License Exception BAG authorizes a U.S. citizen or a permanent resident alien leaving the U.S. to export or reexport shotguns with a barrel length 18 inches or over and shotgun shells provided no more than three shotguns are taken on any one trip; the shotguns and shotgun shells must be with the person's baggage (may not be mailed) and they must be for the person's exclusive legitimate use. See section 740.14(e) of the EAR for specific requirements in the use of BAG.

License Exception BAG allows a nonresident alien leaving the U.S. to export or reexport shotguns and shotgun shells he or she has brought into the United States under the provisions of the Department of Justice Regulations. See section 740.14(e) of the EAR for specific requirements in the use of BAG.

Yes, a license is required to export to Canada shotguns and related firearms purchased in the United States.

Yes, however any applicant, whether a U.S. citizen or not, must be in the United States at the time a license application is submitted to BIS.

Contact the following:

Please consult with the proper authorities when exporting such items from Canada and importing them into the United States to determine requirements. For example, prior to importing firearms into the United States, you should contact the U.S. Department of Justice's Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms regarding import permits at http://www.atf.gov/ . You should also contact Canada's Export and Import Permits Bureau regarding export permits at 613-996-2387 or go to http://www.international.gc.ca.

Royal Canadian Mounted Police,

Canadian Firearms Program, Ottawa, ON K1A 0R2

Like shipments to U.S. embassies overseas, shipments to non-U.S. Embassies outside the United States are exports or reexports to the host country. For example, an export from the United States to the French Embassy in Germany is an export to Germany. License requirements are those that are applicable to the host country. There may also be relevant license exception availability (see below).

For purposes of the EAR, a commercial shipment to a U.S. Embassy located outside the United States is an export or reexport to the country in which the U.S. Embassy is located (the host country). For example, a shipment from the United States to the U.S. Embassy in Germany is an export to Germany. BIS may require a license under the EAR for such an export, based on the classification of the items involved and the license requirements applicable to the particular host country.

Most transactions involving the export or reexport of items subject to the EAR to host countries that are subject to multilateral or unilateral economic sanctions require a license, as described in the specific regulatory provisions relevant to each such destination, generally found in Parts 742 and/or 746 of the EAR. However, if a host country is subject to economic sanctions implemented by the Department of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Controls (OFAC), regulations maintained by OFAC may also restrict the transaction. Exporters are advised to contact OFAC for further clarification. OFAC may be contacted at 1-800-540-6322.

For purposes of the EAR, shipments to embassies abroad are considered exports or reexports to the host country, even in the case of an embassy of a country subject to multilateral or unilateral economic sanctions. However, regulations maintained by OFAC may also restrict a transaction of this nature. Exporters are advised to contact OFAC for further clarification. OFAC may be contacted at 1-800-540-6322.

Yes, exports to non-U.S. embassies outside the United States may be eligible for License Exception GOV as described in Section 740.11 of the EAR.

Yes. These shipments are exports because they are being shipped to destinations outside the United States. License requirements are those that are applicable to the destination. Certain license exceptions may also be available.

For purposes of the EAR, shipments to embassies abroad are considered exports or reexports to the host country. License requirements for exports or reexports to the home country of the embassy are not directly applicable. However, exporters are reminded to pay particular attention to the presence of “red flags” as described in Supplement No. 3 to part 732 of the EAR. Information about a proposed transaction may suggest that the embassy is not the true ultimate destination of the shipment. For purposes of the EAR, the export or reexport of items subject to the EAR that will be transshipped in a country or countries to a new country or are intended for reexport to the new country are deemed to be exports to the new country.

The term “deemed re-export” is often used to indicate the transfer of controlled U.S. technology to a third-country national overseas. As an example, a U.S. exporter transfers its controlled proprietary technology to a firm in country A. The firm in country A, in turn, employs an individual from country B who is not a permanent employee of the firm in country A and who will need the controlled proprietary technology to perform his or her assigned duties. Before transferring this controlled technology to the country B employee, the firm in country A is responsible for obtaining any required deemed re-export licenses as if it were transferring the technology to country B. Please see Section 734.2(b)(4) of the Export Administration Regulations (EAR).

When submitting a deemed export license application, BIS recommends for every foreign national contained on the license application, the applicant or third party submitter include the US state name abbreviation immediately following the city name in either the ultimate consignee and/or end-user address blocks of the BIS-748P. The state name abbreviation should denote the locale that the foreign national will be visiting and the country name should denote the foreign country domicile where the foreign national claims citizenship. BIS recommends this data entry method because placing the state code together with the city name results in the proper display of the foreign national address information on the final validated license.

Per Part 772 of the Export Administration Regulations (EAR), "technology" is information necessary for the "development," "production," "use" operation, installation, maintenance, repair, overhaul, or refurbishing (or other terms specified in ECCNs on the CCL that control “technology”) of an item. The General Technology Note (Supplement No. 2 to part 774 of the EAR) states that the "export of technology" is controlled according to the provisions of each Category." It further states that "technology required for the development, production, or use of a controlled product remains controlled even when applicable to a product controlled at a lower level." Please note that the terms "required," "development," "production," "use," and "technology" are all defined in Part 772 of the EAR. Controlled technology is that which is defined in the General Technology Note and in the Commerce Control List (Supplement No. 1 to part 774 of the EAR).

Assuming that a license is required because the technology does not qualify for treatment under EAR99 and no license exception is available, U.S. entities must apply for an export license under the deemed export regulations when both of the following conditions are met: (1) they intend to transfer controlled technologies to foreign nationals in the United States; and (2) transfer of the same technology to the foreign national's home country would require an export license.

1) Management commitment to export compliance
2) Physical security plan
3) Information security plan
4) Personnel screening procedures
5) Training and awareness program
6) Self-evaluation program

Any foreign national is subject to the deemed export regulations except a foreign national who (1) is granted permanent residence, as demonstrated by the issuance of a permanent resident visa (i.e., Green Card); or (2) is granted U.S. citizenship; or (3) is granted status as a protected person under 8 U.S.C. 1324b(a)(3). This includes all persons in the U.S. as tourists, students, businesspeople, scholars, researchers, technical experts, sailors, airline personnel, salespeople, military personnel, diplomats, etc. As noted, one exception to this general statement is a protected person. Protected persons include political refugees and political asylum holders. Be aware that individuals seeking protected person status must satisfy all of the terms and conditions that are fully set forth in 8 U.S.C. 1324b(a)(3). It should be emphasized that although the deemed export regulations may be triggered, this does not necessarily mean that a license is required. For example, the technology may be EAR99 or license exception eligible.

As noted above, if the individual is a naturalized citizen or permanent resident of the United States, the deemed export regulations do not apply. In other words, he or she is not subject to the provisions of the deemed export regulation. For individuals who are citizens of more than one foreign country, or have citizenship in one foreign country and permanent residence in another, as a general policy, the last permanent resident status or citizenship obtained governs. Questions below provide examples of situations involving individuals who are citizens of more than one foreign country, or have citizenship in one foreign country and permanent residence in another. If, for some reason, the status of a foreign national is not certain, then you should ask the Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS), to determine where the stronger ties lie, based on the facts of the specific case. For instance, the status of a foreign national could be uncertain in situations where information may indicate involvement with prohibited entities or activities, for example, missile or nuclear-related end-uses or end-users as identified in Part 744 of the EAR. In response to a request for the status of a foreign national, BIS will look at the foreign national's family, professional, financial, and employment ties.

Release of controlled technology to that individual in the U.K. would be treated as if the shipment were being made to the U.K. and licensing requirements, if any, would be the same as for a British national in the U.K.

The Indian national's U.K. permanent residency status still drives the licensing requirements and releases of technology to him or her would be considered as transfers to the U.K.

As long as the Indian foreign national maintains his or her permanent residency status in the U.K., transfers of technology to that individual would be deemed as transfers to the U.K.

