FAQs

Exports of Shotguns to Canada

I'm a U.S. citizen taking a shotgun and shells into Canada for recreation. Do I need a license?

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.

If I’m a non-U.S. citizen returning from the U.S. to Canada with my shotguns and shotgun shells, do I need an export license?

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.

Do I need a license if I’m taking a shotgun and shotgun shells I purchased in the United States back to Canada?

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

Can I apply for an export license if I’m not a U.S. citizen?

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.

How do I get the International Import Certificate from Canada to support an export license application of shotguns?

Contact the following:

Export and Import Controls Bureau

Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade

125 Sussex Drive

Ottawa, Ontario K1A0 G2

ATTN: EICS Help Desk

at 1-877-808-8838

E-Mail: eics.scei@international.gc.ca

http://www.international.gc.ca/controls-controles/about-a_propos/impor/permits-licences.aspx?lang=eng

 

Are there any other requirements for importing shotguns and related firearms under Commerce jurisdiction from Canada to the United States?

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.

What agency in Canada should I contact for guidance on Canadian import requirements for firearms?

Royal Canadian Mounted Police,

Canadian Firearms Program, Ottawa, ON K1A 0R2

Phone: 1-800-731-4000

Facsimile: 613-825-0297

E-Mail: cfp-pcaf@rcmp-grc.gc.ca

http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/cfp-pcaf/cont/index-eng.htm

Embassy FAQs

When exporting or reexporting to a non-U.S. Embassy located outside the United States, which country is used in the determination of the licensing requirements?

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).

Note, however, that BIS does not treat the shipment of items via official diplomatic pouch to an embassy or consulate in a third country (host country) as a transaction covered by the destination-based licensing requirements set forth in the EAR. So long as the items remain within the ownership and control of the embassy or consulate in the host country, no license is required under the EAR. The items may also be returned to the home country via diplomatic pouch or shipped to other foreign embassies and consulates via diplomatic pouch without authorization from BIS. However, if the embassy or consulate resells or disposes of the items locally in the host country, licensing requirements set forth in the EAR for exports to the host country would be implicated. Similarly, reselling or disposing the items to end users outside of the host country would implicate reexport licensing requirements set forth in the EAR, to the extent the items are not shipped via diplomatic pouch.

 

What licensing requirements and/or license exceptions may apply to commercial shipments of items subject to the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) to U.S. Embassies located outside of the United States?

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.

What if the host country of a non-U.S. embassy is subject to multilateral or unilateral economic sanctions, such as Cuba or Sudan?

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.

What if the embassy of a country subject to multilateral or unilateral economic sanctions is located in a country subject to less stringent export controls, for example the Cuban Embassy in France?

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.

Is License Exception GOV available for exports to non-U.S. Embassies outside the United States?

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.

GOV also authorizes the export of certain items to a “diplomatic or consular mission” of a cooperating government for official use within the territory of a country in Country Group B (Supplement No. 1 to Part 740 of the EAR). Cooperating governments are those listed in Country Group A:1 (Supplement No. 1 to part 740 of the EAR) as well as the governments of Argentina, Austria, Finland, Hong Kong, Ireland, the Republic of Korea, New Zealand, Singapore, Sweden, Switzerland, Singapore, and Taiwan. For example, GOV would authorize certain exports to the French Embassy in India because France is a cooperating government and India is a Country Group B country.

GOV does not authorize, however, the export of items to cooperating government embassies located outside of cooperating government or Country Group B destinations. For example, an export to the French Embassy in Belarus would not be authorized under GOV because while France is a cooperating government, Belarus is not listed in Country Group B. Such exports may, however, be eligible for other License Exceptions, including License Exception CIV (Section 740.5 of the EAR) which authorizes certain exports for civilian use in Country Group D countries.

Items eligible to be exported or reexported pursuant to these provisions of License Exception GOV are described in Supplement No. 1 to Section 740.11 of the EAR.

Is a shipment to an Army Post Office (APO) or Fleet Post Office (FPO) considered an export?

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.

 

Does it matter if a shipment to an embassy would require a license if it were instead being shipped to the home country of such embassy?

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.

What is a "deemed re-export"?

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).

Deemed Export FAQs

How do I enter the foreign national name and address information on the BIS-748P license application?

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.

What is "technology"?

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).

When do I need to apply for an export license for technology under the deemed export regulations?

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.

How do I know if a foreign national would be subject to the deemed export regulations?

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.

How are individuals handled who are permanent residents or citizens of countries other than those of their nationality?

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.

What if the individual is a foreign national of one country, say India, but has obtained permanent residency in another, say the U.K.?

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.

 

If this same Indian foreign national traveled to visit facilities in a third country, say Germany, do the licensing requirements change, or is the release still treated as a transfer to the U.K. for licensing purposes?

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.

 

What if that same Indian foreign national comes to the United States?

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.

 

Now, what about changes in nationality? If a person was a citizen of India but subsequently became a citizen of the U.K., how is that person treated for export control purposes?

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

What if the Indian foreign national becomes a citizen of the U.K. but retains his or her Indian citizenship, as well? This is the situation of people who have dual-citizenship.

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.

I have read elsewhere on your web page the requirements for information that the Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) wants in order to process a deemed export license application. I see that you require a lot of personal data, including citizenship and

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.

What technologies are subject to the Commerce Department controls?

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.

 

 

Is software considered "technology" and is it similarly controlled?

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.

 

What technologies are considered "fundamental research"?

"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.

My company wants to employ an Indian foreign national who spent three years working for an Indian organization that is on the Entity List. May I do so? Do I require a license?

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.

An Indian foreign national who is on sabbatical from an Indian organization that is on the Entity List wants to work with our firm in our executive training program where we will discuss proprietary technology which is not controlled to India. We have had

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).

 

 

 

 

Intrusion and Surveillance Items

1. What changes were made to the Wassenaar Arrangement list in 2017 for intrusion software and why were they made?

Based on the extensive public feedback on the May 2015 rule (80 FR 28853) that BIS proposed, the U.S. went back to Wassenaar in 2016 and 2017 to negotiate changes to the text in order to minimize the negative impacts the entries would have. The changes that were published are the result of those negotiations. https://www.bis.doc.gov/index.php/regulations/federal-register-notices/17-regulations/816-federal-register-notices-2015#FR28853

There are two changes that were made to the text. First, Notes were added to the entry for the “technology” for the “development” of “intrusion software”. The note clarifies that technology exchanged for vulnerability disclosure or cyber incident response purposes (as defined) are not controlled.

The second change is a Note added to the 4.D.4 control on the command and delivery platform for “intrusion software”. The note clarifies that software that provides software updates or upgrades are not controlled by the entry, as long as the software is not designed to update “intrusion software” or command and delivery platforms, or turn something into “intrusion software” or a command and delivery platform.

 

2. Does BIS believe these changes address all of the concerns that have been raised with these entries?

No. These are the changes that we have been able to get agreement on, at this time, with other Wassenaar Arrangement members and do not address all of the concerns raised. BIS considers these changes to be the first step in addressing the concerns.

3. Does the publication of these changes now mean that the U.S. is controlling these items? Do I need to start applying for export licenses?

No. The text that was published was the text that was agreed to by the Wassenaar Arrangement. In order for it to become law in the U.S. the U.S. government would need to publish a rule implementing these changes. Because no rule has been published yet, there are no new controls on these entries at this time.

4. What’s next?

We have not decided on a next step yet. There are a range of possible actions we could take, including returning to Wassenaar in 2018 to negotiate further changes to the text, publishing a rule to implement the text, or publishing a notice of inquiry or proposed rule for further comment.

 

Russia Sanctions

What license requirements do the industry sector sanctions implemented in §746.5 of the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) impose?

§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:

a. Russian deepwater (greater than 500 feet);

b. Arctic offshore locations;

c. Shale formations in Russia; or

d. Is unable to determine whether the item will be used in the aforementioned projects.

A licensing policy of presumption of denial applies for exports, reexports, or transfer (in-country) for the aforementioned projects that have the potential to produce oil. A licensing policy of case-by-case review applies for such projects that have the potential to produce gas.

 

Do my items, which are not going to be used in an oil or gas project, require a license under §764.5?

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.

How does §746.5 affect other items on the Commerce Control List (CCL), (i.e., ECCNs not specifically mentioned in §746.5 of the EAR) that are used for oil and gas exploration applications in Russia?

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.

What areas are considered Russia for purposes of these sanctions?

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.......

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......

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.

Where on the BIS website is the list of Schedule B numbers categorizing items requiring a license under the Russian sanctions?

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.

Is the scope of seismic data, equipment and software in ECCN 0A998 limited to deepwater, Arctic and shale exploration projects in Russia?

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.

Is the only software intended to be covered in ECCN 0A998 that which is specified in subparagraph b.1 (“hydraulic fracking design and analysis software and data”)?

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.

The oil and gas exploration data controlled in new ECCN 0A998.a does not fall within the EAR’s definition of “technology” and is not treated as “software”. If a U.S. geologist was analyzing such data in Europe or Russia, would the one-time reporting requi

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.

Why is deepwater defined as 500 feet, when industry generally considers deepwater to be depths of more than 1500 feet?

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 term “high pressure pumps” is not defined in ECCN 0A998.b.3. Does that ECCN control only high pressure pumps for fracking operations or all high pressure pumps used in the restricted end uses in Russia?

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.

Can I transship the items identified in §746.5 of the EAR through Russia for use in oil and gas activities in third countries?

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.

Are any license exceptions available to ship the items identified in §746.5 of 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).

Does de minimis still apply for reexports to Russia when the incorporated items proposed for re-export or export from abroad are subject to license requirements under §746.5 of the EAR?

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.

Regulations FAQs

What’s the new language?

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."

 

What is the purpose of the new standard language on BIS’s licenses?

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.

When did BIS start putting this new language on its licenses?

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

What will be the biggest change on licenses as a result of the new language?

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.

What is the impact of the new language on license applicants?

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.

Additionally, the new language specifies that license applicants are required to inform the other parties to the license of the license's scope and of any license condition(s) applicable to the individual party. License applicants who have not routinely informed other parties to the license of such information should implement procedures to ensure that such notifications occur for all licenses.

FAQ #5 says that BIS will process license applications submitted with “specific and detailed information” more efficiently. What does “specific and detailed” information mean?

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.

