[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 67 (Thursday, April 8, 2010)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 18030-18034]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-7258]
[[Page 18029]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Part II
Department of Defense
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Defense Acquisition Regulations System
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
48 CFR Parts 204, 206, 223, et al.
Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplements; Export-Controlled
Items; Research and Development Contract Type Determination;
Acquisitions in Support of Operations in Iraq or Afghanistan;
Minimizing Use of Hexavalent Chromium; Final Rules and Proposed Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 67 / Thursday, April 8, 2010 / Rules
and Regulations
[[Page 18030]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Defense Acquisition Regulations System
48 CFR Parts 204, 235, and 252
RIN 0750-AF13
Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement; Export-
Controlled Items (DFARS Case 2004-D010)
AGENCY: Defense Acquisition Regulations System, Department of Defense
(DoD).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: DoD is adopting as final, with changes, an interim rule
amending the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS)
to address requirements for complying with export control laws and
regulations when performing DoD contracts. The rule recognizes
contractor responsibilities to comply with existing Department of
Commerce and Department of State regulations and prescribes a contract
clause to address those responsibilities.
DATES: Effective Date: April 8, 2010.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Amy Williams, Defense Acquisition
Regulations System, OUSD (AT&L) DPAP (DARS), 3060 Defense Pentagon,
Room 3B855, Washington, DC 20301-3060. Telephone 703-602-0328;
facsimile 703-602-0350. Please cite DFARS Case 2004-D010.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
A. Background
DoD published an interim rule at 73 FR 42274 on July 21, 2008, to
address requirements for DoD contractors to comply with export control
laws and regulations, particularly the International Traffic in Arms
Regulations (ITAR) (22 CFR parts 120-130) issued by the Department of
State, and the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) (15 CFR parts
730-774) issued by the Department of Commerce. The rule implemented
section 890(a) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2008 (Pub. L. 110-181) and also adopted recommendations resulting
from proposed rules published at 70 FR 39976 on July 12, 2005, and 71
FR 46434 on August 14, 2006. This final rule does not address any
export control regulations that may be imposed by the Department of
Energy, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, or the Department of the
Treasury.
DoD received comments from 12 persons or organizations in response
to the interim rule published on July 21, 2008. The following is a
discussion of the comments and the changes included in this final rule
as a result of those comments:
1. Need to Simplify
a. Single-Clause Construct
Comment: One respondent indicated that the interim rule used an
unnecessarily complicated way to remind contractors of their
responsibilities under existing export law. The respondent stated that
the new clauses impose additional administrative requirements and
recommended use of just one clause indicating that export-controlled
items may be involved in the performance of the contract. This would
eliminate the requirement for the contractor to notify the contracting
officer under 252.204-7009(c).
DoD Response: The purpose of this rule is to ensure that
contractors are aware of their responsibilities to comply with export
control laws and regulations. As stated in DFARS 204.7303, it is in the
interest of both the Government and the contractor to be aware of
export controls as they apply to contract performance. The interim rule
was designed to serve this common interest, to prompt appropriate
research by Government requiring activities and communication between
the parties to a potential contract, and to have the resulting contract
include one of two clauses, so that each contract would reflect the
parties' expectation that the contractor either would or would not need
access to, or would or would not generate, export-controlled items in
performance of the contract.
The final rule requires the use of a single clause in every
solicitation and contract, and that clause is silent with regard to the
parties' expectations. By not stating specifically whether or not the
parties expect performance of the contract to involve export-controlled
items, the clause clearly makes the point that the contractor is
responsible for understanding and complying with all applicable laws
and regulations regarding export-controlled items. That responsibility
exists independent of, and is not established or limited by, any
information provided in the DFARS clause.
The advantages of changing to a single-clause construct include--
(1) Raising awareness, by inclusion of the appropriate words in
every DoD solicitation and contract, that contractors have a
responsibility to comply with all applicable laws and regulations
regarding export-controlled items;
(2) Eliminating any possible ambiguities that might complicate
enforcement of export control laws and regulations by the Commerce,
State, and Justice Departments, since there will be no statements in
DoD contract clauses that indicate a DoD assessment regarding the
applicability of export controls to performance of the contract;
(3) A much simpler DFARS requirement; and
(4) Elimination of the engagement or associated work that would
have been required to implement the two-clause construct.