If the former Indian national becomes a British citizen, transfers of technology would be viewed as transfers to the U.K.

As a general principle, the last citizenship obtained governs. As is clear in response to the Question above, the individual's most recent citizenship is with the U.K. and releases of technology would be viewed as releases to the U.K.

The information we normally request derives from a curriculum vitae/resume or from company background checks. The information that BIS may request as part of the license application process is requested in order to determine whether BIS should authorize the release of such controlled sensitive technology. The hiring of foreign nationals is not prohibited or regulated by the Export Administration Regulations (EAR). The EAR does not regulate employment matters. The justification for the deemed export regulations is that there is no more effective way of disclosing sensitive technical information (e.g., design know-how) than to work side-by-side in a laboratory or on the production floor of a company. Our web page guidance is designed to assist you in pointing out the types of relevant information that BIS examines in connection with the license application review.

Generally, technologies subject to the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) are those which are in the United States or of U.S. origin, in whole or in part. Most are proprietary. Technologies which tend to require licensing for transfer to foreign nationals are also dual-use (i.e., have both civil and military applications) and are subject to one or more control regimes, such as National Security, Nuclear Proliferation, Missile Technology, or Chemical and Biological Warfare.

Foreign technology with U.S.-origin technology commingled to a degree above a de minimis level is considered to be subject to the EAR. Technologies which may require an export license are those which are subject to the EAR and which are listed in the Commerce Control List, see Parts 734, 738, and 774 of the EAR.

Some technologies are under the exclusive jurisdiction of another agency of the U.S. government and are not subject to the EAR. These include defense services which are under the jurisdiction of the State Department and technology related to the production of special nuclear materials which is under the jurisdiction of the Energy Department.

Still other technologies do not require any authorization because they are already published. These include patent applications; published technology and software (other than software and technology controlled as encryption items) that are already published or will be published; or technology which arises during or as a result of fundamental research. See Part 734 of the EAR for details.

The Export Administration Regulations (EAR) definitions distinguish between software and technology. Software is one of the groups within each of the categories of items listed on the Commerce Control List (CCL). Software which is delineated on the CCL is controlled.

"Fundamental research" means research in science, engineering, or mathematics, the results of which ordinarily are published and shared broadly within the research community, and for which the researchers have not accepted restrictions for proprietary or national security reasons. It is distinguished from proprietary research and from industrial development, design, production, and product utilizations, the results of which ordinarily are restricted for proprietary and/or specific national security reasons. Normally, the results of "fundamental research" are published in scientific literature, thus making it publicly available. Research which is intended for publication, whether it is ever accepted by scientific journals or not, is considered to be "fundamental research." A large segment of academic research is considered "fundamental research." Because any information, technological or otherwise, that is published is not subject to the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) (except for encryption object code and source code) and thus does not require a license, "fundamental research" is not subject to the EAR and does not require a license. Please see §734.8 for a full discussion.

If he or she is properly documented for work in the United States, you may employ him or her. You must apply for an export license if you intend to release technology listed on the Commerce Control List which would require a license for export to India.

Yes, you are required to apply for a deemed export license. Under the sanctions imposed by the U.S. Government, any export which includes transfers of technology to foreign nationals requires a license to organizations on the Entity List. Because the Indian foreign national is still employed by the organization that is on the Entity List, a technology transfer to him or her is considered a technology transfer to the employer organization. Note that the sanctions apply to any technology subject to the Export Administration Regulations (EAR).

§746.5 of the EAR, imposes licensing requirements on eight export control classification numbers (ECCN)) and fifty-three Schedule B numbers if a person knows (or is informed by BIS) that the item will be used directly or indirectly in exploration for, or production of, oil or gas in:

If the item is not listed in EAR §746.5 by ECCN or in  Supplement No. 2 to Part 746 –“Russian Industry Sector Sanctions List” - by Schedule B number, then the sanctions  do not impose any additional license requirements or exclusions on the use of EAR license exceptions. However, in making any license determination, the full scope of EAR license requirements needs to be taken into account before making a No License Required (NLR) determination, including license requirements in Part 744 of the EAR.

BIS will apply the licensing policy set forth in §746.5, "Russian Industry Sector Sanctions," to the review of all license applications for controlled items going to Russia. If the commodity, software, or technology on the license application requires a license to Russia, and if the item will be used in an activity described in §746.5(b), the license will be reviewed consistent with licensing policy in §746.5. The licensing policy in §746.5 will also be applied to license applications for items requiring a license for export, re-export or transfer to Russia that are other than those controlled under the eight ECCNs or listed in the fifty three Schedule B numbers and that are destined for any of the four prohibited end-use categories listed above.

Items with similar Schedule B numbers are not subject to license requirements in §746.5.

Russia includes the territory of Russia and any other territory or marine area, including the exclusive economic zone and continental shelf, over which the Government of Russia claims sovereignty, sovereign rights, or jurisdiction, provided that the Government of Russia exercises partial or total de facto control over the area or derives a benefit from economic activity in the area pursuant to international arrangements.

Russia includes the territory of Russia and any other territory or marine area, including the exclusive economic zone and continental shelf, over which the Government of Russia claims sovereignty, sovereign rights, or jurisdiction, provided that the Government of Russia exercises partial or total de　facto control over the area or derives a benefit from economic activity in the area pursuant to international arrangements.

Would an intra-company transfer of any of the items listed by ECCN in §746.5 or by Schedule B number in Supplement No. 2 to part 746 of the EAR be prohibited if the listed item was being moved within Russia as a transfer (in-country), for one of the restricted uses? Many oilfield services companies have inventory positioned at in-country hubs, and will use the items in inventory for providing services in Russia.

The controls set forth in §746.5 cover in-country transfers. If the transaction in Russia also involved a transfer (in-country) as defined in §772.1 of the EAR, then the EAR license requirements and restrictions on the use of license exceptions in §746.5(c) would also apply.  OFAC has also implemented sanctions specific to energy production activities, including those related to providing services for such activities.  Any questions regarding OFAC’s sanctions should be directed to OFAC.

When §746.5 refers to shale and uses the terms exploration or production in shale, do the restricted end uses apply only to situations, such as fracking, where the hydrocarbon is located in shale formations, or do they also apply to projects involving penetrating a layer of shale to reach a reservoir located below the shale formation? What about projects that involve unconventional methods of extracting oil from shale (e.g., from shale reservoirs or oil shale processing)? 

The license requirements of §746.5 of the EAR apply to the specified items when you know that the item will be used directly or indirectly in exploration for, or production of, oil or gas in Russian deepwater (greater than 500 feet) or Arctic offshore locations or shale formations in Russia, or are unable to determine whether the item will be used in such projects. Thus, the license requirement applies to exploration for, or production of, oil or gas from a shale formation. The license requirement does not apply to exploration or production through shale to locate or extract crude oil or gas in reservoirs.

The Schedule B numbers affected are in the EAR’s Supplement No. 2 to Part 746: “Russian Industry Sector Sanction List”, which can be found here. The source for the Schedule B numbers and descriptions in BIS’s list comes from the Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census’s Schedule B List which can be found here. The Introduction Chapter of the Schedule B provides important information about classifying products and interpretations of the Schedule B (e.g., NESOI means Not Elsewhere Specified or Included). In addition, important information about products within a particular chapter may be found at the beginning of each chapter.

No, that is not correct. The scope of the ECCN is limited by the control parameters included in the ECCN. The scope of the license requirements for ECCN 0A998 is limited to the license requirements in §746.5 of the EAR, which specifies the license requirements and license review policy that apply to the items identified in that section, including new ECCN 0A998. Note however, that if you propose to export, reexport or transfer (in-country) seismic data, equipment or software to Russia but do not know what type of project the items will be used in, a license is required. Also note that in making a license determination under the EAR, the full scope of the EAR license requirements need to be considered, including those in Part 744 that in certain cases impose a license requirement for all items subject to the EAR when the items are for certain prohibited end uses or end users as defined in Part 744.

