Date: Thu, 5 May 2005 22:06:34 -0400
From: Jennifer Mankoff <jmankoff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Fwd: Proposed change to export regulations and foreign
students
I thought this proposed legislation might be of interest to us. It
would
require departments to segregate foreign students, staff, visitors and
faculty into a separate group and limit access to the second group.
Among
other things, access to any device with GPS functionality would be
limited,
as would access to research regarding secure software.
Apparently the Dept. of Commerce is taking formal comments through
May 27th.
To read the original legislation or post a comment, go to
www.regulations.gov and enter the Key Phrase "Revision and
Clarification of
Deemed Export Related Regulatory Requirements."
This is a forward of a note originally sent to the physics
department at
Berkeley, and then forwarded to the EECS faculty at Berkeley, where
I saw
it. Please feel forward it to anyone other groups you think might
wish to
respond to it.
-jen
> Subject: Urgent: Proposed Dept. of Commerce rules pose threat to
> research
>
> Dear Chairs of PhD-granting Physics Departments,
>
> I am writing to alert you to a possible threat to research in your
> department and to urge you and your faculty to write to the
Department
> of Commerce (DOC) in response to its "Advance notice of proposed
> rulemaking" published in the Federal Register on March 28, 2005. The
> notice calls for comments that must be received by May 27, 2005. As
> discussed below, the leadership of the American Physical Society
feels
> this issue is so important that you should seek to provide
thoughtful
> and accurate responses by your university administration, your
> department and individual faculty who might be affected by the
> recommended changes. We believe that your comments can make a
> difference.
>
> The proposed rulemaking by the DOC is a response to recommendations
> presented by the Department's Inspector General. Implementation of
> these recommendations would cause two major changes:
>
> 1) The operation of export-controlled instrumentation by a foreign
> national working in your department would be considered a "deemed
> export", even if that person were engaged in fundamental
research. As
> a consequence, a license would be required for each affected foreign
> national (student, staff or faculty member) and for each export
> controlled instrument. Typical export-controlled instruments are
> high-speed oscilloscopes, high-resolution lithography systems,
> high-end computers and GPS systems. The situation is complicated by
> the fact that the list of instruments is different for each country.
>
> 2) U.S. organizations would be required to apply for a deemed export
> license for students, employees or visitors who are foreign
nationals
> (but not U. S. naturalized citizens or permanent residents) and have
> access to controlled technology if they were born in a country where
> the technology transfer in question would require an export license,
> regardless of their most recent citizenship or permanent residency.
> For example, transfer of technology to a Chinese scientist who has
> established permanent residency or citizenship in Canada would be
> treated, for export licensing purposes under the proposed
guidelines,
> as a deemed export to a Chinese foreign national. (The list of
> export-controlled instruments for Chinese nationals is particularly
> extensive.)
>
> The Department of Commerce officials who have the responsibility for
> developing new policies and practices in response to the Inspector
> General's recommendations are anxious to determine what the
impact of
> implementing those recommendations would be. They must seek a
balance
> between increases in national security that might result from the
> implementation of the new rules and the decrease in national
security
> that would result from negative impacts to US research and
> development.
>
> In initial discussions by the APS Panel on Public Affairs (POPA) it
> was thought likely that consequences would be: a) research would
slow
> down significantly due to the need to obtain licenses for each
foreign
> national and, particularly, Chinese student, staff member,
postdoc, or
> faculty member using export controlled instrumentation. We believe
> that a separate license would have to be obtained for each
instrument.
> In this regard, it should be noted that the relevant DOC office has
> the staff to handle about 800-1000 license requests per year.
Present
> times to process a license request are typically 2-3 months. b)
> instruments would have to be secured to ensure that those who do not
> have the required license could not use them. c) the number of
Chinese
> and other foreign national students would decrease markedly as their
> "second-class" status on campus became apparent, thus ultimately
> weakening the nation's science and technology workforce. d) the
> administrative costs of research would rise markedly. e) national
> security would ultimately be weakened as a consequence of a loss of
> leadership in economic and technology development.
>
> We urge you, therefore, to have faculty members who are
> experimentalists respond to the DOC's notice by estimating, as
> accurately as possible, the impact on their research. This would
> involve a determination of which instruments are probably export
> controlled for each nation "represented" by foreign nationals in the
> laboratory. (The person responsible for export control
administration
> in the institution should be able to help with this.) You should
then
> send the DOC either a comment from the department as a whole or,
> better yet, individual comments, which state the number and types of
> instruments involved, the number of students, staff or postdocs from
> each affected nation and the likely number of licenses to be
requested
> if the recommendations are implemented. It would also be helpful if
> comments contained a brief description of the type of research
> performed in the laboratory. Estimates of the consequences of three
> months delays in research for each new foreign national student and
> each new export controlled instrument will also be valuable.
>
> You may regard this as rather burdensome, but it is our belief that
> implementation of the Inspector General's recommendations will be
far
> more burdensome. Therefore, we hope that you will get every
> experimentalist to reply.
>
> To submit your comments, you can go to www.regulations.gov and enter
> the Key Phrase "Revision and Clarification of Deemed Export Related
> Regulatory Requirements." You can also view the proposed new
> regulation at this site and note what a large effect changing an
"and"
> to "or" can make.
>
> Best regards,
> Judy Franz
> Executive Officer
> APS
>