Nature news item on Proposed change to export regulations and foreign students (fwd)

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

Begin forwarded message:

From: David Cowhig <david.cowhig () verizon net>
Date: May 11, 2005 7:34:50 PM EDT
To: dave () farber net
Subject: Re: [IP]Nature news item on Proposed change to export  
regulations and foreign students (fwd)


From Nature

News
Nature 435, 4 (5 May 2005) | doi: 10.1038/435004a

Academics stress licence threat to US science
Geoff Brumfiel, Washington

Alarms ring over rules for foreign nationals and 'sensitive' equipment.
Proposed changes to an obscure set of export rules could derail US  
research, say academic and industrial groups, who are now frantically  
trying to raise the alarm among scientists.

The modified rules would require academic researchers from countries  
including China and India to obtain a government licence before  
operating a wide range of lab equipment in the United States. In a 22  
April letter to university department chairs, Judy Franz, executive  
officer of the American Physical Society, warned that the changes  
constitute a "potential threat to research". And this week, the  
National Academies are convening a special workshop to inform  
scientists of the proposed changes.

At issue is a set of rules governing the export of sensitive  
technologies. Known as the Export Administration Regulations, the  
rules are meant to limit the transfer of equipment that could advance  
the military might of 'countries of concern' — a list that includes  
China, India, Pakistan and Russia. The regulations also require  
researchers from these countries working with some items of equipment  
to obtain a licence from the US Department of Commerce.

Traditionally, universities have thought themselves exempt from the  
regulations. But a March 2004 report from the Department of  
Commerce's Office of Inspector General, an independent watchdog,  
argued that the regulations do apply to academic labs. The report  
also proposed expanding the criteria under which a licence would be  
required for using controlled equipment, and applying the rules by  
country of birth rather than country of citizenship (see Nature 431,  
615; 2004).

The 45-page equipment list includes common lab apparatus such as  
lasers and sealed glove boxes for handling hazardous material.  
Getting a licence for each potential user would overwhelm lab  
supervisors, warns Dan Mote, president of the University of Maryland,  
who is scheduled to talk at a National Academies workshop. "This  
really is potentially devastating," he says. "It's quite conceivable  
that this would just bring work to a halt."

Industry is also concerned, according to Cynthia Johnson, director of  
government relations for Texas Instruments, a major US semiconductor  
manufacturer. Although industrial labs already have to comply with  
the rules, the proposal to base the regulations on a researcher's  
country of birth rather than citizenship could alienate fresh talent,  
she says.

Department of Commerce officials stress that they are still far from  
making a final decision about how to modify the rules. "What we are  
doing is seeking input," says Peter Lichtenbaum, assistant secretary  
for export administration.

That is why it is important for researchers to weigh in with their  
objections, says Arthur Bienenstock, a physicist and dean of research  
and graduate policy at Stanford University in California. "What the  
Department of Commerce needs is an honest assessment of what it would  
mean if the inspector-general's rules were implemented," he says. The  
comment period closes on 27 May.



David Farber wrote:
> I am surprised I have received no comments on this djf
>
> Begin forwarded message:
>
> From: David Farber <dave () farber net>
> Date: May 6, 2005 3:11:32 PM EDT
> To: Ip <ip () v2 listbox com>
> Subject: [IP] IMPORTANT Proposed change to export regulations and   
> foreign students (fwd)
> Reply-To: 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 david.cowhig () verizon 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/