Yes, software for the design and analysis of hydraulic fracturing is the only software controlled in ECCN 0A998. Note that BIS is making an exception to its general policy of not including software in "A" product group ECCNs and is including this software in ECCN 0A998.

For purposes of §746.5, oil and gas exploration data is treated as a commodity, not software or technology. Therefore, the scenario described would not trigger the one-time reporting requirement, as specified in §734.4. In addition, the de minimis procedures for commodities would apply (see §734.4 and Supplement No. 2 to part 734 for information on the EAR’s de minimis provisions and the procedures for making de minimis calculations). However, regardless of whether the data being processed was subject to the EAR, providing such a service by a U.S. person for such end uses in Russia would in most cases likely be prohibited by OFAC.  As noted above, questions specific to the OFAC restrictions, should be directed to OFAC.

The U.S. Government is aware that there are different depths for what is considered deep water. The "greater than 500 feet" standard is a bright line standard that is used by the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Ocean Management for what constitutes deep water, and helped to inform BIS’s decision to use "greater than 500 feet" as part of the criteria in §746.5 of the EAR. For reference, the U.S. Department of the Interior’s, Bureau of Ocean Management outlines the criteria for what constitutes deep water here.

The high pressure pumps controlled under ECCN 0A998.b.3 are not limited to fracking operations, but include all those that will be used directly or indirectly in exploration for, or production of, oil or gas in Russian deepwater (greater than 500 feet) or Arctic offshore locations or shale formations in Russia or that will be used in an unknown end use. Keep in mind that any pump that is listed under a Schedule B number in Supplement No. 2 to part 746 and any pump classified under an ECCN that requires a license to Russia is also subject to §746.5.

The rule does not apply to or prohibit the transshipment through Russia items identified in §746.5 of the EAR if the items are intended for use in oil and gas activities in third countries. Parties to the transaction should be diligent to be aware of any red flags in the transaction that indicate the items may be intended for any prohibitions under §746.5 or intended for other prohibited purposes under the EAR.

The only license exception available to ship the items identified in §746.5 of the EAR is §740.11(b), a subparagraph of license exception “Government, international organizations, international inspections under the Chemical Weapons Convention, and the International Space Station” (GOV).

The applicability of de minimis is not end-user/use based. It is destination based. Therefore, the items that are subject to license requirements under §746.5 of the EAR should not be included as controlled content in calculating the de minimis percentage of an item proposed for re-export to Russia.

The following language will be included on every license issued by the Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS): "Unless limited by a condition set forth below, the export, reexport or transfer (in-country) authorized by this license is for the item(s), end-use(s), and parties described in the license application and any letters of explanation. The applicant is responsible for informing the other parties identified on the license, such as ultimate consignees and end-users, of the license's scope and of the specific conditions applicable to them. BIS has granted this license in reliance on representations the applicant made in the license application, letters of explanation, and other documents submitted."

The Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS), in coordination with our interagency partners, made the change as part of our ongoing efforts to rationalize and make more consistent the use of conditions on BIS licenses. The purpose of the change is to eliminate, to the greatest extent possible, the inclusion of requirements and prohibitions included in the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) as conditions on validated licenses. BIS is eliminating conditions specifying requirements and prohibitions included in the EAR from licenses because the EAR's conditions and requirements are applicable to all exports, reexports and transfers (in-country) of items subject to the EAR as a matter of law; inclusion of such conditions on licenses is redundant.

BIS began issuing license with the language on December 8, 2014.

As the new language will eliminate the need to include license conditions specifying requirements and prohibitions included in the EAR, BIS expects that licenses issued after December 8, 2014 will generally have a smaller number of conditions as compared to licenses issued before December 8, 2014.

The new language will allow BIS and its interagency partners to process license applications more efficiently, thereby facilitating business activities. License applicants should note that the new language clarifies that BIS's licenses authorize the transaction(s) described in the license application and any letters of explanation. Therefore, license applications submitted with specific and detailed information will be processed more efficiently than those sibmitting general or incomplete information.

Generally speaking, the use of imprecise language on a license application causes processing delays and/or the inclusion of additional conditions. Imprecise language (e.g., phrases such as "including but not limited to") creates the impression that the license applicant is unsure or undecided about the details of the proposed transaction, therefore creating a requirement for BIS and its interagency partners to impose restrictions (in the form of conditions) on the license in order to protect the United States' national security and foreign policy interests.

Not necessarily. Including precise information increases the chance that your license will be issued more quickly and with fewer conditions than it otherwise would be.

Selected examples are as follows:

No, not if the technology is subject to the EAR, requires a license for export to the planned destination, and is not eligible for shipment under a license exception. Licenses issued by BIS authorize the export, reexport or transfer (in-country) of only the items specifically listed on the license.

If the equipment is not eligible for shipment without a license (i.e., "no license required" or NLR) or under a license exception to end users not specified on your license, you may not ship to the additional end users without additional authorization from BIS.

No, it does not.

A license condition is a requirement on the parties to the transaction named on the license. Violation of a license condition is a violation of the EAR and may be subject to administrative or criminal penalties.

Please call BIS's Export Counseling Division at (202) 482-4811, BIS's Western Regional Office at (949) 660-0144 or BIS's Northern California branch office at (408) 998-8806. You may also send an e-mail to [email protected]. Please include a telephone number for call-back purposes within your e-mail.

The information provided with your application should include technical specifications or brochures on the items you wish to export. Information that substantiates the legitimate activities of the end-user should be supplied as well. You should also include import or end-user certificates if the item is also subject to national security controls. For items to be used in a missile project or program, at a minimum, always specify the maximum capable range and payload of the delivery system or launch vehicle. Any information regarding the specific project or program should be provided; note if there is any U.S. government funding or oversight involved. You can also include open source information from Web sites, marketing brochures, etc. All of this information will assist licensing officers in their evaluation, determination, and licensing recommendations for the case. Including this information could prevent potential delays in the processing of the case and avoid a return of the application without action. The documentation requirements for export license applications are explained in detail in Part 748 of the EAR.

I am a manufacturer of inertial navigation systems (INS) that are controlled for Missile Technology (MT) reasons. We often get calls from airlines for replacement of broken bench stock spares or INS units in permanent service. Are there any license exceptions that I can use?

Yes, depending upon the situation, License Exceptions TMP, RPL, TSU, and AVS may be available for these types of items related to safety of flight. See Part 740 of the EAR for an explanation of when these license exceptions may apply.

Yes. Section 1512 of the Strom Thurmond National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) requires a Presidential certification to Congress prior to the export to China of missile technology controlled items, except for certain items used in manned aircraft. Authority for this certification has been delegated to the Secretary of Commerce, however, they can still take several months, and you should allow for substantial processing time for these applications. The Secretary must certify that the export will not be detrimental to the U.S. space launch industry and will not measurably improve the missile or space launch capabilities of China.

Items not specifically controlled for MT reasons can also be controlled under section 744.3 of the EAR ("catch-all", or EPCI, controls). Items require a license if they will be used in the design, development, production, or use of:

In the MTCR, as well as the Nuclear Suppliers Group and the Australia Group, there is a "no undercut" policy. This means that if your license is denied because the United States determined it was detrimental to national security or foreign policy, the United States will notify the other members of the regime, who have agreed to consult with the United States before approving an export of the same or similar items to the same end-user. This does not apply to "catch all" denials of items not on the MTCR annex, but in practice many countries take into consideration denials by regime partners when reviewing other license applications.

