at 12:01 a.m. eastern daylight time june 7, 2022. in addition, ofac has issued general license 34 to authorize all transactions ordinarily incident and necessary to the wind down of the exportation, reexportation, sale, or supply, directly or indirectly, from the united states, or by a united states person, wherever located, of accounting, trust and corporate formation, and management consulting services to any person located in the russian federation, through 12:01 a.m. eastern daylight time, july 7, 2022. for the purposes of the determination of may 8, 2022 made pursuant to e.o. 14024, ofac interprets the following terms to include activities related to products and services in or involving the russian federation in the following: the determination regarding these sectors pursuant to e.o. 14024 takes effect immediately. updated: may 11, 2022 yes. on may 8, 2022, ofac designated agropromyshlennyi kompleks voronezhskii ooo, anninskii elevator ooo, and azovskaya zernovaya kompaniya ooo pursuant to executive order (e.o.) 14024 for being owned or controlled by, or for having acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, joint stock company moscow industrial bank (mib), which was also designated on may 8, 2022 pursuant to e.o. 14024 for operating or having operated in the financial services sector of the russian federation economy. russia related general license (gl) 6b authorizes, among other activities, certain transactions prohibited by the russian harmful foreign activities sanctions regulations, 31 cfr part 587 (ruhsr), that are related to the sale, or transport of agricultural commodities, which includes transactions ordinarily incident and necessary to the exportation or reexportation of agricultural commodities to, from, or transiting the russian federation. for additional information, please see the text of gl 6b. for further information on relevant authorizations, exemptions, and public guidance, please review ofac’s fact sheets, “preserving agricultural trade, access to communication, and other support to those impacted by russia’s war against ukraine ” and “russia sanctions and agricultural trade”. date updated: july 14, 2022 gl 25g authorizes certain transactions ordinarily incident and necessary to the receipt or transmission of telecommunications involving the russian federation that are prohibited by the russian harmful foreign activities sanctions regulations, 31 cfr part 587 (ruhsr). in addition, gl 25g authorizes certain transactions from the united states or by u.s. persons, wherever located, to the russian federation that are incident to the exchange of communications over the internet and that are prohibited by the ruhsr. with respect to software, hardware, and technology, gl 25g authorizes the exportation or reexportation, sale, or supply from the united states or by u.s. persons, wherever located, to the russian federation of software, hardware, or technology incident to the exchange of communications over the internet that is authorized for export to russia by the department of commerce if it is subject to the export administration regulations, 15 cfr parts 730 774 (ear), or that would be eligible for a license exception or otherwise authorized for export to russia by the department of commerce if it were subject to the ear. however, gl 25g explicitly excludes from the authorization any transactions that are prohibited by the ruhsr involving joint stock company channel one russia, television station russia 1, joint stock company ntv broadcasting company, limited liability company algoritm, new eastern outlook, oriental review, garantex europe ou, autonomous non profit organization dialog, autonomous non profit organization dialog regions, federal state unitary enterprise international information agency rossiya segodnya, autonomous non profit organization tv novosti, xh smart tech china co ltd, or cjsc perspective technologies agency, which are designated pursuant to executive order 14024. for further information on relevant authorizations, exemptions, and public guidance, please review ofac's fact sheet, "preserving agricultural trade, access to communication, and other support to those impacted by russia’s war against ukraine." date updated: october 30, 2024 for the purposes of the respective e.o.s, the office of foreign assets control (ofac) views “investment” as the commitment of capital or other assets for the purpose of generating returns or appreciation. ofac interprets “new” investment as such a commitment made on or after the effective date of the respective e.o. prohibitions. as a general matter, new investment includes such commitments that are pursuant to an agreement entered on or after the effective dates of the respective e.o. prohibitions. new investment also includes such commitments pursuant to the exercise of rights under an agreement entered into before the effective dates of the respective e.o. prohibitions, where such commitment is made on or after the effective dates of the respective e.o. prohibitions. we note, however, that new investment does not include the maintenance of an investment made prior to the applicable effective dates of the respective e.o. prohibitions (see faq 1050). unless exempt or otherwise authorized by ofac, transactions that ofac considers to be “new investment” for the purposes of the respective e.o. prohibitions include: examples of transactions that ofac does not consider to be “new investment” for the purposes of the respective e.o. prohibitions include: even if a transaction is not a prohibited form of “new investment” pursuant to the respective e.o.s, u.s. persons engaging in the transaction must comply with all other relevant sanctions prohibitions, including those pursuant to ukraine /russia related sanctions regulations and russian harmful foreign activities sanctions regulations (see, e.g., faq 415). for example, the respective e.o.s include provisions prohibiting any approval, financing, facilitation, or guarantee by a united states person, wherever located, of a transaction by a foreign person where the transaction by that foreign person would be prohibited if performed by a united states person or within the united states. for more information, see faq 1053. for the purposes of the respective e.o. prohibitions, “new investment” generally excludes the maintenance of investments in the russian federation that were made prior to the effective dates of the respective e.o. prohibitions (“pre existing projects or operations”). “maintenance” of investments includes: as a general matter, “maintenance” includes all transactions ordinarily incident to performing under an agreement in effect prior to the effective date of the respective e.o. prohibitions (“pre existing agreement”), provided that such transactions are consistent with previously established practices and support pre existing projects or operations. however, “maintenance” does not include the expansion of pre existing projects or operations beyond those in effect prior to the effective dates of the respective e.o. prohibitions, even if pursuant to a pre existing agreement, where such expansion occurs on or after the effective dates of the respective e.o. prohibitions. nor does “maintenance” include commitments pursuant to the exercise of rights under a pre existing agreement where such commitment is made on or after the effective dates of the respective e.o. prohibitions. in connection with maintenance activity, u.s. persons also may modify or alter pre existing agreements, or enter into new contracts or agreements, provided that any transaction under such contracts or agreements are consistent with previously established practices and support pre existing projects or operations. for example, a pre existing agreement may be modified, or new contract established, to substitute suppliers, conduct maintenance or repairs, or comply with new environmental or safety standards. in assessing whether activity is consistent with past practice, the office of foreign assets control (ofac) will consider all relevant facts and circumstances, including the transaction history between contract parties prior to the effective date of the respective e.o.s. note that maintenance activities must not involve blocked persons or other prohibited transactions unless exempt or otherwise authorized by ofac. the prohibitions on “new investment” pursuant to the respective e.o.s do not prohibit the export or import of goods, services, or technology, or related sales or purchases, to or from the russian federation, provided that such transaction is made pursuant to ordinary commercial sales terms (e.g., a payment of an invoice for goods made within the contracted time period, where such payment does not involve ongoing participation in royalties or ongoing profits) (see faq 1049). such transactions can be supported through traditional trade finance products, including commercial letters of credit and documentary collections. u.s. persons are not prohibited pursuant to the respective e.o.s from entering into new contracts or agreements for such transactions. however, please note that u.s. persons are prohibited or restricted from exporting, reexporting, or importing certain goods and services involving the russian federation, as described by law (see, for example, section 1(a)(i) of e.o. 14068; see also faq 415). yes, provided that the use of the funds by the subsidiary or affiliate is consistent with maintenance, as described in faq 1050. “maintenance” does not include the expansion of pre existing projects or operations beyond those in effect prior to the effective dates of the respective e.o. prohibitions. therefore, u.s. persons may not fund new or expanded projects or operations undertaken by their subsidiaries and affiliates located in the russian federation after the effective dates of the respective e.o. prohibitions. yes. transactions related to the divestment or the facilitation of divestment of a pre existing investment in a project or operation in the russian federation are not prohibited by the new investment prohibitions of the respective e.o.s. such transactions may not involve a blocked person or otherwise prohibited transactions unless exempt or authorized by the office of foreign assets control (ofac). the respective e.o.s prohibit any approval, financing, facilitation, or guarantee by a united states person, wherever located, of a transaction by a foreign person where the transaction by that foreign person would be prohibited if performed by a united states person or within the united states. such provisions do not prohibit u.s. persons from facilitating the wind down or divestment of an existing investment in a project or operation in the russian federation. for example, a u.s. financial institution is not prohibited from advising a client that seeks to divest from a project or operation in the russian federation (i.e., the seller in a transaction). however, a u.s. person is prohibited from providing any approval, financing, facilitation, or guarantee to a non u.s. person that seeks to invest in a project or operation in the russian federation (i.e., the buyer in such a transaction). such provisions also do not prohibit u.s. persons from advising on the requirements of u.s. sanctions laws consistent with ofac’s guidance on the provision of certain services relating to the requirements of u.s. sanctions laws. for guidance related to divestment transactions in the secondary market involving debt or equity securities issued by an entity in the russian federation, please see faq 1054. updated: july 22, 2022 yes, the respective e.o.s prohibit u.s. persons from purchasing both new and existing debt and equity securities issued by an entity in the russian federation. however, the new investment prohibitions of the respective e.o.s do not prohibit u.s. persons from selling or divesting debt or equity securities issued by an entity in the russian federation to a non u.s. person (see faq 1049), including purchases of such debt or equity securities if ordinarily incident and necessary to the divestment or transfer of the debt or equity securities to a non u.s. person. u.s. financial institutions may clear and settle, or otherwise serve as market intermediaries in, divestment transactions on the secondary market including transactions between non u.s. persons. please note that u.s. persons are not required to divest such securities and may continue to hold such previously acquired securities. moreover, the conversion of depositary receipts to underlying local shares of non sanctioned russian issuers would not be considered a prohibited “new investment” in the russian federation under the respective e.o.s. additionally, the purchase of shares in a u.s. fund would not be considered a prohibited “new investment” under the respective e.o.s, unless the fund’s holdings of debt or equity securities issued by entities in the russian federation represent a 50 percent or more share by value of the fund. generally, the fund may also divest itself of these prohibited holdings. date updated: january 17, 2023 no, provided that (i) such funds are not specifically intended for new projects or operations in the russian federation and (ii) the entity located outside the russian federation derives less than 50 percent of its revenues from its investments in the russian federation. for the purposes of assessing the foregoing, u.s. persons, including u.s. financial institutions, may reasonably rely upon the information available to them in the ordinary course of business, including publicly available information such as an entity’s most recent quarterly or annual report. for the purposes of determining the percentage of revenues derived from investments in the russian federation, revenues derived from the commercial sale of goods or services by an entity located outside of the russian federation to persons in the russian federation should not be included. this approach is consistent with the guidance provided by the office of foreign assets control (ofac) in faq 1049, which clarifies that ofac does not consider the commercial sale of goods or services to persons in the russian federation by an entity located outside the russian federation to be new investment in the russian federation for purposes of the respective e.o. prohibitions. unless exempt or otherwise authorized by ofac, examples of transactions that ofac considers to be “new investment” for the purposes of the respective e.o. prohibitions include: ofac notes, however, the new investment prohibitions of the respective e.o.s do not prohibit u.s. persons from selling or divesting debt or equity securities issued by such entities to a non u.s. person. moreover, u.s. financial institutions may clear and settle, or otherwise serve as market intermediaries in, such divestment transactions on the secondary market   including transactions between non u.s. persons. for the purposes of assessing whether certain purchases of debt or equity of an entity are permissible, u.s. financial institutions, including securities exchanges and other market intermediaries and participants, may reasonably rely upon the information available to them in the ordinary course of business. examples of transactions that ofac does not consider to be “new investment” for the purposes of the respective e.o. prohibitions include: date updated: january 17, 2023 for the purposes of section 1(a)(ii) of e.o. 14071, ofac interprets “person located in the russian federation” to include persons in the russian federation, individuals ordinarily resident in the russian federation, and entities incorporated or organized under the laws of the russian federation or any jurisdiction within the russian federation. please note that section 1(a)(ii) of e.o. 14071 prohibits the direct or indirect exportation, reexportation, sale, or supply from the united states, or by a united states person, wherever located, of such services determined pursuant to e.o. 14071. for the purposes of e.o. 14071, ofac interprets the “indirect” provision of such services to include when the benefit of the services is ultimately received by a “person located in the russian federation.” please see faq 1059 for more information. no, provided that the provision of services is not an indirect export to a person located in the russian federation. for the purposes of these determinations, ofac interprets the “indirect” provision of the prohibited services to include when the benefit of the services is ultimately received by a “person located in the russian federation.” in contrast, ofac would not consider to be prohibited the provision of services to a non russian company that has a physical presence and operations outside of the russian federation, including such a company owned or controlled by persons located in the russian federation, provided that the services will not be further exported or reexported to persons located in the russian federation. for example, the following scenarios describe services that would be prohibited under the determination: the following scenarios illustrate services to a non russian subsidiary of a russian person that would not be prohibited under the determination: date updated: may 19, 2023 under the determination, u.s. persons are prohibited from exporting, reexporting, selling, or supplying, directly or indirectly, trust and corporate formation services to persons located in the russian federation. this prohibition on trust and corporate formation services does not, in and of itself, prohibit u.s. persons from serving on the board of directors of a company located in the russian federation. however, this determination would prohibit u.s. persons from providing nominee officer or director services in which a u.s. person is contracted to serve as a nominee officer, director, shareholder, or signatory of a legal person on behalf of a person located in the russian federation. not necessarily. under the determinations, u.s. persons are prohibited from exporting, reexporting, selling, or supplying, directly or indirectly: management consulting; trust and corporate formation services; accounting services; quantum computing services; architecture services; and engineering services to persons located in the russian federation. thus, u.s. persons are prohibited from providing these services to companies located in the russian federation (“russian companies”) in their capacity as employees. however, the determinations do not prohibit u.s. persons from providing other services not covered by these determinations as part of their employment by russian companies. in addition, please note that the determinations exclude from the scope of the aforementioned services: (1) any service to an entity located in the russian federation that is owned or controlled, directly or indirectly, by a united states person; and (2) any service in connection with the wind down or divestiture of an entity located in the russian federation that is not owned or controlled, directly or indirectly, by a russian person. date updated: may 19, 2023 yes. the prohibitions apply to services provided to a company located in the russian federation (the “russian company”) by any u.s. person, including the russian company’s u.s. subsidiary. date updated: may 19, 2023 the prohibitions imposed by the determination do not distinguish between new and existing trusts and companies. under the determination, u.s. persons are prohibited from providing trust and corporate formation services to persons located in the russian federation, regardless of whether the services are performed as part of the formation of a new trust or company, or as part of the administration or maintenance of an existing trust or company. please see faq 1034 for more information. in addition, please note that the determination excludes from the scope of the aforementioned services: (1) any service to an entity located in the russian federation that is owned or controlled, directly or indirectly, by a united states person; and (2) any service in connection with the wind down or divestiture of an entity located in the russian federation that is not owned or controlled, directly or indirectly, by a russian person. yes. for the purposes of this determination, ofac interprets management consulting services to include services related to strategic business advice; organizational and systems planning, evaluation, and selection; development or evaluation of marketing programs or implementation; mergers, acquisitions, and organizational structure; staff augmentation and human resources policies and practices; and brand management. please see faq 1034 for more information. yes, unless otherwise exempt or authorized by ofac. no, provided such services do not evade or avoid the prohibition on providing the underlying services to persons located in the russian federation. yes. u.s. persons, wherever located, are prohibited from exporting, reexporting, selling, or supplying, directly or indirectly, accounting services, which would include tax preparation and filing services, to any person located in the russian federation, unless otherwise exempt or authorized by ofac. please see faq 1059 for more information. please note the determination excludes the provision by a u.s. person of any service to an entity located in the russian federation that is owned or controlled, directly or indirectly, by a united states person, and any service in connection with the wind down or divestiture of an entity located in the russian federation that is not owned or controlled, directly or indirectly, by a russian person. updated: june 12, 2024 the determination of june 28, 2022 (as amended by the determination of december 22, 2023) issued pursuant to subsection 1(a)(i)(a) of amended e.o. 14068, “prohibitions related to imports of gold of russian federation origin,” prohibits the importation into the united states of gold of russian federation origin. please note that per the determination, the importation into the united states of gold of russian federation origin that was located outside of the russian federation prior to june 28, 2022 is not prohibited. for information regarding the term “russian federation origin,” please see faq 1019. date updated: december 22, 2023 through 12:01 a.m. eastern daylight time, october 20, 2022, russia related general license (gl) 45 (this content is no longer available) authorizes all transactions prohibited by section (1)(a)(i) of e.o. 14071 that are ordinarily incident and necessary to the wind down of financial contracts or other agreements that were entered into on or before june 6, 2022 and involve, or are linked to, debt or equity securities issued by an entity in the russian federation. the authorized transactions include the purchase, or facilitating the purchase, by u.s. persons of debt or equity securities issued by an entity in the russian federation, if that purchase is ordinarily incident and necessary to the wind down of a financial contract or agreement entered into on or before june 6, 2022. for example, u.s. persons may purchase securities issued by an entity in the russian federation in order to cover or close out a short position, per a securities lending agreement, if such agreement was entered into on or before june 6, 2022. please see faq 1054 for additional information on the scope of the prohibition in section 1(a)(i) of e.o. 14071, including permissible transactions related to the divestment or transfer of debt or equity securities to a non u.s. person. note that russia related gl 46 separately authorizes transactions related to the settlement of credit derivative transactions referencing “the russian federation” via an auction process. for further information, please see faq 1072. gl 45 does not authorize any transactions involving blocked persons, unless separately authorized. russia related gl 46 authorizes transactions otherwise prohibited by section (1)(a)(i) of executive order (e.o.) 14071 related to the establishment, administration, participation in, and execution of an auction process, as announced by the emea credit derivatives determination committee, to settle credit derivative transactions with a reference entity of “the russian federation” (“the auction”). examples of transactions that may be related to the auction include the submission and acceptance of bids and offers and physical settlement requests by auction participants and their customers, or the delivery and acceptance of the russian federation debt obligations and corresponding settlement amounts. to promote the proper functioning of such auction, gl 46 also authorizes u.s. persons to purchase or receive russian federation debt obligations for the period beginning two business days prior to the announced date of the auction and ending eight business days after the conclusion of the auction. gl 46 also authorizes financial institutions, among others, to facilitate, clear, and settle transactions authorized by gl 46, including the transfer to, or purchase or receipt by, u.s. persons of russian federation debt obligations. gl 46 does not require the clearance and settlement of such transactions to be completed within eight business days after the conclusion of the auction. for example, a purchase by a u.s. person of russian federation debt obligations made on the seventh business day after the conclusion of the auction does not have to be settled or cleared by the eighth business day. accordingly, u.s. financial institutions may continue settling or clearing such transactions after the eighth business day following the conclusion of the auction. financial institutions processing transactions pursuant to gl 46 may reasonably rely upon the information available to them in the ordinary course of business for the purposes of assessing whether a transaction is authorized by gl 46, provided that the financial institution does not know or have reason to know that a transaction is not in compliance with gl 46. no. ofac has not designated sheremetyevo international airport and, based on information available to ofac, sheremetyevo international airport is not owned 50% or more by blocked persons or otherwise considered the blocked property of alexander anatolevich ponomarenko. no. ofac has not designated eurochem group ag and, based on information available to ofac, eurochem group ag is not owned 50% or more by blocked persons or otherwise considered the blocked property of andrey igorevich melnichenko. as a general matter, agricultural and medical trade are not the target of sanctions imposed by the united states on russia in response to its unprovoked and brutal war against ukraine, and ofac has issued general license 6b to authorize certain transactions prohibited by the russian harmful foreign activities sanctions regulations (ruhsr) related to agricultural commodities (including fertilizer), agricultural equipment, medicine, and medical devices, among other things. for information on exemptions and authorizations pursuant to the ruhsr related to fertilizer and other agricultural commodities, please see “ofac food security fact sheet: russia sanctions and agricultural trade” and “fact sheet: preserving