The inclusion of specific information on license applications for transactions involving especially sensitive items or proposed for shipment to sensitive locations is helpful in facilitating BIS's processing. For example, before processing license applications for the export of satellites, BIS and its interagency partners need to know the name and address of the organization or company facilitating the satellite's launch. Exporters who are unsure about what specific information should be included to facilitate a license application for a specified item or to a specified location should contact BIS .

If I include precise information on my license application, will my application be processed in less than forty days?

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.

Can you provide some examples of conditions that were included on licenses before but won’t be after November 10?

Selected examples are as follows:

Conditions no longer in general use after December 8, 2014:

Why isn’t BIS using these conditions anymore?

No reexport without   prior authorization from the U.S. Government, unless elsewhere authorized   under the EAR.

This condition is an existing   prohibition under the EAR: See: §   736.2(b)(1) of the EAR – General Prohibition One and therefor does not   generally need to be included on licenses.   The condition will be included under certain circumstances, including   if a license applicant requests reexport authorization and the request is   denied.  

Stated end use and end   user(s) only

This limitation in   scope is included in the EAR; it is redundant to include it as a license   condition (See: § 750.7(a) of the   EAR).

No military end use

As stated in §750.7(a)   of the EAR, licenses authorize only the transaction(s) described in the   license application and the license application support documents. Therefore, if you did not include a   military end use in your license application or license application support   documents, such an end use is not authorized under the license. The condition may be used if the license   applicant does not specify the scope of the intended end-use within the   license application (and the end-use could be either civil or military).

Civil end use only

As stated in §750.7(a)   of the EAR, licenses authorize only the transaction(s) described in the   license application and the license application support documents. Therefore, a condition requiring “civil end   use only” is not required unless a military end use is requested in the   license application or license application support documents but is not   authorized by BIS.

Access/use is not   granted to [embargoed destination(s)] nationals

As stated in §750.7(a)   of the EAR, licenses authorize only the transaction(s) described in the   license application and the license application support documents. Therefore, if you did not specifically   request access or use by persons who are nationals of an embargoed   destination in your license application or license application support   documents, access or use by such nationals is not authorized under the   license.

No resale or transfer   without prior authorization from the U.S. Government.

As stated in §750.7(a)   of the EAR, licenses authorize only the transaction(s) described in the   license application and the license application support documents. Therefore, if you did not specifically   request authorization to resell or transfer the items authorized for shipment   in your license application or license application support documents, resale   or transfer is not authorized under the license.

Applicant must inform   consignee of all license conditions.

The requirement for the   applicant to inform other parties to the license of the license conditions is   stated in §750.7(d) of the EAR as well as in the new boilerplate language   (which also requires applicants to inform the appropriate parties to the   transaction of the license’s scope).

I received a license authorizing me to export equipment. There aren’t any conditions on the license that prohibit me from shipping technology. Can I send the technology necessary to maintain the equipment?

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.

I received a license to ship equipment to three end users. There aren’t any conditions on my license that prohibit me from shipping it to other end users. Can I ship the equipment to end users not specified on my 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.

Since December 8, 2014, BIS seems to be using riders on its licenses more often. What’s the difference between a condition and a rider?

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.

A license rider consists of clarifying or explanatory language added to a license by BIS. Although license riders are not requirements, BIS sometimes uses riders to remind license parties of requirements under the EAR. Exporters should note that BIS's inclusion of a rider on a license puts the exporter on notice regarding the specific knowledge, including requirements under the EAR, provided in the rider.

I want to make sure I understand exactly what is authorized by my BIS license. Who can help me?

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 ECDOEXS@bis.doc.gov. Please include a telephone number for call-back purposes within your e-mail.

Frequently Asked Questions on BIS's New Boilerplate License Language

What’s the new language?

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."

What is the purpose of the new standard language on BIS’s licenses?

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.

When did BIS start putting this new language on its licenses?

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

What will be the biggest change on licenses as a result of the new language?

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.

What is the impact of the new language on license applicants?

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.

Additionally, the new language specifies that license applicants are required to inform the other parties to the license of the license's scope and of any license condition(s) applicable to the individual party. License applicants who have not routinely informed other parties to the license of such information should implement procedures to ensure that such notifications occur for all licenses.

FAQ #5 says that BIS will process license applications submitted with “specific and detailed information” more efficiently. What does “specific and detailed” information mean?

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.

The inclusion of specific information on license applications for transactions involving especially sensitive items or proposed for shipment to sensitive locations is helpful in facilitating BIS's processing. For example, before processing license applications for the export of satellites, BIS and its interagency partners need to know the name and address of the organization or company facilitating the satellite's launch. Exporters who are unsure about what specific information should be included to facilitate a license application for a specified item or to a specified location should contact BIS.

If I include precise information on my license application, will my application be processed in less than forty days?

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.

Can you provide some examples of conditions that were included on licenses before but won’t be after November 10?

Selected examples are as follows:

 

Conditions no longer in general use after December 8, 2014:

Why isn’t BIS using these conditions anymore?

No reexport without   prior authorization from the U.S. Government, unless elsewhere authorized   under the EAR.

This condition is an existing   prohibition under the EAR: See: §   736.2(b)(1) of the EAR – General Prohibition One and therefor does not   generally need to be included on licenses.   The condition will be included under certain circumstances, including   if a license applicant requests reexport authorization and the request is   denied.  

Stated end use and end   user(s) only

This limitation in   scope is included in the EAR; it is redundant to include it as a license   condition (See: § 750.7(a) of the   EAR).

No military end use

As stated in §750.7(a)   of the EAR, licenses authorize only the transaction(s) described in the   license application and the license application support documents. Therefore, if you did not include a   military end use in your license application or license application support   documents, such an end use is not authorized under the license. The condition may be used if the license   applicant does not specify the scope of the intended end-use within the   license application (and the end-use could be either civil or military).

Civil end use only

As stated in §750.7(a)   of the EAR, licenses authorize only the transaction(s) described in the   license application and the license application support documents. Therefore, a condition requiring “civil end   use only” is not required unless a military end use is requested in the   license application or license application support documents but is not   authorized by BIS.

Access/use is not   granted to [embargoed destination(s)] nationals

As stated in §750.7(a)   of the EAR, licenses authorize only the transaction(s) described in the   license application and the license application support documents. Therefore, if you did not specifically   request access or use by persons who are nationals of an embargoed   destination in your license application or license application support   documents, access or use by such nationals is not authorized under the   license.

No resale or transfer   without prior authorization from the U.S. Government.

As stated in §750.7(a)   of the EAR, licenses authorize only the transaction(s) described in the   license application and the license application support documents. Therefore, if you did not specifically   request authorization to resell or transfer the items authorized for shipment   in your license application or license application support documents, resale   or transfer is not authorized under the license.

Applicant must inform   consignee of all license conditions.

The requirement for the   applicant to inform other parties to the license of the license conditions is   stated in §750.7(d) of the EAR as well as in the new boilerplate language   (which also requires applicants to inform the appropriate parties to the   transaction of the license’s scope).

I received a license authorizing me to export equipment. There aren’t any conditions on the license that prohibit me from shipping technology. Can I send the technology necessary to maintain the equipment?

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.

I received a license to ship equipment to three end users. There aren’t any conditions on my license that prohibit me from shipping it to other end users. Can I ship the equipment to end users not specified on my 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.

Since December 8, 2014, BIS seems to be using riders on its licenses more often. What’s the difference between a condition and a rider?

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.

A license rider consists of clarifying or explanatory language added to a license by BIS. Although license riders are not requirements, BIS sometimes uses riders to remind license parties of requirements under the EAR. Exporters should note that BIS's inclusion of a rider on a license puts the exporter on notice regarding the specific knowledge, including requirements under the EAR, provided in the rider.

I want to make sure I understand exactly what is authorized by my BIS license. Who can help me?

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 ECDOEXS@bis.doc.gov. Please include a telephone number for call-back purposes within your e-mail.

Missile Technology FAQs

What kind of documentation or information is required in support of a license application for an item subject to missile technology export controls or when the item to be exported will be used in a missile project or program?

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...

 

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.

Do special rules apply for exporting missile technology to China?

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.

When is a license required for export of non-MT controlled items for use in missile activities?

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:

• Rocket systems (including ballistic missile systems, space launch vehicles, and sounding rockets) or unmanned aerial vehicles (including cruise missile systems, target drones, and reconnaissance drones) capable of a range of at least 300 km for use in or by a country listed in Country Group D:4 (see  Supplement No. 1 to Part 738 of the EAR)

• Any rocket system or unmanned aerial vehicles in a D:4 country where system characteristics or use are unknown

• Any rocket systems or unmanned aerial vehicles for the delivery of chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons to anywhere in the world, except by governmental programs for nuclear weapons delivery of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Nuclear Weapons States that are also members of NATO

 

What is the “no undercut” policy in the MTCR?

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.

How does EPCI affect exports of items for missile-related activities?

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.

We recently received an offer to supply a gear making machine (ECCN 2B993) to a tank and cannon factory in China. My boss told me to apply for a license because of EPCI. Is this an EPCI activity?

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.

I am a distributor of college textbooks. I often get requests from foreign customers for engineering textbooks containing information on missile technology. Should I be worried about EPCI/“catch-all” controls?

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.

My firm recently had an export license for a machine tool denied. The reason for denial was missile-related. This item isn't even controlled for missile reasons. What's going on?

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.

What factors are used to evaluate “catch-all” items?

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

(i) The specific nature of the end use

(ii) The significance of the export in terms of its contribution to the design, development, production, or use of missiles

(iii) The capabilities and objective of the missile and space programs of the recipient country

(iv) The nonproliferation credentials of the importing country

(v) The types of assurances or guarantees against design, development, production, or use of missiles that are given in a particular case

(vi) The existence of a pre-existing contract

What license exceptions are available for MT items?

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.

What is meant by Category I, Category II, and MTCR-controlled missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles?

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.

Exports of Firearms and Related Items FAQs

How do I contact DDTC?

Contact DDTC at 202-663-2980 or go to www.pmddtc.state.gov.

What types of firearms does the Department of Commerce have jurisdiction over?

The Department of Commerce's Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) has jurisdiction over shotguns with a barrel length of 18 inches or more and related components. BIS also has jurisdiction over muzzle loading rifles and handguns, air guns, replica firearms, shotgun shells and components, and most optical sighting devices for firearms.