The term "Enhanced Proliferation Control Initiative" is not defined or generally used in the Export Administration Regulations. Under its original meaning, it included both the list-based controls on missile related items (as well as chemical, biological, and nuclear items) and controls on normally uncontrolled items that need a license because of the end-use or end-user. The term "EPCI" has come to be used informally to refer to the latter "catch all" controls, and refers to the controls set out in section 744 of the EAR.

No, there are no EPCI (catch-all) controls on the manufacture of conventional arms. Conventional arms production is not an activity set out in Part 744 of the EAR. However, you need to determine if there are any activities that are described in Part 744 (i.e. missile/nuclear/chemical-biological weapons) at this facility.

Written materials that are publicly available, such as college textbooks, are not subject to the Export Administration Regulations. However, a "U.S. person," as that term is defined in the EAR, may not support certain missile activities in any of a number of ways, including the provision of goods, the performance of a contract, and employment. See Part 744.6. While the textbooks would not, in themselves require an export license, they could be part of the impermissible support that a U.S. person is providing to a missile project and amount to a violation of the EAR.

Any license application can be reviewed for all proliferation concerns (not only those stated in the reasons for control.) In this instance, the item was denied because the transaction would make a material contribution to the proliferation of missiles.

When reviewing licenses for items caught under section 744.3 of the EAR, the following factors will be taken into consideration:

Items other than some radar, accelerometers, gyros and corresponding test equipment, software, and technology may be exported as part of a manned aircraft, land vehicle, or marine vehicle or as replacement parts for such under license exceptions TMP, RPL, TSU, and AVS. Anti-friction bearing and bearing systems (2A001) or radial ball bearings (2A101) may be exported under TMP or RPL as one-for-one replacement for equipment previously exported.

The MTCR considers missile systems or unmanned aerial vehicles that have a range of 300 km and the ability to carry a payload of 500 kg as Category I, and there is a strong presumption of denial for the export of such items. Category II missile systems and unmanned aerial vehicles are those that have a range of 300 km, but do not have the payload capability of Category I. Export of Category II systems are evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Both Category I and Category II items are MTCR-controlled. Missile systems or unmanned aerial vehicles that do not meet the range and payload capabilities of Category I and Category II are not MTCR-controlled. While most Category I and II complete systems fall under the jurisdiction of the Department of State, these categorizations can impact the licensing decisions on dual-use (Commerce controlled) commodities when evaluating the intended end use of the items, the capabilities of the destination country, and the risk of diversion of items.

The Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) publishes the names of certain foreign persons – including businesses, research institutions, government and private organizations, individuals, and other types of legal persons - that are subject to specific license requirements for the export, reexport and/or transfer (in-country) of specified items.  These persons comprise the Entity List, which is found at Supplement No. 4 to Part 744 of the Export Administration Regulations (EAR).  The persons on the Entity List are subject to individual licensing requirements and policies supplemental to those found elsewhere in the EAR.

You should check the Entity List because exports, reexports, and/or transfers (in-country) to those persons named on the Entity List are subject to licensing requirements and policies in addition to those elsewhere in the EAR.  Failure to adhere to EAR licensing requirements is a violation of the EAR and could result in criminal and/or civil penalties.  BIS recommends that exporters screen the parties to transactions against the Entity List as a standard part of pre-transaction due diligence activities.

The removal of an entity from the Entity List removes only the additional license requirements imposed by its listing on the Entity List, and does not modify the other license requirements that may be applicable under the EAR (i.e., as a result of an item’s classification on the CCL or the proposed country of destination for the export, reexport, or transfer (in-country)). Additionally, if you know or have been informed that the item proposed for export, reexport, or transfer (in-country) will be used in nuclear, missile, and/or chemical and biological weapons programs, you must seek a license pursuant to the requirements found in Part 744 of the EAR. You should also consult the other export screening lists maintained by BIS and other U.S. Government agencies to determine whether other license requirements or sanctions apply. In summary, you should conduct the same due diligence as you would for any other export, reexport, or transfer (in-country) of items subject to the EAR.

No, not all sections of Part 744 of the EAR (which defines the criteria for possible inclusion on the Entity List) require that a person’s alleged activity involve items subject to the EAR.  Section 744.11, for example, requires that the person’s activities be contrary to U.S. national security and/or foreign policy interests but does not require that the activities involve items subject to the EAR.

A BIS license is required prior to such a transaction. As stated in § 744.11(a), a license is required for the export, reexport, or transfer (in-country) of items subject to the EAR when an entity on the Entity List is a party to the transaction as described in § 748.5(c)-(f). Parties to the transaction may include purchasers, intermediate consignees (such as forwarding agents), ultimate consignees, and end-users. Any application for such a license will be reviewed in accordance with the License Review Policy associated with the listed entity on the Entity List. This policy is, most commonly, a presumption of denial. BIS also recommends consulting the other export screening lists maintained by the U.S. Government to ensure that any listed entity performing an activity (e.g., services) not subject to the EAR does not violate sanctions or restrictions administered by other U.S. Government agencies. 

A BIS license is required prior to such a transaction. As stated in § 744.11(a), a license is required for the export, reexport, or transfer (in-country) of items subject to the EAR when an entity on the Entity List is a party to the transaction as described in § 748.5(c)-(f). Parties to the transaction may include purchasers, intermediate consignees (such as forwarding agents), ultimate consignees, and end-users. Any application for such a license will be reviewed in accordance with the License Review Policy associated with the listed entity on the Entity List. This policy is, most commonly, a presumption of denial. BIS also recommends consulting the other export screening lists maintained by the U.S. Government to ensure that any listed entity performing an activity (e.g., services) not subject to the EAR does not violate sanctions or restrictions administered by other U.S. Government agencies.

The list of qualified VEUs is in Supplement No. 7 to Part 748 of the Export Administration Regulations (EAR). The list of qualified VEUs can be accessed here. If you would like to subscribe to BIS’s email notification service that will alert you when BIS publishes rules in the Federal Register, including rules implementing changes to the VEU List, please click here.

Currently, any entity in an eligible country may apply for the VEU program.  Exporters and reexporters may also apply on behalf of entities in eligible destinations.  Applicants must clearly demonstrate the end-user’s ability to comply with the requirements of the VEU program.  Such requirements include using the items shipped under Authorization VEU for civil end-uses only and the provision of the end-user’s written consent for the U.S. Government to conduct periodic on-site reviews at VEU facilities. 

A “validated end-user” (VEU) is an entity that has been qualified as a participant in the VEU program.  For each VEU, the EAR lists “eligible destinations,” which are the specific facilities of each VEU that are authorized to receive specified eligible items under Authorization VEU.  A VEU may be listed with one or many eligible facilities, but note that VEUs may own or operate facilities that are not eligible destinations.  Facilities owned or operated by VEUs that are not specifically listed as eligible destinations in Supplement No. 7 to Part 748 of the EAR are not eligible to receive items under Authorization VEU.

Each application for VEU authorization must include an original statement on letterhead, signed and dated by a person who has legal authority to bind the applicant, certifying that the end-user will comply with all VEU requirements.  Furthermore, the letter must state that the end-user:

Requests for authorization will be accepted from exporters, reexporters, or end-users who submit to the following addresses:

There is no time limit on VEU status.  However, the U.S. Government may amend or revoke a VEU’s status at any time, as circumstances warrant.  The U.S. Government will revoke qualification as a VEU if sufficient information exists to demonstrate that an organization is no longer capable of, or is not complying with, the requirements of the VEU program.  Changes made to the VEU program and published in the Federal Register, such as eligible destination changes or other program-based amendments, might also impact the VEU status of a particular entity.

No. Authorization VEU can also be used for the reexport and transfer (in-country) of qualified items from a location outside of the United States to a VEU.