agricultural trade, access to communication, and other support to those impacted by russia’s war against ukraine.” no. ofac has not designated phosagro pjsc and, based on information available to ofac, phosagro pjsc is not owned 50% or more by blocked persons or otherwise considered the blocked property of andrey grigoryevich guryev and andrey andreevich guryev. as a general matter, agricultural and medical trade are not the target of sanctions imposed by the united states on russia in response to its unprovoked and brutal war against ukraine, and ofac has issued general license 6b to authorize certain transactions prohibited by the russian harmful foreign activities sanctions regulations (ruhsr) related to agricultural commodities (including fertilizer), agricultural equipment, medicine, and medical devices, among other things. for information on exemptions and authorizations pursuant to the ruhsr related to fertilizer and other agricultural commodities, please see “ofac food security fact sheet: russia sanctions and agricultural trade” and “fact sheet: preserving agricultural trade, access to communication, and other support to those impacted by russia’s war against ukraine.” since russia’s further invasion of ukraine beginning in february 2022, ofac has blocked a number of russian financial institutions pursuant to e.o. 14024 for operating or having operated in the financial services sector of the russian federation economy (see faq 966). in addition, all property and interests in property of any financial institution that is owned, directly or indirectly, individually or in the aggregate, 50 percent or more by one or more blocked persons are also blocked. accordingly, u.s. persons are prohibited from transacting with these financial institutions unless the activity is exempt or authorized by ofac. in practice, this means that accounts held by u.s. persons at any blocked russian financial institutions generally are themselves considered blocked property, unless exempt. this includes, for example, checking and savings accounts, credit cards, cds, loans, and mortgages. u.s. persons must stop utilizing such accounts and treat them as blocked, even if the designated russian financial institution does not. additionally, within 10 business days of the blocking of the account or other property, u.s. persons are required to file a blocking report with ofac describing any property or interests in property (e.g., accounts, etc.). information on the requirement to report blocked property, including accounts, and on filing initial and annual reports of blocked property with ofac can be found at faqs 49, 50, and 646, respectively, and 31 cfr § 501.603. please note that the annual filing requirement for 2022 applies only to persons holding blocked property as of june 30 of this year. on august 19, 2022, ofac issued russia related general license (gl) 50 authorizing individuals, wherever located, to engage in all transactions ordinarily incident and necessary to close their individual accounts held at a financial institution blocked pursuant to e.o. 14024. gl 50 also authorizes the unblocking and lump sum transfer to the account holder of all remaining funds and other assets in the account at the blocked financial institution, including to an account held at a non blocked financial institution. individuals may avail themselves of gl 50 to terminate their accounts with russian financial institutions blocked pursuant to e.o. 14024 and repatriate the proceeds of any account closures. individuals who have filed a blocking report with ofac and are availing themselves of gl 50 must file an unblocking report with ofac within 10 business days of the unblocking in accordance with 31 cfr § 501.603(b)(3). no. gl 50 authorizes individuals with accounts at russian financial institutions blocked pursuant to e.o. 14024 to unblock and lump sum transfer funds to an account at a non designated financial institution. individuals do not need to provide official documentation proving they have closed their account at the blocked russian financial institution when utilizing the gl. individuals who have filed a blocking report with ofac and are availing themselves of gl 50 must file an unblocking report with ofac within 10 business days of the unblocking in accordance with 31 cfr § 501.603(b)(3). for guidance related to filing an initial report of blocked property, an annual report of blocked property, and an unblocking report, please see faqs 49, 50, and 646, respectively, and 31 c.f.r. § 501.603. please note that the annual filing requirement for 2022 applies only to persons holding blocked property as of june 30 of this year. on september 15, 2022, the director of ofac, in consultation with the department of state, issued a determination pursuant to executive order (e.o.) 14071, “prohibitions related to certain quantum computing services,” prohibiting the exportation, reexportation, sale, or supply, directly or indirectly, from the united states, or by a united states person, wherever located, of certain quantum computing services to any person located in the russian federation. this determination takes effect on october 15, 2022. this determination excludes from the scope of the prohibited services: (1) any service to an entity located in the russian federation that is owned or controlled, directly or indirectly, by a united states person; and (2) any service in connection with the wind down or divestiture of an entity located in the russian federation that is not owned or controlled, directly or indirectly, by a russian person. for more information, please see faq 1084. on september 15, 2022, the director of ofac, in consultation with the department of state, also issued a sectoral determination pursuant to e.o. 14024 that authorizes the imposition of economic sanctions on individuals and entities that are determined to operate or have operated in the quantum computing sector of the russian federation economy. the determination regarding this sector pursuant to e.o. 14024 takes effect immediately. for the purposes of the determination, ofac anticipates publishing regulations defining this term to include any of the following services when related to quantum computing, quantum computers, electronic assemblies thereof, or cryogenic refrigeration systems related to quantum computing: infrastructure, web hosting, or data processing services; custom computer programming services; computer systems integration design services; computer systems and data processing facilities management services; computing infrastructure, data processing services, web hosting services, and related services; repairing computer, computer peripherals, or communication equipment; other computer related services; as well as services related to the exportation, reexportation, sale, or supply, directly or indirectly, of quantum computing, quantum computers, electronic assemblies thereof, or cryogenic refrigeration systems related to quantum computing to any person located in the russian federation. for the purposes of the determination, ofac also anticipates publishing regulations defining the term “person located in the russian federation” as set forth in faq 1058, as well as regulations defining the term “russian person” to mean an individual who is a citizen or national of the russian federation, or an entity organized under the laws of the russian federation. for the purposes of the determination of september 15, 2022 made pursuant to e.o. 14024, ofac interprets the term “quantum computing sector of the russian federation economy” to include activities related to products and services in or involving the russian federation in research, development, manufacturing, assembling, maintenance, repair, sale, or supply of quantum computing, quantum computers, electronic assemblies thereof, or cryogenic refrigeration systems related to quantum computing. ofac also interprets the term “quantum computing sector of the russian federation economy” to include any of the following services when related to quantum computing: infrastructure, web hosting or data processing services; custom computer programming services; computer systems integration design services; computer systems and data processing facilities management services; computing infrastructure, data processing services, web hosting services, and related services; repairing computer, computer peripherals, and communication equipment; other computer related services; as well as the exportation, reexportation, sale, or supply, directly or indirectly, of quantum computing, quantum computers, electronic assemblies thereof, or cryogenic refrigeration systems related to quantum computing to or from the russian federation. the determination regarding this sector pursuant to e.o. 14024 takes effect immediately. yes. on september 23, g7 leaders issued a statement condemning russia’s sham referenda and noting their collective readiness to impose further economic costs on russia, and on individuals and entities both inside and outside of russia that provide political or economic support for russia’s illegal attempts to change the status of ukrainian territory. the united states is prepared to more aggressively use its authorities under existing u.s. sanctions programs to target such persons whose activities may constitute material assistance, sponsorship, financial, material, or technological support for, or goods or services to, or in support of (together “material support”), sanctioned persons or sanctionable activity. particular areas of targeting focus include entities and individuals in jurisdictions outside russia that provide political or economic support for russia’s illegal attempt to annex ukrainian sovereign territory. examples of activities that could be targeted include those related to: multiple executive orders (e.o.)   including e.o.s 13660, 14024, and 14065   authorize the imposition of blocking sanctions on categories of persons   inside or outside russia   who provide material support for russia following its sham referenda, purported annexation, and continued occupation of the kherson, zaporizhzhya, donetsk, and luhansk regions of ukraine. u.s. sanctions are not designed to target ukraine or the ukrainian people, including those living in areas occupied or purportedly annexed by russia. in addition, as noted in ofac’s fact sheet: preserving agricultural trade, access to communication, and other support to those impacted by russia’s war against ukraine and frequently asked question (faq) 1007, ofac sanctions do not target transactions related to the export of food or medicine, the response to the coronavirus disease 2019 (covid 19) pandemic, the official business of an international organization, or the activities of nongovernmental organizations, as well as personal remittances, telecommunications, internet services, or mail. finally, ofac sanctions do not prohibit transactions related to the sale of or transport of crude oil; petroleum; petroleum fuels, oils, and products of their distillation; liquefied natural gas; coal; and coal products of russian federation origin, aside from the importation of such products into the united states. ofac will generally not impose sanctions on non u.s. persons that engage in transactions that would be authorized for u.s. persons. for additional information, please see russia related general license (gl) 8c, faq 980, and faq 1018. ofac has issued preliminary guidance on the planned maritime services policy and related price exception for seaborne russian oil and intends to issue additional guidance in coming weeks. yes. multiple russia related sanctions authorities authorize sanctions against non u.s. persons that provide goods, services, or other support for russia’s military industrial complex. for example, ofac may block any person determined to operate or have operated in the defense and related materiel sector of the russian federation economy pursuant to executive order (e.o.) 14024 of april 15, 2021, “blocking property with respect to specified harmful foreign activities of the government of the russian federation.” in addition, pursuant to e.o. 14024, ofac may block persons determined to have materially assisted, sponsored, or provided financial, material, or technological support for, or goods or services to or in support of certain sanctionable activities enumerated in e.o. 14024 or any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to e.o. 14024. ofac also has robust targeting authorities pursuant to the ukraine /russia related sanctions regulations (ursr), 31 c.f.r. part 589, which implement multiple authorities that could provide for the blocking of persons who engage in the provision of ammunition or other military goods to the russian federation, including persons determined to operate or have operated in the arms or related materiel sector of the russian federation economy, or those who have materially assisted, sponsored, or provided financial, material, or technological support for, or goods or services to or in support of persons blocked pursuant to the ursr. furthermore, e.o. 14024, as amended by e.o. 14114, authorizes the imposition of sanctions on foreign financial institutions that have conducted or facilitated certain transactions involving russia’s military industrial base. for more information, see ofac’s advisory to foreign banks on russia sanctions risks, and faqs 1147, 1148, 1149, 1150 and 1151. ofac is prepared to use its broad targeting authorities against non u.s. persons that provide ammunition or other support to the russian federation’s military industrial complex, as well as private military companies (pmcs) or paramilitary groups participating in or otherwise supporting the russian federation’s unlawful and unjustified attack on ukraine. ofac will continue to target russia’s efforts to resupply its weapons and sustain its war of aggression against ukraine, including any foreign persons who assist the russian federation in those efforts. ofac and the department of state have imposed numerous targeted sanctions on the russian federation’s military industrial complex, including on state corporation rostec, the cornerstone of russia’s defense industrial base, and multiple other key firms. in addition, the department of state has identified persons that are part of, or operate for or on behalf of, the defense and intelligence sectors of the government of the russian federation pursuant to section 231 of the countering america’s adversaries through sanctions act (caatsa) (caatsa 231 list of specified persons). persons determined to knowingly engage in a significant transaction with those identified on the caatsa 231 list of specified persons are subject to five or more sanctions described in section 235 of caatsa. the department of commerce’s bureau of industry and security (bis) has also imposed highly restrictive controls on the export and reexport of u.s. origin and certain foreign produced commodities, software, and technologies to the russian federation to cut off its access to inputs and products needed to sustain its military capabilities. for more information on the impact of sanctions and export controls on russia’s military industrial complex, please see “ofac bis alert: impact of sanctions and export controls on russia’s military industrial complex,” published on october 14, 2022 and bis’s common high priority items list. date updated: february 23, 2024 no, provided the oil is unloaded at the port of destination prior to 12:01 a.m., eastern standard time, january 19, 2023. crude oil of russian federation origin that is loaded onto a vessel at the port of loading prior to 12:01 a.m., eastern standard time, december 5, 2022, and unloaded at the port of destination prior to 12:01 a.m., eastern standard time, january 19, 2023, is not subject to the price cap (also known as the “maritime services policy”). u.s. service providers can continue to provide services related to the maritime transport of crude oil of russian federation origin purchased at a price above the price cap, provided that the crude oil is loaded onto a vessel at the port of loading for maritime transport prior to 12:01 a.m., eastern standard time, december 5, 2022, and unloaded at the port of destination prior to 12:01 a.m., eastern standard time, january 19, 2023. the following is an example of a permissible transaction in line with the maritime services policy: as noted in ofac’s preliminary guidance, ofac anticipates implementing the maritime services policy by publishing a determination pursuant to executive order 14071 that (i) permits the exportation, reexportation, sale, or supply, directly or indirectly, from the united states, or by a united states person, wherever located, of services related to the maritime transport of crude oil or petroleum products of russian federation origin, where the price of such crude oil or petroleum products of russian federation origin does not exceed the price cap and (ii) prohibits such services if the crude oil or petroleum products of russian federation origin are purchased above the price cap. this determination would take effect at 12:01 a.m., eastern standard time, december 5, 2022, with respect to maritime transport of crude oil of russian federation origin loaded on or after 12:01 a.m., eastern standard time, december 5, 2022. ofac issued russia related general license (gl) 53a to authorize u.s. persons to engage in all transactions ordinarily incident and necessary to the official business of diplomatic or consular missions of the government of the russian federation ("russian missions"), where the transactions are prohibited by executive order (e.o.) 14024 and involve gazprombank, or any entity in which gazprombank owns, directly or indirectly, a 50 percent or greater interest, or are prohibited by directive 4 under e.o. 14024, "prohibitions related to transactions involving the central bank of the russian federation, the national wealth fund of the russian federation, and the ministry of finance of the russian federation." this authorization applies to transactions related to russian missions located in or outside the united states. for example, gl 53a authorizes the payment of salaries to employees of russian missions that may otherwise be prohibited by directive 4, such as a payment originated by the ministry of finance of the russian federation from a non blocked russian bank. gl 53a also authorizes the payment of salaries to employees of russian missions that may otherwise be prohibited due to the involvement of gazprombank. non u.s. persons may engage in transactions that are authorized for u.s. persons under this gl without risk of sanctions under e.o. 14024. importantly, gl 53a does not authorize any transactions involving blocked persons other than gazprombank, including blocked russian financial institutions, nor does it authorize debits to the accounts on the books of u.s. financial institutions of entities subject to directive 4. date updated: november 21, 2024 ofac issued general licenses (gl) 58 and 59 concurrent with the designation of rosbank. gl 58 authorizes a wind down period for transactions involving rosbank or any entity in which rosbank owns, directly or indirectly, a 50 percent or greater interest (“rosbank entities”) until 12:01 a.m. eastern daylight time, march 15, 2023. this includes transactions ordinarily incident and necessary to exit operations, contracts, or other agreements involving rosbank entities that were in effect prior to december 15, 2022, provided that such transactions do not involve a debit to a blocked account on the books of a u.s. financial institution (see frequently asked question (faq) 990). wind down activities covered by gl 58 do not include the continued processing of funds transfers, securities trades, or other transactions that involve a rosbank entity that were part of ongoing business activities prior to the imposition of sanctions, unless separately authorized (see, e.g., gls 6b, 8e, or 59). in addition, gl 58 authorizes u.s. persons, including u.s. financial institutions, to reject, rather than block, all transactions ordinarily incident and necessary to the processing of funds involving one or more rosbank entities as an originating, intermediary, or beneficiary financial institution, through 12:01 a.m. eastern daylight time, march 15, 2023. for individuals holding accounts at rosbank entities, see faq 1080 for guidance, including gl 50, which authorizes individuals to engage in all transactions ordinarily incident and necessary to close their individual accounts held at a financial institution blocked pursuant to e.o. 14024. gl 59 authorizes u.s. persons to divest or transfer holdings in securities of rosbank entities to non u.s. persons, as well as the wind down of certain derivative contracts, subject to certain conditions. please see gl 59 for additional details. no. ofac has not designated norilsk nickel and, based on information available to ofac as of december 15, 2022, norilsk nickel is not owned 50% or more by blocked persons or otherwise considered the blocked property of vladimir potanin. no, provided the petroleum products are unloaded at the port of destination prior to 12:01 a.m., eastern daylight time, april 1, 2023. petroleum products of russian federation origin that are loaded onto a vessel at the port of loading prior to 12:01 a.m., eastern standard time, february 5, 2023, and unloaded at the port of destination prior to 12:01 a.m., eastern daylight time, april 1, 2023, are not subject to the price cap. u.s. service providers can continue to provide services related to the maritime transport of petroleum products of russian federation origin purchased at a price above the price cap, provided that the petroleum products are loaded onto a vessel at the port of loading for maritime transport prior to 12:01 a.m., eastern standard time, february 5, 2023, and unloaded at the port of destination prior to 12:01 a.m., eastern daylight time, april 1, 2023. the following is an example of a permissible transaction: ofac anticipates implementing the price cap on petroleum products of russian federation origin by publishing a determination pursuant to executive order 14071 that (i) permits the exportation, reexportation, sale, or supply, directly or indirectly, from the united states, or by a united states person, wherever located, of services related to the maritime transport of petroleum products of russian federation origin, where the price of such petroleum products of russian federation origin do not exceed the price cap and (ii) prohibits such services if the petroleum products of russian federation origin are purchased above the relevant price cap. this determination would take effect at 12:01 a.m., eastern standard time, february 5, 2023, with respect to maritime transport of petroleum products of russian federation origin loaded on or after 12:01 a.m., eastern standard time, february 5, 2023. no. u.s. persons, including u.s. financial institutions, may transfer securities issued by non blocked russian entities from a decedent’s estate to the account of a relevant beneficiary or beneficiaries, including a successor entity (e.g., a family trust), provided such transfers (i) are part of the ordinary course administration of the decedent’s estate, (ii) do not involve an exchange for value, and (iii) have no other sanctions nexus (including the involvement of blocked persons). please note, however, that blocked securities in a decedent’s estate must remain blocked. the administration of a decedent’s estate requiring the transfer of blocked securities would require a specific license from ofac. to apply for a specific license, please go to our license application page. on february 24, 2023, the director of ofac, in consultation with the department of state, issued a sectoral determination pursuant to executive order (e.o.) 14024 that authorizes the imposition of economic sanctions on any person determined to operate or have operated in the metals and mining sector of the russian federation economy. this sectoral determination is effective february 24, 2023. also on february 24, 2023, ofac designated certain entities for operating in the metals and mining sector of the russian federation economy. the u.s. government may, as appropriate, impose sanctions on additional persons determined pursuant to e.o. 14024 to operate or to have operated in this sector. for further information, please see faq 1115. for the purposes of the determination of february 24, 2023 made pursuant to e.o. 14024, ofac anticipates publishing regulations defining the term “metals and mining sector of the russian federation economy” to include any act, process, or industry of extracting, at the surface or underground, ores, coal, precious stones, or any other minerals or geological materials in the russian federation, or any act of procuring, processing, manufacturing, or refining such geological materials, or transporting them to, from, or within the russian federation. this is the definition ofac used to define the same term in the ukraine/russia related sanctions regulations (see 31 cfr 589.325). no. the director of ofac, in consultation with the state department, has issued a determination pursuant to e.o. 14024 that authorizes the imposition of economic sanctions on any person determined to operate or have operated in the metals and mining sector of the russian federation economy. a sector determination pursuant to e.o. 14024 exposes persons that operate or have operated in an identified sector to sanctions risk; however, a sector determination does not automatically impose sanctions on all persons who operate or have operated in the sector. only persons determined pursuant to e.o. 14024 to operate or have operated in the above identified sector are subject to sanctions. certain additional sanctions may apply to dealings in the metals and mining sector of the russian federation economy. for example, e.o. 14071 prohibits u.s. persons from new investment in the russian federation, including in the metals and mining sector. in addition, certain goods produced by the metals and mining sector of the russian federation economy may be prohibited from importation into the united states pursuant to e.o. 14068, such as non industrial diamonds and gold of russian federation origin. for more information about prohibitions related to non industrial diamonds, see frequently asked questions (faqs) 1022, 1023, 1024, 1026, and 1027. for more information about prohibitions related to gold, see faqs 1029 and 1070. the determination made on february 24, 2023 pursuant to executive order (e.o.) 14024 authorizes sanctions on any person determined to operate or have operated in the metals and mining sector of the russian federation economy. non u.s. persons may also be exposed to sanctions for activities with persons blocked pursuant to e.o. 14024 (see faq 980), including persons blocked following a determination that such persons operate or have operated in the metals and mining sector. however, ofac does not intend to target persons for operating in the metals and mining sector where the provision of goods or services is