AUECO Public Comments

The following documents were submitted by AUECO in response to various US government proposals regarding export control regulations.

9/1/2017– AUECO comments to OFAC regarding anticipated changes to the Cuban Assets Control Regulations.  Download the comments.

7/31/2017– AUECO provides comments in response to Review of Regulations, 82 Fed. Reg. 27217-27218. Download the above comments

3/21/2017 – AUECO provides comments in response to HSAR Case 2015-001 “Safeguarding of Controlled Unclassified Information”. Download the above comments

12/30/2016 – AUECO provides comments in response to Docket ID: DOD-2015-OS-0216, RIN 0790-A173 “Withholding of Unclassified Technical Data and Technology From Public Disclosure”. Download the above comments

04/14/2016 – AUECO provides comments in response to Docket ID: DARS-2015-0039; Agency: Defense Acquisition Regulations System (DARS) [RIN 0750‐AI61 Safeguarding Covered Defense Information and Cyber Incident Reporting (DFARS 252.204‐7012 DEC 2015)] which proposes “Revisions to the Definitions of Cyber Incidents “.   Download the above comments

04/05/2016 – AUECO provides comments in response to ITAR Amendment—Category XII Second Proposed which proposes “Revisions to the “Definitions of Specially Designed for a Military End Use; Specially Designed for Articles in this Subchapter; Specially Designed for Articles in this Category; ”.    Download the above comments

03/15/2016 – AUECO provides comments in response to RIN 0694–AF75 which proposes “Revisions to the “specially designed” criteria.    Download the above comments

02/29/2016 – AUECO provides comments in response to RIN 0750-AI61 “Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement: Network penetration Reporting and Contracting for Cloud Services (DFARS Case 2013-D018).”     Download the above comments

08/17/2015 – AUECO provides comments in response to RIN1400-AD03 regarding proposed amendments to the United States Munitions List, Categories XIV and XVIII which would have an impact on academic research.”     Download the above comments

08/03/2015 – AUECO provides comments in response to RIN1400-AD70 which proposes “Revisions to the Definitions of Defense Services, Technical Data, and Public Domain; Definitions of Product of Fundamental Research; Electronic Transmission and Storage of Technical Data; and Related Definitions, 80 Fed. Reg. 31525 (June 3, 2015).”     Download the above comments

08/03/2015 – AUECO provides comments in response to RIN0694-AG32 which proposes revisions to the EAR definitions of “Educational Information,” “Fundamental Research,””Technology,” and “Software.” AUECO also comments on the Q&A section of Supplement No. 1 of Part 734 as wells as the “End to End Encryption Standard.”     Download the above comments

05/12/2015 – AUECO provides comments in response to the NIST Special Publication 800‐171, Protecting Controlled Unclassified Information in Nonfederal Information Systems and Organizations Final Public Draft. AUECO concurs with the comments being provided by the Council on Government Relations and the Association of American Universities (COGR/AAU) dated May 12, 2015 as well as those provided by Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University (Virginia Tech) also dated May 12, 2015. As stated in both of these comments, AUECO is concerned that the implementation of NIST 800‐171 will have the unintended consequence of increased regulatory burden for academic institutions.      Download the above comments

1/16/2015 – AUECO is providing the following comments in response to the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Special Publication 800‐171, Protecting Controlled Unclassified Information in Nonfederal Information Systems and Organizations, particularly with added definitions and clarifications of technology, including “controlled unclassified information” and “federal information.”      Download the above comments

4/2/2014 – In response to RIN 1994-AA02 affecting Part 810 of the regulations, AUECO urges the DOE to consider the unintended consequences that the SNOPR would have on academic endeavors and the long-term impact that this would have on U.S. scientific and economic competitiveness. Due to the outstanding issues identified above, AUECO joins the U.S. Chamber of Commerce in calling upon the DOE to withdraw the proposed rule.    Download the above comments

9/9/2013 – Comments in response to the U.S. Department of State second request for public comments on its proposed revision of U.S. Munitions List (USML) Category XI Military Electronics and definition for “Equipment.” [RIN 1400-AD25]      Download the above comments

9/8/2013 – Comments in response to the U.S. Department of Commerce’s second request for public comments on its proposed revision of the Export Administration regulations (EAR) to include the control of military electronics equipment and related items the President determines no longer warrant control on the U.S. Munitions list (USML). [RIN 0694-AF64]         Download the above comments

7/10/2013 – AUECO’s response to the U.S. Department of Energy’s request for public comments on its proposed language to clarify contractors export compliance responsibilities. [RIN 1991-AB99]      Download the above comments