The guidance in §750.7(i) of the EAR (“Terminating license conditions”) applies to items authorized for shipment under Authorization VEU.  If an item authorized for shipment under Authorization VEU as an “eligible item” no longer requires a license for export, reexport, or transfer (in-country) to VEU eligible destinations as the result of a change to the Commerce Control List (Part 774 of the EAR), then the conditions and limitations of the VEU program and of the VEU’s specific VEU authorization no longer apply to the shipment or to the ongoing use by the VEU of the affected item as of the date of the final publication of the rule implementing the lessening or elimination of export control requirements.

The End-User Review Committee (ERC), composed of representatives of the Departments of State, Defense, Energy, and Commerce, and other agencies as appropriate, is responsible for determining whether to add to, to remove from, or otherwise amend the list of VEUs and associated eligible items. The Department of Commerce chairs the ERC.

Yes, applicants can ask the ERC to reconsider decisions with respect to the disposition of their own applications, and VEUs may ask the ERC to reconsider decisions with respect to amendments of their own VEU authorizations.  The ERC asks that any such request be made in writing and include information additional to that already provided to the ERC and specific to the basis for the request for reconsideration.

Yes. The U.S. Government consults on a regular basis with the governments of both China and India.  Prospective VEU applicants should be aware that the governments of VEU-eligible countries may have their own requirements specific to the VEU program and application thereof.

A.1: "600 series" refers to ECCNs in the "xY6zz" format on the Commerce Control List (CCL). Items controlled under the "600 series" were previously controlled on the United States Munitions List (USML) or are covered by the Wassenaar Arrangement Munitions List (WAML) and include certain items formerly classified under ECCNs ending in -018. The "6" indicates the entry is a munitions entry on the CCL. The "x" represents the CCL category (0 through 9) and "Y" the CCL product group (A through E). In most cases, the "zz" represents the WAML category. The "600 series" constitutes the munitions ECCNs within the larger CCL.

      A.2: Yes. The table below shows the new ECCNs that have been added to the EAR since the export control reform effort began in 2013. The table shows the dates on which the final rule that implemented the ECCNs was published, and the dates on which the final rules became effective. The last column in the table shows the USML category that is related to the new ECCNs.

        A.3: Yes, items from USML categories IV, V, IX, and X: military training equipment, energetic materials, personal protective equipment, shelters, articles related to launch vehicles, missiles, rockets, military explosives, and related items have been added to the "600 series" of the CCL. To follow transfers from the ITAR USML to the EAR CCL, see the ECR dashboard at

The manufacturer of the aircraft, the Lockheed Martin Corporation, and the Department of State have confirmed that all models and versions of both types of aircraft are within the scope of USML Category VIII(a)(14) (22 CFR § 121.1). This means that parts, components, accessories, and attachments for use in or with the C-130 or L-100/L-382 aircraft that are not enumerated or otherwise described on the USML are controlled under ECCN 9A610.x, or if specifically identified in 9A610.y, controlled under 9A610.y, unless one of the release provisions in paragraph (b) to the EAR's definition of "specially designed" applies (15 CFR § 772.1). In addition, the Rolls Royce 501 D engine used on L-100/L-382 aircraft and other aircraft in production controlled under ECCN 9A991, is controlled under ECCN 9A991.d. Parts common to the T-56 military engine used on the C-130 and other military aircraft and the 501 D used on the L-100/L-382 aircraft are also controlled under ECCN 9A991.d.

Q.5: What is the classification of parts and components that are (a) not enumerated or otherwise described on the USML, (b) common to the C-130 and L-100/L-382 aircraft and also common to aircraft in production controlled under ECCN 9A991, and (c) not enumerated or described on the CCL other than in 9A991.d?

ECCN 9A991.d.

A.1: Any reexport or transfer of an item under License Exception STA without obtaining and maintaining a prior consignee statement is a violation of the EAR. BIS routinely conducts end-use checks on items authorized for export under STA and will request the foreign party to produce a copy of a prior consignee statement if the item was subsequently reexported or transferred under License Exception STA. If the foreign party cannot provide such documentation, the foreign person may be subject to BIS enforcement action.

Q.2. The STA prior consignee statement requires a non-government consignee of a “600 series” item received under STA (either as an export, reexport, or transfer) to agree to an end-use check. Does this mean that an item exported under the “600 series” under other Commerce authorizations, including a license or another license exception, is not subject to an end-use check?

A.3: No. BIS understands that transactions are different and that there are multiple ways to satisfy the educational and recordkeeping objectives of the certification requirements in License Exception STA. Thus, when creating the license exception, BIS did not prescribe that a specific form be used. In response to this question, however, BIS has created the following template following the regulatory text that could be inserted into a form. If completed fully and accurately, the certification requirement of License Exception STA would be satisfied.

CLICK HERE for the template for "600 series" items

CLICK HERE for the template for the 9x515 items

CLICK HERE for the template for other items

Q.4. I exported under License Exception STA a “600 series” item to a defense contractor in a Country Group A:5 country for the ultimate end use by the military of that Country Group A:5 country. I have already obtained a prior consignee statement from that defense contractor in the Country Group A:5 country who received and currently possesses the “600 series” item, but do I also need to obtain a separate prior consignee statement from the Country Group A:5 government itself before the defense contractor can furnish that “600 series” item to the Country Group A:5 military?

A.5. License Exception STA authorizes certain exports, reexports and transfers (in-country). The most likely scenario for use of License Exception STA to transfer (in-country) would be to comply with the terms of a license. In this scenario, the original export was authorized under a Commerce license to a Country Group A:5 country or the export was authorized under an ITAR license or other approval as a USML paragraph (x) item under the section 120.5(b) process, such as to a defense contractor (Defense Contractor A), and subsequently the defense contractor needed to go outside the scope of the original Commerce license or State license or other approval, such as by selling the "600 series" item to another defense contractor (Defense Contractor B) in that same Country Group A:5 country who was not authorized under the original export license. In this example, Defense Contractor B was not listed on the original license as an authorized end user, and therefore an EAR authorization is required to transfer to Defense Contractor B. If Defense Contractor B will use the "600 series" item for manufacturing a military item for the Country Group A:5 military, then the transfer (in-country) could most likely be authorized under License Exception STA. (Note that you must also then obtain a prior consignee statement from Defense Contractor B, along with satisfying any other applicable requirements of License Exception STA, before you can permit Defense Contractor A to transfer the "600 series" item to Defense Contractor B in reliance on License Exception STA).

A.6. You would not need to obtain a prior consignee statement from the Country Group A:5 government because you would not need to use License Exception STA for such an export or reexport. Any "600-series" item that may be exported from the United States to a Country Group A:5 military under License Exception STA may be sent to that same consignee under License Exception GOV under section 740.11, paragraph (c)(2)(ii)(A). License Exception GOV does not include a prior consignee statement requirement.

A.1: "Temporary," for purposes of paragraph (b)(2)(iii) of License Exception GOV, means four years from the date of an item's export, reexport, or transfer (in-country) it must be returned to the exporter, reexporter, or transferor, or its disposition otherwise authorized in accordance with the EAR.

A 2: No. Paragraph (b)(2)(iii)(C) may only be used when you know that the item will be temporarily exported, reexported, or transferred (in-country).

A.3: No. For purposes of paragraph (b)(2)(iii)(B), the term "international organization" does not include non-governmental organizations.

A.4: No, it does not. The cooperative program, project, agreement, or arrangement between the U.S. Government and the foreign government, international organization or agency at issue must be in force and effect, but the items do not need to be consigned to the foreign government, international organization or agency. For example, the exporter may export directly to a non-governmental organization or aid recipient, provided there was an agreement between the U.S. Government and the foreign government, international organization or agency, and the non-governmental organization was assisting the foreign government, international organization or agency with implementing the cooperative program, project, agreement or arrangement, or the aid recipients were the intended beneficiaries of the program or agreement with the U.S. Government. In such cases, the consignee must be a documented participant in the program, project, agreement, or arrangement. The responsible U.S. Government agency must certify to the exporter that the consignee is a participant.

