Proposed change to export regulations and foreign students (fwd)

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

http://www.regulations.gov/freddocs/05-06057.htm

Begin forwarded message:



> Date: Thu, 5 May 2005 22:06:34 -0400
> From: Jennifer Mankoff <jmankoff () cs berkeley edu>
>
> 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
> >




-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as dave () farber net
To manage your subscription, go to
 http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip

Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting- 
people/



-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as lists-ip () insecure org
To manage your subscription, go to
 http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip

Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/