BIS, DDTC Should Give Risk Assessment Guidance Specific to University Export Controls, Association Says
The Bureau of Industry and Security ought to make available information that is more specific to university export compliance, the Association of University Export Control Officers said in a recent letter to BIS. The letter was prompted by a May Government Accountability Office report that similarly said more guidance for universities would be helpful (see 2005120053). “While it is possible for universities to glean some needed information from outreach materials and training geared toward industry, it can be difficult at times to interpret industry-focused guidance to the university environment,” the association said.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Timely, relevant coverage of court proceedings and agency rulings involving tariffs, classification, valuation, origin and antidumping and countervailing duties. Each day, Trade Law Daily subscribers receive a daily headline email, in-depth PDF edition and access to all relevant documents via our trade law source document library and website.
The problem with the information aimed at industry is that “the primary focus of industry [is] on development, marketing, and sale of proprietary technologies, while universities are generally focused more on expanding knowledge through collaboration and fundamental research in an environment with large populations of foreign persons,” it said. The agency should “consult with university representatives to enhance its guidance, training, and outreach on specific topics relevant to universities, such as university-specific best practices and a series of Frequently Asked Questions regarding issues of interest to universities, namely deemed exports, fundamental research and global delivery of online learning.” Such information could be used to “better educate faculty members at their own institutions, as well as to advocate for compliance resources to management at their institutions,” it said.
The agency should also give more help toward risk assessments specific for universities, the AUECO said. “Ultimately, AUECO suggests that it would be most helpful if Commerce and State were to develop a combined risk assessment tool for universities.” Under the current risk assessments guidance from BIS, the AUECO would like to see more information on the “unauthorized release of sensitive or controlled technology to provide more university-specific guidance on deemed exports and risk assessments for universities.”
The group also wrote to the Directorate of Defense Trade Controls to suggest coordination on risk assessment guidance for universities. “In line with the GAO recommendation to DDTC to include information concerning periodic risk assessments specific to universities in their guidance, we recommend that a consolidated risk assessment tool inclusive of the key regulations, developed for universities be considered, as a consolidated tool would be most beneficial to our members,” the group said in its letter to DDTC. The association “can help DDTC ga[u]ge what type of guidance universities need most and work as a direct link to university compliance professionals if DDTC has any questions in the process of applying these GAO recommendations.”
The association also said that the GAO missed a chance to take a broader look at the regulatory environment involved, in a letter to the GAO. “We suggest that future studies consider more broadly the breadth of regulatory compliance facing universities,” it said, and also repeated its recommendation “that a consolidated risk assessment tool inclusive of the key regulations, developed for universities be considered.”