A.5: According to Federal Acquisition Regulation 52.245-1, "'Government-furnished property' means property in the possession of, or directly acquired by, the Government and subsequently furnished to the Contractor for performance of a contract. Government-furnished property includes, but is not limited to, spares and property furnished for repair, maintenance, overhaul, or modification. Government-furnished property also includes contractor-acquired property if the contractor-acquired property is a deliverable under a cost contract when accepted by the Government for continued use under the contract."  For purposes of paragraph (b)(2)(iii)(E), BIS uses this same definition for Government Furnished Equipment (GFE).

Q.6: I am trying to understand what “solely” for United States Government use means in the context of paragraph (b)(2)(iii)(A). For example, if a contractor who maintains a supply and repair depot for off-road vehicles used by USAID will use parts and components that are to be exported to a contractor solely for the use of maintaining and repairing those off-road vehicles for USAID, would that be within the scope of paragraph (b)(2)(iii)(A) even though the parts and components are not consigned to USAID and are being used by the contractor?

A.1: The CCL Order of Review is set forth in new Supplement No. 4 to Part 774 of the EAR, effective October 15, 2013. As a result of the addition of the "600 series" ECCNs and the addition of the "specially designed" definition, the order of reviewing ECCNs in the CCL to classify your product has changed. The new guidance will help you to identify correct classifications for your products and therefore reach correct export license decisions to comply with the EAR. The BIS website provides an order of review decision tree tool that will take you through the steps at

A:2: The Department of State has also adopted an Order of Review. When classifying your product, you should always begin with the USML Order of Review. If you determine the item in question is not subject to the ITAR because it is not enumerated or otherwise described on the USML and that it is not subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of another agency (such as the Nuclear Regulatory Commission), the item is subject to the EAR. You should then start your analysis of the CCL and may consult the CCL Order of Review.

A:3: First, you will determine the CCL category that applies to the item. In certain cases you may need to review more than one CCL category. Next you will determine the CCL Product Group, A, B, C, D, or E. This will significantly narrow your search of the CCL as you focus in on that part of the CCL in which your item is classified.

A.4: Yes. As you begin to review the actual ECCNs on the CCL, you will review the "600 series" to determine if the item is described in a paragraph that does not use "specially designed." If you see the item described in the "600 series," you stop. The item is described in the "600 series," and that is the final classification. However, if the applicable "600 series" paragraph uses "specially designed" as part of the control parameter you will need to determine if the item is, in fact, "specially designed." The results of this will determine if your item is classified in the "600 series" or in another ECCN.

A.5: You review the beginning of the CCL Category you identified, starting with the "000 series" and working your way toward the end of the CCL category. As you review those other ECCNs, if you see the item enumerated or otherwise described in a paragraph that does not use "specially designed," that is the classification of your item in that ECCN. As you conduct the analysis of these other ECCNs outside the "600 series," you may run into a paragraph that uses "specially designed" as part of the control parameter. In these cases, you would conduct an analysis of "specially designed" for the item in this non-"600 series" ECCN. If the item is "specially designed," the item is classified as a "specially designed" item outside the "600 series." This is the end of the classification analysis.

A.6: If you complete your analysis of the entire CCL and you have not identified an ECCN in which the item is classified, the item is not elsewhere specified on the CCL and therefore is designated as EAR99. This is the end of the classification analysis and also the end of the CCL Order of Review.

A:7: The questions asked in the decision tool are based on the EAR, so provided you are answering the questions correctly based on the correct facts, you should arrive at the same conclusion whether you are reviewing the EAR or using the decision tool. However, you are still liable for any violations of the EAR you commit based on an incorrect classification or other action, which is true whether you are reviewing the EAR or using one of the decision tools.

A:8: You may contact Timothy Mooney by email: [email protected] or by telephone at (202) 482-2440 for questions specific to the CCL Order of Review Decision Tool. The Office of Exporter Services at (202) 482-4811 or [email protected] is also available to answer questions about the EAR, including those related to the CCL Order of Review Decision Tool.

A.1: The term is defined in 15 CFR Part 772 of the EAR in § 772.1.

A.2: The new definition of "specially designed" was added to the EAR through the April 16, 2013 Initial Implementation of Export Control Reform (ECR) final rule (78 FR 22660). The new definition became effective October 15, 2013.

A.3: You only need to review the definition of "specially designed" when the paragraph you are reviewing uses the term "specially designed." See Specially Designed Q.4. below in regards to the CCL Order of Review. There is a decision tree tool for "specially designed" at http://www.bis.doc.gov/index.php/specially-designed-tool. To access the webinar on the "Export Control Reform Initiative - Implementation and Specially Designed" that was broadcast on April 17 by Assistant Secretary Wolf you can either:

A.4: The Commerce Control List Order of Review in Supplement No. 4 to Part 774 was added to the EAR through the April 16, 2013 Initial Implementation of ECR final rule. The CCL Order of Review consists of six steps that guide you through how to analyze the CCL, starting with the "600 series" and then reviewing the other ECCNs on the CCL. The CCL Order of Review specifies when you need to analyze "specially designed" as part of the larger review of the CCL, both when reviewing the "600 series" and then, if needed, when reviewing other ECCNs on the CCL.

A.5: The same definition of "specially designed" applies to all ECCN provisions that use the term "specially designed" as a control parameter.

A:6: Yes, it is possible you may need to review "specially designed" more than one time (potentially one time under the ITAR, and two times under the EAR) as you progress through the analysis of the USML and CCL. You always start your review with the USML following the new USML Order of Review (see 22 CFR 121.1(b)(1)). Under the USML Order of Review, you may need to conduct an analysis of whether an item is "specially designed" under the ITAR. This review is done using the ITAR definition of "specially designed" (see 22 CFR 120.41) If the item is subject to the EAR, you will follow the CCL Order of Review. In following the CCL Order of Review, you may need to review the EAR "specially designed" definition for the "600 series." If you determine the item is not classified in the "600 series," you will need to review the rest of the CCL. As part of the review of the rest of the CCL, you may need to conduct a third analysis of "specially designed." This is why the review of "specially designed" is sometimes referred to as a cascading review.

A.7: The Departments of State and Commerce have adopted essentially the same definition of "specially designed." There are slight differences in the definitions to make them EAR specific and ITAR specific, but both definitions are based on the catch-and-release construct. In addition, once you become familiar with one definition (either the EAR definition or ITAR definition), it will be easier for you to understand the other definition because they are constructed in the same way. However, it is important to understand that you only use the ITAR "specially designed" definition when reviewing the ITAR and the EAR "specially designed" definition when reviewing the EAR.

A.8: No, you would need to review the EAR "specially designed" definition to make such a determination. If the item is subject to the EAR and you are following the CCL Order of Review to make a determination whether an item is "specially designed," you must review the EAR "specially designed" definition and NOT the ITAR definition of "specially designed." This is very important to understand because in many cases an item that is not "specially designed" under the ITAR would be "specially designed" under the EAR, such as under a "600 series" .x paragraph. This same concept also applies for the review of "specially designed" under the "600 series" ECCNs and the rest of the CCL. The EAR "specially designed" definition is used for both "600 series" and other ECCNs on the CCL, but even if the item is not a "600 series" "specially designed" item, it still could be a "specially designed" item elsewhere on the CCL, if you are reviewing a paragraph that uses "specially designed."

A.9: Paragraph (a)(1) uses the broader term items (meaning commodities, technology and software) because it applies more broadly than paragraph (a)(2). Paragraph (a)(1) is primarily used for determining whether end items or materials are "specially designed." In certain ECCN paragraphs, "parts," "components," "accessories," "attachments" or "software" have a control parameter for "parts," "components," "accessories," "attachments" or "software" "specially designed" for a particular function or performance characteristics and in these ECCNs an analysis of (a)(1) would be done.