solely for the safety and care of personnel, protection of human life, prevention of accidents or injuries, maintenance or repair necessary to avoid environmental or other significant damage, or activities related to environmental mitigation or remediation. examples of such goods include personal protective equipment, safety devices, ventilation systems, and alarm systems; examples of such services include rescue and accident response services, cleaning, safety inspections, and services necessary for use of the goods described above. in addition, non u.s. persons generally do not risk exposure to u.s. blocking sanctions under e.o. 14024 for engaging in transactions with blocked persons, including in the metals and mining sector, where those transactions would not require a specific license if engaged in by a u.s. person. for example, non u.s. persons generally do not risk exposure to u.s. blocking sanctions for engaging in transactions in the metals and mining sector if such transactions would be authorized for u.s. persons by general license (gl) 115a (authorizing certain civil nuclear energy related transactions) or by gl 6d (authorizing certain transactions related to the production, manufacturing, sale, transport, or provision of medicine or medical devices, including certain industrial isotopes used in nuclear medicine, among other things). date updated: january 10, 2025 the directive 4 under executive order (e.o.) 14024, “prohibitions related to transactions involving the central bank of the russian federation, the national wealth fund of the russian federation, and the ministry of finance of the russian federation,” as amended (russia related sovereign transactions directive), prohibits the following activities by u.s. persons: any transaction involving the central bank of the russian federation, the national wealth fund of the russian federation, or the ministry of finance of the russian federation, including any transfer of assets to such entities or any foreign exchange transaction for or on behalf of such entities (collectively, “directive 4 entities”). as noted in faq 1002, this includes both direct and indirect transactions. ofac issued the russia related sovereign transactions directive with the explicit aim of preventing the government of the russian federation from leveraging these institutions and their holdings of international reserves in ways that would undermine the impact of u.s. sanctions. information currently available to ofac suggests so called “exit taxes” imposed by the government of the russian federation involve payments to directive 4 entities. consequently, u.s. persons whose divestment from the russian federation will involve the payment of such an exit tax require a specific license from ofac prior to the payment of such tax, unless otherwise authorized by ofac. gl 13e authorizes u.s. persons, or entities owned or controlled, directly or indirectly, by a u.s. person, to pay taxes, fees, or import duties, and purchase or receive permits, licenses, registrations, or certifications involving directive 4 entities that would otherwise be prohibited by the russia related sovereign transactions directive, provided such transactions are ordinarily incident and necessary to such persons’ day to day operations in the russian federation. payment of exit taxes is not considered ordinarily incident and necessary to day to day operations in the russian federation and, thus, is not authorized under gl 13e. therefore, u.s. persons whose divestment of assets in the russian federation will involve a payment of such an “exit tax” should seek a specific license from ofac. such persons may submit a request for a specific license with ofac’s licensing division online at https://ofac.treasury.gov/ofac license application page. license applications related to these payments should include information regarding the amount of the exit tax, the amount of ongoing taxes that would otherwise be paid to the government of the russian federation should divestment not occur, the impact of a failure to pay the tax on the employees of the exiting company, the specific economic activity in russia of the exiting company, and the impact on the russian federation of the divestment. ofac will expedite its review of such requests, which will be evaluated on a case by case basis. while ofac is aware that the commission established by the russian federation to review such divestments may include individuals from entities subject to the russia related sovereign transactions directive or individuals listed on the specially designated nationals and blocked persons list, u.s. persons do not need to seek authorization from ofac for their russian buyers to submit an application to the commission regarding a divestment transaction. date updated: may 19, 2023 the united states generally supports the free flow of information globally as facilitated by telecommunications and certain internet based communications. accordingly, gl 25d authorizes   with certain exceptions and exclusions   (i) all transactions ordinarily incident and necessary to the receipt or transmission of telecommunications involving the russian federation that are prohibited by the russian harmful foreign activities sanctions regulations, 31 cfr part 587 (ruhsr); (ii) the exportation or reexportation, sale, or supply from the united states or by u.s. persons, wherever located, to the russian federation of services that are incident to the exchange of communications over the internet and that are prohibited by the ruhsr; and (iii) the exportation or reexportation, sale, or supply from the united states or by u.s. persons, wherever located, to the russian federation of software, hardware, or technology incident to the exchange of communications over the internet that is authorized for export to russia by the department of commerce if it is subject to the export administration regulations, 15 cfr parts 730 774 (ear), or that would be eligible for a license exception or otherwise authorized for export to russia by the department of commerce if it were subject to the ear (see faq 1040). however, certain transactions related to megafon pao (megafon) or limited liability company digital invest (digital invest)   which were designated by the department of state on april 12, 2023 pursuant to executive order 14024   or any entity in which megafon or digital invest owns, directly or indirectly, individually or in the aggregate, a 50 percent or greater interest (collectively, “covered entities”), may not involve the russian federation, and thus, may not be authorized by gl 25d. to ensure certain transactions related to telecommunications and internet based communications involving the covered entities and tajikistan or uzbekistan can continue, ofac issued gl 65. gl 65 authorizes   with certain exceptions and exclusions   (i) all transactions prohibited by the ruhsr that are ordinarily incident and necessary to the receipt or transmission of telecommunications involving the covered entities, and involving tajikistan or uzbekistan or (ii) the exportation or reexportation, sale, or supply, directly or indirectly, from the united states or by u.s. persons, wherever located, to the covered entities of services, software, hardware, or technology incident to the exchange of communications over the internet that is prohibited by the ruhsr. please note that gl 65 does not relieve persons from compliance with other federal laws, such as the export licensing requirements maintained by the department of commerce’s bureau of industry and security. updated: june 12, 2024 section 1(a)(i) of e.o. 14024 imposes sanctions with respect to any person determined by the secretary of the treasury, in consultation with the secretary of state, to operate or have operated in the technology sector or the defense and related materiel sector of the russian federation economy, or any other sector of the russian federation economy as may be determined by the secretary of the treasury, in consultation with the secretary of state. as of january 10, 2025, persons may be sanctioned pursuant to e.o. 14024 for operating or having operated in the following sectors of the russian federation economy: january 10, 2025 faq 1213 ofac expects to promulgate regulations that define the terms (i) architecture sector of the russian federation economy, (ii) engineering sector of the russian federation economy, (iii) construction sector of the russian federation economy, (iv) manufacturing sector of the russian federation economy, (v) transportation sector of the russian federation economy; (vi) technology sector of the russian federation economy; (vii) defense and related materiel sector of the russian federation economy; (viii) aerospace sector of the russian federation economy; (ix) financial services sector of the russian federation economy; (x) electronics sector of the russian federation economy; (xi) marine sector of the russian federation economy, and (xii) energy sector of the russian federation economy consistent with the following: architecture sector of the russian federation economy: the term architecture sector of the russian federation economy includes activities such as advising; pre designing; designing; preparing sketches, reports, studies, assessments, site plans, working drawings, specifications, cost estimates, as built drawings, or other materials; contract administration; site selection; and inspections concerning architectural and related matters involving the russian federation. such activities may be related to the following types of projects, e.g.: residential, institutional, leisure, commercial, and industrial buildings and structures; recreational areas; transportation infrastructure; land subdivisions; urban planning; landscape architecture; and not necessarily relate to a new construction project. the term additionally includes any related activities, including the provision or receipt of goods, services, or technology to, from, or involving the architecture sector of the russian federation economy. engineering sector of the russian federation economy: the term engineering sector of the russian federation economy includes activities such as advising; designing; recommending; consulting; constructing; installing, surveying; preparing studies, specifications, cost estimates, working drawings, process flow diagrams, arrangement drawings, or other materials; map making; planning; testing; analysis; and inspecting for engineering and related matters involving the russian federation. such activities may be undertaken during any phase of an engineering project of any type and may not necessarily relate to a new construction or development project. the term additionally includes any related activities, including the provision or receipt of goods, services, or technology to, from, or involving the engineering sector of the russian federation economy. construction sector of the russian federation economy: the term construction sector of the russian federation economy includes activities such as the production, procurement, devising, framing, design, testing, financing, distribution, or transport involving the russian federation, of goods, services, or technology to fabricate, shape, alter, maintain, or form any buildings or structures, including the on site development, assembly, or construction of residential, commercial, or institutional buildings, or of transportation infrastructure, in the russian federation; and any related activities, including the provision or receipt of goods, services, or technology to, from, or involving the construction sector of the russian federation economy. manufacturing sector of the russian federation economy: the term manufacturing sector of the russian federation economy includes activities such as the creation, modification, repair, testing, or financing, of goods by manual labor or machinery involving the russian federation and any related activities, including the provision or receipt of goods, services, or technology to, from, or involving the manufacturing sector of the russian federation economy. note that persons conducting or facilitating transactions that are exempt or authorized by ofac such as those related to the provision of agricultural commodities, food, medicine, or medical devices, or related to civil nuclear energy will not be subject to sanctions under e.o. 14024. transportation sector of the russian federation economy: the term transportation sector of the russian federation economy includes activities such as the production, manufacturing, testing, financing, distribution or transport to, from, or involving the russian federation of any mode of transport or any goods, services, or technology for the movement or conveyance of persons or property and the loading, unloading, or storage incidental to the movement of such persons or property; and any related activities, including the provision or receipt of goods, services, or technology to, from, or involving the transportation sector of the russian federation economy. technology sector of the russian federation economy: the term technology sector of the russian federation economy includes activities such as the production, procurement, research, development, design, engineering, testing, servicing, financing, distribution, use, or transport involving the russian federation, of software, equipment, electronics, items, tools, materials, or devices, and any components, parts, or accessories of the foregoing, related to the fields of computing, engineering, applied mathematics, or applied sciences involving the russian federation and any related activities, including the provision or receipt of goods or services involving the technology sector of the russian federation economy. defense and related materiel sector of the russian federation economy: the term defense and related materiel sector of the russian federation economy includes military, armed forces, or security forces of or within the russian federation; the use of arms or related materiel by military, armed forces, or security forces of or within the russian federation; any person designing, developing, manufacturing, supplying, financing, procuring, or distributing goods, services, or technology to, from, or involving military, armed forces, or security forces of or within the russian federation; and any related activities, including the provision or receipt of goods, services, or technology involving the defense and related materiel sector of the russian federation economy. the term defense and related materiel sector of the russian federation economy also includes acquisition, possession, procurement, research, design, development, testing, evaluation, manufacture, maintenance, upgrade or refurbishment, shipping, supply, sale, transfer, or storage to, from, within, for, transiting, or on behalf of the russian federation of arms or related materiel of all types; enablers, aggregates, components, parts, as well as related documentation and instructions for any such arms or related materiel; or training for the use of included systems, provision of simulation equipment, documentation (including training manuals, maintenance orders, or technical bulletins), prototypes, software upgrades, and licensing and manufacturing agreements for such items. aerospace sector of the russian federation economy: the term aerospace sector of the russian federation economy includes activities such as the production, procurement, development, design, testing, servicing, financing, distribution, use, or transport involving the russian federation and its airspace, of aircraft or any other device used or intended to be used for flight or activities in the air or in space, missiles, unmanned aerial vehicles, space based vehicles, satellites, high altitude balloons, any other device that operates above the surface of the earth, and any items, components, parts, or accessories intended for the foregoing; airports or any other area of land or water used or intended to be used for a purpose related to the aerospace sector of the russian federation; and any related activities, including the provision or receipt of goods, services, or technology involving the aerospace sector of the russian federation economy. financial services sector of the russian federation economy: the term financial services sector of the russian federation economy includes economic or financial services in, involving the russian federation, including government operated and private banks, depository institutions, credit card companies, investment banking services, foreign exchange services, money services businesses, payday lenders, mortgage companies, securities exchanges, securities dealers, asset managers, insurance companies, other financial institutions, and any persons in the business of accepting deposits, transferring funds, facilitating investment, making, granting, transferring, holding, or brokering loans or credits, or purchasing or selling foreign exchange, securities, commodity futures or options, or procuring purchasers and sellers thereof, as principal or agent; and any related activities, including the provision or receipt of goods, services, or technology involving the financial services sector of the russian federation economy. electronics sector of the russian federation economy: the term electronics sector of the russian federation economy includes activities such as the production, procurement, development, design, testing, servicing, financing, distribution, use, or transport to, from, or involving the russian federation, of computers, computer peripherals, semiconductors, electronic capacitors or resistors, coils, circuit boards, cryptographic software and hardware, or devices that control, direct, or utilize an electric current, and any items, components, parts, or accessories of the foregoing; and any related activities, in, or involving the russian federation, including the provision or receipt of goods, services, or technology involving the electronics sector of the russian federation economy. marine sector of the russian federation economy: the term marine sector of the russian federation economy includes activities such as the production, procurement, development, design, testing, servicing, financing, distribution, use, or transport, to, from, or involving the russian federation or its marine waterways or oceanic exclusive economic zone, of vessels, or any device used or intended to be used in or otherwise relating to the sea or any navigable body of water, and any items, components, parts, or accessories of the foregoing; any activity relating to the sea or any body of navigable water; ports or any area of land or water used or intended to be used for any purpose related to the marine sector of the russian federation, including shipping; and any related activities, including the provision or receipt of goods, services, or technology involving the marine sector of the russian federation economy. the term includes the financing, sale, supply, or transfer of vessels to or from, directly or indirectly, the russian federation or any russian federation person. energy sector of the russian federation economy: the term energy sector of the russian federation economy includes activities such as the procurement, exploration, extraction, drilling, mining, harvesting, production, refinement, liquefaction, gasification, regasification, conversion, enrichment, fabrication, manufacturing, testing, financing, distribution, purchase or transport to, from, or involving the russian federation, of petroleum, including crude oil, lease condensates, unfinished oils, natural gas, liquefied natural gas, natural gas liquids, or petroleum products, or other products capable of producing energy, such as coal, wood, or agricultural products used to manufacture biofuels; the development, production, testing, generation, transmission, financing, or exchange of power, through any means, including nuclear, electrical, thermal, and renewable, to, from, or involving the russian federation; and any related activities, including the provision or receipt of goods, services, or technology to, from, or involving the energy sector of the russian federation economy. date updated: january 10, 2025 a sector determination pursuant to e.o. 14024 exposes persons that operate or have operated in an identified sector to sanctions risk; however, a sector determination does not automatically impose sanctions on all persons who operate or have operated in the sector. only persons determined, pursuant to e.o. 14024, by the secretary of the treasury in consultation with the secretary of state, or by the secretary of state in consultation with the secretary of the treasury, or their delegates, to operate or have operated in the above identified sectors are subject to sanctions. see faq 1126 for the sectors identified pursuant to e.o. 14024 as of may 19, 2023. persons sanctioned pursuant to e.o. 14024 for operating or having operated in an identified sector are added to one or more ofac sanctions lists based on the type of sanction, including the list of specially designated nationals and blocked persons (sdn list), the list of foreign financial institutions subject to correspondent account or payable through account sanctions (capta list), and the non sdn menu based sanctions list (ns mbs list). section 1(a)(ii) of e.o. 14071 prohibits the exportation, reexportation, sale, or supply, directly or indirectly, from the united states, or by a united states person, wherever located, of any category of services as may be determined by the secretary of the treasury, in consultation with the secretary of state, to any person located in the russian federation. as of april 12, 2024, categories of services identified pursuant to e.o. 14071 include: accounting; trust and corporate formation services; management consulting architecture; engineering ofac expects to promulgate regulations that define the terms architecture services, engineering services, and covered metals acquisition services consistent with the following: architecture services include advisory services; pre design services; design services, including schematic design, design development, and final design; contract administration services; combined architectural design and contract administration services; including post construction services; and all other services requiring the expertise of architects. the prohibition applies to such services as they relate to residential, institutional, leisure, commercial, and industrial buildings and structures; recreational areas; transportation infrastructure; land subdivisions; and not necessarily related to a new construction project. the term also includes urban planning services (i.e., land use, site selection, and servicing of land for systemic, coordinated urban development) and landscape architectural services. ofac intends to interpret this term consistent with un central product classification (cpc) codes 86711 86704, 86719, and 86741 86742. engineering services include assistance, advisory, consultative, design, and recommendation services concerning engineering matters or during any phase of an engineering project. engineering design services may be for: the construction of foundations and building structures (i.e., structural engineering); mechanical and electrical installations for buildings; the construction of civil engineering works; industrial processes and production; or other engineering designs, such as those for acoustics, vibration, traffic control systems, or prototype development for new products. the term additionally includes geotechnical, groundwater, and corrosion engineering services; integrated engineering services, such as those for transportation infrastructure or other projects; engineering related scientific and technical consulting services, including geological, geophysical, geochemical, surface or subsurface surveying, and map making services; testing and analysis services of chemical, biological, and physical properties of materials or of integrated mechanical and electrical systems; and technical inspection services. ofac intends to interpret this term consistent with un cpc codes 86721 86727, 86729, 86731 86733, 86739, 86751 86754, 86761 86764, and 86769. additionally, ofac does not consider maritime classification services to be subject to the prohibition, as is consistent with the ofac guidance on implementation of the price cap policy for crude oil and petroleum products of russian federation origin. covered metals acquisition services means warranting services for aluminum, copper, or nickel of russian federation origin on a global metal exchange and services to acquire aluminum, copper, or nickel of russian federation origin as part of the physical settlement of a derivative contract. “warranting services” refers to issuing, registering, accepting, or acquiring a warrant or the underlying metal on a global metal exchange (i.e., a commodities exchange that provides infrastructure and services for the international trading of base metal derivatives contracts). examples of such global metal exchanges include, but are not limited to, the chicago mercantile exchange, the london metal exchange, and the shanghai futures exchange. “warrant” means an electronic record or physical document of title to, possession of, or rights in respect of a specified lot of metal (including where such metal is held in a third country within a global metal exchange approved warehouse). a warrant is created or issued in accordance with the rules of a global metal exchange. updated: june 12, 2024 on may 19, 2023, the department of state designated russia based polimetall ao pursuant to executive order (e.o.) 14024. these blocking sanctions apply only to this entity and any entities in which it owns, directly or indirectly, a 50 percent or greater interest. neither the department of state nor ofac have designated this entity’s ultimate parent company, jersey based polymetal international plc, and based on information available to ofac, polymetal international plc is not owned 50 percent or more by blocked persons or otherwise considered the blocked property of any blocked persons. u.s. persons, therefore, are not prohibited from dealing with polymetal international plc, its non blocked subsidiaries, or non blocked affiliates to the extent the proposed dealings do not involve any blocked person, any interest in property of a blocked person, or any other activities prohibited pursuant to any ofac sanctions authorities. no. ofac has not designated letterone and, based on information available to ofac, letterone is not owned 50 percent or more by blocked persons or otherwise considered the blocked property or interest in property of blocked persons, including petr olegovich aven, mikhail maratovich fridman, german borisovich khan, and alexey viktorovich kuzmichev. e.o. 14114 amends e.o. 14024 and e.o. 14068 to further address the russian federation’s continued use of its military industrial base to aid its effort to undermine security in countries and regions important to united states national security and to further counteract the russian