The possible disadvantages of changing to a single-clause construct
include--
(1) Questionable effectiveness of the single clause in raising
offeror and contractor awareness of export controls as they apply to
the performance of any particular contract, since it will be a standard
clause automatically included in all contracts; and
(2) Elimination of the requirement that requiring activities and
contracting officers be aware, in each case, of the parties'
expectations with regard to performance of a contract involving export-
controlled items.
After serious consideration of the pros and cons, and after
extensive internal U.S. Government consultation, DoD has determined
that a single clause best serves the interests of the Government and
industry.
b. Contractor Obligation
Comment: Several respondents stated that the clauses at 252.225-
7008 and 252.225-7009 imposed a burden on the contractor to assess
whether contracted research will generate export-controlled items. The
respondent suggested an approach for DoD to guide its contractors
toward compliant exporting under DoD contracts.
DoD Response: The suggested approach was based on the premise that
it is the responsibility of DoD to guide its contractor as the
contractor determines whether the results of research under its
contracts are export-controlled. DoD disagrees with this premise.
Export control laws and regulations already exist, and contractors are
obliged to comply with them whether or not a DoD contract points out
this fact to the contractor. The clause serves to remind offerors and
contractors of their existing obligations.
[[Page 18031]]
2. Definition of ``Export-Controlled Items''
a. Broadness of Definition
Comment: One respondent stated that, since ``export-controlled
items'' are defined as items subject to the EAR or the ITAR, and since
EAR controls are very broad, very few contracts should include the
clause at 252.204-7009, because virtually all contracts would involve
an ``export-controlled item'' subject to the EAR. The example given was
that commercial encryption found in most software applications is
controlled by the EAR. This would mean that if a contractor needs to
use certain commercial software applications in performance of the
contract, the clause at 252.204-7008 would be appropriate, because the
contractor would need access to ``export-controlled items.'' If the
definition is intended to be this broad, there seems to be little
purpose in having the two-clause construct.
DoD Response: DoD consulted with the Department of Commerce, which
concluded that the EAR portion of the definition of ``export-controlled
items'' is accurate and should remain broad to ensure that contractors
are aware of all potential responsibilities under the EAR. For the
reasons stated in the response to Comment 1a above, the two-clause
construct has been eliminated.
b. Release to U.S. Persons in the United States
Comment: Several respondents were concerned that, as defined in the
interim rule, ``export-controlled items'' excludes EAR-controlled
commodities released to foreign persons in the United States, but does
not exclude (and thus has the effect of including) EAR-controlled
commodities released to U.S. persons in the United States.
Several respondents believed the intent of the rule to be that the
clause at 252.204-7008 is not required when the contract will require
access to Commerce Control List (CCL) commodities solely within the
United States. However, as written, the unintended consequence is a
requirement that the clause be included when U.S. persons need access
to CCL commodities in the United States. The respondents suggested
deleting the phrase ``to foreign nationals'' from the second sentence
in 252.204-7008(a)(2) and 252.204-7009(a)(2) to achieve the intended
result.
Another respondent pointed out that the interim rule required the
clause at 252.204-7008 in contracts involving commodities that are
subject to the EAR and that are used solely in the United States, which
would not create an export issue under the EAR.
DoD Response: As a result of the decision to adopt a single,
mandatory clause, the text related to the release of technology or
software source code subject to the EAR to foreign nationals in the
United States (or ``deemed exports'') has been removed from the rule.
Since the single clause is silent with regard to whether the contract
is or is not expected to involve export-controlled items, there is no
need to include language on deemed exports. Contractors will have a
responsibility to consult the EAR for all activities that may require
authorization from the Department of Commerce, including the release of
technology and source code subject to the EAR to foreign nationals.
c. Differentiation Between Equipment and Technical Information
Comment: One respondent recommended that DoD change the definition
of ``export-controlled items'' so that it does not create confusion and
allow the possibility of incorrect application of the clauses by
including both controlled equipment and other tangible items, and
controlled technical information, in the definition. The respondent's
rationale was that export control regulations apply differently to
these two categories. While export controls apply to the export abroad
of both, export controls do not apply to the mere use or transfer of
equipment or tangible items in the United States without providing
defense services or related technical data.