A.10: Paragraph (a)(2) was needed because for "parts," "components," "accessories," "attachments," or "software" a broader ‘catch’ was needed.

A:11: Yes. This is a good time saving shortcut. For catch-all paragraphs, such as ECCN 9A610.x or any other paragraph that uses "specially designed" that controls unspecified "parts," "components," "accessories," "attachments" or "software," skipping paragraph (a)(1) and proceeding directly to (a)(2) is the best approach to save time. Remember, for "parts," "components," "accessories," "attachments," "software," if ‘caught’ under (a)(1) or (a)(2) it is "specially designed," unless ‘released’ from "specially designed" under paragraph (b).

A.12: Yes. In this case, the item is not "specially designed."

A.13: Because the CCL uses the term "specially designed" as a control parameter (to let you know what is controlled under a particular ECCN) and also in a small number of ECCNs as a decontrol parameter (to let you know what is not controlled under a particular ECCN), the introductory text to paragraph (b) includes the word controlled. What this means is that if you are reviewing a paragraph on the CCL that uses "specially designed" as part of a decontrol, such as a decontrol note, in those cases you review paragraph (a) of "specially designed," but you do NOT review paragraph (b). Provided the "part," "component," "accessory," "attachment" or "software" met the criteria of paragraph (a), as well as any other criteria specified in the respective decontrol on the CCL, the "part," "component," "accessory," "attachment," or "software" would be "specially designed" for purposes of the decontrol. In simple terms, the decontrols on the CCL that use "specially designed" and the paragraph (b) ‘releases’ are trying to ‘release’ the same types of "parts," "components," "accessories," "attachments," or "software" from control, so the use of the term controlled in the introductory text of paragraph (b) clarifies the applicability of (b) for such decontrols that use "specially designed."

Q.14: If I believe the “part,” “component,” “accessory,” “attachment,” or “software” I am classifying is likely ‘released’ under paragraph (b) because it likely meets the criteria of one of the paragraph (b) ‘releases,’ is it acceptable to skip paragraph (a) and proceed immediately to reviewing paragraph (b) first?

A.15: No. The "part," "component," "accessory," "attachment," or "software" only needs to meet one of the paragraph (b) ‘releases’ in order to be ‘released’ from "specially designed," but in certain cases a "part," "component," "accessory," "attachment," or "software" may meet more than one of the paragraph (b) ‘releases.’ The result is the same. The "part," "component," "accessory," "attachment," or "software" is not "specially designed."

Q.16: If I have a past commodity jurisdiction determination (CJ) from the Department of State that indicated my item is not subject to the ITAR, and at that time, it was classified on the CCL in a paragraph that does not use “specially designed” or was EAR99, will that past CJ be preserved?

Q.17: If I complete the analysis of “specially designed” for my “component” that is subject to the EAR and determine the “component” is “specially designed,” is there any process under the EAR whereby I can request a U.S. Government review to determine whether the “component” does not warrant being “specially designed?”

A.17: Yes, see paragraph (b)(1) of "specially designed" and § 748.3(e) (Classification requests to confirm that a "part," "component," "accessory" "attachment" or "software" is not "specially designed"). Under the § 748.3(e) process, if the Departments of Commerce, Defense and State all concur that a "part," "component," "accessory," "attachment," or "software" does not warrant being "specially designed," BIS can issue a classification specifying that the "part," "component," "accessory," "attachment," or "software" is not "specially designed" and provide a classification in an ECCN paragraph that does not use "specially designed" or an EAR99 designation. However, before submitting such a classification request, you should review the entire "specially designed" definition. Your submission should include information on why the item does not meet any of the paragraph (b) tests.

A.18: In developing the objective criteria for "specially designed," the U.S. Government avoided using subjective criteria, such as the term insignificant as part of the ‘release’ criteria under paragraph (b). However, paragraph (b)(2) does specify certain "parts," and minor "components," such as fasteners, screws, and bolts that, because of their insignificance are specified as not being "specially designed." This applies regardless of what they were developed for, which materials they are made of, or what item they are used in.

A.19: No, only those "parts" or minor "components" (e.g., nut plate) identified in paragraph (b)(2) can be ‘released’ under (b)(2). The "part" or "component," in question, however, may still be ‘released’ from "specially designed" if it meets the criteria of another ‘release’ under paragraph (b) (i.e., (b)(1), (b)(3), (b)(4), (b)(5) or (b)(6)).

Q.20: The “component” I am classifying was “developed” twenty years ago. I am not the original equipment manufacturer (OEM), so I don’t have “knowledge” of what it was “developed” for, but I do “know” it is currently used in basic consumer items in “production” that are designated EAR99 or in ECCNs that are only controlled for AT reasons on the CCL. Are there any ‘releases’ under “specially designed” that address this scenario?

A.21: No, the original "development" history is not relevant when applying the paragraph (b)(3) "production" ‘release.’ For paragraph (b)(3), once the "part," "component," "accessory," "attachment," or "software" meets the criteria of paragraph (b)(3)(i) and is used in or with an item that meets the criteria under (b)(3)(ii), it is no longer "specially designed," regardless of the original design intent.

A.22: The "part," "component," "accessory," "attachment," or "software" would need to meet the criteria in the introductory text of paragraph (b)(3) – meaning it has to have the same function, performance capabilities, and the same or ‘equivalent’ form and fit as a "part," "component," "accessory," "attachment," or "software" used in an item that meets the criteria of (b)(3)(ii), such as an EAR99 pick-up truck or an (Anti-Terrorism) AT-only controlled aircraft that is in "production." If it is the same "part," "component," "accessory," "attachment," or "software" used in the AT-only ECCN item or in an EAR99 item that is in "production," applying paragraph (b)(3) is simpler. The criteria under paragraph (b)(3) also allow for "parts," "components," "accessories," "attachments," or "software" that have the same function, performance capabilities, and the same or ‘equivalent’ form and fit.

A.23: Equivalent means the form has been modified solely for fit purposes. The function and performance capabilities must be the same. Any change in form besides a change solely for fit purposes would mean the "part," "component," "accessory," "attachment" or "software" is not ‘equivalent.’

 A.24: Here is an example of a fuel pump for an aircraft. In the first example, the fuel pump is considered ‘equivalent.’ In the second example, it is not considered ‘equivalent.’

Q.25: Are there paragraph (b) ‘releases’ that address scenarios where the “part,” “component,” “accessory,” “attachment,” or “software” was or is being “developed” for use in or with commodities or software described in ECCNs and also for use in or with EAR99 items or items described in AT-only ECCNs?

A.25: Paragraph (b)(4) addresses these types of scenarios. Provided you have documentation contemporaneous with its "development" establishing "knowledge" that the "part," "component," "accessory," "attachment," or "software" was "developed" for use also in or with AT-only or EAR99 items, paragraph (b)(4) would serve as a ‘release’ from "specially designed."

A.26: Paragraph (b)(6) is similar to paragraph (b)(4), but the paragraph (b)(6) ‘release’ is specific to AT-only ECCNs that use "specially designed." Under the paragraph (b)(6) ‘release,’ if the "part," "component," "accessory," "attachment," or "software" was "developed" for use in or with AT-only ECCNs and also EAR99 commodities or software, it would not be "specially designed." Or if the "part," "component," "accessory" was "developed" exclusively for EAR99 commodities or software, it would not be "specially designed." Under both of these scenarios to be ‘released’ from "specially designed" you must have documentation from the "development" phase meeting the paragraph (b)(6) criteria."

Q.27: Under paragraph (b)(4), (b)(5) and (b)(6), does it matter what the first use of the “part,” “component,” “accessory,” “attachment,” or “software” is, or what the predominant market share is for the “part,” “component,” “accessory,” “attachment," or "software"?