federation’s continued evasion of u.s. sanctions. for additional information and guidance on the amendment to e.o. 14024, see faqs 1147, 1148, 1149, 1150, 1151, 1152, 1181, and 1182. for additional information on the amendment to e.o. 14068, see faqs 1154, 1155, 1156, and 1157. updated: june 12, 2024 e.o. 14114 amends e.o. 14024 to authorize the imposition of sanctions on foreign financial institutions (ffis) that have engaged in certain transactions involving russia’s military industrial base, including all persons whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to e.o. 14024. specifically, section 11 of e.o. 14024, as amended, authorizes sanctions on ffis that have (i) conducted or facilitated any significant transaction or transactions for or on behalf of any person designated pursuant to e.o. 14024 for operating or having operated in the technology, defense and related materiel, construction, aerospace, or manufacturing sectors of the russian federation economy or other sectors as may be determined to support russia’s military industrial base by the secretary of the treasury, in consultation with the secretary of state; or (ii) conducted or facilitated any significant transaction or transactions, or provided any service, involving russia’s military industrial base, including the sale, supply, or transfer, directly or indirectly, to the russian federation, of any item or class of items as may be determined by the secretary of the treasury, in consultation with the secretary of state and the secretary of commerce. see determination of december 22, 2023 pursuant to subsection 11(a)(ii) of e.o. 14024 (russia critical items determination) for the list of items determined under the order, as amended. subsection 11(b) of e.o. 14024, as amended, authorizes ofac (i) to prohibit the opening or prohibit or impose strict conditions on the maintenance of correspondent accounts or payable through accounts in the united states for such ffis or (ii) to block such ffis. for additional information and guidance on the amendment to e.o. 14024, see faqs 1148, 1149, 1150, 1151, 1152, 1153, 1181, and 1182. updated: june 12, 2024 ffis may be sanctioned for engaging in certain transactions, or providing any service, involving russia’s military industrial base. for example, ffis may be sanctioned for conducting any significant transaction(s) for any person that has been blocked pursuant to e.o. 14024. ffis may also be sanctioned for maintaining accounts, transferring funds, or providing other financial services to persons, either inside or outside russia, for any person blocked pursuant to e.o. 14024, as well as to any person operating in the following sectors of the russian federation economy: technology, defense and related materiel, construction, aerospace, or manufacturing. this also includes facilitating the sale, supply, or transfer, directly or indirectly, to the russian federation of certain items critical to russia’s war effort identified in the determination of december 22, 2023 pursuant to subsection 11(a)(ii) of e.o. 14024 (russia critical items determination), such as certain machine tools, semiconductor manufacturing equipment, electronic test equipment, propellants and their precursors, lubricants and lubricant additives, bearings, advanced optical systems, and navigation instruments. for additional information and examples of the types of activities that would expose ffis to sanctions risks, see ofac’s advisory to foreign banks on russia sanctions risks. for additional information on the specific items identified on the russia critical items determination, see faq 1150. updated: june 12, 2024 pursuant to subsection 11(b) of e.o. 14024, as amended, ofac may block ffis or prohibit the opening or prohibit or impose strict conditions on the maintenance of correspondent accounts or payable through accounts in the united states for such ffis. for ffis for which the opening or maintaining of a correspondent account or a payable through account is prohibited pursuant to subsection 11(b)(i) of e.o. 14024, u.s. financial institutions must close any correspondent account or payable through account maintained for or on behalf of those foreign financial institutions. russia related general license (gl) 84 authorizes the closures of such accounts within 10 days of the imposition of sanctions pursuant to subsection 11(b)(i) of e.o. 14024, subject to certain conditions. for ffis subject to blocking sanctions pursuant to subsection 11(b)(ii) of e.o. 14024, all property and interests in property of those ffis that are in the united states or in possession or control of u.s. persons are blocked and must be reported to ofac. any entities that are owned, directly or indirectly, individually or in the aggregate, 50 percent or more by one or more blocked ffis (or other blocked persons) are also blocked. the russia critical items determination issued pursuant to subsection 11(a)(ii) of e.o. 14024 identifies certain items that support russia’s military industrial base. foreign financial institutions (ffis) may be sanctioned for having conducted or facilitated any significant transaction or transactions, or provided any service, involving russia’s military industrial base, including the sale, supply, or transfer, directly or indirectly of these identified items. ffis should use the list of specified items for the purpose of mitigating sanctions risk under section 11 of e.o. 14024, as amended. the broader groups in which these items are categorized provide additional context as to why they are critical for russia’s war effort, including for the production of advanced precision guided weapons and other critical items. ofac’s advisory to foreign banks on russia sanctions risks provides additional guidance to ffis on the use of the specified items in the russia critical items determination and the u.s. department of commerce’s common high priority items list. russia critical items determination ofac expects to promulgate regulations that define or interpret these terms as follows: foreign financial institution: as defined in subsection 11(f) of e.o. 14024, foreign financial institution means any foreign entity that is engaged in the business of accepting deposits, making, granting, transferring, holding, or brokering loans or credits, or purchasing or selling foreign exchange, securities, futures or options, or procuring purchasers and sellers thereof, as principal or agent. it includes depository institutions, banks, savings banks, money services businesses, operators of credit card systems, trust companies, insurance companies, securities brokers and dealers, futures and options brokers and dealers, forward contract and foreign exchange merchants, securities and commodities exchanges, clearing corporations, investment companies, employee benefit plans, dealers in precious metals, stones, or jewels, and holding companies, affiliates, or subsidiaries of any of the foregoing. the term does not include the international financial institutions identified in 22 u.s.c. 262r(c)(2), the international fund for agricultural development, the north american development bank, or any other international financial institution so notified by the office of foreign assets control. russia’s military industrial base includes all persons blocked pursuant to e.o. 14024, as well as any person operating in the technology, defense and related materiel, construction, aerospace, and manufacturing sectors of the russian federation economy (and other sectors as may be determined pursuant to e.o. 14024). for definitions of those identified sectors, see faq 1126. russia’s military industrial base may also include individuals and entities that support the sale, supply, or transfer, directly or indirectly, of critical items identified in determinations pursuant to subsection 11(a)(ii) of e.o. 14024, to the russian federation. see determination of december 22, 2023 pursuant to subsection 11(a)(ii) of executive order 14024 (russia critical items determination). see also faq 1150 for additional information. significant transaction or transactions: ofac may consider the totality of the facts and circumstances when determining whether a transaction or transactions are “significant.” as a general matter, some or all of the following factors may be considered: (a) the size, number, and frequency of the transaction(s); (b) the nature of the transaction(s); (c) the level of awareness of management and whether the transactions are part of a pattern of conduct; (d) the nexus of the transaction(s) to persons sanctioned pursuant to e.o. 14024, or to persons operating in russia’s military industrial base; (e) whether the transaction(s) involve deceptive practices; (f) the impact of the transaction(s) on u.s. national security objectives; and (g) such other relevant factors that ofac deems relevant. updated: june 12, 2024 yes. the prohibitions and targeting authorities of amended section 11 of e.o. 14024 apply with respect to any currency. for example, an ffi that processes a significant transaction denominated in a non usd local currency for a person blocked pursuant to e.o. 14024 or an ffi that processes any significant transaction(s) denominated in a non usd local currency on behalf of a customer that exports critical items to russia's military industrial base, risks being sanctioned by ofac. for further information on sanctions risk for ffis under section 11 of e.o. 14024, see ofac’s advisory to foreign banks on russia sanctions risks, faq 1148, and faq 1149. updated: june 12, 2024 e.o. 14114 of december 22, 2023 amends e.o. 14068 to provide for additional prohibitions on the importation and entry into the united states of certain products. it does so by maintaining the existing e.o. 14068 importation prohibitions in subsection 1(a)(i)(a) and identifying in subsections 1(a)(i)(b) (d) additional types of products that may be prohibited upon the issuance of determinations, as described below. subsection 1(a)(i)(b) authorizes the imposition of importation prohibitions on categories of fish, seafood, and preparations thereof, diamonds, and other products as may be determined, that were mined, extracted, produced, or manufactured wholly or in part in the russian federation, or harvested in waters under the jurisdiction of the russian federation or by russia flagged vessels, even if such products have been incorporated or substantially transformed into other products outside of the russian federation. subsections 1(a)(i)(c) and (d) authorize the identification of additional types of products that would be subject to importation prohibitions under the order, upon a determination by the secretary of the treasury, in consultation with the secretary of state, secretary of commerce, and secretary of homeland security. for additional information and guidance on the amendment to e.o. 14068, see faqs 1155, 1156, 1157, 1164, 1165, and 1166. date updated: february 23, 2024 the seafood determination issued pursuant to subsection 1(a)(i)(b) of e.o. 14068, as amended, prohibits the importation and entry into the united states, including importation for admission into a foreign trade zone located in the united states, of salmon, cod, pollock, or crab that was produced wholly or in part in the russian federation or harvested in waters under the jurisdiction of the russian federation or by russia flagged vessels, even if such salmon, cod, pollock, or crab has been incorporated or substantially transformed into another product outside of the russian federation. accordingly, the seafood determination expands the importation prohibitions in e.o. 14068 to include salmon, cod, pollock, or crab of russian federation origin that have been processed in a third country into a new product. individuals and entities may import the listed types of seafood, for a limited time, into the united states subject to the conditions of general license (gl) 83. gl 83 authorizes the importation into the united states, through 12:01 a.m. eastern standard time, february 21, 2024, of salmon, cod, pollock, and crab that are subject to the seafood determination, provided that the importation is pursuant to written contracts or written agreements entered into prior to december 22, 2023. individuals and entities may also find new buyers or re direct such shipments to other countries. the seafood determination prohibits the importation into the united states of salmon, cod, pollock, or crab of russian federation origin, even if incorporated or substantially transformed into another product in a third country. it does not prohibit u.s. persons from engaging in transactions to sell or re direct shipments outside the united states that were previously destined for the united states. for the purposes of the seafood determination, ofac anticipates publishing regulations defining these terms to include articles defined at the following harmonized tariff schedule of the united states (htsus) subheadings: • “salmon:” articles defined at htsus subheadings 0302.13.0013, 0302.13.0014, 0302.13.0022, 0302.13.0032, 0302.13.0042, 0302.13.0053, 0302.13.0054, 0302.13.0062, 0302.14.0003, 0302.14.0004, 0302.14.0062, 0303.11.0000, 0303.12.0012, 0303.12.0022, 0303.12.0032, 0303.12.0052, 0303.12.0062, 0303.13.0000, 0303.91.4040, 0304.41.00, 0304.41.0010, 0304.41.0020, 0304.41.0090, 0304.52.00, 0304.52.0010, 0304.52.0015, 0304.52.0020, 0304.52.0090, 0304.81.1000, 0304.81.5010, 0304.81.5090, 0305.20.4020, 0305.41.0000, 0305.69.4000, 1604.11.2020, 1604.11.2030, 1604.11.2090, 1604.11.4010, 1604.11.4020, 1604.11.4030, 1604.11.4040, 1604.11.4050, including any subsequent revisions to the list of htsus classifications.• “cod:” articles defined at htsus subheadings 0302.51.0010, 0302.51.0090, 0303.63.0010, 0303.63.0090, 0304.44.0010, 0304.44.0015, 0304.53.0010, 0304.53.0015, 0304.71.1000, 0304.71.5000, 0304.95.1010, 0304.95.1015, 0304.95.1020, 0305.32.0010, 0305.32.0090, 0305.51.0000, 0305.62.0010, 0305.62.0025, 0305.62.0030, 0305.62.0045, 0305.62.0050, 0305.62.0060, 0305.62.0070, 0305.62.0080, including any subsequent revisions to the list of htsus classifications.• “pollock:” articles defined at htsus subheadings 0302.55.1100, 0302.55.5000, 0302.59.5010, 0303.67.0000, 0304.44.0025, 0304.53.0025, 0304.75.1000, 0304.75.5000, 0304.79.1010, 0304.94.1005, 0304.94.1010, 0304.94.1090, 0304.94.9000, 0304.95.1030, 0305.69.1022, 0305.69.1042, 1604.19.1000, 1604.19.2500, including any subsequent revisions to the list of htsus classifications.• “crab:” articles defined at htsus subheadings 0306.14.2000, 0306.14.40, 0306.14.4003, 0306.14.4006, 0306.14.4009, 0306.14.4012, 0306.14.4015, 0306.14.4020, 0306.14.4030, 0306.14.4090, 0306.33.2000, 0306.33.4000, 0306.93.2000, 0306.93.4000, 1605.10.0510, 1605.10.0590, 1605.10.2010, 1605.10.2022, 1605.10.2025, 1605.10.2030, 1605.10.2051, 1605.10.2059, 1605.10.2090, 1605.10.4002, 1605.10.4005, 1605.10.4010, 1605.10.4015, 1605.10.4025, 1605.10.4030, 1605.10.4035, 1605.10.4040, 1605.10.6010, 1605.10.6090, including any subsequent revisions to the list of htsus classifications.additionally, these terms apply to products of salmon, cod, pollack and crab classified under the htsus subheadings 0301.99.0390, 0302.59.1100, 0304.95.1005, 0304.95.1090, 0304.99.1104, 0304.99.1109, 0304.99.1183, 0305.20.4065, 0305.39.6180, 0305.49.4020, 0305.49.4045, 0305.59.0001, 0305.72.0000, 0305.79.0000, 1603.00.9090, 1604.19.2200, 1604.19.3200, 1604.19.4100, 1604.19.5100, 1604.19.6100, 1604.19.8200, 1604.20.0510, 1604.20.0590, 1604.20.1000, 1604.20.1500, 1604.20.2000, 1604.20.2500, 1604.20.3000, 1604.20.4000, 1604.20.5010, 1604.20.5090, 1604.20.6010, 1604.20.6090, including any subsequent revisions to the list of htsus classifications. date updated: january 18, 2024 on march 11, 2022, the biden administration issued executive order (e.o.) 14068, prohibiting the importation into the united states of non industrial diamonds of russian federation origin. see faqs 1019 and 1027 for the definition of russian federation origin and non industrial diamonds, respectively. on december 6, 2023, the g7 leaders announced a coordinated international effort to impose phased restrictions on the importation of certain russian diamonds, including diamonds processed in third countries. as a part of this g7 commitment, ofac has issued additional restrictions on the importation of non industrial diamonds mined, extracted, produced, or manufactured wholly or in part in the russian federation as well as unsorted diamonds and diamond jewelry. specifically, on february 8, 2024, ofac issued two determinations, “prohibitions related to imports of certain categories of diamonds” pursuant to executive order (e.o.) 14068 (the “diamonds determination”) and “prohibitions related to imports of diamond jewelry and unsorted diamonds of russian federation origin and diamond jewelry and unsorted diamonds exported from the russian federation” pursuant to executive order (e.o.) 14068 (the “diamond jewelry and unsorted diamonds determination”). these prohibitions are described below, along with the relevant harmonized tariff schedule of the united states (htsus) references and a list of illustrative examples of products subject to the prohibitions. non industrial diamonds that are products of russia htsus subheading: 7102.31, 7102.39 march 1, 2024: ≥ 1.0 carat september 1, 2024: ≥ 0.5 carat rough diamond was mined in russia then cut and polished in a third country htsus subheading: 7102.31, 7102.39 unsorted diamonds mined or exported from russia htsus subheading: 7102.10 diamond bracelet either made in russia or made elsewhere but exported from russia htsus heading: 7113, incorporating diamonds the diamonds determination prohibits the importation and entry into the united states of two categories of diamonds, effective on the dates indicated below. effective march 01, 2024, the diamonds determination prohibits the importation of non industrial diamonds that were mined, extracted, produced, or manufactured wholly or in part in the russian federation with a weight of 1.0 carat or greater, even if such diamonds have been substantially transformed into other products outside of the russian federation. effective september 01, 2024, the diamonds determination prohibits the importation of russian non industrial diamonds with a weight of 0.5 carats or greater, even if such diamonds have been substantially transformed into other products outside of the russian federation. for example, a non industrial diamond that is mined in russia but then undergoes manufacturing operations such as being cut, faceted, or polished in a third country, is prohibited from importation and entry into the united states, if at the time of importation, it is 1.0 carat or greater as of march 01, 2024 or 0.5 carats or greater as of september 01, 2024. see faq 1027 for the definition of non industrial diamonds. see faq 1166 for information on the prohibition related to diamond jewelry and unsorted diamonds. pursuant to general license (gl) 104, u.s. persons are authorized to import into the united states non industrial diamonds, substantially transformed into other products outside of the russian federation, with a weight of 1.0 carat or greater, if those diamonds were physically located outside of the russian federation before, and not exported or reexported from the russian federation since, march 01, 2024. gl 104 also authorizes the importation into the united states of non industrial diamonds, substantially transformed into other products outside of the russian federation, with a weight of 0.5 carats or greater if those diamonds were physically located outside of the russian federation before, and not exported or reexported from the russian federation since, september 01, 2024. see faq 1189 for additional information. date updated: august 23, 2024. the diamond jewelry and unsorted diamonds determination prohibits the importation and entry into the united states of diamond jewelry and unsorted diamonds of russian federation origin, as well as diamond jewelry and unsorted diamonds that were exported from the russian federation. for example, it prohibits the importation into the united states of a diamond bracelet that has been manufactured in the russian federation, regardless of where the diamonds originated. this prohibition comes into effect on march 01, 2024. see faq 1027 for the definition of diamond jewelry. see faq 1019 for the definition of russian federation origin. see faq 1165 for information on the prohibition related to certain categories of non industrial diamonds. pursuant to general license (gl) 103, u.s. persons are authorized to import into the united states diamond jewelry if that jewelry was physically located outside of the russian federation before, and not exported or reexported from the russian federation since, march 01, 2024. date updated: august 23, 2024. on december 6, 2023, and february 24, 2024, the g7 leaders issued statements signaling their intent to reduce russia’s revenues from metals. on april 12, 2024, in coordination with the united kingdom, the united states issued two new prohibitions that will further disrupt the revenue that russia earns from its export of aluminum, copper, and nickel of russian federation origin, including through the use of u.s. global metal exchanges. to implement this action, treasury issued two determinations. the first, “prohibitions related to imports of aluminum, copper, and nickel of russian federation origin” (the “metals import determination”) pursuant to executive order (e.o.) 14068, as amended by e.o. 14114, prohibits the importation and entry into the united states, including importation for admission into a foreign trade zone located in the united states, of aluminum, copper, and nickel of russian federation origin. per the determination, the importation into the united states of aluminum, copper, and nickel of russian federation origin that was produced prior to april 13, 2024 is not prohibited. see faq 1019 and 1170 for more information. the second, “prohibitions on certain services for the acquisition of aluminum, copper, or nickel of russian federation origin” (the “metals services determination”) pursuant to e.o. 14071, prohibits the exportation, reexportation, sale, or supply, directly or indirectly, from the united states, or by a united states person, wherever located, of the following categories of services to any person located in the russian federation: warranting services for aluminum, copper, or nickel of russian federation origin on a global metal exchange; and services to acquire aluminum, copper, or nickel of russian federation origin, as part of the physical settlement of a derivative contract (collectively, “covered metals acquisition services”). this determination does not apply to services related to aluminum, copper, or nickel of russian federation origin that was produced prior to april 13, 2024. see faqs 1169, 1170, 1128, 1019, and faq 1058 for more information. the metals services determination prohibits the exportation, reexportation, sale, or supply, directly or indirectly, from the united states, or by a united states person, wherever located, of the following categories of services to any person located in the russian federation: warranting services for aluminum, copper, or nickel of russian federation origin on a global metal exchange; and services to acquire aluminum, copper, or nickel of russian federation origin as part of the physical settlement of a derivative contract (collectively, “covered metals acquisition services”). this determination does not apply to services related to aluminum, copper, or nickel of russian federation origin that was produced prior to april 13, 2024. to ensure compliance with the metals services determination, u.s. global metal exchanges should not accept aluminum, copper, or nickel of russian federation origin produced on or after april 13, 2024 (“covered russian metals”). u.s. global metal exchanges can further comply with the metal services determination by halting the warranting of covered russian metals on the exchange; removing brands that produce covered russian metals from their list of accepted brands; abstaining from adding additional brands of covered russian metals to their list of accepted brands; ceasing providing clearing services for covered russian metals; and halting acting as a central counterparty to the trade of covered russian metals. u.s. persons are also prohibited from providing services to acquire covered russian metals as part of a physically settled derivative contract (i.e., the expiration of the contract results in a transfer of ownership of the physical commodity, as opposed to a cash settled derivatives contract in which the derivative expires directly into cash on the maturity date of the trade). in addition, a u.s. trader that is a counterparty to a derivative contract cannot take physical delivery of covered russian metals when it comes time to settle that contract, even if the importation of the metal would not be into the united states. as noted above, the metals services determination does not impose any prohibitions on services related to aluminum, copper, or nickel of russian federation origin that was produced prior to april 13, 2024. for example, aluminum, copper, and nickel of russian federation origin that is already warranted as of april 13, 2024 on a global metal exchange can continue to be traded, and new warranting and trading can continue for aluminum, copper, and nickel of russian federation origin that was produced prior to april 13, 2024, including through new derivatives contracts. market participants and traders may reasonably rely on the certificate of analysis and certificate of origin of the relevant russian metal, or other documentation available to them in the ordinary course of business, with respect to the date of production, but should exercise caution if they have reason to believe such documentation has been falsified or is otherwise erroneous. for the purposes of the metals import determination and the metals services determination, ofac anticipates publishing regulations defining “aluminum,” “nickel,” and “copper” to include articles or products defined at the following harmonized tariff schedule of the united states (htsus) chapter headings: no. faq 1019 clarifies that, for purposes of e.o. 14068, as amended by e.o. 14114, and the metals services determination, the term “russian federation origin” excludes “any russian federation origin good that has been incorporated or substantially transformed into a foreign made product.” no. the processing, clearing, or sending of payments related to russian metals by a u.s. bank on behalf of non u.s. persons is not prohibited by the metals services determination where the bank: (1) is operating solely as an intermediary; and (2) does not have any direct relationship with the person providing a service covered by the metals services determination (i.e., the person is a non account party) as it relates to the relevant transaction. thus, the metals services determination does not impose any new prohibitions or requirements relating to the processing, clearing, or sending of payments by intermediary banks. note that