DoD Response: The definition of ``export-controlled items'' has a
scope that fits the scope of the DFARS rule. The rule applies to
export-controlled items, including information and technology. This
broadening of the rule's applicability beyond ``export-controlled
information and technology'' was logical and also required by section
890(a) of Public Law 110-181. The applicable export controls may indeed
operate differently for each of the two categories. However, this fact
exists independent of the DFARS rule, and has no bearing on the DFARS
definition of export-controlled items.
3. Relationship of the DFARS Rule to the EAR and the ITAR
a. DoD Should Identify Export-Controlled Items
Comment: One respondent recommended that the rule (1) require the
contracting agency to identify, by specific provision in the applicable
export control regulation, those export-controlled items to which
contractors or subcontractors will have access, and (2) require the
contracting officer to notify the contractor of those items prior to
release. The comment appeared to be limited to a subset of export-
controlled items, specifically those that would be furnished or
released by the Government to the contractor.
DoD Response: The interim rule did not include a requirement for
identifying in the contract clause any specific export-controlled items
to be involved in contract performance. As stated in the preamble to
the interim rule published on July 21, 2008, such a requirement was
determined to be unacceptable to the agencies of the Federal Government
(i.e., Departments of State, Commerce, and Justice) responsible for
enforcing export control laws and regulations (i.e., the ITAR and the
EAR). From their point of view, it is important that any contract
clause be free of information that could possibly create ambiguity
about the contractor's responsibility to comply with all applicable
laws and regulations regarding export-controlled items, which exists
independent of, and is not established or limited by, the information
provided in the DFARS rule or the prescribed contract clauses. The
final rule prescribes a single clause that has no such content.
Additionally, authorization to release and for releasing export-
controlled items is covered by export control laws and regulations and
is, therefore, independent of, and beyond the scope of, this DFARS
rule.
b. DoD Should Determine if Research Is Export Controlled
Comment: One respondent stated that it is DoD's responsibility to
determine whether the results of research under its contracts are
export-controlled and that, since DoD has a leading technical input to
any commodity jurisdiction action, DoD should be comfortable with
advising contractors as to whether DoD considers the results of
research conducted under its contracts to be export-controlled, or with
providing ``DoD export direction.''
Another respondent stated that increased security benefits will be
reaped if DoD diligently identifies those portions of fundamental
research projects that it believes may be export-controlled. Several
other respondents stated that the Government needs to convey to the
universities the information that certain work is export-controlled.
DoD Response: The DFARS clauses in the interim rule did not
establish the export controls with which exporters are obliged to
comply. The ITAR and
[[Page 18032]]
the EAR, not the DFARS clauses, impose the burden on exporters to know
if the work they are doing, whether or not under a DoD contract, will
involve export-controlled items. Exporters have strict liability to
comply with the ITAR and the EAR. DoD's responsibilities under the
DFARS rule in no way relieve DoD contractors of the responsibilities
they have under the ITAR and the EAR. DoD does not have authority to
issue ``export direction'' regarding contractor responsibilities to
comply with the ITAR and the EAR.
c. Inappropriate Encouragement of the Use of Export Controls
Comment: One respondent stated that the DFARS rule would encourage
unintentionally the use of export controls in cases where an exclusion
would apply.
DoD Response: Export controls and exclusions are established by the
ITAR and the EAR independent of DFARS requirements. In providing
single-clause guidance to contracting officers and contractors with
reference to the operative regulations, any potential for independent
interpretation or encouragement should be eliminated.
d. Contractor Liability
Comment: One respondent stated that the rule is silent on
contractor liability, making it unclear as to what approach contractors
must take in the event of an unauthorized export when the submittal of
a voluntary disclosure to the State Department's Directorate of Defense
Trade Controls or the Commerce Department's Office of Export
Enforcement would be appropriate. The ITAR and the EAR lay out well-
defined steps for submitting voluntary disclosures. It is not clear
whether the DFARS rule would require the contractor to make disclosures
with the DoD contracting officer in addition to those made under the
ITAR or the EAR. The rule should clearly state that any matters related
to controlled data should be addressed in accordance with existing
State Department or Commerce Department regulations.
DoD Response: The interim rule's statements at 204.7302, and
252.204-7008(c), (d), and (e), were intended to make clear that the
ITAR and the EAR govern the control of exports and enforcement of
export controls, and that questions about the ITAR go to the State
Department and questions about the EAR go to the Commerce Department.