7/8/2013 – AUECO’s response to the U.S. Department of Commerce’s (Department) request for public comments on its proposed revision of Spacecraft Systems and Related Items the President Determines No Longer Warrant Control under the USML [RIN 0694-AF87]      Download the above comments

7/8/2013 – AUECO’s response to the U.S. Department of State’s (Department) request for public comments on its proposed revision of U.S. Munitions List (USML) Category XV Spacecraft Systems and Related Defense Articles and “Defense Services” [RINs 1400‐AC80 and 1400‐AD33]     Download the above comments

1/27/2013 – AUECO’s response to the U.S. Department of State’s (Department) request for public comments on its proposed revision of U.S. Munitions List (USML) Category XI Military Electronics and definition for “Equipment.” [RIN 1400‐AD25]      Download the above comments

1/27/2013 – In response to RIN 0694‐AF64 (Revisions to the Export Administration Regulations (EAR): Control of Military Electronic Equipment and Related Items the President No Longer Warrant Control Under the United States Munitions List (USML)     Download the above comments

10/23/2012 – In response to the proposed FAR rule for Basic Safeguarding of Contractor Information Systems (FR vol. 77, no. 165, pp. 51496-51499; issued 8/24/12). AUECO recognizes that some level of protection should be afforded, but seeks regulations that will provide an appropriate level of protection without creating unwieldy compliance burdens or creating a chilling effect on academic activity, including fundamental research.  AUECO Comments on Safeguarding Data

8/6/2012 – AUECO comment letter in response to BIS’s Proposed Revisions to the Export Administration Regulations: Implementation of Export Control Reform; Revisions to License Exceptions After Retrospective Regulatory Review (RIN 0694-AF65).   AUECO comments on Revisions to License Exceptions

8/3/2012 – AUECO comments on the BIS proposed definition of “specially designed”.    AUECO comments on BIS definition of “specially designed”

8/3/2012 – AUECO comments on the DDTC proposed definition of “specially designed”.     AUECO comments on DDTC definition of “specially designed”

7/2/2012 – AUECO submitted comments in response to proposed changes in Category XIII of the ITAR (Auxiliary Military Equipment) (77 FR 29575, May 18, 2012, Public Notice 7883) Comments focused on the need to clarify or harmonize definitions as well as the need to provide a better “bright line” for which materials or equipment would be considered defense articles    AUECO Comments on Category XIII revisions

6/18/2012 – AUECO submitted comments in response to proposed changes in Category V of the ITAR (Explosives and Energetic Materials, Propellants, Incendiary Agents and Their Constituents) (77 FR 25944, May 2, 2012, Public Notice 7861) Comments focused on the need to clarify or harmonize definitions as well as concern over “catch-all” phrasing     AUECO Comments on Category V revisions

2/6/2012 – AUECO submitted comments in response to proposed changes in Category XX of the ITAR (Submersible Vessels, Oceanographic and Associated Equipment) (RIN 1400-AD01) Comments focused on uniform application of exemptions/exceptions as well as the need to clarify or harmonize definitions. AUECO Comments on Category XX revisions

2/6/2012 – AUECO submitted comments in response to proposed changes in Category VI of the ITAR (Vessels of War and Special Naval Equipment) (RIN 1400-AC99) Comments focused on uniform application of exemptions/exceptions as well as the need to clarify or harmonize definitions  AUECO Comments on Category VI revisions

2/1/2012 – AUECO responded to the “retrospective regulatory review” of the EAR. (RIN 0694-XA37) Comments stressed the potential impact of reform on the academic community with particular emphasis on preserving and clarifying deemed export rules and fundamental research. AUECO Comments on EAR restrospective review

1/18/2012 – AUECO submitted comments in response to proposed changes in Category VII (Tanks and Military Vehicles) of the ITAR (Federal Register, 10 December 2010, Vol. 75, No. 237, pp. 76930-76935.) While appreciative of some of the positive changes, AUECO requests that certain definitions be clarified and/or harmonized between the ITAR and EAR. AUECO Comments on Category VII revisions

12/22/2011 – AUECO submitted comments in response to RIN (1400–AC96) which proposed significant changes to Category VIII (Aircraft) of the ITAR. AUECO believes that the shift of items from the ITAR to the CCL may create an increased burden on universities. Furthermore, certain definitions between the ITAR and EAR would need to be clarified or at a minimum, harmonized, to avoid confusion. AUECO Comments on Category VIII revisions

12/15/2011 – AUECO submitted comments on proposed changes to DoD regulations (Federal Register Notice Vol. 76, No. 125, pp. 38089-38095) regarding the safeguarding of unclassified DoD information. While AUECO recognizes and appreciates the need to safeguard DoD Information in the possession of contractors and subcontractors, we are concerned with the breadth of the proposed clauses and the burden this regulation will have on the regulated community. AUECO Comments on Safeguarding Unclassified DOD Information

