The Bureau of Industry and Security extended the comment period for its recently announced chip export controls against China, saying it wanted to give more time for commenters to review the October rule and submit their feedback. Comments were originally due Dec. 12 (see 2210070049) but will now be due Jan. 31, BIS said in a notice released Dec. 5. The new controls, designed to restrict China’s ability to acquire advanced computing chips and manufacture advanced semiconductors, have posed challenges for some in the semiconductor industry and sparked calls for additional guidance (see 2211010042 and 2211150044).
The Bureau of Industry and Security recently revoked export privileges for seven people after they illegally exported or tried to export controlled items from the U.S., including to Mexico and Russia.
The Bureau of Industry and Security is seeking public comments on priorities for export control cooperation with Japan, the agency said this week. BIS said the comments will help inform work under the Japan-U.S. Commercial and Industrial Partnership's Export Control Working Group, including efforts to ensure the two countries’ dual-use controls are “more transparent, more efficient and effective, and more convergent.” BIS said comments also will help the group identify and control emerging and foundational technologies and better enable collaboration between U.S. and Japanese research organizations.
As the U.S. tries to convince allies to adopt similar export controls against China (see 2210270047 and 2210070049), some trading partners have voiced concerns over the U.S.’s strategy, saying they would rather have worked on crafting restrictions alongside the U.S. as opposed to having controls forced upon them, a Commerce Department official said.
Semiconductor companies are still awaiting licensing decisions on their chip-related activities involving China under the U.S.’s new export controls, with some concerned that licenses awarded to their competitors could hurt their revenue. In earnings calls and filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission this month, U.S. chip and technology companies said they continue to prepare for drops in sales to China and that they fear Chinese customers may soon replace them with alternative suppliers, causing some U.S. companies to permanently lose their market share in China.
Export Compliance Daily is providing readers with the top stories from last week in case you missed them. You can find any article by searching for the title or by clicking on the hyperlinked reference number.
The U.S. needs to provide universities with clearer guidance on what types of research activities they can conduct and share with China, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology said in a report this week. The report, authored by MIT’s China Strategy Group, said U.S. schools face challenges managing outside “pressures” while also “preserving open scientific research,” which risks damaging American research abilities and chilling technology collaboration.
The State Department’s Directorate of Defense Trade Controls and the Commerce Department’s Bureau of Industry and Security will hold a webinar Dec. 8 to discuss information technology modernization updates. The webinar will include an overview of recent updates to DDTC’s Defense Export Control and Compliance System, BIS’s “IT Modernization roadmap” and the two agencies’ “collaboration efforts on data sharing and customer experience opportunities.”
The Bureau of Industry and Security is seeking public comments on information collection related to foreign availability procedures. BIS collects foreign availability information to determine whether U.S.-controlled exports are available from a foreign country “in sufficient quantity and of comparable quality so as to render the control ineffective.” Comments are due Jan. 23.
The Bureau of Industry and Security is seeking public comments on an information collection involving reports of requests for restrictive trade practices or boycotts. BIS said it uses the information to “monitor requests for participation in foreign boycotts against countries friendly to the U.S.” and analyzes the information to “note changing trends and to decide upon appropriate action to be taken to carry out” U.S. policy of discouraging boycotts of U.S. allies. Comments are due Jan. 23.