the above does not authorize u.s. banks to themselves provide any of the services prohibited by the metals services determination indirectly or directly to a person located in the russian federation with respect to aluminum, copper, or nickel of russian federation origin. in line with g7 commitments and in response to the government of the russian federation’s continued efforts to reorient its economy and government resources to support its war effort, treasury has updated its definition of russia’s military industrial base to include all persons blocked pursuant to e.o. 14024. this updated definition reflects russia’s reorientation of its economy and government resources to support its war. this action means that ffis risk being sanctioned for conducting or facilitating any significant transaction or transactions or for providing any service involving a person blocked pursuant to e.o. 14024. as updated in faq 1151, russia’s military industrial base includes all persons blocked pursuant to e.o. 14024, as well as any person operating in the technology, defense and related materiel, construction, aerospace, and manufacturing sectors of the russian federation economy (and other sectors as may be determined pursuant to e.o. 14024). for definitions of those identified sectors, see faq 1126. russia’s military industrial base may also include individuals and entities that support the sale, supply, or transfer, directly or indirectly, of critical items identified pursuant to subsection 11(a)(ii) of e.o. 14024 to the russian federation. see determination of december 22, 2023 pursuant to subsection 11(a)(ii) of executive order 14024 (russia critical items determination). ofac has also updated its advisory to foreign banks on russia sanctions risks to provide additional guidance for ffis. for additional information, see faqs 1147, 1148, 1149, 1150, 1151, 1152, and 1182. treasury remains focused on counteracting activity that involves sanctions evasion or third country support to russia's military industrial base. at the same time, legitimate humanitarian activity and agricultural and medical trade are not the target of our sanctions. accordingly, ffis may continue to conduct or facilitate any transaction(s) or provide any service related to activities that are otherwise authorized or exempted under the russian harmful foreign activities sanctions program. foreign persons do not risk the imposition of sanctions for engaging in transactions authorized for u.s. persons under general licenses issued under the russian harmful foreign activities sanctions program. ffis may continue to rely on treasury's existing authorizations in place for transactions related to agricultural commodities, medicine, medical devices and related replacement parts, components, or software updates, the coronavirus disease 2019 (general license (gl) 6d), certain civil nuclear energy related transactions (gl 115a), certain transactions in support of non governmental organizations (gl 27), official business of third country diplomatic or consular missions located in the russian federation (gl 20), certain transactions and official business of certain international organizations and entities by employees, grantees, or contractors thereof (31 cfr 587.510). additionally, the importation or exportation of information or informational materials and transactions ordinarily incident to travel to or from any country are exempt under the international emergency economic powers act (ieepa). see ofac's advisory to foreign banks on russia sanctions risks for additional guidance. date updated: january 10, 2025 on june 12, 2024, ofac issued russia related general licenses (gls) gl 99, gl 100, and amended gl 8j, authorizing certain transactions involving moex, ncc, nsd, or any entity in which one of these entities owns, directly or indirectly, individually or in the aggregate, a 50 percent or greater interest (collectively, "the blocked entities"). gl 99 authorizes the wind down of transactions involving the blocked entities, as well as certain transactions related to the divestment to non u.s. persons of debt or equity issued or guaranteed by, or derivative contracts involving, the blocked entities. for example, gl 99 would authorize a u.s. person to divest their equity in moex to a non blocked non u.s. person. this authorization expired at 12:01 a.m. eastern daylight time august 13, 2024. see gl 99 for more information. gl 100 authorizes certain transactions for the divestment to non blocked, non u.s. persons of debt or equity, or for the conversion of currencies, involving one or more of the blocked entities solely as a securities, trade, or settlement depository, central counterparty or clearing house, or public trading market. gl 100 is intended to cover the divestment of debt or equity of non blocked companies that may be traded on or through one of the blocked entities in their capacity as a securities, trade, or settlement depository, central counterparty or clearing house, or public trading market. for example, gl 100 would authorize a u.s. person to divest their equity in a non blocked russian company that is being traded on moex to a non blocked, non u.s. person. this example would be distinct from the divestment of equity in moex itself, which would be covered by gl 99. gl 100 would also authorize u.s. persons to transact with one of the blocked entities to the extent ordinarily incident and necessary to convert u.s. dollars to another currency, or vice versa. this authorization expired at 12:01 a.m. eastern daylight time august 13, 2024. see gl 100 for more information. gl 8l authorizes certain transactions related to energy involving ncc. see faq 976 for more information. on january 10, 2025, ofac issued amended gl 8l to authorize the wind down of transactions related to energy involving certain russian financial institutions sanctioned pursuant to e.o. 14024 through 12:01 a.m. eastern daylight time, march 12, 2025. ofac also issued gl 115a to authorize transactions related to civil nuclear energy involving certain sanctioned russian financial institutions, including those listed in gl 8l. updated: january 10, 2025 in line with g7 efforts to disrupt russia’s defense industry’s reliance on western it systems, on june 12, 2024, treasury issued a determination that restricts the provision of certain it and software related services to russia. the determination, “prohibition on certain information technology and software services,” issued pursuant to executive order (e.o.) 14071 (the “it and software services determination”), prohibits the exportation, reexportation, sale, or supply, directly or indirectly, from the united states, or by a united states person, wherever located, to any person located in the russian federation of: (1) it consultancy and design services; and (2) it support services and cloud based services for the following categories of software: enterprise management software and design and manufacturing software (collectively, “covered software”). the it and software services determination will take effect at 12:01 a.m. eastern daylight time on september 12, 2024. see faqs 1185, 1186, 1187, and 1188 for additional information. the aim of this action is not to prohibit all activity relating to the provision of it and software related services to russia. the united states strongly supports the free flow of information and communications globally as facilitated by telecommunications and the internet. these measures do not prohibit internet access or the delivery of internet based communications services. treasury already has in place general license (gl) 25d, which authorizes certain transactions ordinarily incident and necessary to the receipt or transmission of telecommunications involving the russian federation and the provision of certain services incident to the exchange of communications over the internet, subject to certain restrictions. for additional information, see faq 1040. treasury has also amended gl 6d to authorize transactions related to certain agricultural and medical activities involving the provision of information technology and software related services. additionally, the importation from any country, or the exportation to any country of any information or informational materials, regardless of format or medium, is generally exempt from the scope of sanctions prohibitions under the international emergency economic powers act. see 50. u.s.c. § 1702(b)(3). in addition, the it and software services determination does not prohibit the following it and software services, which are excluded from its scope: (1) any service to an entity located in the russian federation that is owned or controlled, directly or indirectly, by a united states person; (2) any service in connection with the wind down or divestiture of an entity located in the russian federation that is not owned or controlled, directly or indirectly, by a russian person; and (3) any service for software that would be eligible for a license exception or otherwise authorized for export or reexport to russia by the department of commerce. it consultancy and design services include the development and implementation of software, as well as assistance or advice relating to the development and implementation of software, including the supply and installation of bespoke software. however, the retail sale of off the shelf software, falling under united nations’ central product classification (cpc) code 63252, is not included in the scope of it consultancy and design services. it consultancy and design services are distinct from information technology (it) support services, which fall under united nations’ cpc code 83132. see faq 1187 for more information on how ofac intends to define “it consultancy and design services.” see faq 1186 for a description of prohibited “it support services” and “cloud based services” for enterprise management software and design and manufacturing software. the following are examples of activities that would be prohibited by the it and software services determination if such services were provided to a company located in the russian federation that is not owned or controlled directly or indirectly by a u.s. person (russian company): the following are examples of activities that would not be prohibited by the it and software services determination: some of these activities   such as the sale of off the shelf software   may be subject to other federal laws or requirements of other federal agencies, including export, reexport, and transfer (in country) license requirements maintained by the department of commerce’s bureau of industry and security under the export administration regulations, 15 cfr parts 730 774 (ear). the it and software services determination prohibits the exportation, reexportation, sale, or supply, directly or indirectly, from the united states, or by a united states person, wherever located, of both it support services and cloud based services for the covered software to a person located in the russian federation. it support services include the provision of technical expertise to solve problems for the client in using software, hardware, or an entire computer system. cloud based services include the supply of software and associated services via the internet or the cloud, including through software as a service (saas). see faq 1187 for more information on how ofac intends to define “enterprise management software,” “design and manufacturing software,” “cloud based services,” and “information technology support services.” the following are examples of activities that would be prohibited by the it and software services determination if such services were provided to a company located in the russian federation that is not owned or controlled directly or indirectly by a u.s. person (russian company): the following are examples of activities that would not be prohibited by the it and software services determination: the it and software services determination complements regulations to be issued by the u.s. department of commerce bureau of industry and security (bis) pertaining to the export, reexport, or transfer (in country) to the russian federation of the following types of software subject to the export administration regulations, 15 cfr part 730 774 (ear): enterprise resource planning (erp); customer relationship management (crm); business intelligence (bi); supply chain management (scm); enterprise data warehouse (edw); computerized maintenance management system (cmms); project management software, product lifecycle management (plm); building information modelling (bim); computer aided design (cad); computer aided manufacturing (cam); and engineering to order (eto). see general license (gl) 25d for more information about certain authorizations for transactions relating to the receipt or transmission of telecommunications involving the russian federation and the provision of certain services incident to the exchange of communications over the internet. see gl 6d for more information on authorizations for transactions related to certain agricultural and medical activities involving the provision of information technology and software related services. as noted in faq 1185, some of these activities may be subject to other federal laws or requirements of other federal agencies, including export, reexport, and transfer (in country) licensing requirements maintained by the bis under the ear. ofac expects to promulgate regulations that define or interpret these terms as follows: the term enterprise management software means the following types of software: enterprise resource planning (erp), customer relationship management (crm), business intelligence (bi), supply chain management (scm), enterprise data warehouse (edw), computerized maintenance management system (cmms), project management, and product lifecycle management (plm) software. the term design and manufacturing software means the following types of software: building information modelling (bim), computer aided design (cad), computer aided manufacturing (cam), and engineer to order (eto) software. the term cloud based services includes the delivery of software via the internet or over the cloud, including through software as a service (saas), or saas cloud services in relation to such software. the term information technology support services is defined consistent with the united nations’ central product classification (cpc) code 83132 to include: the term information technology consultancy and design services includes both it consulting services and it design and development services for applications, and is defined consistent with united nations’ central product classification (cpc) codes 83131 and 83141, respectively. no, provided that the provision of services is not an indirect export to a person located in the russian federation. for the purposes of the it and software services determination, ofac interprets the “indirect” provision of the prohibited services to include when the benefit of the services is ultimately received by a “person located in the russian federation.” in contrast, ofac would not consider to be prohibited the provision of services to a third country company that is located outside of russia, including such a company owned or controlled by persons located in the russian federation, provided that the services will not be further exported or reexported to persons located in the russian federation. for example, the following scenarios describe services that would be prohibited under the it and software services determination: the following scenarios illustrate services to a non russian subsidiary of a russian person that would not be prohibited under the it and software services determination: treasury issued two general licenses (gls), gl 103 and gl 104, authorizing certain transactions with respect to certain diamonds and diamond jewelry that would otherwise be prohibited by e.o. 14068 in “prohibitions related to imports of certain categories of diamonds” (the “diamonds determination”) and “prohibitions related to the imports of diamond jewelry and unsorted diamonds of russian federation origin and diamond jewelry and unsorted diamonds exported from the russian federation” (the “diamond jewelry and unsorted diamonds determination”). general license 103 authorizes the importation into the united states of diamond jewelry if that jewelry was physically located outside of the russian federation before, and not exported or reexported from the russian federation since, march 01, 2024. this means that the importation ban issued pursuant to the diamond jewelry and unsorted diamonds determination under e.o. 14068 no longer applies to diamond jewelry that was located outside of russia and not exported or reexported from russia since march 01, 2024. general license 104 authorizes through september 01, 2025 the importation into the united states of non industrial diamonds, substantially transformed into other products outside of the russian federation, with a weight of 1.0 carat or greater, if those diamonds were physically located outside of the russian federation before, and not exported or reexported from the russian federation since, march 01, 2024. gl 104 also authorizes the importation into the united states of non industrial diamonds, substantially transformed into other products outside of the russian federation, with a weight of 0.5 carats or greater if those diamonds were physically located outside of the russian federation before, and not exported or reexported from the russian federation since, september 01, 2024. this means that, for non industrial diamonds that meet these parameters, the importation ban issued pursuant to the diamonds determination under e.o. 14068 no longer applies. the it and software services determination includes an exception for services related to software subject to the ear, where: the export to russia of such software is authorized or licensed by the department of commerce (commerce); or where such software is not subject to the ear and where the export of such software would be eligible for a license exception or otherwise authorized by commerce if it were subject to the ear. it consultancy and design services for such software or it support services and cloud based services for such software are excluded from the scope of the it and software services determination. this means that u.s. persons can continue to provide, for example, it support services and cloud based services, including software as a service (saas), for enterprise management software and design and manufacturing software (collectively, “covered software”), if such software is or would be authorized or licensed by commerce. this exclusion includes providing such it support and cloud based services for the covered software that is excluded by commerce from license requirements in 15 cfr 746.8(a)(12), including for exports, reexports, or transfers (in country) to certain civil end users that are wholly owned subsidiaries, branches, sales offices, or joint ventures of companies headquartered in the united states or countries from country group a:5 and a:6 in supplement no. 1 to part 740 of the ear. see 15 cfr 746.8(a)(12)(ii). commerce’s amended regulations come into effect on september 16, 2024. for guidance on whether specific software is excluded by commerce for the purposes of the it and software services determination, please consult with commerce’s bureau of industry and security (bis). yes, as long as the services provided are within the employees’ or contractors’ scope of employment for or on behalf of the u.s. subsidiary company located in russia. for additional information on the it and software services determination, see faqs 1184   1188, and faq 1192. no. the scope of the exclusion applies only to u.s. owned or controlled entities located in russia and their employees and contractors acting within the scope of their employment. see faq 1193. a u.s. person may not provide a service prohibited by the it and software services determination to a person located in russia who is working as an employee or contractor on behalf of a third country company. ofac may issue specific licenses on a case by case basis. to apply for a specific license, please go to our licensing application page. for additional information on the it and software services determination, see faqs 1184   1188, and faq 1192. no. the scope of the exclusion applies only to u.s. owned or controlled entities located in russia, and their employees and contractors acting within the scope of their employment. see faq 1193. a u.s. person may not provide a service prohibited by the it and software services determination to a person located in russia who is working directly for a company located in the united states. ofac may issue specific licenses on a case by case basis. to apply for a specific license, please go to our licensing application page. for additional information on the it and software services determination, see faqs 1184   1188, and faq 1192. yes. on june 12, 2024, ofac designated the national settlement depository (nsd), along with the moscow exchange (moex) and the national clearing center (ncc) pursuant to executive order (e.o.) 14024 for operating or having operated in the financial services sector of the russian federation economy. as noted in the accompanying press release, russia has reoriented the architecture of its financial system to facilitate investment into its defense industry and acquisition of goods needed to further its aggression against ukraine. alongside this designation, ofac issued, and subsequently extended, two general licenses (gls) to allow for the wind down of certain transactions involving nsd, moex, and ncc, and the divestment of securities held at nsd, among other authorized activities. following the expiration of russia related gls 99a and 100a, any securities in the possession or control of u.s. persons that are held at nsd should be treated as blocked, and dividends or other income received via nsd should be treated as blocked. a version of this faq released on october 10, 2024 provided guidance that the russian federation has attempted to take action to evade or avoid ofac sanctions on nsd via presidential decree 840 by requiring the transfer of certain securities to local russian registrars. this faq cautioned that such transfers may be considered null and void pursuant to ofac's regulations (see 31 cfr § 587.202), and that ofac understands that these transactions may involve other blocked persons, including certain local russian registrars. this faq also noted that the general licenses did not authorize transactions involving any blocked person other than those identified in the authorizations, and that any transfer made in violation of ofac sanctions is null and void. as such, ofac cautioned that u.s. persons should continue to treat these securities as blocked. on november 21, 2024, ofac designated more than 40 local russian registrars pursuant to e.o. 14024. as such, any securities in the possession or control of u.s. persons that are held at these registrars should be treated as blocked, and dividends or any income received via these registrars should be treated as blocked. any u.s. persons who have already filed initial blocking reports on such securities do not need to file amended reports solely due to a change in local russian registrar and can use their annual reports of blocked property to reflect any updated information if necessary. date updated: november 21, 2024 yes. as a general matter, humanitarian trade is not the target of u.s. sanctions. ofac has issued russia related general license (gl) 6d, which authorizes, among other things, certain transactions related to the production, manufacturing, sale, transport, or provision of medicine and medical devices. u.s. persons may continue to engage in authorized transactions involving shreya under gl 6d. additionally, non u.s. persons generally would not face sanctions risk for engaging in transactions authorized for u.s. persons under general licenses issued pursuant to the russian harmful foreign activities sanctions program. for further information, please review the ofac food security fact sheet: russia sanctions and agricultural trade. the office of foreign assets control (ofac) has issued several authorizations related to u.s. and third country diplomatic or consular missions operating in or outside of russia and russian diplomatic or consular missions operating abroad. russian diplomatic or consular missions, wherever located: russia related general license (gl) 53a authorizes, subject to certain conditions, u.s. persons to engage in all transactions ordinarily incident and necessary to the official business of diplomatic or consular missions of the government of the russian federation where the transactions are prohibited by executive order (e.o.) 14024 and involve gazprombank, or any entity in which gazprombank owns, directly or indirectly, a 50 percent or greater interest, or are prohibited by directive 4 under e.o. 14024, "prohibitions related to transactions involving the central bank of the russian federation, the national wealth fund of the russian federation, and the ministry of finance of the russian federation." u.s. diplomatic or consular missions in russia: the russian harmful foreign activities sanctions regulations, 31 cfr part 587 (ruhsr), authorize all transactions prohibited by the ruhsr that are for the conduct of the official business of the united states government by employees, grantees, or contractors thereof. (see § 587.509). this authorization extends to the official business of u.s. diplomatic or consular missions. additionally, e.o. 14024 exempts transactions for the official business of the united states government conducted by its employees, grantees, and contractors from the prohibitions of the order. third country diplomatic or consular missions in russia: russia related gl 20 authorizes, subject to certain conditions, u.s. persons to engage in all transactions ordinarily incident and necessary to the official business of third country diplomatic or consular missions located in the russian federation that are prohibited by e.o. 14024 or section 1(a)(iv) of e.o. 14068. third country diplomatic or consular mission outside of russia: russia related general license (gl) 119 authorizes, subject to certain conditions, all transactions ordinarily incident and necessary to the official business of diplomatic or consular missions located outside of the russian federation that are prohibited by e.o. 14024 and involve gazprom neft, or any entity in which gazprom neft owns, directly or indirectly, a 50 percent or greater interest through 12:01 a.m. eastern standard time, february 27, 2025. as a general matter, transactions that are "ordinarily incident and necessary" to the official business of a diplomatic or consular mission, whether third country or russian, include standard foreign diplomatic or consular mission operations, including bank transactions related to the operation of those missions, such as salary payments, expense reimbursement for employees, or payments of