How do I get a license from BIS?

The first step in determining whether an export license is required is knowing whether the item you are intending to export has a specific Export Control Classification Number (ECCN). The ECCN is an alpha-numeric code, e.g., 0A984, that describes a particular item or type of item, and shows the controls placed on that item.

Where do I find the list of ECCNs?

All ECCNs are listed in the Commerce Control List (CCL) which is in Supplement No. 1 to Part 774 of the Export Administration Regulations (EAR). The CCL is divided into ten broad categories. Category 0 contains ECCNs for shotguns and related items.

What is the Export Control Classification Number (ECCN) for shotguns and components?

ECCN 0A984 controls shotguns with barrels of 18 inches or longer and certain essential components: shotgun barrels 18 inches or longer but not longer than 24 inches, receivers, breech mechanisms, complete trigger mechanisms, and magazines or magazine extension tubes. Other parts of a shotgun not listed under 0A984 or in other ECCN entries are EAR99.

What about rifle stocks?

A rifle stock would be under the jurisdiction of the Department of State.

What is the ECCN for muzzle loading firearms?

Muzzle loading (black powder) firearms with a caliber less than 20 mm that were manufactured later than 1937 and are not reproductions of firearms manufactured earlier than 1890 are controlled under ECCN 0A018.c.

What is the ECCN for pellet guns?

Air guns including pellet guns, BB guns, air rifles and paintball guns are classified as EAR99.

What is the ECCN for shotgun shells and components?

Shotgun shells and components fall under ECCN 0A986. This includes primers and shot. 12 gauge shotgun blanks and 12 gauge shotgun slugs (loaded) are also under this classification. Gunpowder falls under ECCN 1C992.

What is the ECCN for buckshot shells?

Buckshot shotgun shells are classified as 0A984.

What is the ECCN for riflescopes or hunting scopes?

ECCN 0A987 controls specific sighting devices, their associated optical elements, and adjustment mechanisms. Please see the entry for a detailed description of what is controlled. Sighting devices that are not specified in this ECCN or elsewhere on the Commerce Control List, and that are not subject to the jurisdiction of the Department of State, are EAR99.

What Types of Optical Sighting Devices would be under State jurisdiction?

Those that contain night vision capabilities may be under State jurisdiction. You should first contact the State Department. Any optical sighting device mounted on a rifle is under State Department jurisdiction.

What is the ECCN for replica firearms?

Non-functioning replica firearms, whether a rifle or shotgun, are under the jurisdiction of the Department of Commerce and are classified as EAR99. Functioning replica firearms are classified in the same manner as shotguns and rifles as noted above in terms of State/Commerce jurisdiction and ECCNs, as appropriate.

What is the ECCN for stun guns?

Discharge type arms such as stun guns, shock batons, immobilization guns, and projectiles are classified under ECCN 0A985.

What is the ECCN for signal flare discharge arms?

Arms designed solely for signal, flare, or saluting use are classified as EAR99.

What does EAR99 mean?

If your item falls under U.S. Department of Commerce jurisdiction and is not listed on the CCL, it is designated as EAR99. EAR99 items generally consist of low-technology consumer goods and do not require a license in most situations. However, if your proposed export of an EAR99 item is to an embargoed country, to an end-user of concern, or in support of a prohibited end-use, you may be required to obtain a license.

Once I know the ECCN of my item, what is the next step?

Once you have determined that your item is classified under a specific ECCN, you must use the information contained in the "Reason(s) for Control" section of that ECCN in combination with the "Commerce Country Chart" (see Supplement 1 to Part 738 of the EAR) to decide whether a license is required. If there is an "X" in the box for the Reason for Control and destination country, a license is required from BIS, unless a license exception is available. If there is no "X" in the box, a license is not required unless your proposed export is to an embargoed country, to an end-user of concern, or in support of a prohibited end-use, in which case you may be required to obtain a license.

How do I submit a license application?

License applications must be submitted through SNAP-R, the on-line license application system. In order to access the SNAP-R system, you must first obtain a Company Identification Number (CIN). Obtaining a CIN is the first step toward completing your license application and must be completed in order to access the actual SNAP-R application. Instructions to complete this process can be found at the following hyperlink: https://www.bis.doc.gov/index.php/licensing/simplified-network-application-process-redesign-snap-r

 

What support documents are required?

BIS requires an Import Certificate or equivalent official document for ECCNs 0A984, 0A986, or 0A987 for export to Canada, Mexico, and Central and South America per section 748.14 of the EAR. Applicants must request that their importer obtain the Import Certificate or an equivalent official document from the government of the importing country. Otherwise, a Statement by Ultimate Consignee and Purchaser (form BIS 711) is required per section 748.11 of the EAR.

 What support documents are required?

If I’m a U.S. citizen taking a shotgun to another country for recreation, do I need a license?

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 that not more than three shotguns may be 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 use for legitimate use. See section 740.14(e) of the EAR for specific requirements in the use of BAG.

Are Hunting Bows and Knives on the Commerce Control List?

Hunting bows and knives are classified as EAR99.

Sudan: Change of Licensing Policy for Exports of Civil Telecommunications-related Infrastructure Items to Sudan and Addition of Sudan as an Eligible Destination for Exports of Consumer Communications Devices under License Exception CCD

What major changes did this rule make?

This rule amended Section 742.10 (15 CFR 742.10) of the Export Administration Regulations (15 CFR Parts 730-774) to revise the general licensing policy of denial to one of case-by-case review for exports and reexports to Sudan of certain telecommunications equipment and associated computers, software, and technology, including items that are useful for the development of civil telecommunications network infrastructure. It also revised License Exception Consumer Communications Devices (CCD), Section 740.19 of the EAR (15 CFR 740.19), which previously applied only to Cuba, to authorize exports and reexports of such devices to Sudan, either for sale or donation. This rule also made conforming changes to License Exception Temporary Imports, Export, Reexports and Transfers (in-country) (TMP) (Section 740.9 of the EAR (15 CFR 740.9). Finally, it removed a license requirement for reexports to Sudan of certain telecommunications software.

Why did BIS make these changes?

BIS made these changes to reflect the U.S. Government's commitment to the advancement of the free flow of information to, from, and within Sudan.

Do these changes affect the sanctions against Sudan?

No. Due to Sudan's designation as a "State Sponsor of Terrorism" by the Secretary of State, the Department of Commerce's Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) maintains license requirements with a general policy of denial for exports and reexports of most items on the Commerce Control List to most end users in Sudan. Revised License Exception CCD permits exports and reexports of certain eligible commodities and software on the CCL to Sudan that previously required a license. Items designated as "EAR99" (subject to the EAR but not described on the Commerce Control List) continue to be eligible for export and reexport to Sudan without a license in the absence of end-use or end-user concerns set forth in Part 744 of the EAR. The changes made pursuant to the rule implement the U.S. Government's policy objective of facilitating communication and the free flow of information among the Sudanese people.

Due to the sanctions, do export/reexport transactions of items covered under License Exception CCD also require separate authorization from the Department of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC)?

Because OFAC and BIS share jurisdiction over certain exports and reexports to Sudan, these changes have been made in coordination with OFAC, which simultaneously has issued parallel amendments to the Sudanese Sanctions Regulations, 31 CFR part 538. Please see OFAC FAQs for further information pertaining to the Department of Treasury changes. [Most items that qualify for export or reexport to Sudan under revised License Exception CCD also qualify for export and reexport to Sudan under OFAC's new general license, as set forth in 31 CFR 538.533, published contemporaneously with the new BIS rule. Therefore, in most cases, you do not need a specific license from OFAC for the export or reexport of items described in License Exception CCD.] Exporters should review both 31 CFR 538.533 and License Exception CCD to ensure compliance with applicable export license requirements.

How do license exceptions relate to license requirements for Sudan in the Export Administration Regulations?

Most items described on the Commerce Control List require authorization in the form of a license from BIS for export or reexport to Sudan under Section 742.10 of the EAR, the provision that establishes license requirements and related license review policies for exports and reexports to Sudan. License Exception CCD is an example of an authorization that allows persons to export or reexport certain enumerated consumer communications devices subject to the EAR to Sudan that would otherwise require a license from BIS. If a license exception is available for a contemplated export or reexport to Sudan, the licensing requirements specified in Section 742.10 do not apply. The availability of License Exception CCD, however, is restricted to exports and reexports under certain defined circumstances. Please review Section 740.2 of the EAR, which contains restrictions on the availability of all license exceptions, including License Exception CCD. You should also review the General Prohibitions set forth in Part 736 and the license requirements and policies set forth in Part 744 (end-use and end-user concerns). Persons who are unfamiliar with the structure of the EAR or the relationship of license exceptions to license requirements generally may wish to consult the BIS online training room

http://www.bis.doc.gov/index.php/compliance-a-training/export-administration-regulations-training/online-training-room?id=284.

How do you define “consumer” as it relates to items that qualify for export and reexport to Sudan under License Exception CCD?

For the purposes of License Exception Consumer Communications Devices (CCD), a "consumer" item is an item that is: (1) generally available to the public by being sold, without restriction, from stock at retail selling points by means of any of the following: (a) over-the counter transactions; (b) mail order transactions; (c) electronic transactions; or (d) telephone call transactions; and (2) designed for installation by the user without further substantial support by the supplier. In Section 740.19 (b) of the EAR, the term "consumer" describes the types of computers ((b) (1)), disk drives and storage equipment ((b)(2)), information security equipment, software, and peripherals ((b)(12)), and software ((b)(17)) that may be exported under License Exception CCD. The definition of "consumer" applies regardless of whether the item being exported or reexported is sold or donated.

Does this license exception cover the export or reexport of instruction manuals or other information on how to assemble and use authorized tools and equipment?

Instruction manuals or other information on how to assemble and use tools and equipment authorized for export or reexport under License Exception CCD likely fall into one of three categories. They may be eligible for License Exception Technology and Software Unrestricted (TSU) (Section 740.13(a) of the EAR) or constitute published information and software that is not subject to the EAR (Section 734.7 of the EAR), or they may not be subject to the EAR because they do not constitute "use" technology or other categories of technology (see Part 772 of the EAR). However, if such information is subject to the EAR, it may require a BIS license for export or reexport to Sudan.