12/7/2011 – AUECO submitted comments on proposed changes (Federal Register Notice Vol. 76, No. 173, pp 55278-55288) to the Department of Energy (DOE) regulations. The proposed rule attempts to implement a “deemed export” rule for persons who “engage directly or indirectly in the production of special nuclear material,” including the transfer of such technology to foreign persons. AUECO does not believe that DOE has the authority to implement the proposed changes and also takes issue with the use of certain terms and definitions within the proposed rule since they do not align with existing export control regulations. Overall, AUECO feels the proposed rule is inconsistent with the goals of President Obama’s Export Control Reform Initiative, creates a significant compliance burden for universities, and negatively impact university research. AUECO Comments to 10 CFR 810

09/13/2011 – AUECO submitted comments on proposed changes (Federal Register Notice Vol. 76, No. 136, pp 41958-85) to the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) as part of the President’s Export Control Reform Initiative. The proposal would move certain items from the US Munitions List (USML) in the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) to the Commerce Control List in the EAR. AUECO comments on USML to CCL proposal

6/13/2011 – AUECO submitted comments in response to Department of State Proposed Rule amendment to the ITAR on the definition of “defense service.” (Federal Register Vol. 76, No. 71, pp 20590-3) While supporting the initiative to amend the definition of “defense services,” AUECO provides specific comments on how the changes would impact academia. AUECO also addresses new terms that are introduced in the proposed definition with a request for further clarity.  AUECO Comments on Proposed Definition of Defense Services

2/8/2011 – AUECO submitted comments in response to the Department of State, Proposed Rule for an “Amendment to the International Traffic in Arms Regulations: Revision of U.S. Munitions List Category VII” (Federal Register Vol. 75, No. 237, pp 76930-5, Public Notice 7256). This proposed rule, if adopted, would amend Category VII with the intent of creating a “bright line” in what is ITAR and EAR controlled. AUECO argues that in some instances, particularly related to unmanned ground vehicles, the proposed rule would be difficult to interpret in a university research environment.  AUECO Response to Proposed Amendment to Category VII

7/30/2010 – AUECO submitted additional comments regarding the export control attestation required on I-129 forms (OMB Control Number 1615-0009, 30-Day Notice of Information Collection Under Review: Form I-129, Petition for Nonimmigrant Worker; draft forms labeled USCIS-2005-030-0213 and USCIS-2005-030-0214.) AUECO shares its thoughts on the accuracy of the “Agency’s Estimate of the Burden of the Collection of Information” and AUECO provides proposed editorial changes which would significantly improve the clarity and consistency of the form and guidance documents.  AUECO Additional Comments on I-129 Attestation

5/3/2010 – AUECO submitted comments in response to the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) proposal to ammend the NASA Federal Acquisition Regulations (Federal Register Notice Vol. 75, No. 42, pp 9860-4). The proposed changes, if adopted, would impact safeguarding of controlled unclassified information and potentially place additional restrictions on university activities.  AUECO Comments on NASA proposal on Restricted Information

4/30/2010 – AUECO submitted comments in response to the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulations System, Department of Defense, Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (Federal Register Vol. 75, No. 41, pp 9563-8) regarding 48 CFR Parts 204 and 252. In part these changes, if adopted, would establish “DoD information” as a new category of controlled unclassified information, create two tiers of protection for DoD information, and require reporting of cyber intrusion activities. AUECO Comments on DFARS proposal for “DoD Information”

4/9/2010 – AUECO submitted comments on OMB Control #1615-0009 (Federal Register Vol. 75, No. 25, pp 6212-3). This was a 60-day notice of Information Collection Under Review: Form I-129, Petition for Nonimmigrant Worker. The proposed changes (draft I-129 and instructions) included the addition of a Deemed Export Acknowledgment section. This new section, if adopted as proposed, will require that universities conduct an export review for each H1B applicant (in addition to certain other classes). If an export license is needed, it will have to be obtained prior to filing the I-129 which could significantly lengthen processing times. AUECO argued for the removal of this new section on the grounds that it was information subject to the jurisdiction of another agency (Bureau of Industry & Security, Department of Commerce). Understanding this argument might not be successful, AUECO also proposed revised text that would reduce burden, increase clarity, and improve the quality of the information gathered. AUECO Comments on proposed I-129 changes

1/25/2010 – AUECO submitted comments to the Department of State on proposed changes regarding the export of ITAR-controlled technical data. AUECO argued that U.S. universities should be covered by the proposed rule that would permit U.S. Persons to travel abroad with ITAR-controlled technical data without a license under pre-specified conditions.  AUECO Comments on ITAR exemption 125.4(b)(9)