utilities for diplomatic or consular facilities. date updated: january 10, 2025 no. treasury's sanctions target russian financial institutions that have continued to help russia gain access to the critical goods it needs to prosecute its war in ukraine. as a general matter, personal, non commercial remittances are not the target of sanctions imposed by the united states on russia. there remain a number of non sanctioned russian banks, subsidiaries of foreign banks, and money service businesses that can continue to process legitimate transactions, including non commercial, personal remittances. u.s. and foreign financial institutions may continue to process transactions for activities, such as the facilitation of personal non commercial remittances, that do not involve blocked persons and are not otherwise prohibited by ofac. in addition, ofac maintains various authorizations related to legitimate humanitarian activity and agricultural and medical trade, which include authorizations for dealings with certain sanctioned russian financial institutions, such as general license (gl) 6d (authorizing transactions related to certain agricultural and medical activities); u.s. and foreign financial institutions may continue to process transactions for such authorized activities as well. gl 115a generally authorizes certain transactions related to civil nuclear energy involving certain entities that are sanctioned pursuant to executive order 14024. civil nuclear energy means the following activities when undertaken solely to maintain or support civil nuclear energy projects and operations initiated or under construction as of november 21, 2024: the extraction, production, refinement, conversion, enrichment, fabrication, transport, or purchase of uranium in any form; the production, generation, transmission, or exchange of nuclear power, fuel, or waste; and the operation of civil nuclear energy projects. however, gl 115a does not authorize, for instance, transactions involving certain sanctioned russian financial institutions related to the development of new civil nuclear energy power plants after november 21, 2024, or related to the paks ii nuclear power plant project, including paks ii. nuclear power plant private limited company (paks ii. ltd.), or any successor project. non u.s. persons generally do not risk exposure to u.s. sanctions for engaging in transactions with blocked persons, including transactions related to existing civil nuclear energy as described in gl 115a, where those transactions would not require a specific license if engaged in by a u.s. person. updated: january 10, 2025 yes. although transactions or other dealings involving ivanishvili are generally prohibited as a result of ofac's designation, ofac concurrently issued general license (gl) 116 authorizing u.s. persons to engage in all transactions with any entity owned 50% or more by ivanishvili provided that such entity is not identified on the sdn list. non u.s. persons may also engage in the transactions authorized by gl 116 without the risk of sanctions under e.o. 14024, as amended. however, u.s. persons are still prohibited from transacting with ivanishvili himself unless exempt or otherwise authorized by ofac. additionally, as provided in paragraph (b), gl 116 does not authorize certain transactions, including transactions related to the singapore court of appeal case or related proceedings as specified in paragraph (b)(3) of the gl. on january 10, 2025, the secretary of the treasury, in consultation with the secretary of state, issued a determination pursuant to e.o. 14024 that authorizes the imposition of economic sanctions on any person determined to operate or have operated in the energy sector of the russian federation economy. for purposes of the january 2025 energy sector determination, ofac anticipates publishing regulations defining the term "energy sector of the russian federation economy" to include activities such as the procurement, exploration, extraction, drilling, mining, harvesting, production, refinement, liquefaction, gasification, regasification, conversion, enrichment, fabrication, manufacturing, testing, financing, distribution, purchase or transport to, from, or involving the russian federation, of petroleum, including crude oil, lease condensates, unfinished oils, natural gas, liquefied natural gas, natural gas liquids, or petroleum products, or other products capable of producing energy, such as coal, wood, or agricultural products used to manufacture biofuels; the development, production, testing, generation, transmission, financing, or exchange of power, through any means, including nuclear, electrical, thermal, and renewable, to, from, or involving the russian federation; and any related activities, including the provision or receipt of goods, services, or technology to, from, or involving the energy sector of the russian federation economy. this definition is similar to the energy sector definition set forth under the ukraine /russia related sanctions in 31 cfr 589.311 but includes additional language identifying specific activities and petroleum products, reflecting developments since the department of the treasury issued a determination pursuant to section 1(a)(i) of executive order 13662 on july 16, 2014. ofac intends to update the sdn list to reflect whether persons have been designated pursuant to e.o. 14024, e.o. 13662, or both. no. on january 10, 2025, the secretary of the treasury, in consultation with the secretary of state, issued a determination pursuant to e.o. 14024 that authorizes the imposition of economic sanctions on any person determined to operate or have operated in the energy sector of the russian federation economy. a sector determination pursuant to e.o. 14024 exposes persons that operate or have operated in an identified sector to sanctions risk; however, a sector determination does not automatically impose sanctions on all persons who operate or have operated in the sector. gl 26 applies to transactions involving specified persons identified in the annex to gl 26, who are designated under both the ursr and the russian harmful foreign activities sanctions regulations, 31 cfr part 587 (ruhsr). the purpose of gl 26 is to ensure that transactions authorized or exempt under the ruhsr, including transactions authorized by a general or specific license, that involve those specified persons are also authorized under the ursr, to the extent such transactions are prohibited by executive order (e.o.) 13662. however, gl 26 does not authorize any transaction prohibited by a directive issued pursuant to e.o. 13662, as incorporated into sections 589.202 through 589.205 of the ursr, or any transaction involving any person blocked pursuant to the ruhsr or the ursr other than the specified persons, unless separately authorized. in line with g7 efforts to reduce russian revenues from energy, on january 10, 2025, treasury issued a determination pursuant to executive order (e.o.) 14071 prohibiting petroleum services to russia. see the determination pursuant to sections 1(a)(ii), 1(b), and 5 of e.o. 14071, prohibition on petroleum services ("the petroleum services determination"). this determination prohibits the exportation, reexportation, sale, or supply, directly or indirectly, from the united states, or by a united states person, wherever located, to any person located in the russian federation of petroleum services. the petroleum services determination will take effect at 12:01 a.m. eastern standard time on february 27, 2025. see faq 1217 for additional information. ofac expects to issue regulations defining petroleum services to include services related to the exploration, drilling, well completion, production, refining, processing, storage, maintenance, transportation, purchase, acquisition, testing, inspection, transfer, sale, trade, distribution, or marketing of petroleum, including crude oil and petroleum products, as well as any activities that contribute to russia’s ability to develop its domestic petroleum resources, or the maintenance or expansion of russia’s domestic production and refining. this would include services related to natural gas as a byproduct of oil production in russia. concurrently, ofac issued gl 121 to authorize any petroleum services that would otherwise be prohibited by the petroleum services determination related to the operations of the caspian pipeline consortium, sakhalin ii, or tengizchevroil, (2) any petroleum services related to isotopes derived from petroleum manufacturing that are used for medical, agricultural, or environmental purposes, such as carbon 13; (3) certain covered services related to the maritime transport of crude oil and petroleum products of russian federation origin purchased at or below the relevant price cap; and (4) any service in connection with the wind down or divestiture of an entity located in the russian federation that is not owned or controlled, directly or indirectly, by a russian person. see faq 1217 for additional information related to price cap related exclusions of the petroleum services determination. yes, as long as the provision of services does not involve an entity blocked pursuant to e.o. 14024 and is not otherwise prohibited by ofac sanctions. the price cap policy does not authorize transactions otherwise prohibited by the russian harmful foreign activities sanctions regulations, 31 cfr part 587 (ruhsr), including transactions involving any person blocked pursuant to the ruhsr, unless separately authorized. for more information on the price cap policy, please see ofac's price cap policy guidance. see faq 1216 for more information on the determination pursuant to sections 1(a)(ii), 1(b), and 5 of e.o. 14071, prohibition on petroleum services. see faqs 1213 and 1214 for more information on the january 2025 energy sector determination, issued pursuant to e.o. 14024. belarus gl 3 authorizes transactions and activities with the state security committee of the republic of belarus (the belarusian kgb) that are necessary and ordinarily incident to requesting, receiving, utilizing, paying for, or dealing in certain licenses and authorizations for the importation, distribution, or use of certain information technology products in belarus. it also authorizes transactions and activities necessary and ordinarily incident to compliance with rules and regulations administered by, and certain actions or investigations involving, the belarusian kgb. the gl was issued to ensure that u.s. persons engaging in certain business activities in belarus that are not otherwise prohibited are not unduly impacted. belarus gl 3 only authorizes certain transactions and activities with the belarusian kgb acting in its administrative capacity and does not authorize u.s. persons to engage in transactions and activities with the belarusian kgb except for the limited purposes described above. no. belarus gl 3 does not authorize the exportation, reexportation, or provision of any goods, technology, or services to the belarusian kgb or any other blocked person, except for the limited purposes of complying with rules and regulations administered by, and certain actions and investigations involving, the belarusian kgb or requesting certain licenses or authorizations for the importation, distribution, or use of information technology products in belarus. e.o. of august 9, 2021 expands the scope of the national emergency pertaining to belarus declared in e.o. 13405, “blocking property of certain persons undermining democratic processes or institutions in belarus,” to provide additional authorities under which sanctions may be imposed against individuals and entities related to the belarusian regime’s harmful activities and longstanding abuses aimed at suppressing democracy and the exercise of human rights and fundamental freedoms in belarus. e.o. of august 9, 2021 also addresses national security threats posed by the belarusian regime’s illicit and oppressive activities stemming from the august 9, 2020 fraudulent belarusian presidential election and its aftermath, such as the elimination of political opposition and civil society organizations and the regime’s disruption and endangering of international civil air travel. as a result of e.o. of august 9, 2021, all property and interests in property of persons designated pursuant to this e.o. that are or come within the united states or the possession or control of u.s. persons are blocked, and u.s. persons are generally prohibited from engaging in transactions involving such designated persons unless authorized by ofac or otherwise exempt from regulation. additionally, any entities owned 50 percent or more, individually or in the aggregate, directly or indirectly, by one or more blocked persons are also blocked. no. e.o. of august 9, 2021 authorizes the imposition of blocking sanctions on persons operating in certain identified sectors of the belarus economy, including the defense and related materiel sector, security sector, energy sector, potassium chloride (potash) sector, tobacco products sector, construction sector, transportation sector, or any other sector of the belarus economy as may be determined by the secretary of the treasury, in consultation with the secretary of state. the identification of a sector pursuant to e.o. of august 9, 2021 provides notice that persons operating in the identified sector risk exposure to sanctions; however, the identification of a sector does not automatically block all persons operating in that sector of the belarus economy. only persons designated on ofac’s specially designated nationals and blocked persons list (sdn list), and entities owned 50 percent or more, individually or in the aggregate, directly or indirectly, by one or more such persons, are subject to blocking sanctions. gl 4 authorizes, through 12:01 a.m. eastern standard time, december 8, 2021, all transactions and activities prohibited by executive order (e.o.) 14038 that are ordinarily incident and necessary to the wind down of transactions involving belaruskali oao, or any entity in which belaruskali oao owns, directly or indirectly, a 50 percent or greater interest, subject to the terms of the license. gl 4 does not authorize the entry into new purchase contracts, or the stockpiling of inventory, involving belaruskali oao, or any entity in which belaruskali oao owns, directly or indirectly, a 50 percent or greater interest, on or after august 9, 2021 that are not ordinarily incident and necessary to the wind down of transactions. after the expiration of gl 4, unless exempt or authorized by ofac, u.s. persons will be prohibited from engaging in transactions with belaruskali oao, or any entity in which belaruskali oao owns, directly or indirectly, a 50 percent or greater interest, and must block property or interests in property of such persons that are in, or come within, the united states, or the possession or control of a u.s. person. gl 5 authorizes, through 12:01a.m. eastern standard time, april 1, 2022, all transactions and activities prohibited by executive order (e.o.) 14038 that are ordinarily incident and necessary to the wind down of transactions involving open joint stock company belarusian potash company (bpc) or agrorozkvit llc, or any entity in which bpc or agrorozkvit llc owns, directly or indirectly, individually or in the aggregate, a 50 percent or greater interest, including the wind down of such transactions in which belaruskali oao has a property interest (e.g., certain resale transactions by bpc or agrorozkvit llc of product sourced from belaruskali oao). however, gl 5 does not authorize direct transactions with belaruskali oao, and does not extend belarus gl 4, which expires at 12:01 a.m. eastern standard time, december 8, 2021. please see faq 918 for further details on the scope of gl 4. gl 5 also does not authorize the entry into new purchase contracts, or the stockpiling of inventory, involving bpc or agrorozkvit llc, or any entity in which bpc or agrorozkvit llc owns, directly or indirectly, individually or in the aggregate, a 50 percent or greater interest, that are not ordinarily incident and necessary to the wind down of transactions. pursuant to directive 1 under e .o. 14038, the following activities by u.s. persons or within the united states are prohibited, except to the extent provided by law or unless licensed or otherwise authorized by the office of foreign assets control: all transactions in, provision of financing for, and other dealings in new debt with a maturity of greater than 90 days issued on or after december 2, 2021 by the ministry of finance of the republic of belarus or the development bank of the republic of belarus. these prohibitions apply to all denominations of debt. further, except to the extent otherwise provided by law or unless licensed or otherwise authorized by the office of foreign assets control, the following are also prohibited: (1) any transaction that evades or avoids, has the purpose of evading or avoiding, causes a violation of, or attempts to violate any of the prohibitions contained in directive 1 under e.o. 14038; and (2) any conspiracy formed to violate any of the prohibitions in directive 1 under e.o. 14038. yes. no, so long as the terms of such debt (including the repayment period, the interest rate, and the amount) were contractually agreed to before december 2, 2021 and are not modified on or after december 2, 2021. no. the prohibitions in directive 1 do not apply to any entity that is owned, directly or indirectly, 50 percent or more by the ministry of finance of the republic of belarus or the development bank of the republic of belarus, whether individually or in the aggregate. the term debt includes bonds, loans, extensions of credit, loan guarantees, letters of credit, drafts, bankers’ acceptances, discount notes or bills, or commercial paper. no. directive 1 under e.o. 14038 prohibits u.s. persons from engaging in only certain activities with the ministry of finance of the republic of belarus or the development bank of the republic of belarus, as explained in faq 940. all other activities with the ministry of finance of the republic of belarus or the development bank of the republic of belarus, or involving their property or interests in property, are permitted, provided such activities are not otherwise prohibited pursuant to e.o. 14038, any executive order issued pursuant to the national emergency declared in e.o. 13405, or any other sanctions program implemented by the office of foreign assets control. yes. u.s. financial institutions may continue to maintain correspondent accounts and process u.s. dollar clearing transactions for the ministry of finance of the republic of belarus or the development bank of the republic of belarus, provided such activity is not otherwise prohibited pursuant to e.o. 14038, any executive order issued pursuant to the national emergency declared in e.o. 13405, or any other sanctions program implemented by the office of foreign assets control. if a u.s. person entered into a revolving credit facility or long term loan agreement prior to december 2, 2021, drawdowns and disbursements with repayment terms of 90 days or less are permitted. in addition, drawdowns and disbursements whose repayment terms exceed 90 days are not prohibited if the terms of such drawdowns and disbursements (including the length of the repayment period, the interest rate applied to the drawdown, and the maximum drawdown amount) were contractually agreed to prior to december 2, 2021 and are not modified on or after december 2, 2021. u.s. persons may not deal in a drawdown or disbursement initiated on or after december 2, 2021 with a repayment term that is greater than 90 days if the terms of the drawdown or disbursement were negotiated on or after december 2, 2021. such a newly negotiated drawdown or disbursement would constitute a prohibited extension of credit. yes. transactions by u.s. persons and within the united states involving derivative products whose value is linked to an underlying asset that constitutes prohibited debt issued by a person subject to directive 1 under e.o. 14038 are prohibited, unless otherwise authorized by the office of foreign assets control. in july 2017, the united kingdom financial conduct authority (fca) announced the “future cessation and loss of representativeness” of the ice benchmark administration’s 35 global reference rates, the libor rates. in light of the discontinuation of libor as a benchmark reference rate, ofac is issuing additional guidance. the belarus, russia, ukraine /russia related, and venezuela related sanctions programs prohibit u.s. persons from dealing in certain new debt of persons identified as subject to these prohibitions. in faq 944 (belarus), faq 986 (russia related), faq 371 (ukraine /russia related), and faq 511 (venezuela related), ofac provides examples of new debt, such as “bonds, loans, extensions of credit, loan guarantees, letters of credit, drafts, bankers acceptances, discount notes or bills, or commercial paper” issued on or after various specified dates. for more information on the effective dates and relevant debt maturities for each of these sanctions programs, please see faq 947 (belarus), faq 984 (russia related), faq 370 (ukraine /russia related), and faq 553 (venezuela related). for the belarus, russia, ukraine /russia related, and venezuela related sanctions programs, ofac has indicated that certain changes to contractual terms of loans, contracts, or other agreements that were entered into prior to the effective date of the relevant sanctions prohibitions could convert pre existing debt that was not subject to the sanctions prohibitions into new debt that is subject to the sanctions prohibitions. (see faq 947 (belarus), faqs 987 and 989 (russia related) faq 394 (ukraine /russia related), and faq 553 (venezuela related). loans, contracts, or other agreements that use libor as a reference rate that are modified to replace such benchmark reference rate will not be treated as new debt for ofac sanctions purposes, so long as no other material terms of the loan, contract, or agreement are modified. date updated: february 24, 2022 e.o. of september 17, 2021 provides for the imposition of menu based sanctions on foreign persons determined by the secretary of the treasury, in consultation with the secretary of state, to meet certain criteria under the order, including foreign persons determined to be responsible for or complicit in actions or policies that expand or extend the ongoing crisis in northern ethiopia or obstruct a ceasefire or peace process. section 1(a) of e.o. of september 17, 2021 provides the complete list of criteria for designation under the order. section 2(a) of e.o. of september 17, 2021 lists the menu of prohibitions that can be imposed by the secretary of the treasury, in consultation with the secretary of state, on a foreign person designated under the order. the prohibitions that may be selected include, among other things: (1) blocking sanctions on all property and interests in property of the “sanctioned person” (as defined in e.o. of september 17, 2021), except for any entities owned, in whole or in part, directly or indirectly, by one or more sanctioned persons (unless the entity is itself a sanctioned person and the blocking sanctions have been selected); (2) a prohibition on any united states person investing in or purchasing significant amounts of equity or debt instruments of the sanctioned person; (3) a prohibition on any united states financial institution making loans or providing credit to the sanctioned person; (4) a prohibition on any transactions in foreign exchange that are subject to the jurisdiction of the united states and in which the sanctioned person has any interest; and (5) any of the above sanctions on the principal executive officer or officers of the sanctioned person, or on persons performing similar functions and with similar authorities. persons blocked pursuant to section 2(a)(i)(a) of e.o. of september 17, 2021 will appear on ofac’s specially designated nationals and blocked persons list (sdn list), while persons sanctioned pursuant to section 2(a)(i)(b)   (e) of e.o. of september 17, 2021 will appear on to the non sdn menu based sanctions list (ns mbs list). for the purposes of e.o. of september 17, 2021, the term “sanctioned person” means a foreign person (1) that has been determined by secretary of the treasury, in consultation with the secretary of state, to meet any of the designation criteria described in section 1 of e.o. of september 17, 2021; and (2) for whom the secretary of the treasury, in consultation with the secretary of state, has selected one or more of the sanctions set forth in section 2(a) of e.o. of september 17, 2021 to impose on that foreign person. please see section 7(f) of e.o. of september 17, 2021. e.o. of september 17, 2021 is designed to impose costs on actors contributing to the conflict in northern ethiopia while mitigating potential undue harm to the people of ethiopia, including by exempting the official business of the u.s. government by its employees, grantees, and contractors from the prohibitions under e.o. of september 17, 2021, enabling their continued support of development activity, life saving humanitarian assistance, and longer term assistance to address basic needs of at risk populations. no. unless an entity is itself a sanctioned person (as defined in e.o. of september 17, 2021) and listed separately on ofac’s specially designated nationals and blocked persons list (sdn list), it is not blocked pursuant to e.o. of september 17, 2021. ofac’s 50 percent rule does not apply to persons blocked solely pursuant to section 2(a)(i)(a) of e.o. of september 17, 2021. no. if a person is listed on ofac’s non sdn menu based sanctions list (ns mbs list) as subject to only one or more of the sanctions described in section 2(a)(i)(b)   (e) of e.o. of september 17, 2021, these non blocking sanctions do not apply to an entity owned in whole or in part, individually or in the aggregate, directly or indirectly, by such sanctioned person, unless ofac separately lists the entity on the ns mbs list as subject to sanctions. ethiopia gl 2 authorizes certain transactions and activities involving nongovernmental organizations’ (ngos) activities in ethiopia or eritrea, including: activities to support humanitarian projects and to meet basic human needs (such as, among other examples provided in gl 2, shelter and settlements assistance, water, sanitation, hygiene activities, and covid 19 related assistance); activities to support democracy building (such as, among other examples provided in gl 2, activities to support conflict mitigation); activities to support education; activities to support non commercial development projects directly benefiting the people of ethiopia or eritrea, including those related to health, food security, water and sanitation; and activities to support environmental and natural resource protection. please see gl 2 for details. non u.s. persons, including nongovernmental organizations and foreign financial institutions, generally do not risk exposure to u.s. sanctions for engaging