Does License Exception CCD cover the export or reexport of upgrades, fixes, and patches for software?

Yes, if the software upgrades, fixes, or patches meet all the criteria described in License Exception CCD. Specifically, the items must be: 1) consumer communication devices as defined in License Exception CCD and 2) classified on the Commerce Control List under an ECCN that is expressly authorized for export or reexport under the license exception.

May I use License Exception CCD to sell communications devices to Sudan government owned, operated or controlled companies and corporations for resale to the Sudanese people?

License Exception CCD Section (c) (1) (iii) does not authorize the export or reexport of communications devices to the Government of Sudan, including entities owned, operated or controlled by the Government of Sudan, apart from certain consumer software listed in paragraph (b)(12) or (b)(17) that is distributed free of charge. Consequently, the Government of Sudan is an ineligible recipient of items such as telecommunications infrastructure equipment, computers, technology, and software (apart from the carve-out described), under the license exception. A license is therefore required for the export or reexport of such items to Sudan government owned, operated, or controlled companies. All items that require a license for export or reexport to the Government of Sudan will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis.

What changes does this rule make to the existing license exception for consumer communication devices?

As part of a January 16, 2015 rule that amended the EAR to reflect changes in the U.S. Government's Cuba policy, License Exception Consumer Communications Devices (CCD) was amended to authorize commercial sales, in addition to donations, of eligible items. Additionally, technical revisions were made in that rule to more precisely track the current technical specifications for some of the specified items. The Sudan rule provides that certain items, namely, Global Positioning System receivers and similar satellite receivers, are available under CCD for export and reexport to Sudan.

The item I would like to export is a consumer communications device listed on the Commerce Control List but its Export Control Classification Number is not among those specifically listed in License Exception CCD. May I use License Exception CCD to export

No. Your item must meet all the criteria of License Exception CCD to qualify for export or reexport under License Exception CCD. The item must be: 1) a consumer communications device as defined in License Exception CCD, and 2) classified on the Commerce Control List under an ECCN that is expressly authorized for export under the license exception.

If you are not sure whether your item is on the CCL or what ECCN applies to it, you may seek an official Commodity Classification (CCAT) from BIS in accordance with Section 748.3 of the EAR. You may submit a request for an official commodity classification through BIS's online SNAP-R System.

Please note that a CCAT will determine the ECCN that applies to your item or, alternatively, designate your item as EAR99. However, a CCAT will not state whether your item is a "consumer" communications device that may be exported or reexported under License Exception CCD. If you have questions about whether an item would qualify for export or reexport under License Exception CCD, including questions as to whether the item would constitute a consumer communications device for purposes of License Exception CCD, you may consult BIS's Foreign Policy Division at 202-482-4252 or submit an advisory opinion request in accordance with the procedures outlined in Section 748.3 of the EAR. You may also submit a license application as explained in the FAQ below.

The item I’d like to export is listed under an ECCN in License Exception CCD, but I have determined that it is not a “consumer” communications device within the meaning of License Exception CCD. May I export it under License Exception CCD?

No. Your item must meet all the criteria of License Exception CCD to qualify for export or reexport under License Exception CCD including meeting the definition of a "consumer" communications device that is set forth in the CCD license exception. If your item is listed on the CCL but you are unsure whether it is a consumer communications device, you may submit an application for license using BIS's SNAP-R system. If BIS determines that a license is required, BIS will process the application and apply the licensing policy outlined in Section 742.10 of the EAR. You may also seek an advisory opinion from BIS.

May I apply for a license to export or reexport telecommunications equipment to Sudan that does not qualify for export or reexport to Sudan under License Exception CCD?

Yes. BIS may authorize your export or reexport under a license when the export or reexport does not qualify for License Exception CCD. BIS will consider, on a case-by-case basis, applications to export or reexport telecommunications equipment and associated computers, software and technology for civil end use. In particular, BIS recognizes the significance of telecommunications items that are useful for the development of civil telecommunications network infrastructure.The facilitation of the free flow of information in Sudan can only occur effectively if there is adequate telecommunications infrastructure to support the consumer communications devices authorized by License Exception CCD. Consequently, BIS will review applications to export and reexport telecommunications-related items, including items useful for the development of civil telecommunications network infrastructure, on a case-by-case basis. License applicants should describe the specific civil end use of the items and their function in the development of civil telecom network infrastructure (see note to Section 742.10(b) (3)) in their license applications or in letters of explanation attached to the applications.

May I export consumer communications hardware and software under License Exception Consumer Communication Devices (CCD) to independent non-governmental organizations in Sudan?

Yes. Independent non-governmental organizations are eligible end-users of items exported to Sudan pursuant to License Exception Consumer Communications Devices (15 CFR § 740.19). Please note that organizations owned, operated, or controlled by the Sudanese Government are not eligible end-users.

May I use License Exception CCD to export consumer communications devices and software to Sudan for commercial resale within Sudan?

Yes. The terms of License Exception CCD do not require that items be exported or reexported directly to the end user. Consequently, exports and reexports to Sudan to commercial entities for resale to eligible end users would qualify for License Exception CCD. Eligible end users include individuals and independent non-governmental organizations operating in Sudan. Apart from certain specified consumer software that is distributed free of charge, the Government of Sudan may not be the end-user. An independent non-governmental organization that is owned, operated, or controlled by the Government of Sudan is not eligible to receive items under License Exception CCD. Persons wishing to use License Exception CCD are responsible for determining that the criteria of the license exception will be met. Please be advised nothing in License Exception CCD excuses a U.S. person from the need to comply with the Sudanese Sanctions Regulations.

What steps can Sudanese academic and training organizations (training institutes, test preparation centers, secondary schools, and universities) take to acquire and use hardware, software, web-based applications and teaching products?

Exporters and reexporters of items subject to the Export Administration Regulations may export or reexport hardware and software to Sudanese academic and training organizations without a BIS license if the transaction meets all the requirements of License Exception CCD. If such items also meet the requirements of the OFAC general license pertaining to certain software, hardware, and services incident to personal communications (31 CFR Section 538.533), an OFAC specific license would not be required for their export or reexport. (For definitive guidance on OFAC requirements, please consult with that agency.) Please note that not all Sudanese academic and training organizations would be authorized to receive these items under the license exception. Apart from certain specified consumer software that is distributed free of charge, License Exception CCD only applies to items destined for organizations or entities that are not part of the Sudanese Government (including owned, operated, or controlled by the government). Also, not all of the hardware and software described in this question will meet the requirements of License Exception CCD. In those cases, persons must apply for a BIS license and OFAC license to engage in the transaction. Sudanese academic and training organizations should contact the manufacturers and providers of these items directly to seek the classification number of the item they wish to import to Sudan and to learn whether they may receive the items and, if so, under what circumstances.

Sudan: Amendment to allow temporary export and reexport of items described in license exception Consumer Communication Devices (CCD) as “tools of the trade” under license exception Temporary Import, Exports, Reexports, and Transfers (in-country) (TMP)

May I use License Exception Temporary Imports, Exports, Reexports, and Transfers (in-country) (TMP) to temporarily export certain consumer communication devices and related software to Sudan?

Yes. You may use License Exception TMP (section 740.9 of the Export Administration Regulations (EAR)) to temporarily export (as well as reexport to Sudan, or transfer (in-country)) employer-owned consumer communications devices and related software described in License Exception Consumer Communications Devices (CCD) (section 740.19(b) of the EAR) as “Tools of Trade” under EAR section 740.9(a)(2). You must comply with all of the requirements and limitations set forth in section 740.9(a)(2), including with respect to permissible users and authorized purposes.  This revision to License Exception TMP took effect on September 2, 2015.

Entity List FAQs

What is the Entity List?

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.

What is the background and purpose of the Entity List?

BIS first published the Entity List in February 1997 as part of its efforts to inform the public of entities that have engaged in activities that could result in an increased risk of the diversion of exported, reexported or transferred (in-country) items to weapons of mass destruction (WMD) programs.  Since its initial publication, grounds for inclusion on the Entity List have expanded to activities sanctioned by the State Department and activities contrary to U.S. national security and/or foreign policy interests.

Where can I find the Entity List?

The Entity List is found in Supplement No. 4 to Part 744 of the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) (15 C.F.R. Part 744, Supp. No. 4). The most recent version of the EAR can be found here and the Entity List can be accessed here. If you would like to subscribe to BIS’s e-mail notification service that will alert you when BIS publishes rules in the Federal Register, including rules implementing changes to the Entity List, please click here.

Why should I check the Entity List?

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.

Can a U.S. company have any dealings with a listed entity?

Yes. However, BIS considers that transactions of any nature with listed entities carry a "red flag" and recommends that U.S. companies proceed with caution with respect to such transactions.  Note that the Entity List describes license requirements and policies for the export, reexport, and/or transfer (in-country) of items subject to the EAR only.  Additionally, although many of the persons included on the Entity List are subject to policies of denial for the export, reexport, and/or transfer (in-country) of all items subject to the EAR, some are subject to policies and requirements that are narrower in scope (i.e., not all persons included on the Entity List are subject to license requirements for all items subject to the EAR, while others are subject to license requirements for all or some items listed on the Commerce Control List (CCL)).  Be sure to review the licensing policy and requirements carefully.

Are U.S. companies prohibited under the EAR from doing business with specific entities that are not included on the Entity List?

As set forth in the answer to question 28, both BIS and other agencies in the U.S. Government maintain other lists of entities for which there are restrictions on doing business.  In addition, the provisions of part 744 of the EAR, including § 744.6 of the EAR, apply to transactions regardless of whether the entity in question is listed on the Entity List or not.

Additionally, BIS recommends that exporters, reexporters, or persons transferring (in-country) items subject to the EAR review the U.S. Government’s list of proscribed persons to ensure that a proposed transaction does not violate other U. S. Government requirements.

What are the different types of license requirements for listed entities?

Each entity on the Entity List is assigned a specific licensing requirement on the basis of the national security and/or foreign policy considerations associated with the entity’s designation on the Entity List.  Within the Entity List, the information for each listed entity includes the license requirement, license review policy, and Federal Register citation(s). License requirements vary from “all items subject to the EAR,” which includes items on the CCL as well as EAR99 items, to all items on the CCL, or to all items on the CCL except for specified items.

What is BIS’s policy for reviewing license applications that include listed entities as parties to the transaction?

