Government Departments Need to Improve Export Control Guidance for Universities, GAO Says

The Commerce and State Department should improve export control guidance for universities, which sometimes struggle to comply with U.S. export regulations because of unclear guidance that is usually tailored toward industry, the Government Accountability Office said May 12. The GAO also said Defense Department officials should better familiarize themselves with export control regulations in order to not hamper university research efforts.

Commerce and State Department export guidance “does not adequately address export compliance issues that are more common to universities than to industry,” including fundamental research, the GAO said. Defense Department officials often “misunderstand the term fundamental research” -- research that is “ordinarily published” and not subject to export regulations -- “which may limit universities' ability to conduct research,” the GAO added. Although seven of the nine universities that the GAO studied had adequate export control policies -- including strong record-keeping and tracking of export-controlled items -- they had “gaps” in other compliance areas, including risk assessments, training, internal audit and compliance manuals. Without better guidance from State and Commerce, universities may fail to “properly safeguard export-controlled items,” the GAO said.

Although Commerce’s Bureau of Industry and Security and the State Department’s Directorate of Defense Trade Controls provide regular training, outreach and guidance to universities, their guidance and outreach does not address “issues most relevant” to universities, the GAO said. Officials at six of the nine universities studied by the GAO said it is “difficult to understand” how to implement BIS’s and DDTC’s “industry-focused guidance” in a university setting. Universities struggle to teach their researchers about export control requirements because “researchers typically do not see themselves as exporters.” University officials said they struggle to explain several export-related terms, including deemed exports and defense services, to their researchers.

While the universities said “a set of all-encompassing, university-specific guidance is not necessary,” they would appreciate “additional guidance addressing specific topics that are relevant to universities,” the GAO said. The universities said DDTC and BIS should work with colleges and education associations to develop the guidance. “These officials said that a stronger partnership between the regulatory agencies and universities would support agencies’ understanding of the university environment and result in better guidance for universities.”

DDTC officials agreed, saying it would consider drafting white papers, frequently asked questions and tip sheets specifically tailored toward universities. BIS officials pointed to currently available guidance and said it “regularly updates” that guidance. “Although BIS has provided written guidance that is relevant to universities ... officials at universities we visited and associations we interviewed raised concerns about the adequacy of this guidance and outreach for the university research environment,” the GAO said. “Without additional guidance and outreach from DDTC and BIS that addresses issues most relevant to universities, some universities may utilize guidance … developed by other entities that may not facilitate compliance with export control regulations in the way that DDTC and BIS intended.”

The Defense Department can also improve its guidance to universities, the GAO said, adding that universities said “officials inconsistently interpret export control regulations.” Four of the nine universities said Defense Department officials’ “misunderstanding of what constitutes fundamental research” makes it difficult for universities to comply with export regulations. The Defense Department told GAO that it does not require officers to take export control training. “Without additional efforts to educate all relevant DOD officials … universities may continue to perceive that DOD officials inconsistently interpret the regulations and misunderstand whether research constitutes fundamental research, potentially hindering DOD-funded research at universities,” the GAO said.