in, or facilitating transactions or payments for, activities that would be exempt or authorized for u.s. persons pursuant to ethiopia gl 1, gl 2, gl 3, or gl 4. no. ofac has implemented three authorizations and an exemption under executive order (e.o.) 14046 to ensure that humanitarian assistance can flow to the people of ethiopia, eritrea, and the greater horn of africa region. these authorizations and exemption apply to all persons sanctioned under e.o. 14046, including hidri trust and rstc. concurrent with the issuance of e.o. 14046, ofac issued general licenses (gls) 1 and 2 to ensure that nongovernmental organizations (ngos) and certain international organizations (ios) and other international entities, respectively, may continue to engage in and facilitate humanitarian related transactions or activity to ethiopia, eritrea, or the greater horn of africa region. ofac also issued gl 3 , which authorizes u.s. persons to conduct all transactions and activities that are ordinarily incident and necessary to the exportation or reexportation of covered agricultural commodities, medicine, medical devices, replacement parts and components for medical devices, or software updates for medical devices to ethiopia or eritrea, or to persons in third countries purchasing specifically for resale to ethiopia or eritrea. please see faqs 925 (this content is no longer available) and 926, for additional information. e.o. 14046 also exempts the official business of the u.s. government by its employees, grantees, and contractors from the prohibitions, enabling continued support of development activity, life saving humanitarian assistance, and longer term assistance to address basic needs of at risk populations in ethiopia, eritrea, or the greater horn of africa region. as described in faq 927, non u.s. persons, including ngos and financial institutions, would not risk exposure to sanctions for engaging in certain humanitarian related transactions or activity with hidri trust and rstc that are otherwise exempt or authorized for u.s. persons, such as transactions involving the provision of certain humanitarian assistance or export of humanitarian goods to ethiopia, eritrea, or the greater horn of africa region. in addition, ofac issued gl 4 , “authorizing the wind down of transactions involving hidri trust or red sea trading corporation.” gl 4 authorizes, through 12:01 a.m. eastern standard time, december 14, 2021, subject to certain exceptions, all transactions and activities prohibited e.o. 14046 that are ordinarily incident and necessary to the wind down of transactions involving hidri trust or rstc. transactions authorized by gls 1, 2, or 3, including transactions related to the export or reexportation of covered agricultural commodities, medicine, medical devices, replacement parts and components, or software updates, will continue to be authorized even after the expiration of gl 4. no. ofac’s 50 percent rule does not apply to persons blocked solely pursuant to the blocking sanctions of e.o. 14046. unless an entity is itself a sanctioned person (as defined in e.o. 14046) and listed separately on ofac’s specially designated nationals and blocked persons list (sdn list), it is not blocked. for more information, please see faqs 923 and 924. no. the taliban are designated as a specially designated global terrorist (sdgts) under executive order (e.o.) 13224. the haqqani network is designated as an sdgt under e.o. 13224 and a foreign terrorist organization (fto) under section 219 of the immigration and nationality act (ina). these sanctions do not prohibit u.s. persons from exporting or reexporting goods or services to afghanistan, provided that the transactions do not involve sanctioned individuals or entities, or property in which a blocked person has an interest unless exempt from regulation or authorized by ofac. in addition, ofac has issued afghanistan related general licenses (gls) 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, and 20 under the global terrorism sanctions regulations, 331 cfr part 594 (gtsr), the foreign terrorist organizations sanctions regulations, 31 cfr part 597 (ftosr), and e.o. 13224, as amended. for a consolidated list of all relevant gls and faqs, please see ofac’s humanitarian fact sheet, “provision of humanitarian assistance to afghanistan and support for the afghan people,” (this content was updated on april 13, 2022) which provides an overview of the relevant authorizations and guidance related to u.s. sanctions on the taliban and the haqqani network. the gls mentioned above do not authorize any debit to a blocked account on the books of a u.s. financial institution and restrict certain financial or other transfers to specified blocked persons, including the taliban, the haqqani network, or any entity in which the taliban or the haqqani network owns, directly or indirectly, a 50 percent or greater interest. for activity outside the scope of these gls, ofac may issue specific licenses on a case by case basis to authorize certain transactions involving u.s. persons or the u.s. financial system that may otherwise be prohibited by ofac sanctions, provided those transactions are in the foreign policy interests of the united states. if individuals, nongovernmental organizations, international organizations, companies, or financial institutions have questions about engaging in or processing transactions related to these authorizations, they may contact ofac’s sanctions compliance and evaluation division most efficiently via the ofac compliance hotline. ofac prioritizes license applications, compliance questions and other requests that are related to humanitarian support. for the purposes of afghanistan related gl 14, humanitarian assistance includes the provision of relief services related to natural and man made disasters, the provision of healthcare and health related services, protection and assistance for vulnerable or displaced populations (including women, individuals with disabilities, the elderly, survivors of violence, those incarcerated or detained, and the drug dependent), operation of orphanages, the distribution of articles (such as food, clothing, and medicine) intended to be used to relieve human suffering in afghanistan, and training or other services related to any of the foregoing activities. other activities that support basic human needs include activities to support non commercial development projects in afghanistan that primarily benefit poor or at risk populations or otherwise relieve human suffering, including activities related to shelter and settlement assistance, food security, livelihoods support, water, sanitation, health, hygiene, and covid 19 related assistance, among others, and training or other services related to any of the foregoing activities. however, in all cases, authorized humanitarian assistance and other activities that support basic human needs in afghanistan must not entail financial transfers to the taliban, the haqqani network, or any entity in which the taliban or the haqqani network owns, directly or indirectly, a 50 percent or greater interest, other than for the purpose of effecting the payment of taxes, fees, and import duties, or the purchase or receipt of permits, licenses, or public utility services described in gl 14 and faq 928. in addition, ofac has issued afghanistan related gl 20, which, to the extent authorization is required, authorizes all transactions involving afghanistan or governing institutions in afghanistan prohibited under the global terrorism sanctions regulations, 31 cfr part 594 (gtsr), the foreign terrorist organizations sanctions regulations, 31 cfr part 597 (ftosr), or executive order (e.o.) 13224, as amended, subject to limited conditions set forth in gl 20 paragraph (b). gl 20 therefore also covers humanitarian assistance to afghanistan or other activities that support basic human needs in afghanistan. as noted in faq 996, the authorization in afghanistan related gl 20 may overlap with the authorization in afghanistan related gl 14. where appropriate, u.s. persons may rely on the broader authorization in gl 20 instead of the authorization in gl 14. for more information on relevant authorizations and guidance for providing humanitarian assistance to afghanistan, please see ofac’s humanitarian fact sheet, “provision of humanitarian assistance to afghanistan and support for the afghan people,” (this content was updated on april 13, 2022) which provides an overview of the relevant authorizations and guidance related to u.s. sanctions on the taliban and the haqqani network. if individuals, nongovernmental organizations, international organizations, companies, or financial institutions have questions about engaging in or processing transactions related to these authorizations, they can contact ofac compliance hotline. ofac prioritizes license applications, compliance questions and other requests that are related to humanitarian support. date updated: february 25, 2022 no. the taliban are designated as specially designated global terrorists (sdgts) under executive order (e.o.) 13224, as amended. the haqqani network is designated as an sdgt under e.o. 13224 and a foreign terrorist organization (fto) under section 219 of the immigration and nationality act (ina). these sanctions do not prohibit u.s. persons from exporting or reexporting goods or services to afghanistan, provided that the transactions do not involve other sanctioned individuals or entities, or property in which a blocked person has an interest unless exempt from regulation or authorized by ofac. ofac has also issued afghanistan related general license no. 15 (gl 15) under the global terrorism sanctions regulations, 31 cfr part 594 (gtsr), the foreign terrorist organizations sanctions regulations, 31 cfr part 597 (ftosr), and e.o. 13224, as amended. gl 15 authorizes u.s. persons to engage in all transactions that are ordinarily incident and necessary to the exportation or reexportation of agricultural commodities, medicine, medical devices, replacement parts, and components for medical devices, or software updates for medical devices to afghanistan, as those terms are defined in gl 15, as well as to persons in third countries purchasing specifically for resale to afghanistan, and that may involve the taliban, the haqqani network, or any entity in which taliban or the haqqani network owns, directly or indirectly, a 50 percent or greater interest, subject to certain conditions. gl 15 also authorizes u.s. persons to engage in transactions or activities that are ordinarily incident and necessary to authorized export or reexports, including the processing of financial transactions and related clearing and settlement involving banks in afghanistan. in addition, ofac has issued afghanistan related gl 20, which, to the extent authorization is required, authorizes all transactions involving afghanistan or governing institutions in afghanistan prohibited under the gtsr, the ftosr, or e.o. 13224, as amended, subject to limited conditions set forth in gl 20 paragraph (b). gl 20 therefore also covers the exportation or reexportation of agricultural commodities, medicine, and medical devices to afghanistan, as well as transactions ordinarily incident and necessary to such export or reexports. as noted in faq 996, the authorization in afghanistan related gl 20 may overlap with the authorization in afghanistan related gl 15. where appropriate, u.s. persons may rely on the broader authorization in gl 20 instead of the authorization in gl 15. however, gls 15 and 20 do not authorize any debit to a blocked account on the books of a u.s. financial institution. in addition, gls 15 and 20 do not authorize financial transfers to the taliban, the haqqani network, or any entity in which the taliban or the haqqani network owns, directly or indirectly, a 50 percent or greater interest, other than for the purpose of effecting the payment of taxes, fees, or import duties, or the purchase or receipt of permits, licenses, or public utility services as described in the respective gls. for purposes of clarity, transfers of funds to or from afghanistan that are ordinarily incident and necessary to give effect to the activities authorized in gls 15 and 20, including clearing and settlement involving banks in afghanistan, are authorized under gls 15 and 20. gl 20 also does not authorize transfers of luxury items or services to the taliban, the haqqani network, any entity in which the taliban or the haqqani network owns, directly or indirectly, individually or in the aggregate, a 50 percent or greater interest, any blocked individual who is in a leadership role of a governing institution in afghanistan. gl 20 also does not authorize any transaction involving any other persons blocked pursuant to the global terrorism sanctions regulations, 31 cfr part 594 (gtsr), the foreign terrorist organizations sanctions regulations, 31 cfr part 597 (ftosr), or executive order (e.o.) 13224, as amended, outside of the entities and individuals mentioned above. where not covered by gls 15 and 20, or any other relevant authorizations issued by ofac, ofac may also issue specific licenses to authorize certain transactions involving u.s. persons or the u.s. financial system that may otherwise be prohibited by ofac sanctions, provided those transactions are in the foreign policy interests of the united states. if individuals, entities, companies, or financial institutions have questions about engaging in or processing transactions related to these authorizations, they can contact ofac compliance hotline. no. non u.s. persons may engage in or facilitate transactions that would be authorized for u.s. persons under afghanistan related gls 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 or 20without exposure to sanctions under the global terrorism sanctions regulations, 31 cfr part 594 (gtsr), the foreign terrorist organizations sanctions regulations, 31 cfr part 597 (ftosr), or executive order (e.o.) 13224, as amended. for example, activity that would be authorized by gls 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, or 20 if engaged in by a u.s. person would not be considered “significant” for the purposes of a secondary sanctions determination under e.o. 13224, as amended. accordingly, foreign financial institutions do not risk exposure to correspondent and payable through account sanctions under e.o. 13224, as amended, if they knowingly conduct or facilitate a significant transaction on behalf of persons blocked under e.o. 13224, as amended, that would be authorized under gls 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, or 20 if engaged in by a u.s. person. for more information on relevant authorizations and guidance for providing humanitarian assistance to afghanistan, please see ofac’s humanitarian fact sheet, “provision of humanitarian assistance to afghanistan and support for the afghan people,” (this content was updated on april 13, 2022) which provides an overview of the relevant authorizations and guidance related to u.s. sanctions on the taliban and the haqqani network. if individuals, entities, international organizations, or financial institutions have questions about engaging in or processing transactions related to these authorizations, they can contact ofac compliance hotline. ofac prioritizes license applications, compliance questions and other requests that are related to humanitarian support. no. the taliban are designated as a specially designated global terrorist (sdgt) executive order (e.o.) 13224, as amended. the haqqani network is designated as an sdgt under e.o. 13224, as amended, and a foreign terrorist organization (fto) under section 219 of the immigration and nationality act (ina). these sanctions do not prohibit u.s. persons from exporting or reexporting goods or services (including noncommercial, personal remittances) to afghanistan, provided that the transactions do not involve sanctioned individuals or entities, or property in which a blocked person has an interest, unless exempt from regulation or authorized by ofac. for example, u.s. sanctions do not prohibit the hand carrying of noncommercial, personal remittances to an individual in afghanistan or ordinarily resident in afghanistan, other than a blocked individual. ofac has also issued afghanistan related general license (gl) 16 to facilitate the transfer of noncommercial, personal remittances to individuals in afghanistan. gl 16 authorizes u.s. persons to engage in transactions that are ordinarily incident and necessary to the transfer of noncommercial, personal remittances, including through afghan depository institutions, and that may involve the taliban or the haqqani network, or any entity in which the taliban or the haqqani network owns, directly or indirectly, individually or in the aggregate, a 50 percent or greater interest, that are prohibited by the global terrorism sanctions regulations, 31 cfr part 594 (gtsr), the foreign terrorist organizations sanctions regulations, 31 cfr part 597 (ftosr), or e.o. 13224, as amended. in addition, ofac has issued afghanistan related gl 20, which, to the extent authorization is required, authorizes all transactions involving afghanistan or governing institutions in afghanistan prohibited under the gtsr, the ftosr, or e.o. 13224, as amended, subject to limited conditions set forth in gl 20 paragraph (b). gl 20 therefore also covers the sending of personal remittances to afghanistan. as noted in faq 996, the authorization in afghanistan related gl 20 may overlap with the authorization in afghanistan related gl 16. where appropriate, u.s. persons may rely on the broader authorization in gl 20 instead of the authorizations in gl 16. however, gls 16 and 20 do not authorize any debit to a blocked account of the taliban or the haqqani network, or any entity in which the taliban or the haqqani network owns, directly or indirectly, individually or in the aggregate, a 50 percent or greater interest, on the books of a u.s. financial institution. in addition, gls 16 and 20 do not authorize financial transfers to the taliban, the haqqani network, or any entity in which the taliban or the haqqani network owns, directly or indirectly, individually or in the aggregate, a 50 percent or greater interest, other than for the purpose of effecting the payment of reasonable and customary taxes, fees, or other duties as described in the respective gls. transactions that are ordinarily incident and necessary to give effect to the activities authorized in gls 16 and 20, including clearing, settlement, and transfers through, to, or otherwise involving privately owned and state owned afghan depository institutions, are also authorized pursuant to gls 16 and 20. gl 20 also does not authorize transfers of luxury items or services to the taliban, the haqqani network, any entity in which the taliban or the haqqani network owns, directly or indirectly, individually or in the aggregate, a 50 percent or greater interest, or any blocked individual who is in a leadership role of a governing institution in afghanistan. for activity outside the scope of gls 16 or 20, ofac may issue specific licenses on a case by case basis to authorize certain transactions involving u.s. persons or the u.s. financial system that may otherwise be prohibited by ofac sanctions, provided those transactions are in the foreign policy interests of the united states. date updated: february 25, 2022 no. in contrast to sanctions programs administered and enforced by ofac with regard to north korea, cuba, iran, syria, and the crimea and so called donetsk people’s republic and luhansk people’s republic regions of ukraine, there are no comprehensive sanctions on afghanistan. therefore, there are no ofac administered sanctions that prohibit the export or reexport of goods or services to afghanistan, moving or sending money into and out of afghanistan, or activities in afghanistan, provided that such transactions or activities do not involve sanctioned individuals, entities, or property in which sanctioned individuals and entities have an interest. certain afghanistan related individuals and entities are included on ofac’s list of specially designated nationals and blocked persons (sdn list), most notably the taliban and the haqqani network. the taliban are designated as a specially designated global terrorist (sdgt) under executive order (e.o.) 13224. the haqqani network is designated as an sdgt under e.o. 13224 and a foreign terrorist organization (fto) under section 219 of the immigration and nationality act. transactions or activities by u.s. persons that involve these entities are generally prohibited. in addition, ofac has issued gls 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, and 20 under the global terrorism sanctions regulations, 31 cfr part 594 (gtsr), the foreign terrorist organizations sanctions regulations, 31 cfr part 597 (ftosr), and e.o. 13224, as amended. for a consolidated list of all relevant general licenses and faqs, please see ofac’s humanitarian fact sheet, “provision of humanitarian assistance to afghanistan and support for the afghan people,” (this content was updated on april 13, 2022) that provides an overview of the relevant authorizations and guidance related to u.s. sanctions on the taliban and the haqqani network. date updated: february 25, 2022 a number of members of the taliban and/or the haqqani network are explicitly included on ofac’s list of specially designated nationals and blocked persons (sdn list). persons operating in afghanistan can use ofac’s sdn list search tool to identify such members of the taliban or the haqqani networks explicitly included on the sdn list, as well as other individuals or entities explicitly subject to u.s. sanctions. for more information on using ofac’s sdn list search tool and assessing ofac name matches, please see ofac faqs 5, 82, 246 253, 287, 369, 467, and 892. ofac would encourage any person operating in afghanistan to use all information at their disposal when assessing their risk for sanctions exposure. supplementing internal due diligence information with an array of open source material can be an effective compliance practice to aid in identifying risky counterparties involved in any in country activity. for more information on ofac due diligence expectations and compliance programs, please see faqs 25, 27 31 and a framework for ofac compliance commitments. date updated: february 25, 2022 no. u.s. sanctions on the taliban and the haqqani network do not prohibit the movement of funds into or out of afghanistan, provided that the transactions do not involve blocked individuals or entities, or property in which a blocked person has an interest. in addition, ofac has issued general licenses (gls) 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 and 20 under the global terrorism sanctions regulations, 31 cfr part 594 (gtsr), the foreign terrorist organizations sanctions regulations, 31 cfr part 597 (ftosr), and executive order (e.o.) 13224, as amended. for a consolidated list of all relevant general licenses and faqs, please see ofac’s humanitarian fact sheet, “provision of humanitarian assistance to afghanistan and support for the afghan people” (this content was updated on april 13, 2022), that provides an overview of the relevant authorizations and guidance related to u.s. sanctions on the taliban and the haqqani network. u.s. sanctions on the taliban and the haqqani network do not prohibit   and gls 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, and 20 do not require   any particular method for moving or sending money into or out of afghanistan. when selecting a method of payment   including electronic transfer or hand carrying of funds   ofac urges due diligence tailored to the particular sanctions risks to ensure that payments do not involve individuals or entities identified on ofac’s list of specially designated nationals and blocked persons (sdn list) or whose property and interests in property are otherwise blocked, unless exempt from regulation or authorized by ofac. for more information on ofac due diligence expectations and compliance programs, please see faqs 25, 27 31 and a framework for ofac compliance commitments. date updated: february 25, 2022 the purchases of fuel, payment for telecommunications services, payment for security services, payment of rent, and payment of utilities may be authorized under 14, 15, and 19 provided that they are ordinarily incident and necessary to effectuate the activities authorized by the gls. as with all ofac gls, gls 14, 15, and 19 are “self executing,” meaning that persons who determine that such activities are ordinarily incident and necessary to their authorized activity within the scope of the gl may proceed without further assurance from ofac. ofac has also issued afghanistan related gl 17 to authorize all transactions that are for the conduct of the official business of the united states government by employees, grantees, or contractors and that involve the taliban or the haqqani network, or any entity in which the taliban or the haqqani network owns, directly or indirectly, individually or in the aggregate, a 50 percent or greater interest. ofac also issued gl 18 to authorize all transactions that are for the conduct of official business by employees, grantees, or contractors of certain international organizations (ios) and that involve the taliban or the haqqani network, or any entity in which the taliban or the haqqani network owns, directly or indirectly, individually or in the aggregate, a 50 percent or greater interest. in addition, ofac has issued afghanistan related gl 20, which, to the extent authorization is required, authorizes all transactions involving afghanistan or governing institutions in afghanistan prohibited under the global terrorism sanctions regulations, 31 cfr part 594 (gtsr), the foreign terrorist organizations sanctions regulations, 31 cfr part 597 (ftosr), or executive order (e.o.) 13224, as amended, subject to limited conditions set forth in gl 20 paragraph (b). gl 20 therefore covers purchases of fuel, payment for telecommunications services, payment for security services, payment of rent, and payment of utilities by ngos or other persons. as noted in faq 996, the authorization in afghanistan related gl 20 may overlap with the authorizations in afghanistan related gls 14, 15, and 19. where appropriate, u.s. persons may rely on the broader authorization in gl 20 instead of the authorizations in gls 14, 15, and 19. in all cases, authorized transactions and activities must comply with the terms and conditions set forth in gls 14, 15, 17, 18, 19, and 20. notably, these gls explicitly do not authorize financial transfers to the taliban or the haqqani network, other than for the purpose of effecting the payment of taxes, fees, or import duties, or the purchase or receipt of permits, licenses, or public utility services related to the authorized activities as described in the respective gls. in addition, these gls do not relieve any person from compliance with other u.s. federal laws or requirements of other federal agencies, or from applicable international obligations. if