Different federal agencies have jurisdiction to control various types of nuclear-related exports; DOE regulates the export of nuclear technology through Part 810, which implements Section 57(b) of the Atomic Energy Act; DOE and the Department of Justice (DOJ) have roles in enforcing Part 810. Four federal agencies share jurisdiction over nuclear-related exports, with different agencies regulating different types of such exports. DOE regulates exports of commercial nuclear technology and assistance through its National Nuclear Security Administration’s (NNSA) Office of Nonproliferation and International Security. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) regulates exports of commercial nuclear materials and equipment through its Office of International Programs (OIP). Nuclear materials and equipment include certain enriched uranium and reactor components, respectively. The Department of Commerce (Commerce) regulates dual-use items—those that can be used for both commercial and military applications—and certain military items. Nuclear dual-use items include, among other things, turbines, generators, and machine tools. The Department of State (State) regulates munitions items and technologies—those designed, developed, configured, adapted, or modified solely for military applications. Table 1 provides additional detail on the U.S. nuclear export control regime. DOE regulates exports of commercial nuclear technology and assistance under section 57(b) of the Atomic Energy Act (AEA), which governs development or production of special nuclear material outside the United States. DOE implements section 57(b) through the regulations at 10 C.F.R. Part 810. Part 810 applies to commercial activities because nuclear reactors fueled with uranium also produce plutonium. Section 57(b) of the AEA requires establishment of orderly and expeditious procedures, to include, among other things, explicit direction on the handling of requests to engage or participate in development or production of special nuclear material outside of the United States and express deadlines for soliciting and collecting the views of the other agencies (with identified officials responsible for meeting such deadlines). Activities generally authorized under Part 810 do not require prior application to or notification of the Secretary of Energy, although companies must report certain information about such activities to DOE within 30 days. Applications for specific authorization, which must be approved by the Secretary of Energy, undergo a three-stage review process, as depicted in figure 1. In the first or “initial” review stage, NNSA prepares an analysis of each application. In the second or “interagency” review stage, NNSA provides the application to State for concurrence and to the NRC, Commerce, and the Department of Defense (DOD) for consultation. DOE’s target time frames for completion of the initial and interagency review stages are 30 days each. DOE does not have a target time frame for completion of the third or “final” review stage, in which NNSA and DOE staff conduct a final review of the application and make a recommendation to the Secretary, who then makes a determination as to whether the proposed export would be inimical to the national interest. DOE does, however, have an interim target within the final review stage for providing a recommendation to the Secretary. Specifically, NNSA’s procedures for processing, reviewing, and approving specific authorizations state that the Secretary is to be provided with a recommendation no later than 30 days following receipt of the interagency concurrence or views, or 60 days in the event of interagency disagreements. Both DOE and DOJ have a role in the enforcement of Part 810. DOE may act to correct deficiencies in applications or processes, or obtain an injunction or restraining order to prevent violation of Part 810, and may refer suspected criminal violations to DOJ for investigation and possible prosecution under the AEA. Any person convicted of violating, conspiring, or attempting to violate Section 57 of the AEA; or of willfully falsifying, concealing, or covering up a material fact or making false, fictitious or fraudulent statements or representations may be fined or imprisoned or both. Further, under Part 810, if a violation of the AEA is committed with intent to injure the United States or to aid a foreign nation, the penalty could be up to life imprisonment and a $20,000 fine. DOE has not yet determined whether it has legal authority to apply civil penalties for violation of Part 810. DOE monitors compliance with Part 810 in part through reports that exporters are required to submit on authorized activities. The United States has pledged to adhere to a set of guidelines that include export licensing regulations, enforcement procedures, and penalties for violations. These guidelines, developed by nuclear supplier countries (the Nuclear Suppliers Group ), aim to ensure that trade in civilian nuclear technologies does not contribute to nuclear proliferation. The NSG was established in 1975, and since 1978, it has published guidelines which cover transfers of nuclear and nuclear-related dual use equipment, material, software, and related technology. These guidelines lay out principles for the members to apply, in accordance with their national requirements. All NSG members, including the United States, have pledged to put in place legal measures to ensure the effective implementation of the NSG guidelines. From 2008 through 2013, DOE consistently missed its 30-day targets to complete the initial and interagency stages of the Part 810 review process. Specifically, during this period, DOE missed the target to complete the initial stage of review for 80 of the 89 applications processed. Similarly, interagency review times missed DOE’s target for 85 of the applications. The third stage, for which DOE has not established a target time frame, had the longest median review times. (See fig. 2). U.S. nuclear exporters said that the lengthy and unpredictable Part 810 time frames can impose business risks. We found that DOE missed its target to complete initial review for 90 percent (80 of 89) of the applications for specific authorization approved from 2008 through 2013 (no application was denied during this period). DOE took a median of 71 days to complete the initial review stage, with DOE’s longest initial review taking 1,035 days. In this stage, NNSA prepares an analysis of each application based on a set of technical and other reviews by experts in DOE’s National Laboratories, its Office of Nuclear Energy (NE) and Office of General Counsel, and NNSA’s Office of General Counsel. NNSA considers eight factors, including whether the United States has an agreement for nuclear cooperation with the nation or group of nations involved; whether the country is a party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT); and whether the country involved has entered into an agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) for the application of safeguards on all its peaceful nuclear activities. For the two applications that we reviewed based on their initial review times—one that met the 30-day initial review target, and one that did not—the nature of the proposed export affected the initial review times. Specifically, an application for a U.S. company to provide assistance to the United Arab Emirates’ (UAE) nuclear regulatory body had a 29-day initial review stage (meeting the 30-day target), because, according to DOE officials, the details of the application matched those of another recently submitted application. As a result, DOE’s internal review of this application could leverage the work completed for the preceding application. The application that missed the target, taking 186 days for initial review, was for the export of mixed oxide (MOX) fuel fabrication technology to the United Kingdom. According to DOE officials, MOX is a sensitive technology, which requires greater scrutiny. Interagency review times missed DOE’s 30-day target for 85 of the 89 applications approved from 2008 through 2013. The interagency review stage was the second longest in the process, with a median review time of 105 days. Ten applications took more than a year for interagency review. As noted earlier, in this stage, DOE seeks concurrence from State, and consults Commerce, NRC, and DOD. These agencies have 30 days to provide comments or concurrence, including any conditions they would place on the authorization. State took the longest among the agencies to provide its comments or concurrence. State’s median review time—86 days—was nearly three times longer than DOE’s 30-day target. According to DOE and State officials, State’s concurrence times depend on, among other things, the responsiveness of the importing country in providing assurances of peaceful use and no re-export without U.S. government consent. For example, NNSA sent an application package for interagency review in April 2009 asking for responses within 30 days for the export of a computer program to a Chinese university for teaching and research purposes. State concurred in January 2011, about 2 weeks after receiving the foreign government assurance and almost 2 years after receiving the letter from NNSA. Agency officials attributed the 645-day interagency review period to delays in obtaining assurances from the Chinese government. State officials, who obtain assurances through embassy staff, told us they have not established a time frame for the embassies to respond, but they noted that it is rare for embassy staff not to follow up on an assurance request expeditiously. Embassy staff, who receive instructions and background documents from State headquarters, often work to make sure that the facts listed in the request for assurances are correct and that the staff have current information for points of contact for the importer, which is a key step in the assurance process. State officials recognized the need to streamline the process for obtaining assurances in countries with growing nuclear markets, such as China and the UAE.