BIS reviews license applications that include listed entities according to the entity’s role in the proposed transaction and the specific license review policy(ies) set forth for the entity(ies) on the Entity List.  Note that while transactions outside of the scope of the license review policy for a listed entity are not prohibited, BIS considers that such transactions carry a "red flag."

Are there any license exceptions available for listed entities?

Section 744.1(c) of the EAR generally prohibits the use of license exceptions for almost all exports and reexports to listed entities.  However, if one or more license exceptions are available to a listed entity, the availability will be noted in the licensing requirements information specific to that entity.

How often is the Entity List updated?

The Entity List is subject to ongoing review and revision.  All changes to the Entity List are published in the Federal Register.  You can subscribe to a BIS e-mail notification service that will alert you when EAR rules are published in the Federal Register, including rules implementing changes to the Entity List, by clicking here.

A company that used to be on the Entity List is no longer listed. Can I ship to them now?

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.

What if a company I want to export to is at the same address as (e.g., co-located with) a listed entity?

This is a "red flag" and the exporter must undertake sufficient due diligence to verify that the company co-located with the listed entity is not, in fact, the listed entity and does not intend to transfer (in-country) the requested items to the listed entity.

What if the name or address of the company I want to export to is a near match to a name or address on the Entity List?

As this is a "red flag", BIS recommends that detailed due diligence be undertaken.  You should conduct due diligence by examining other factors to determine if the company you want to export to is the same as the listed entity.  Such factors may include, but are not limited to, the company’s name, address, corporate officers, business activities, contact information, etc.  You may be able to locate this information via the company’s website or through internet search results.

Can I export to a person on the Entity List if he/she is not located at the same address as listed in the EAR?

Persons on the Entity List are subject to the licensing policy and requirements defined in their specific entries on the Entity List regardless of their location. BIS works to revise and correct the entries on the Entity List on a regular basis, in order to ensure that each entry reflects the most accurate and recent information for the person named in that entry. However, if your due diligence indicates that the person to whom you wish to export, reexport, or transfer (in-country) is designated on the Entity List, then, regardless of the address listed in the Entity List entry, you should follow the licensing requirements set forth in the Entity List for that person.

Are all of the persons on the Entity List included because they violated the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) by exporting, reexporting and/or transferring 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.

Is there an appeals process for listed entities? If so, how does it work?

Yes; this process was articulated in BIS’s August 2008 revision of the EAR titled “Authorization to Impose License Requirements for Exports or Reexports to Entities Acting Contrary to the National Security or Foreign Policy Interests of the United States.”

As a result of the August 2008 rule, §744.16 of the EAR defines the procedures that allow a person listed on the Entity List to submit a written request to the End-User Review Committee (ERC) that its entry be removed or modified.  The request must be made in English and the party must provide a basis for the removal or modification.  After the ERC has reviewed the request and reached a decision, BIS’s Deputy Assistant Secretary for Export Administration will provide the decision in a written response to the requesting party.  The decision communicated to the party by the Deputy Assistant Secretary is final.  BIS will publish any modifications to, or removals from, the Entity List resulting from such appeals in the Federal Register.  The timeframe for appeals is 30 calendar days after the ERC’s receipt of the appeal (note that BIS conducts an internal review of all appeals prior to referral to the ERC that may add to this timeframe).

Please note that if a party on the Entity List submits an appeal, it remains subject to the Entity List's licensing requirements while the appeal is being processed.  In order for a party to be released from the additional licensing requirements imposed by being on the Entity List, two actions must occur: 1) the appeal must be approved by the ERC, and 2) a formal notice of the party’s removal from the Entity List must be published in the Federal Register.

Do other U.S. Government export screening lists include U.S. persons?

Yes. See a consolidated version of all U.S. Government proscribed parties lists here.

 

Does BIS work with other U.S. Government agencies to administer the Entity List?

Yes. As set forth in Supplement No. 5 to Part 744 of the EAR, proposed changes to the Entity List are reviewed and approved by the interagency End-User Review Committee (ERC). Comprised of representatives from the Departments of State, Defense, and Energy, the ERC is chaired by a Commerce employee. In addition to the review of appeals, the ERC reviews the Entity List on an annual basis. Any ERC member agency may also recommend changes to the Entity List on an ad-hoc basis.

Who should I contact if I have more questions about the Entity List?

 

You should call the Office of Exporter Services at 202-482-4811, or e-mail them a question via the website. Pursuant to the guidance in §748.3 of the EAR, you may also submit an advisory opinion request to the End-User Review Committee Chair at ERC@bis.doc.gov, or call the Committee Chair directly at 202-482-5991.

 

Do the license requirements and policies of the Entity List apply to separately incorporated subsidiaries, partially owned subsidiaries, or sister companies of a listed entity?

 

Subsidiaries, parent companies, and sister companies are legally distinct from listed entities. Therefore, the licensing and other obligations imposed on a listed entity by virtue of its being listed do not per se apply to its subsidiaries, parent companies, sister companies, or other legally distinct affiliates that are not listed on the Entity List. If, however, such a company, or even an unaffiliated company, acts as an agent, a front, or a shell company for the listed entity in order to facilitate transactions that would not otherwise be permissible with the listed entity, then the company is likely violating, inter alia, General Prohibition 10, EAR section 764.2(b) (causing, aiding, or abetting a violation) and possibly other subsections of 764.2 as well.

Those who export, reexport, or transfer items subject to the EAR with knowledge that the items are destined to a subsidiary, sister, parent, or other affiliate of a listed entity are encouraged to take extra due diligence steps to ensure that (i) the items are not ultimately destined for the listed entity and (ii) the affiliate is a separate legal entity (as opposed to a branch or operating division of the listed entity). If one is uncertain whether a planned transaction involving an actor with some relationship to a listed entity would be affected by the obligations pertaining to the listed entity, one may seek an advisory opinion from BIS pursuant to section 748.3.

 

Do the license requirements and policies of the Entity List apply to the branch offices and operating divisions of a company, organization, or other entity that is a listed entity?

Branches and operating divisions of a listed entity are, by definition, part of the listed entity. They are not legally distinct entities. Therefore, with one exception pertaining to hospitals and medical centers of the Department of Atomic Energy entities in India (see FAQ #39), the licensing and other obligations imposed on a listed entity also apply to its branches and operating divisions.

Do the license requirements and policies in the Entity List also apply to the parent company if a subsidiary is a listed entity?

The Entity List license requirements do not extend to parent companies unless the applicable listing for the company so states. Exporters, reexporters, and transferors are reminded that the EAR imposes licensing requirements, such as end-user and end-use based restrictions in Part 744 of the EAR, that could apply to such companies even if they are legally separate from the listed entity.

Do the restrictions for a listed alias differ from the main entry?

No. All persons named in Entity List entries are subject to the main entry's licensing requirements and policy.

Can I use a company that is a listed entity as a freight forwarder? Can I use a listed entity as the freight carrier transporting my shipment?

The licensing policies and requirements cited on the Entity List extend to the export, reexport, or transfer (in-country) of items subject to the EAR to the persons included on the Entity List. Therefore, a transaction that involves a listed entity in which that entity is not the consignee of the goods is not a transaction subject to a license under the entity’s listing on the Entity List.  However, BIS considers that a transaction involving the use of a listed entity as a freight forwarder or carrier carries a "red flag" and suggests that you exercise caution and strong oversight if you opt to engage a listed entity for these services. Although the freight forwarder or carrier may not be the end-user of the item(s) you are exporting, reexporting, or transferring (in-country), the freight forwarder/carrier will likely have access to the item(s) being exported, reexported, and/or transferred (in-country), thereby increasing the chance that the item(s) you are shipping will be diverted. Further, BIS recommends consulting the other export screening lists maintained by the U.S. Government to ensure that your use of the listed entity as a freight forwarder/carrier does not violate sanctions or restrictions administered by other U.S. Government agencies.

If a person on the Entity List enters the United States, can I do business with that person?

BIS does not prohibit the sale or transfer of commodities subject to the EAR to persons on the Entity List if those persons are in the United States.  However, the release of software source code or technology in the United States to a person on the Entity List or a person employed by or representing an organization on the Entity List may require a license as a “deemed export.”  Should such a person depart the United States, a license will be required for the export of commodities and software (other than software source code) consistent with the entity’s listing on the Entity List.  In addition, if at the time of the domestic sale or transfer in the United States, the transferor or seller had “knowledge” that the person on the Entity List or the person employed by or representing the organization on the Entity List intended to export the item(s) out of the United States without obtaining BIS authorization, a violation of the EAR under §736.2(b)(10) (General Prohibition Ten) and §764.2(e) may occur.  BIS recommends that exporters exercise a high level of due diligence prior to entering into a transaction with any person on the Entity List, regardless of where that person is located.  Note also that the release outside of the United States of software source code or technology subject to the EAR to a person on the Entity List or a person employed by or representing an organization on the Entity List may require a license or other EAR authorization prior to the “deemed reexport” of that software source code or technology.

Can a U.S. company import items from listed entities?

BIS does not have jurisdiction over the import of items into the United States.  However, you should consult other lists maintained by the U.S. Government, as sanctions or other restrictions may apply to import transactions with the particular listed entity or from that particular country of import.  BIS publishes a consolidated version of all of the U.S. Government lists that may be relevant to your transaction.

Can a listed entity act as my company’s sales agent?

Yes, if you can ensure that the entity acting as your agent does not have access to the item(s) prohibited by the Entity List’s licensing requirements and policies.  Note that BIS recommends that, as a "red flag" is associated with such transactions, you exercise caution and strong oversight if you opt to engage a sales agent that is, or is owned by, a listed entity. Note that the licensing requirements specified on the Entity List will apply if the sales agent has access to the restricted item being exported, reexported or transferred (in-country), including items that the sales agent would, in the normal course of business, use for product demonstrations. Further, you should check other lists maintained by the U.S. Government as sanctions or other restrictions may apply to transactions with the particular listed entity.

Can I purchase items from a company that is listed on the Entity List?