A.27: No. Because the criteria of paragraphs (b)(4), (b)(5) and (b)(6) are met during the "development" phase, the first use of the "part," "component," "accessory," "attachment," or "software" or the predominant market share is not relevant.

A.28: Yes. The Note to paragraphs (b)(4), (b)(5) and (b)(6) identifies the type of documentation required in order to rely on the "development" ‘releases.’ The Note to paragraphs (b)(4), (b)(5) and (b)(6) includes an illustrative list of such documents.

A.29: If you do not have "knowledge" of the "development" history, you cannot rely on paragraphs (b)(4), (b)(5) or (b)(6). However, the other paragraph (b) ‘releases,’ such as paragraph (b)(3), could be reviewed because they are not tied to the "development" history. If at a later time, you do gain "knowledge" of the "development" history and obtain documentation contemporaneous with its development, you may reevaluate paragraph (b)(4), (b)(5) or (b)(6).

A.30: Yes, paragraph (b)(5) ‘releases’ a general purpose commodity or software where the "part," "component," "accessory," "attachment" or "software," was "developed" with no "knowledge" that it was for a particular item or type of item.

Q.1: May a foreign person, such as an intermediate consignee or end user, “self-determine” (i.e., assess for itself) the jurisdictional and classification status of a commodity, item of software, or unit of technology under the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) or the Export Administration Regulations (EAR), respectively, absent a U.S. government or other reliable determination pertaining to such items?

These ten Q&As provide guidance to assist your understanding of the definition of “parts” in section 772.1 of the EAR, including the different contexts in which this term is used on the Commerce Control List in Supplement No. 1 to part 774 of the EAR. This guidance is intended to assist you in making self-classifications on the CCL, but in no way is intended to classify your commodities. Therefore, if you seek a formal determination whether a specific commodity is classified as a “part,” you may submit a formal classification request to BIS using the free online submission system called SNAP-R.

A.1: The term “part” is defined in section 772.1 of the EAR.

A.2: A "part" is any single unassembled element of a "component," "accessory," or "attachment" which is not normally subject to disassembly without the destruction or the impairment of design use. Examples include threaded fasteners (e.g., screws, bolts, nuts, nut plates, studs, inserts), other fasteners (e.g., clips, rivets, pins), common hardware (e.g., washers, spacers, insulators, grommets, bushings), springs and wire.

A.3: If the term "parts" is not used in the control parameters of a particular ECCN that means that "parts" generically are not controlled under that ECCN. However, be advised that certain ECCNs may enumerate or otherwise describe a commodity that would also meet the "parts" definition, such as ECCN 1A005. ECCN 1A005 does not include a generic control on "parts," but 1A005.b does control hard body armor plates that provide ballistic protection less than NIJ level III (NIJ 0101.06, July 2008) or national equivalents. Such a plate would, in most cases, also meet the EAR definition of "part." In this case the parts are controlled under that ECCN.

Q.4: The “specially designed” definition in section 772.1 of the EAR includes a release paragraph under paragraph (b)(2) describing how to determine whether “parts” and minor “components” (such as nut-plates) are not “specially designed.” If these “parts” and minor “components” were never “specially designed,” why are they not excluded from the definitions of “part” and “component”?

A.4: Do not take paragraph (b)(2) of "specially designed" out of context on the CCL and try to apply a "specially designed" analysis to a paragraph that does not include "specially designed" in its control parameter. An analysis of the "specially designed" definition is only conducted when the paragraph being reviewed uses "specially designed" in the control parameter. In many cases, such as in the "600 series" .x paragraphs, broad catch-all provisions control non-specific "parts," "components," "accessories" and "attachments" that are denoted as being "specially designed" for the respective "600 series" ECCN or the related USML category referenced in those "600 series" ECCN paragraphs. In those cases, a "specially designed" "parts" analysis under paragraph (b)(2) is necessary to assess whether the "parts" and minor "components" are "specially designed." However, other ECCNs on the CCL use the generic term "parts," but without the modifier of "specially designed." In these cases, a "specially designed" "parts" analysis under paragraph (b)(2) is not necessary. However, "parts" and "components" specified in paragraph (b)(2) in the definition of "specially designed" could be controlled under the generic "parts" or "components" definitions or other broader terms used on the CCL such as "commodities." Also as noted, certain ECCNs may enumerate or otherwise describe a "part" or minor "component," including a "part" or minor "component" that was specified under paragraph (b)(2) in the definition of "specially designed."

Q.5: Looking at the definition of “part,” it is clear to me that if I make a cast of a commodity and that commodity is a single unassembled element of a “component,” “accessory,” or “attachment,” which is not normally subject to disassembly without the destruction or the impairment of design use, that it would be clearly identifiable as a “part.” However, there are other manufacturing processes that can be used to create the same commodity, i.e. welding or diffusion bonding, which technically would be combining two different elements, but substantively would be creating the same type of commodity (i.e., both would be single unassembled elements of a “component,” “accessory,” or “attachment” which are not normally subject to disassembly without the destruction or the impairment of design use). Does the manufacturing method make a difference in whether a commodity is considered a “part”?

Q.6: What about semi-permanent forms of manufacturing? For example, what if the manufacturing process I use to make the “part” consists of gluing two pieces of material together or a press fitting to form a single unassembled element, where the bond could be broken, but could later be reassembled with minimal impairment of design use?

A.7: Any commodity that includes more than one element where one of the elements is intended to be able to be removed, or is capable of being removed, without the destruction or the impairment of the commodity’s design use would take that commodity outside the scope of the "parts" definition. Such a commodity is most likely a "component."

A.8: No, a "part" cannot have any moving elements. In order to have moving elements the commodity would need to consist of more than one single unassembled element, which would take the commodity outside the scope of the "parts" definition.

Q.9: In applying the “parts” definition, does it matter how big or small the “part” is in relation to the larger “component,” “accessory,” or “attachment” and how important of a role must the “part” play in the larger “component,” “accessory,” or “attachment” to be considered a “part” under the EAR?

A.9: The criteria of the definition of "part" is not based on the overall size of the "part." In many cases, a "part" may be small, but in other cases a "part" may be very large. The importance of the "part" in the overall functioning of the larger "component," "accessory," or "attachment" into which it is incorporated has no bearing on whether a commodity is considered a "part."

A.10: In many cases the classification of a commodity’s "technology" will be related to the classification of the commodity, but there are several exceptions. For example, "technology" may be more highly controlled than the related commodity. But generally speaking if the "part" was not controlled under a specific ECCN then the related "technology" would not likely be controlled either. However, an important qualifier is that if the "technology" is related to other elements of that same commodity, then a separate "technology" analysis must be conducted with respect to the other "component," "accessory," or "attachment."

Click here for Quick tips for application of the term parts

Q.1: I exported an item under the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR), but it transitioned to the “600 series” while located overseas after I exported it. What do I need to do to bring it back to the U.S. for servicing under the Export Administration Regulations (EAR)?

A.1: Unlike under the ITAR, there are no temporary import licensing requirements under the EAR. No license is required for the item to come back to the United States. To return the serviced item to your customer overseas, consult License Exceptions under part 740 of the EAR to see if any are available for your transaction. Section 740.2 sets forth restrictions on license exceptions in general, with section 740.2 (a)(13) providing a list of license exceptions available for "600 series" items. You may, for example, meet the terms and conditions of License Exception Servicing and Replacement of Parts and Equipment (RPL) in section 740.10 and be able to use that authorization to return the serviced item. If no license exceptions are available, apply to BIS for a license.

Q.2: Many of my formerly ITAR-controlled items became “600 series” items on October 15, 2013 and other items became “600 series” items on January 6, 2014. I am still shipping them under my Directorate of Defense Trade Controls (DDTC) license in accordance with the transition procedures. Do I need to report the “600 series” Export Control Classification Numbers (ECCNs) in Automated Export System (AES) along with my DDTC license?