individuals, entities, international organizations, or financial institutions have questions about engaging in or processing transactions related to these authorizations, they can contact the ofac compliance hotline. yes. gls 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19and 20 help implement recently adopted united nations security council resolution (unscr) 2615 (2021), which authorizes humanitarian assistance and other activities that support basic human needs as those terms are understood by the un security council, as well as the processing and payment of funds, other financial assets or economic resources, and the provision of goods and services necessary to ensure the timely delivery of such assistance or to support such activities. specifically, unscr 2615 was intended to cover activities contemplated in the united nations’ transitional engagement framework (tef) for afghanistan, such as providing life saving assistance; sustaining essential services; and preserving social investments and community level systems essential to meeting basic human needs. these gls do not relieve any person from compliance with other u.s. federal laws or requirements of other federal agencies, or from applicable international obligations. date updated: february 25, 2022 yes. both u.s. and non u.s. companies can ship food to afghanistan, and banks can process financial transfers and other transactions associated with food shipments to afghanistan. as described in faq 930, u.s. sanctions do not specifically prohibit the exportation or reexportation of agricultural commodities, medicine, and medical devices to afghanistan. ofac has also issued afghanistan related general license (gl) 15, which authorizes u.s. persons to engage in all transactions that are ordinarily incident and necessary to the exportation or reexportation of agricultural commodities, medicine, medical devices, replacement parts, and components for medical devices, or software updates for medical devices to afghanistan, as those terms are defined in gl 15, as well as to persons in third countries purchasing specifically for resale to afghanistan, and that may involve the taliban, the haqqani network, or any entity in which the taliban or the haqqani network owns, directly or indirectly, a 50 percent or greater interest subject to certain conditions. faq 931 provides further guidance that non u.s. persons may engage in or facilitate transactions that would be authorized for u.s. persons under gl 15. gl 15 also authorizes u.s. persons to engage in transactions or activities that are ordinarily incident and necessary to authorized exports or reexports, including the processing of financial transactions and related clearing and settlement involving privately owned and state owned banks in afghanistan. in addition, ofac has issued afghanistan related gl 20 , which, to the extent authorization is required, authorizes all transactions involving afghanistan or governing institutions in afghanistan prohibited under the global terrorism sanctions regulations, 31 cfr part 594 (gtsr), the foreign terrorist organizations sanctions regulations, 31 cfr part 597 (ftosr), or executive order (e.o.) 13224, as amended, subject to limited conditions set forth in gl 20 paragraph (b). gl 20 therefore also covers shipments of food and agricultural products to afghanistan and banks’ processing of these transactions. as noted in faq 996, the authorization in afghanistan related gl 20 may overlap with the authorization in afghanistan related gl 15. where appropriate, u.s. persons may rely on the broader authorization in gl 20 instead of the authorization in gl 15. date updated: february 25, 2022 as one example, if a non governmental organization is providing support directly to afghan hospitals or healthcare workers but needs to sign a memorandum of understanding that involves the taliban in order to provide such support directly to the afghan people, this engagement would be authorized under general licenses (gls) 14 and 19. other examples of engagement with the taliban and the haqqani network that are authorized under gls 14 and 19 if they are ordinarily incident and necessary to activities authorized by these gls include: (i) general coordination on delivery and provision of humanitarian aid or shipments; (ii) administrative issues involving importation of goods; (iii) attendance at donor coordination meetings; (iv) sharing descriptions of projects; (v) coordination with regard to travel or project locations; (vi) participation in technical working groups; and (vii) sharing of office space. in addition, payments of taxes, fees, or import duties to, or the purchase or receipt of permits, licenses, or public utility services from, the taliban, the haqqani network, or any entity in which the taliban or the haqqani network owns, directly or indirectly, a 50 percent or greater interest, are authorized under gls 14 and 19, if ordinarily incident and necessary to activities authorized by the gls. in addition, ofac has issued afghanistan related gl 20 , which, to the extent authorization is required, authorizes all transactions involving afghanistan or governing institutions in afghanistan prohibited under the global terrorism sanctions regulations, 31 cfr part 594 (gtsr), the foreign terrorist organizations sanctions regulations, 31 cfr part 597 (ftosr), or executive order (e.o.) 13224, as amended, subject to limited conditions set forth in gl 20 paragraph (b). gl 20 therefore also covers transactions involving the taliban or the haqqani network that are authorized under gls 14 and 19. as noted in faq 996, the authorization in afghanistan related gl 20 may overlap with the authorizations in afghanistan related gls 14 and 19. where appropriate, u.s. persons may rely on the broader authorization in gl 20 instead of the authorizations in gls 14 and 19. date updated: february 25, 2022 yes. providing support to public hospitals, such as provision of health services, technical support, and institutional deliveries, as well as payments directly to healthcare workers, that would otherwise be prohibited under the global terrorism sanctions regulations, 31 cfr part 594 (gtsr), the foreign terrorist organizations sanctions regulations, 31 cfr part 597 (ftosr), or executive order (e.o.) 13224, as amended, because of transactions with the taliban and/or haqqani network are authorized under general licenses (gls) 14, 15, and 19. in addition, ofac has issued afghanistan related gl 20 , which, to the extent authorization is required, authorizes all transactions involving afghanistan or governing institutions in afghanistan prohibited under the gtsr, the ftosr, or e.o. 13224, as amended, subject to limited conditions set forth in gl 20 paragraph (b). gl 20 therefore also covers support to public hospitals in afghanistan (e.g., health services, facilities maintenance, and health worker salaries) by ngos or other persons. as noted in faq 996, the authorization in afghanistan related gl 20 may overlap with the authorizations in afghanistan related gls 14, 15, and 19. where appropriate, u.s. persons may rely on the broader authorization in gl 20 instead of the authorizations in gls 14, 15, and 19. date updated: february 25, 2022 yes. even to the extent doing so would involve transacting with the taliban and/or haqqani network, ngos can make salary support or stipend payments directly to healthcare workers, such as doctors at public hospitals or healthcare workers at community clinics, under general license (gl) 14 and gl 19. similarly, even to the extent doing so would involve transacting with the taliban and/or haqqani network, ngos can make such salary support or stipend payments directly to teachers, including teachers at afghan public and private schools, under gl 19. under gl 18, certain ios can provide such salary support payments directly to healthcare workers and teachers. in addition, ofac has issued afghanistan related gl 20 , which, to the extent authorization is required, authorizes all transactions involving afghanistan or governing institutions in afghanistan prohibited under the global terrorism sanctions regulations, 31 cfr part 594 (gtsr), the foreign terrorist organizations sanctions regulations, 31 cfr part 597 (ftosr), or executive order (e.o.) 13224, as amended, subject to limited conditions set forth in gl 20 paragraph (b). gl 20 therefore also covers salary support or stipend payments directly to teachers, including teachers at afghan public and private schools, and healthcare workers by ngos or other persons. as noted in faq 996, the authorization in afghanistan related gl 20 may overlap with the authorizations in afghanistan related gls 14, 15, and 19. where appropriate, u.s. persons may rely on the broader authorization in gl 20 instead of the authorizations in gls 14, 15, and 19. date updated: february 25, 2022 yes. support to municipal water systems by ngos for projects that directly benefit the afghan people or otherwise relieve human suffering that would otherwise be prohibited under the global terrorism sanctions regulations, 31 cfr part 594 (gtsr), the foreign terrorist organizations sanctions regulations, 31 cfr part 597 (ftosr), or executive order (e.o.) 13224, as amended, because of transactions with the taliban and/or haqqani network would be covered by general licenses (gls) 14 and 19. gl 18 authorizes all transactions and activities with the taliban and/or haqqani network otherwise prohibited under the gtsr or ftosr that are for the conduct of the official business of certain ios. thus, if support to municipal water systems is part of these ios’ official business, then it would not be prohibited. for example, this could include providing technical support to a project related to clean drinking water or making improvements to water systems for the benefit of the afghan people. in addition, ofac has issued afghanistan related gl 20, which, to the extent authorization is required, authorizes all transactions involving afghanistan or governing institutions in afghanistan prohibited under the gtsr, the ftosr, or e.o. 13224, as amended, subject to limited conditions set forth in gl 20 paragraph (b). gl 20 therefore also covers support to municipal water systems by ngos, ios, or other persons. as noted in faq 996, the authorization in afghanistan related gl 20 may overlap with the authorizations in afghanistan related gls 14, 18, and 19. where appropriate, u.s. persons may rely on the broader authorization in gl 20 instead of the authorizations in gls 14, 18, and 19. date updated: february 25, 2022 yes. transactions that are ordinarily incident and necessary to give effect to the activities authorized in general licenses (gl) 14, gl 15, gl 16, gl 17, gl 18, gl 19, or gl 20, including clearing, settlement, and transfers through, to, or otherwise involving privately owned and state owned afghan depository institutions, are authorized pursuant to these gls. in addition, foreign financial institutions may engage in or facilitate transactions that would be authorized for u.s. persons under gls 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, or 20 without exposure to sanctions under the global terrorism sanctions regulations, 31 cfr part 594 (gtsr), the foreign terrorist organizations sanctions regulations, 31 cfr part 597 (ftosr), or executive order (e.o.) 13224, as amended. date updated: february 25, 2022 yes, cash shipments to afghanistan may be authorized under general licenses (gl) 14, gl 18, gl 19, or gl 20 provided that they are ordinarily incident and necessary to effectuate the activities authorized by the gls. as with all ofac gls, gls 14, 18, 19, and 20 are “self executing,” meaning that persons who determine that such activities are ordinarily incident and necessary to their authorized activities within the scope of the gls may proceed without further assurances from ofac. date updated: february 25, 2022 the u.s. government recognizes that afghanistan is facing a widespread humanitarian and economic crisis. treasury issued afghanistan related gl 20 to ensure that u.s. sanctions do not stand in the way of transactions and activities that support basic human needs of the people in afghanistan. gl 20 authorizes, to the extent authorization is required, activities necessary to support these needs, including, as established in the united nations transitional engagement framework (tef) for afghanistan, activities necessary to sustain essential social services such as health and education, preserve essential community systems, and promote livelihoods and social cohesion. this gl helps provide clarity to financial institutions, nongovernmental organizations, international organizations, and private sector entities that they can facilitate the broad range of activities needed to mitigate further worsening of afghanistan’s economic and humanitarian crisis. this includes commercial activities in or involving afghanistan. for other specific examples of the kinds of activities authorized by general license 20, please see faq 992. transactions that are generally authorized by gl 20 to the extent authorization is required include: nothing in gl 20 relieves any person from compliance with any other federal laws or requirements of other federal agencies, including the international traffic in arms regulations (itar) administered by the department of state and the export administration regulations (ear) administered by the department of commerce, or from applicable international obligations. gl 20 does not authorize financial transfers to the taliban, the haqqani network, any entity in which the taliban or the haqqani network owns, directly or indirectly, individually or in the aggregate, a 50 percent or greater interest, or to any blocked individual who is in a leadership role of a governing institution in afghanistan, other than for the purpose of effecting the payment of taxes, fees, or import duties, or the purchase or receipt of permits, licenses, or public utility services or financial transfers, provided that such payments do not relate to luxury items or services. gl 20 also does not authorize transfers of luxury items or services to the taliban, the haqqani network, any entity in which the taliban or the haqqani network owns, directly or indirectly, individually or in the aggregate, a 50 percent or greater interest, or any blocked individual who is in a leadership role of a governing institution in afghanistan. generally speaking, when a designated individual has a leadership role in a governing institution, the governing institution itself is not considered blocked. accordingly, engaging in a routine interaction with an agency in which a blocked individual is an official, but that does not involve the blocked individual in question, is not prohibited. in this case, afghanistan related general license (gl) 20 authorizes all transactions involving afghanistan or governing institutions in afghanistan that would otherwise be prohibited by ofac administered sanctions on the taliban or the haqqani network, subject to certain conditions. gl 20 also authorizes the payment of taxes, fees, or import duties, or the purchase of permits, licensing, or public utility services to blocked individuals that are in leadership roles of governing institutions in afghanistan, provided that such payments do not relate to luxury items or services. as an example, if an international organization (io), nongovernmental organization (ngo), or company needs to make a customs payment to a governing institution in afghanistan led by a blocked individual, that is authorized. similarly, if an io, ngo, or company is signing a contract to provide services to or on behalf of that governing institution, and the blocked individual appointed to lead that governing institution needs to sign the contract in their official capacity on behalf of the governing institution, that is authorized. however, if the blocked individual requests that funds be provided directly to them, other than for the purpose of effecting the payment of taxes, fees, or import duties, or the purchase or receipt of permits, licenses, or public utility services or financial transfers, that would not be authorized by gl 20. for purposes of gl 20 , luxury items and services are those items and services that are not linked to activities that support basic human needs as defined with reference to united nations security council resolution 2615 (2021), for instance: yachts, furs, designer clothing, and certain entertainment activities. luxury items and services would not include, for example, phones, computers, or other similar items commonly used in connection with personal communication, education, activity by international organizations and non governmental organizations, and other activity that supports basic human needs in afghanistan. yes. to the extent authorization is required, gl 20 authorizes financial transfers to or involving all governing institutions in afghanistan   including but not limited to the dab, ministry of education, ministry of energy and water, ministry of finance, ministry of agriculture, irrigation, and livestock, and ministry of public health   or to or involving state owned or  controlled companies and enterprises in afghanistan, including da afghanistan breshna sherkat (dabs), provided there are no financial transfers to the taliban, the haqqani network, any entity in which the taliban or the haqqani network owns, directly or indirectly, individually or in the aggregate, a 50 percent or greater interest, or any blocked individual who is in a leadership role of a governing institution in afghanistan, other than for the purpose of effecting the payment of taxes, fees, or import duties, or the purchase or receipt of permits, licenses, or public utility services, provided that such payments do not relate to luxury items or services. gl 20 also authorizes receipt of payment from such governing institutions and state owned or  controlled companies and enterprises in afghanistan. ofac does not view financial transfers to governing institutions in afghanistan or state owned or  controlled companies and enterprises in afghanistan as financial transfers to the taliban, the haqqani network, any entity in which the taliban or the haqqani network owns, directly or indirectly, individually or in the aggregate, a 50 percent or greater interest, or any blocked individual who is in a leadership role of a governing institution in afghanistan. nothing in gl 20 affects the property or interests in property of da afghanistan bank that are protectively blocked pursuant to executive order (e.o.) 14064 of february 11, 2022, “protecting certain property of da afghanistan bank for the benefit of the people of afghanistan.” to the extent authorization is required, afghanistan related gl 20 authorizes all transactions involving afghanistan or governing institutions in afghanistan prohibited by the global terrorism sanctions regulations, 31 cfr part 594 (gtsr), the foreign terrorist organizations sanctions regulations, 31 cfr part 597 (ftosr), or executive order (e.o.) 13224, as amended, subject to limited conditions set forth in gl 20 paragraph (b). therefore, the authorization in afghanistan related gl 20 may overlap with the authorizations in afghanistan related 14, 15, 16, 17, 18 and 19. where appropriate, u.s. persons may rely on the broader authorization in gl 20 instead of the authorizations in gls 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, and 19. as with all ofac gls, gls 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 and 20 are “self executing,” meaning that persons who determine that such activities are ordinarily incident and necessary to their authorized activity within the scope of the gl may proceed without further assurance from ofac. no. the united states has not lifted sanctions on the taliban and the haqqani network. the taliban remains designated as a specially designated global terrorist (sdgt) under executive order (e.o.) 13224. the haqqani network remains designated as an sdgt under e.o. 13224 and a foreign terrorist organization (fto) under section 219 of the immigration and nationality act (ina). transactions involving the taliban or the haqqani network outside the scope of gls 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 and 20 remain prohibited. yes. the office of foreign assets control (ofac) issued two general licenses (gls) related to tkb, which allow u.s. persons to engage in certain transactions involving tkb for specified time periods. russia related gl 28 (this content is no longer available) authorizes u.s. persons to engage in certain transactions involving tkb, or any entity in which tkb owns, directly or indirectly, a 50 percent or greater interest, that are ultimately destined for or originating from afghanistan through 12:01 a.m. eastern daylight time, october 20, 2022. gl 28 also authorizes u.s. financial institutions to operate correspondent accounts on behalf of tkb, or any entity in which tkb owns, directly or indirectly, a 50 percent or greater interest, provided such accounts are used solely to effect transactions ultimately destined for or originating from afghanistan that are authorized by the gl. this means that u.s. financial institutions are authorized to debit or credit correspondent accounts maintained for tkb, provided these debits or credits are for payments that are ultimately destined for or originating from afghanistan. in addition, through 12:01 a.m. eastern daylight time, may 20, 2022, russia related gl 29 authorizes certain transactions ordinarily incident and necessary to the wind down of transactions involving tkb, or any entity in which tkb owns, directly or indirectly, a 50 percent or greater interest, regardless of whether such transactions are related to afghanistan. gl 29 does not authorize debits to blocked accounts. for more information, please see faq 990. for further information on relevant authorizations, exemptions, and public guidance, please review ofac’s fact sheets, “preserving agricultural trade, access to communication, and other support to those impacted by russia’s war against ukraine” and “provision of humanitarian assistance to afghanistan and support for the afghan people.” yes. as a general matter, humanitarian trade is not the target of u.s. sanctions. concurrent with the designation of orka holding ad, ofac issued western balkans general license (gl) 3, which authorizes all transactions involving orka holding ad related to: (1) the production, manufacturing, sale, transport, or provision of agricultural commodities, agricultural equipment, medicine, medical devices, replacement parts and components for medical devices, or software updates for medical devices; (2) the prevention, diagnosis, or treatment of any disease or medical condition; or (3) the conducting of clinical trials or other medical research. importantly, the authorization also applies to any entity in which orka holding ad owns, directly or indirectly, individually or in the aggregate, a 50 percent or greater interest. non u.s. persons generally do not risk exposure to sanctions for engaging in transactions with blocked persons where those transactions would not require a specific license if engaged in by a u.s. person. as such, non u.s. persons generally would not face sanctions risk for engaging in activities authorized for u.s. persons by western balkans gl 3.
supported by the court appointed monitor is looking into allegations by two union officials that they were punished for raising questions on financial matters. by the new york times a court appointed monitor overseeing the operations of the united automobile workers union is investigating disputes involving the union’s president, shawn fain, and two u.a.w. officials who say they were improperly stripped of duties. the monitor, neil m. barofsky, also accused the union on monday of a “lapse in cooperation” with the investigation, saying it had taken months to turn over relevant documents and then provided only a small fraction of those requested. the union declined to comment. the assertions at issue were included in a report filed in federal court in michigan about mr. barofsky’s tenure as monitor, which began in 2021 as part of a consent decree after justice department investigations that resulted in the convictions of several union officials, including two past presidents, on corruption charges. that process also resulted in the union’s first election of a president by a vote of the full membership   balloting that elevated mr. fain, running as an insurgent candidate, to the top job in a runoff last year. one matter now under investigation, according to the filing, stems from a dispute over the role of the union’s secretary treasurer, margaret mock. in february, the union’s international executive board voted to support mr. fain’s move to strip ms. mock of duties not mandated under the union constitution, on allegations that she “had engaged in misconduct while carrying out her financial oversight responsibilities,” according to the report. ms. mock denied the allegations and asserted that the move had been “improperly instigated in retaliation for her refusal or reluctance to authorize certain expenditures” for the president’s office, the report said.

 the trump tower stands along fifth avenue in august 2017 in new york city. a new york state judge on november 3 imposed a monitor to oversee the trump organization's financial statements. the trump tower stands along fifth avenue in august 2017 in new york city. a new york state judge on november 3 imposed a monitor to oversee the trump organization's financial statements. a new york state judge on thursday imposed a monitor to oversee the trump organization's financial statements after the new york attorney general's office asked for added oversight to stop what they allege is a decade long fraud conducted by former president donald trump and three of his adult children. judge arthur engoron wrote in an 11 page opinion that given the "persistent misrepresentations throughout every one of mr. trump's [financial statements] between 2011 and 2021, the court finds that the appointment of an independent monitor is the most prudent and narrowly tailored mechanism to ensure there is no further fraud or illegality." engoron said he will require the trump organization to get court approval before selling any assets "particularly to ensure that defendants do not dissipate their asset or transfer them out of this jurisdiction." the judge added that trump is enjoined from selling or transferring any assets listed on his 2021 financial statement without first providing 14 days notice to the judge and the attorney general's office. the defendants are also required to provide the monitor at least 30 days notice before they undertake any corporate restructuring. new york attorney general letitia james filed a $250 million lawsuit in september against trump, his three eldest children and the trump organization alleging they engaged in a sweeping decade long fraud. engoron's motion thursday was in response to a request from james' office, which said it was concerned assets could be moved out of state.