The Bureau of Industry & Security’s jurisdiction is limited to the export, reexport and transfer (in-country) of items subject to the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) and the placement of a person on the Entity List imposes supplemental license requirements and license application review policies on the shipment of items subject to the EAR to that person. Although a person’s inclusion on the Entity List does not create a prohibition on purchases from that person, companies contemplating such purchases should note that BIS suggests that there are red flags on the purchase of U.S.-origin items and other items subject to the EAR from Entity List persons. Companies need to exercise additional due diligence to ensure that the items desired for purchase, should they be U.S. origin or otherwise subject to the EAR, were sent to the company listed on the Entity List with the appropriate authorization. Anyone seeking to purchase items from a company listed on the Entity List should note that the Entity List is made up of entities about whom the United States Government found there to be reasonable cause to believe that the entity has been involved, is involved, or poses a significant risk of being or becoming involved in activities that are contrary to the national security or foreign policy interests of the U.S. government, and those acting on behalf of such entities.

Can a student at a university listed on the Entity List intern at my company?

A student’s enrollment at a university included on the Entity List is a “red flag” which requires exporters undertake an additional level of due diligence before proceeding with any such transaction.  However, a student is not an integral part of the university (e.g., does not have fiduciary duty to from the university in the same manner that as an employee, officer, trustee, or person in a similar position in the university would) in which he/she is enrolled and therefore BIS does not include them in the licensing requirements and policy specific to the university.  With the caveat of the red flag mentioned above, BIS advises exporters to treat exports, reexports, and transfers (in country) to students as shipments to the country of which the student is a citizen.

Can my company enter into collaborative research projects with universities on the Entity List?

Pursuant to §734.8 of the EAR, information resulting from fundamental research is not subject to the EAR.  Therefore, given that the collaboration remains limited to fundamental research, it cannot be subject to the Entity List’s licensing requirements and policies. Any research undertaken that involves the export, reexport, or transfer of an item subject to the EAR and that does not conform to the requirements of § 734.8 of the EAR may, depending on the licensing requirements and policies specified in the Entity List entry, require a license from BIS.

Can my company hire an individual employed by a university on the Entity List while he/she continues to work at the university?

Employees of persons on the Entity List are subject to the licensing requirements and policies specific to their employer.  Therefore, in the case of universities on the Entity List, employees of the universities are subject to the same licensing policy and requirements that the universities are.  This also applies to officers, trustees, and other persons in a similar position with the university.

Can my company hire an individual who used to be employed by a university on the Entity List?

Yes. However, previous employment at any organization on the Entity List carries a “red flag” which requires an additional level of due diligence before proceeding with the hiring process.

Can my company donate items subject to the EAR to a university on the Entity List?

It depends on what your company wants to donate, whether BIS requires a license for the export, reexport, or transfer of that item to the university (as specified in the Entity List entry for the university), and, given that a license is required, whether BIS approves your license application.

What is the relationship of the Entity List to other lists maintained by the U.S. Government?

The Departments of Commerce, State, and the Treasury maintain separate lists for the programs each agency administers because these programs have different purposes and are regulated under different authorities.

BIS maintains three lists:  the Denied Persons List (DPL); the Unverified List; and the Entity List.  The Entity List is described in detail in these FAQs and can be found here

The DPL lists persons that have been denied export privileges; any dealings with persons listed on the DPL that violate the terms of their denial order would be a violation of the EAR.  The DPL can be found here.

The Unverified List is a list of parties that have not cooperated with BIS during post-shipment verification checks.  The presence of a party on the Unverified List in a transaction is a “red flag” that must be resolved before proceeding with the transaction.  The Unverified List can be found here.

The Departments of the Treasury and State maintain other lists that should be consulted before exporting, reexporting, or transferring item(s).  These lists include the Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons (SDN) List, the Debarred List, and the lists of persons subject to Nonproliferation Sanctions.  You can find links to these lists here.

A consolidated version of all of the U.S. Government proscribed parties lists is available here.

What does it mean when BIS incorporates entities into the Entity List by reference?

The Entity List includes restrictions on exports, reexports, or transfers (in-country) to certain persons by reference, meaning that the EAR defines the licensing policy and requirements specific to such persons but does not necessarily include them as individual entries on the Entity List. These persons are designated in or pursuant to Executive Orders or other legal mechanisms. Examples of such persons include but are not limited to Specially Designated Global Terrorists (SDGTs), as referenced in §744.12 of the EAR, and Specially Designated Terrorists (SDTs), as referenced in §744.13 of the EAR.

In incorporating the lists maintained by other U.S. Government (USG) agencies by reference, BIS is clarifying the EAR licensing requirements and policies applicable to the entities on the other USG lists. BIS recommends that exporters, reexporters, or transferors in-country consult the other lists maintained by the USG when exporting, reexporting, and/or transferring (in-country) items since, in many cases, they will not be required to also seek separate authorization from BIS. Note, however, that in some cases an EAR authorization may still be required. See §§ 744.8, 744.12, 744.13, 744.14, 744.18, and 744.22 of the EAR for additional details. In other words, EAR license requirements supplement those of the other USG agencies.

Is the Entity list the same as the Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons (SDN) List?

No. The SDN List is published by the U.S. Department of the Treasury, Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC). The SDN List has different foreign policy objectives and legal requirements than the Entity List.

Is the Entity List the same as the Denied Persons List?

No. Although both the Denied Persons List (DPL) and the Entity List are administered by the Department of Commerce, they are separate and distinct lists. The DPL includes parties that have been denied export and reexport privileges. In contrast, the Entity List imposes specific license requirements for the export, reexport, or transfer (in-country) of specified items to the persons named on it.

Are hospitals and medical centers of Indian Department of Atomic Energy entities that are on the Entity List included in the entries for those entities?

No. Hospitals and medical centers of Indian Department of Atomic Energy (DAE) entities are not—and were never intended to be--captured by the Entity List. Consequently, hospitals and medical centers of DAE entities are not subject to the Entity List’s licensing requirements. Note that the licensing requirements found elsewhere in the EAR may be applicable to such hospitals and medical centers. Such hospitals and medical centers would also be generally subject to destination-based licensing requirements that apply to India.

Where can I locate the list of Indian nuclear reactors (including power plants) and other nuclear facilities under International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) safeguards?

This list is published in the IAEA’s Information Circular titled "Agreement between the Government of India and the International Atomic Energy Agency for the Application of Safeguards to Civilian Nuclear Facilities" (INFCIRC/754), which is available at the IAEA’s website (www.iaea.org). In this document there is an annex (the "List of Facilities Subject to Safeguards Under the Agreement Between the Government of India and The International Atomic Energy Agency for the Application of Safeguards to Civilian Nuclear Facilities") that contains the list of nuclear reactors (including power plants) and fuel fabrication facilities under IAEA safeguards. Please note that this list is updated regularly with the publication of documents titled "Agreement between the Government of India and the International Atomic Energy Agency for the Application of Safeguards to Civilian Nuclear Facilities: Addition to the List of Facilities Subject to Safeguards Under the Agreement" and that these updates are numbered as follows: INFCIRC/754/Add.1, INFCIRC/754/Add.2, INFCIRC/754/Add.3, etc. BIS recommends that exporters check the most recent version of the list on a regular basis by searching the IAEA’s website for "INFCIRC/754". As of November 18, 2013, the most recent version of this document is INFCIRC/754/Add.4.

Validated End User Program FAQs

What is the VEU Program?

The Validated End-User (VEU) program is an innovative trade-facilitating program that enhances high-technology civilian trade between the United States and VEU-eligible countries (currently, China and India).  Use of Authorization VEU reduces the licensing burden on industry by allowing U.S. exporters to ship designated items to pre-approved entities under a general authorization instead of individual export licenses.

 

What is the background and purpose of the VEU Program?

 

Established in 2007, the VEU Program uses a market-based approach to facilitate high-technology trade (see the 2007 rule introducing the VEU program here). The program permits entities in eligible destinations that pass a rigorous interagency review and agree to ongoing compliance obligations to receive, under Authorization VEU, the same items that they could previously receive under individual Commerce Department licenses.

 

Where can I find the list of qualified VEUs?

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.

Who may apply for the VEU program?

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. 

Applicants can choose which and how many facilities to include in applications for VEU status. Note that a facility authorized to receive items under VEU may not transfer the items imported under its VEU authorization to another location that has not been specifically approved for VEU status, even if that other location is part of the same corporate entity.

 

Can anything be shipped under Authorization VEU?

 

No. Items controlled on the Commerce Control List (Part 774 of the EAR) for missile technology (MT) or crime control (CC) reasons are not eligible to be authorized for shipment under Authorization VEU.  Additionally, items exported under Authorization VEU may not be used for any activities described in Part 744 of the EAR.  Accordingly, asserting that an item is being exported pursuant to Authorization VEU when it is destined for use in any of the activities described in Part 744 would constitute a violation of the EAR.

Further, the items eligible for shipment to each individual VEU are specified in the individual entries found in Supplement No. 7 to Part 748 of the EAR.  These are the only items that may be shipped to the VEU under Authorization VEU.  Note that within any VEU listing, certain items may be authorized for shipment to some but not all of a VEU’s eligible facilities.

 

What items may not be shipped under Authorization VEU?

 

As noted above, only specifically listed, eligible items may be shipped to a VEU pursuant to Authorization VEU.  In accordance with relevant statutory requirements and pursuant to Section 748.15(c) of the EAR, BIS does not authorize items controlled for missile technology (MT) or crime control (CC) reasons under the VEU program.  Additionally, pursuant to Section 748.15(d) of the EAR, items obtained under Authorization VEU may be used only for civil end-uses, and specifically not for any activities described in Part 744 of the EAR. 

Finally, exports, reexports, and transfers (in-country) made under Authorization VEU are allowed only if the items’ end-user is a validated end-user.  VEUs may only: a) use the received items at their approved facility(ies) as listed in Supplement No. 7 to Part 748; b) consume the items during use; and c) transfer or reexport the items only as authorized by BIS.

 

What is the difference between a “Validated End-User” and an “Eligible Destination”?

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.

Is the VEU program right for my organization?

Entities that will benefit the most from participation in the VEU program typically are those that place orders for dual-use items classified on the Commerce Control List, such as chemicals and electronic components, on a regular basis with U.S. exporters.  Generally speaking, qualification as a VEU will be most easily obtained by entities that already maintain export compliance systems and are experienced in complying with U.S. export control laws and regulations.

Why are VEU eligible destinations restricted to China and India?