After consultation with the Departments of State and Commerce, DoD
concluded that a change might enhance the clarity of the rule in this
regard, without mentioning any particular ITAR or EAR requirement (such
as voluntary disclosure), since mentioning one requirement could create
confusion about the many requirements left unmentioned. Therefore,
paragraph (d) (formerly paragraph (e)) of the clause at 252.204-7008
has been amended to state that ``nothing in the terms of this contract
adds to, changes, supersedes, or waives any of the requirements of
applicable Federal laws, Executive orders, and regulations * * *''
e. Process for Determining whether Export-Controlled Items are Involved
Comment: One respondent stated that the procedure prescribed by the
rule can result in the Government issuing a solicitation that includes
the clause at 252.204-7008, but provides no insight as to why the
Government considered that clause appropriate. The rule should (1) give
contractors the opportunity to consider whether the work can be
performed without the contractor needing access to or generating
export-controlled items, (2) provide explicitly for consultation with
contractors, DoD contracting officers, and agencies responsible for the
EAR and the ITAR in making a determination if export-controlled items
are expected to be involved; and (3) provide for revisiting the
determination after receipt of proposals but before award of the
contract.
DoD Response: The single-clause construct of the final rule
eliminates the concerns expressed by this comment.
4. Fundamental Research and the Clause at DFARS 252.204-7000,
Disclosure of Information
Comments: The fundamental research aspect of the rule was a key
focus of respondents. Ten of the twelve respondents represented a
university or the university community. Two of the university
respondents acknowledged that, on occasion, universities under
contracts with DoD can and do have access to export-controlled items in
fundamental research, noting that this is done in compliance with
applicable export control laws and without publication restrictions on
the results of their fundamental research. Comments associated with
fundamental research had several common themes:
[cir] Concern that the DFARS definition of ``fundamental research''
(from National Security Decision Directive (NSDD) 189) is different
than the definitions in the ITAR and the EAR. The distinction between
``fundamental research'' and ``applied research'' is dealt with
adequately in the ITAR and the EAR and DoD should avoid adding
complexity or confusion with this DFARS rule.
[cir] Belief that an exclusion for fundamental research exists with
regard to export controls, i.e., if a contract is for fundamental
research and with a university, export controls cannot possibly apply.
The EAR and the ITAR were cited to support this belief.
[cir] Focus on fundamental research rather than on the contract, to
the extent that one respondent suggested identifying which export-
controlled items are subject to the clause at 252.204-7008 and what
part of the contract work is fundamental research subject to the clause
at 252.204-7009.
[cir] Confusion regarding, concerns about, or arguments against the
assertion in the DoD statement in the preamble to the interim rule
published on July 21, 2008, that there is a borderline where
fundamental research meets more advanced applied research and
development.
[cir] Concern that contracting officers, in the event that export-
controlled items are expected to be involved in the conduct of
university research, may erroneously conclude that the results of
university research must necessarily contain sensitive information or
information not appropriate for public release, and may impose the
clause at DFARS 252.204-7000, Disclosure of Information, or other
access and dissemination restrictions on the contract. Application of
publication restrictions on university research destroys the
university's ability to conduct the research as fundamental research
that is not subject to export control restrictions, and could lead to
restrictions on the involvement of foreign researchers. Therefore,
universities were concerned that the rule may restrict the conduct of
fundamental research on university campuses.
[cir] Recommendations that the rule refer to the June 26, 2008,
Under Secretary of Defense (Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics)
memorandum on the subject of ``Contracted Fundamental Research,'' and
that the rule include the memorandum's guidance to DoD officials for
contracting with universities for fundamental research.
[cir] The need to instruct requiring activities and contracting
officers to manage fundamental research projects such that they do not
become subject to export controls.
DoD Response: The two-clause construct has been eliminated in the
final rule, which prescribes a single clause for use in all DoD
solicitations and contracts. The single clause is silent
[[Page 18033]]
with regard to whether the contract is or is not expected to involve
export-controlled items. There is no need in the revised context to
mention any particular type or category of contracts, including
research and development contracts. The clause puts all contractors,
including universities performing contracts for fundamental research
only, on notice that they are responsible for complying with all
applicable export control laws and regulations.
DoD does not have the authority to establish in the DFARS a
presumption that DoD contracts for fundamental research do not involve
export-controlled items or that contractors performing DoD contracts
for fundamental research may assume that the ITAR and the EAR do not
apply to what they do or produce in the performance of the contract.
