Hundreds of Letters of protest from scientific, academic,
and industrial organizations convinced Department of Commerce officials to reconsider a tightening
of the deemed export policy.
July 2006, page 21
After
more than a year of controversy surrounding proposed changes to the Department of Commerce's
"deemed export" policy, government officials are stepping back from the recommendations and
establishing an independent advisory committee made up of researchers and others from the academic
and industrial communities to review the policy. The recommendations to alter the deemed export
policy were made by DOC's inspector general in 2004 in an effort to tighten up rules that are intended
to keep researchers from restricted countries who are working in the US from taking knowledge about
controlled technology back to their home countries (see PHYSICS TODAY, October 2005, page 28).
When DOC issued a request for comments
on the proposed changes a year later, officials from scientific societies, academic organizations,
and industrial groups flooded the department with more than 300 Letters saying that the changes
would severely limit the ability of foreign researchers and students in the US to use equipment
and software that are on federal controlled technology lists. The current regulations have an
exemption for foreign researchers who are engaged in fundamental research, but that exemption
would have all but vanished under the proposed changes.
Unprecedented response
"We got an unprecedented response,"
said Matthew Borman, DOC's deputy assistant secretary for export administration. "We decided
that rather than burrow down into the rules and make detailed revisions, it was time to step back
and look at the entire process."
Commerce officials announced
their intention to establish the advisory commission, to be called the deemed export advisory
committee, or DEAC, in a notice in the 22 May Federal Register. Nine days later, the department
published another notice saying that, after a thorough review of the public comments, the DOC inspector
general's recommendations were being withdrawn from consideration.
Association of American
Universities (AAU) interim president John Vaughn said his organization was "particularly pleased"
with the DOC action. He added in a statement that the original recommendations "would not only have
disrupted research but would have been tantamount to hanging a sign in our university laboratories
saying, 'Top international talent not welcome.' "
Amy Flatten, director
of international affairs for the American Physical Society, said DOC's decision to back away from
the inspector general's recommendations was "very, very good news." She described the proposed
recommendations as "potentially very harmful to US science."
One of the recommendations
was to change an "and" to an "or" in a regulation governing the use of research equipment by foreign
nationals. The change, though seemingly trivial, would have had a profound effect on all US research
universities. It would have meant that even basic operation of controlled lab equipment by a foreign
national would have to be licensed by DOC. The cost, according to AAU and other university officials,
would have been hundreds of hours of staff time and millions of dollars. The current "use" policy
is written so that foreign researchers can operate most laboratory equipment without having to
obtain a license.
The other proposed change,
the one that Borman said drew the most reaction, would have classified foreign researchers based
on their country of birth, not on their country of citizenship. One of the concerns expressed by
DOC officials when the export tightening was first proposed was that tens of thousands of people
born in China have become Canadian citizens. As Canadians, they face few restrictions in working
in the US. But by reclassifying them as Chinese based on where they were born, DOC would have made
it much more difficult for Chinese Canadian scientists to work in US laboratories.
In the Federal Register
notice withdrawing the recommendations, DOC officials noted, "Many comments observed that the
decrease in the number of foreign nationals in US academic institutions and US industry has already
been detrimental to the economy of the United States."A majority of the comments "argued that a
change in the . . . policy from country of citizenship to country of birth would further
adversely impact the [US]."
Recruitment under way
Recruitment for the 12-member advisory
committee from academia, industry, and other fields is under way, Borman said, and anyone interested
in serving must respond by 21 July 2006. The committee is expected to meet for about a year and, according
to the DOC notice, will "undertake a comprehensive review of the national security, technology,
and competitiveness dimensions of the deemed export issue and provide recommendations for potential
changes to the current . . . policy." DOC hopes the committee will have expertise in
"nuclear, chemical, missile, electronics, computer, telecommunications, and avionic technology."
Borman said that DOC has
had hundreds of "outreach events" over the past year to discuss the deemed export issues with university
and industry representatives. The result, he said, is a much greater awareness by everyone involved
of export security issues and their implications.
He said he expects the committee
to come back with significant recommendations, which will be reviewed by DOC, the Department of
State, the Department of Defense, and other federal agencies concerned with national security.
"It's too early to know what the result will be," he said, "but we expect substantial rulemaking."