VEU-eligible destinations are currently limited to China and India while the Bureau of Industry and Security completes implementation of the VEU program.  Once the program is fully implemented, the U.S. Government may decide to make participation in the VEU program available in other countries.

How do organizations apply for VEU?

End-users in eligible destinations can apply directly to the Department of Commerce for VEU authorization status or exporters or reexporters may file applications on behalf of such end-users.  Prospective VEUs must provide detailed information on how they will ensure that they are in compliance the requirements of the VEU program.  Additional information may be requested by the U.S. Government while a VEU application is being reviewed.

Once an end-user applies to be a VEU, the End-User Review Committee, which is a committee composed of representatives from multiple U.S. Government agencies, reviews the application and determines:

  • If the prospective VEU is a reliable recipient of U.S. controlled items.
  • If the prospective VEU meets the VEU criteria.
  • If approved, which of the prospective VEU’s requested facilities would be able to receive which items under Authorization VEU.

BIS has prepared a VEU application template to assist entities requesting VEU authorization.  Additionally, Supplement No. 8 to Part 748 of the EAR outlines the information required in requests for VEU authorization.  Note that the U.S. Government may request additional information from a prospective VEU while a VEU application is being reviewed.

BIS encourages entities to submit draft VEU applications to ERC@bis.doc.gov.  BIS will review and provide comments on the draft application, and also will provide draft applications to the other members of the End-User Review Committee for review and comment, if requested by applicants.

What are the requirements of the VEU program?

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:

  • Has been informed of and understands that the item(s) it may receive under authorization VEU will be exported in compliance with the EAR and use or diversion of such items contrary to the EAR is prohibited.
  • Understands and will adhere to all authorization VEU restrictions, including the requirement that items shipped under authorization VEU will only be used for civil end-uses and will not be used for any activities described in Part 744 of the EAR.
  • Will comply with VEU recordkeeping requirements.
  • Agrees to allow on-site reviews by U.S. Government officials to verify the end-user’s compliance with the conditions of the VEU authorization.

What are the compliance requirements of the VEU program?

 

Prospective VEUs must provide written certification to the U.S. Government that the items proposed for receipt under Authorization VEU will be used in accordance with VEU program restrictions, and must provide detailed information to verify compliance with the overall requirements of the VEU program (e.g., an internal compliance plan).  Additionally, VEUs are often required to comply with conditions similar to those found in individual licenses, as well as to submit regular reports on their use of the items received under Authorization VEU to the U.S. Government. 

Entities applying for qualification as a VEU must also agree to allow the U.S. Government to conduct inspections of the facility or facilities in which the U.S. origin items received under Authorization VEU will be used. These inspections are known as “on-site reviews,” and are similar to the “end-use checks” that the U.S. Government routinely conducts at facilities that have imported U.S.-origin items under individual licenses.

 

To what address should VEU applications be submitted?

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

The Office of Exporter Services
Bureau of Industry and Security
U.S. Department of Commerce
14th Street and Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Room 2705
Washington, DC 20230

or

ERC@bis.doc.gov

How long does qualification under Authorization VEU last?

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.

Do qualified VEUs have to report material changes to BIS? What happens when they do?

Yes, they do, pursuant to §748.15(a)(4) of the EAR.  Once in receipt of information regarding a material change, BIS provides it to the interagency End-User Review Committee for review and discussion.  The End-User Review Committee may decide to revoke or amend VEU authorization based on such reports.

Can a qualified VEU request changes to its VEU authorization?

Yes. VEUs can request amendments to their authorizations at any time.  Such requests should be submitted to BIS and should include a complete explanation of the requested amendment and of the basis for it.

How often is the list of qualified VEUs updated?

The list of qualified VEUs (found in Supplement No. 8 to Part 748 of the EAR) is updated on an as-needed basis to accommodate the qualification of new entities in the VEU program as well as amendments to existing VEU authorizations.

How often does the U.S. Government interact with participants in the VEU program?

During the first three years of the program (2007-2010), the Bureau of Industry and Security interacted on a regular basis with participants in the VEU program.  In addition to e-mail and telephone contact, BIS and certain of its interagency colleagues held meetings with VEUs and visited VEU facilities.

Can Authorization VEU only be used to export items from the United States?

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.

Can I use Authorization VEU to export to an entity whose name is on the VEU list if it is not located at the same address(es) as listed in the EAR?

No. Only the facilities at the addresses specifically listed in Supplement No. 8 to Part 748 of the EAR are eligible end-users for items shipped under Authorization VEU. 

If an item subject to the EAR has been legally shipped to a VEU-eligible country, can it be transferred under authorization VEU within that country to a different eligible destination?

Yes. Authorization VEU is available for export from the United States, reexport, and transfer (in-country) of the items specified for each VEU in the list of “Eligible Items (by ECCN)” found in Supplement No. 8 to Part 748 of the EAR. If the item was legally exported or reexported to an eligible destination and is an “eligible item” for another VEU, it may be transferred within the same country to the other VEU’s eligible facilities under Authorization VEU.

Can I ship items not listed under “Eligible Items” in Supplement No. 7 to Part 748 to a VEU?

No, not under Authorization VEU.  If the item is not an “eligible item,” Authorization VEU is not applicable.  If the item requires a license for export, reexport, or transfer (in-country) to the VEU, such a shipment will require a different kind of authorization (e.g., an individual license or a license exception, if available).  VEUs are only authorized to receive the items that are specifically listed by Export Control Classification Number (ECCN) in Supplement No. 8 to Part 748 of the EAR under Authorization VEU. All other items are subject to standard EAR licensing requirements.

What happens if the EAR requirements on an item that previously was authorized under Authorization VEU are lessened or eliminated?

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.

How is the VEU program administered?

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.

Can an applicant ask the ERC to reconsider a decision with respect to the prospective VEU at issue? If so, how?

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.

Does the U.S. Government work with the governments of VEU-eligible countries (i.e., China and India) to ensure that those governments support the program?

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.

600 Series Items

Q.1: What is the “600 series”?

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.

Q.2: Have “600 series” ECCNs been added to the 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.

Items

USML Cat.

ECCNs

P: Proposed Rule

F: Final Rule

Effective   Date

Firearms

I

N/A

P

Guns and Armament

II

N/A

P

Ammunition

III

N/A

P

Rockets/Missile

IV

0A604, 0B604, 0D604, 0E604

9A604, 9B604, 9D604, 9E604

P: USML   IV;   CCL

F: USML V; CCL 1Y608

July 1, 2014

Explosives/Energetic Materials

V

1B608, 1C608, 1D608, 1E608

P: USML   V;   CCL   1Y608

F: USML   V; CCL   1Y608

July 1, 2014

Vessels/Submersibles

VI

XX

8A609, 8B609, 8C609,

8D609, 8E609

8A620, 8B620, 8D620, 8E620

P: USML   VI/XX

CCL   8Y609/8Y620

F: USML   VI/XX;

CCL   8Y609/8Y620

January 6, 2014

Military Vehicles

VII

0A606, 0B606, 0C606,

0D606, 0E606

P1: USML   VII;   CCL   0Y606

P2: USML   VII;   CCL 0Y606

F:   USML VII; CCL   0Y606

January 6, 2014

Aircraft

VIII

9A610, 9B610, 9C610,

9D610, 9E610

P: USML   VIII; CCL   9Y610

F: USML   VIII; CCL   9Y610

October 15, 2013

Military Training Equipment and   Training

IX

0A614, 0B614, 0D614, 0E614

P: USML   IX;   CCL   0Y614

F: USML   IX: CCL   0Y614

July 1, 2014

Personal Protective Equipment

X

1A613, 1B613, 1D613, 1E613

P: USML   X;   CCL   1Y613

F: USML   X; CCL   1Y613

July 1, 2014

Military Electronics

XI

3A611, 3B611, 3D611, 3E611

9A620, 9B620, 9D620, 9E620

P1: USML   XI;   CCL   3Y611/9Y620

P2: USML   XI;   CCL   3Y611/9Y620

F: USML   XI;   CCL   3Y611/9Y620

December 30, 2014

Sensors/Night Vision

XII

7A611, 7B611, 7D611, 7E611

P1: USML   XII;   CCL   6Y615/7Y611

P2: USML/XII;   CCL   7Y611

F: USML   Cat XII; CCL   7Y611

December 31, 2016

Auxiliary Military Equipment

XIII

0A617, 0B617, 0C617, 0D617, 0E617

P: USML   XIII; CCL   0Y617

F: USML   XIII ; CCL   0Y617

January 6, 2014

Toxicological Agents

XIV

1A607, 1B607, 1C607, 1D607, 1E607

USML   XIV;   CCL   1Y607

December 31, 2016

Spacecraft Systems

XV

9A515, 9B515, 9D515, 9E515

P: USML   XV;   CCL   9Y515

F; USML   XV;   CCL   9Y515

Rad Hard ICs:   6/27/14

All Other Items:   11/10/14

Nuclear

XVI

N/A

F: USML   XVI

July 1, 2014

Classified

XVII

N/A

F: April 16, 2013

October 15, 2013

Directed Energy

Weapons

XVIII

6B619, 6D619, 6E619

USML   XVIII; CCL   6Y619

December 31, 2016

Gas Turbine Engines

XIX

9A619, 9B619, 9C619,

9D619, 9E619

USML   XIX;   CCL   9Y619

October 15, 2013

Not Otherwise Enumerated

XXI

N/A

F: April 16, 2013

October 15, 2013

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Q:3: Are there additional “600 series” ECCNs to be added to the CCL?

        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

http://export.gov/static/RedGreenYellow%20ECR%20Dashbaord%20Editor%20081313_Latest_eg_main_044971.pdf

 

Subsequent final rules will be published creating additional "600 series" entries that correspond with revised USML Categories. After the publication date and prior to the effective date of each final rule, you may pre-position applications for Commerce licenses for items that will transition, as well as submit classification requests to BIS for items that you believe will move to the "600 series." However, until the effective date, you must follow the existing ITAR and EAR.

 

Q.4: What is the classification of parts and components that are (a) not enumerated or otherwise described on the USML and (b) common to the C-130 and L-100/L-382 aircraft but not any other aircraft?

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....

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.

License Exception Strategic Trade Authorization (STA)

Q.1: What happens if my customer reexports or transfers a License Exception STA-eligible item without first obtaining a prior consignee statement?

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”....