After considering the public comments associated with this aspect
of the rule, DoD concluded that the rule would be improved by removing
the references to fundamental research. The result is a simpler,
clearer rule, with nothing that will distract the reader from the focus
on the contractor's responsibility for complying with the ITAR and the
EAR. Therefore, the final rule does not define or mention fundamental
research. The clause is written to apply to all contracts, and there is
no exception for contracts for fundamental research. The operation of
the DFARS rule will be independent of, and have no bearing on, the
applicability of NSDD 189, EAR, or ITAR definitions of ``fundamental
research'' to a given contract. The interim rule did not, and the final
rule does not, impose restrictions on the publication or dissemination
of the results of research under research contracts.
5. Alternatives at 252.204-7009(c), Particularly the Alternative for
Termination for Convenience of the Government
Paragraph (c) of the clause at 252.204-7009 in the interim rule
required the contractor to notify the contracting officer if, during
performance of the contract, the contractor became aware that it would
generate or need access to export-controlled items. The contracting
officer would then modify the contract to include the clause at DFARS
252.204-7008; negotiate a contract modification to eliminate the
requirement for work involving export-controlled items; or terminate
the contract, in whole or in part, for the convenience of the
Government.
Comments: Many respondents were concerned with the alternative of
terminating the contract for the convenience of the Government.
Several respondents suggested that contractors should also have the
right to terminate for convenience of the contractor. Most of these
respondents cite, for comparison purposes, FAR clause 52.204-2,
Security Requirements, Alternate I, which, in paragraph (g), permits
the contractor to request the contracting officer to terminate the
contract in whole or in part in accordance with the terms of the
Termination for the Convenience of the Government clause.
One respondent considered that the interim rule would unnecessarily
encourage a contracting officer to potentially terminate a contract for
convenience rather than modify the contract.
Another respondent was concerned, in general, that the unilateral
nature of these provisions and the amount of discretion left to the
contracting officer increase the ambiguity and uncertainty of the rule.
The respondent requested that the final rule provide explicitly for
consultation with contractors as to whether the research can be
conducted without using export-controlled items.
DoD Response: The final rule removes the clause at 252.204-7009,
including the language that was of concern to the respondents.
6. Flow-Down of Clauses to Subcontracts
a. Flow-Down of 252.204-7008
Comment: One respondent stated that, unless the term ``foreign
nationals'' is deleted from paragraph (2) of the definition of
``export-controlled items,'' contractors would be required to flow down
the clause at DFARS 252.204-7008 to subcontracts in cases in which U.S.
persons need access to EAR-controlled commodities, but not in which
foreign persons need access to these items.
DoD Response: The statement regarding foreign nationals has been
excluded from the definition of ``export-controlled items.''
b. Flowdown of 252.204-7000
Comment: One respondent stated that mandatory flow down of the
clause at DFARS 252.204-7000, Disclosure of Information, from industry
prime contractors to universities is perhaps the single largest
impediment to efficient contracting between universities and their DoD-
sponsored prime contractors.
DoD Response: The clause at DFARS 252.204-7000 is not prescribed by
DFARS subpart 204.73. Therefore, changes to this clause or its
prescription are outside the scope of this DFARS rule.
7. Training
Comment: One respondent stated that DoD should ensure export
control compliance training for all DoD personnel involved in research
and development acquisitions. Another respondent stated that extensive
Government training would be needed for DoD requiring and contracting
personnel, to permit selection of the appropriate contract clause as
well as proper administration of the clause.
DoD Response: The final rule's prescription of a single clause for
use in all solicitations and contracts eliminates the aspects of the
interim rule that created the greatest need for additional training for
requiring and contracting personnel. Nevertheless, DoD has a continuing
interest in improving the training available on export control-related
matters. Web-based training on this subject is available presently to
DoD personnel through the Defense Acquisition University.
This rule was reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget under
Executive Order 12866, dated September 30, 1993.
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
DoD certifies that this final rule will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities within the
meaning of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601, et seq.,
because all contractors, including small entities, are already subject
to export-control laws and regulations. The requirements of this rule
reinforce existing responsibilities.
DoD will also consider comments from small entities concerning the
existing regulations in subparts affected by this rule in accordance
with 5 U.S.C. 610. Interested parties must submit such comments
separately and should cite 5 U.S.C. 610 (DFARS Case 2004-D010) in
correspondence.
C. Paperwork Reduction Act
The Paperwork Reduction Act does not apply, because the rule does
not impose any information collection requirements that require the
approval of the Office of Management and Budget under 44 U.S.C. 3501,
et seq.
[[Page 18034]]
List of Subjects in 48 CFR Parts 204, 235, and 252
Government procurement.
Ynette R. Shelkin,
Editor, Defense Acquisition Regulations System.
0
Accordingly, the interim rule amending 48 CFR parts 204, 235, and 252,
which was published at 74 FR 42274, July 21, 2008, is adopted as a
final rule with the following changes:
0
1. The authority citation for 48 CFR parts 204, 235, and 252 continues
to read as follows:
Authority: 41 U.S.C. 421 and 48 CFR chapter 1.
PART 204--ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS
0
2. Subpart 204.73 is revised to read as follows:
Subpart 204.73--Export-Controlled Items
Sec.
204.7300 Scope of subpart.
204.7301 Definitions.
204.7302 General.
204.7303 Policy.
204.7304 Contract clauses.
Subpart 204.73--Export-Controlled Items
204.7300 Scope of subpart.
This subpart implements section 890(a) of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Pub. L. 110-181).
204.7301 Definitions.
Export-controlled items, as used in this subpart, is defined in the
clause at 252.204-7008.
204.7302 General.
Certain types of items are subject to export controls in accordance
with the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2751, et seq.), the
International Traffic in Arms Regulations (22 CFR parts 120-130), the
Export Administration Act of 1979, as amended (50 U.S.C. App. 2401, et
seq.), and the Export Administration Regulations (15 CFR parts 730-
774). See PGI 204.7302 for additional information.
204.7303 Policy.
(a) It is in the interest of both the Government and the contractor
to be aware of export controls as they apply to the performance of DoD
contracts.
(b) It is the contractor's responsibility to comply with all
applicable laws and regulations regarding export-controlled items. This
responsibility exists independent of, and is not established or limited
by, this subpart.
204.7304 Contract clauses.
Use the clause at 252.204-7008, Export-Controlled Items, in all
solicitations and contracts.
PART 252--SOLICITATION PROVISIONS AND CONTRACT CLAUSES
0
3. Section 252.204-7008 is revised to read as follows:
252.204-7008 Export-Controlled Items.
As prescribed in 204.7304, use the following clause:
Export-Controlled Items (Apr 2010)
(a) Definition. Export-controlled items, as used in this clause,
means items subject to the Export Administration Regulations (EAR)
(15 CFR parts 730-774) or the International Traffic in Arms
Regulations (ITAR) (22 CFR parts 120-130). The term includes:
(1) Defense items, defined in the Arms Export Control Act, 22
U.S.C. 2778(j)(4)(A), as defense articles, defense services, and
related technical data, and further defined in the ITAR, 22 CFR part
120.
(2) Items, defined in the EAR as ``commodities, software, and
technology,'' terms that are also defined in the EAR, 15 CFR 772.1.
(b) The Contractor shall comply with all applicable laws and
regulations regarding export-controlled items, including, but not
limited to, the requirement for Contractors to register with the
Department of State in accordance with the ITAR. The Contractor
shall consult with the Department of State regarding any questions
relating to compliance with the ITAR and shall consult with the
Department of Commerce regarding any questions relating to
compliance with the EAR.
(c) The Contractor's responsibility to comply with all
applicable laws and regulations regarding export-controlled items
exists independent of, and is not established or limited by, the
information provided by this clause.
(d) Nothing in the terms of this contract adds to, changes,
supersedes, or waives any of the requirements of applicable Federal
laws, Executive orders, and regulations, including but not limited
to--
(1) The Export Administration Act of 1979, as amended (50 U.S.C.
App. 2401, et seq.);
(2) The Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2751, et seq.);
(3) The International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C.
1701, et seq.);
(4) The Export Administration Regulations (15 CFR parts 730-
774);
(5) The International Traffic in Arms Regulations (22 CFR parts
120-130); and
(6) Executive Order 13222, as extended.
(e) The Contractor shall include the substance of this clause,
including this paragraph (e), in all subcontracts.
(End of clause)
Section 252.204-7009 [Removed and Reserved]
0
4. Section 252.204-7009 is removed and reserved.
[FR Doc. 2010-7258 Filed 4-7-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001-08-P