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.2. No, any item subject to the EAR, including any "600 series" item, regardless of the form of its export authorization, may be subject to an end-use check. This includes exports authorized under a BIS license, license exception, and "no license required" status under the EAR, and all items subject to the EAR, including CCL items (including "600 series" items") and items designated as EAR99.

 

Q.3: In order to use License Exception STA (EAR section 740.20), is there a specific form the consignee must use to satisfy the conditions of the exception?

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....

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.4. You (including the defense contractor in the Country Group A:5 country) do not need to obtain a prior consignee statement from the Country Group A:5 government. While License Exception STA requires a prior consignee statement from the defense contractor for export to the Country Group A:5 country, the subsequent transfer (in-country) from the defense contractor to the Country Group A:5 military does not require an additional authorization under the EAR. A transfer (in-country) for which no license is required does not require an EAR authorization. Therefore, since a prior consignee statement was provided by the defense contractor and the subsequent transfers (in-country) do not require an additional authorization, a separate prior consignee statement is not needed from the Country Group A:5 military or from any other party receiving the "600 series" item in-country prior to the Country Group A:5 military receiving the "600 series" item for its ultimate end use.

Consignees that provide the prior consignee statements should be aware that they are ultimately responsible for ensuring that the "600 series" item is provided to an end-user that is eligible to receive "600-series" items under License Exception STA. Thus, the consignee should take reasonable steps to assure that any parties who will handle the item understand and comply with this STA limitation (in other words, the consignee should take reasonable steps to put any such parties on notice). One potential approach for putting those other parties on notice could include communicating to all parties that the "600 series" item they are receiving was exported under License Exception STA for ultimate end use by the Country Group A:5 military and obtaining written commitments from those parties that they will comply with these requirements. Another potential approach for putting those other parties on notice may be through contractual liability clauses.

 

Q.5. If License Exception STA in most cases is not needed to authorize a transfer (in-country), then why does License Exception STA include various references to transfer (in-country)?

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).

Another scenario where License Exception STA may be used for a transfer (in-country) would be if an EAR license exception were no longer available because the proposed particulars of a transaction have changed and it no longer meets the license exception’s terms and conditions. For example, if a Country Group A:5 government received a "600 series" item under License Exception GOV and then subsequently wanted or needed to transfer (in-country) that "600 series" item to a defense contractor or some other non-governmental party, License Exception STA could likely be used to authorize the transfer (in-country) as long as the item would eventually be for that Country Group A:5 government’s ultimate end use. In certain cases, other EAR License Exceptions may also be available to authorize such transfers (in-country), such as License Exceptions TMP or RPL.

Q.6. I am not exporting the “600 series” item to a defense contractor, but rather exporting directly to the Country Group A:5 military. Do I need to obtain a prior consignee statement?

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.

License Exception GOV

Q.1: How long does “temporary” mean for purposes of paragraph (b)(2)(iii)(C) of License Exception GOV?

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.

Q.2: If I know at the time of export, reexport or, transfer (in-country) that an item is for a permanent export, reexport, or transfer (in-country), can paragraph (b)(2)(iii)(C) still be used?

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).

Q.4: For purposes of paragraph (b)(2)(iii)(B) of License Exception GOV, does the item being exported, reexported, or transferred (in-country) need to be consigned to the foreign government, international organization or agency?

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.

Q.5: What does the term “Government Furnished Equipment (GFE)” mean in paragraph (b)(2)(iii)(E) of License Exception GOV?

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....

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.6: If the contractor will use those parts and components solely for uses specific to the U.S. Government, such as repairing off-road vehicles for USAID, then such uses would be within the scope of the term "solely for United States Government end use" for purposes of paragraph (b)(2)(iii)(A).

 

CCL Order of Review

Q.1: What is the Commerce Control List Order of Review?

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

Q.2: How do the USML Order of Review and CCL Order of Review work together?

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.

Q:3: Where do I begin my review of the CCL?

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.

Q.4: Do I need to review the “600 series” first?

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.

Q.5: What do I do once I determine my item is not classified in the “600 series”?

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.

Q.6: When can I determine my item is designated as EAR99?

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.

Q:7: What is my liability if I use the order of review guidance or the order of review decision tool and obtain the incorrect classification of my product?

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.

Q:8: If I have a question while going through the CCL Order of Review, who should I call or write?

A:8: You may contact Timothy Mooney by email: timothy.mooney@bis.doc.gov 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 ECDOEXS@bis.doc.gov is also available to answer questions about the EAR, including those related to the CCL Order of Review Decision Tool.

 

Specially Designed

Q.1: Where can I find the definition of “specially designed” in the EAR?

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

Q.2: When was the new definition of “specially designed” added to the EAR and when did it become effective?

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.

Q.3: When do I need to review “specially designed” under the EAR?

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:

Save it. To do so please click here. Select the option to "save."

Please click here for the transcript of the webinar.

 

 

Q.4: How does “specially designed” fit into the larger review of the CCL, given “specially designed” is used in the “600 series,” as well as other ECCNs on the CCL?

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.

Q.5: Does the same definition of “specially designed” apply to the “600 series” and other ECCNs?

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

Q.6: Is it possible that I may need to review the “specially designed” definition more than one time?

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.

Q.7: Is the definition of “specially designed” under the EAR and the ITAR the same definition?

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.

Q.8: If I review the revised USML Category and determine the item is not “specially designed” under the ITAR, does that also mean it is not “specially designed” under 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."

Q.9: Why does paragraph (a)(1) use the term “items,” but paragraph (a)(2) use the terms “parts,” “components,” “accessories,” “attachments” and “software”?

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.

For any item that is not a "part," "component," "accessory," "attachment" or "software," such as an "end item" or "material" ("end item" and "material" are defined in § 772.1 of the EAR) described in a paragraph that uses "specially designed," paragraph (a)(1) functions as the entire "specially designed" definition – meaning (a)(1) acts as the ‘catch’ and ‘release.’ For example, if the end item meets the criteria of (a)(1), it is "specially designed." If it does not meet the criteria of paragraph (a)(1), it is not "specially designed."

Q.10: Why was paragraph (a)(2) needed for “parts,” “components,” “accessories,” “attachments,” and “software?”

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

Q.11: If I am reviewing “specially designed” for a “part,” “component,” “accessory,” “attachment” or “software” in a catch-all paragraph, such as 9A610.x, can I review paragraph (a)(2) first instead of reviewing paragraph (a)(1)?

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).

Q.13: Why does the introductory text to paragraph (b) of “specially designed” use the word controlled, and how does that change my analysis of “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.13: Why does the introductory text to paragraph (b) of “specially designed” use the word controlled, and how does that change my analysis of “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.....

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.14: Yes, this is referred to informally as the review-paragraph-(b)-first track for analyzing "specially designed." As was noted in response to Specially Designed Q.12 above, if an item is NOT ‘caught,’ under (a), then there is no need to review paragraph (b) for "parts," "components," "accessories," "attachments," or "software." However, the converse also applies. If an item is ‘released’ under paragraph (b) (assuming you are not reviewing a decontrol that uses "specially designed"), then there is no need to review paragraph (a), because you have already determined the "part," "component," "accessory," "attachment," or "software" is ‘released’ from "specially designed." For example, assume you have a fastener you are trying to classify. A fastener is a "part" that is specified under paragraph (b)(2) of "specially designed" as not being "specially designed." Therefore, if you have a fastener, you simply can review paragraph (b)(2) and once you confirm a fastener is specified as one of the "parts" or minor "components" ‘released’ from "specially designed," your analysis of "specially designed" is done.

 

Q.15: If my “part,” “component,” “accessory,” “attachment,” or “software” meets the criteria of more than one paragraph (b) ‘release’ is that a problem?

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...

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?

A.16: Yes, see paragraph (b)(1) of "specially designed." Paragraph (b)(1) specifies that "parts," "components," "accessories," "attachments," or "software" identified in such a CJ would not be "specially designed" on the CCL. In addition, in conducting your analysis of the CCL Order of Review for the "600 series," having a past CJ that identified the item as subject to the EAR, and that item was classified in an ECCN that did not end in -018 or was designated as EAR99 would mean under the CCL Order of Review, you would skip to Step 5 in your analysis of the CCL. This is because the new General Order No. 5 to Part 736 under paragraph (c) (Prior commodity jurisdiction determinations) specifies such items in past CJs are not classified in the "600 series."

 

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...

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.

Q.18: Are there any ‘releases’ under paragraph (b) for insignificant “parts” or minor “components”?

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.

Q.19: If I have a “part” or “component” that I believe is not significant, but it is not specified in paragraph (b)(2), can I rely on paragraph (b)(2) to ‘release’ the “part” or “component?”

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.....

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.20: The "production" ‘release’ under paragraph (b)(3) may be applicable. This question is not an uncommon fact pattern where a "part," "component," "accessory," or "attachment" was developed decades ago. Criteria under paragraph (b)(3)(i) and (ii) identify when a "part," "component," "accessory," "attachment" or "software" has moved into the lowest controlled items in "production" and therefore warrants ‘release’ from "specially designed."

 

Q.21: I am classifying a “component” and I know the “component” was originally “developed” for use in an item controlled for more than AT-reasons. Does that matter in applying the paragraph (b)(3) ‘release?’

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.

Q.22: To rely on the paragraph (b)(3) ‘release,’ does the same “part,” “component,” “accessory,” “attachment,” or “software” need to be used in an item that meets the criteria under paragraph (b)(3)(ii)?

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.

Q.23: What does ‘equivalent’ mean under paragraph (b)(3)?

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.’

Q.24: Can you provide an example for applying the ‘equivalent’ concept?

 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.’

Example 1

(Meets the ‘equivalent’ standard): A fuel pump used in AT-only controlled aircraft in "production" is modified for use in a military aircraft. The fuel pump has the same function, performance capabilities, but needed to be modified solely for fit purposes (to fit in an area of a military aircraft). No other changes to the fuel pump were made, such as for fuel flow.

Example 2

(Does NOT meet the ‘equivalent’ standard): A fuel pump used in AT-only aircraft in "production" is modified for use in a military aircraft. However, in addition to modifying the fuel pump for fit purposes (to fit in an area of a military aircraft), the fuel pump has been made of higher strength materials to allow it to pump at a higher pressure.

 

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.....

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."

Q.26: Paragraph (b)(6) looks similar to paragraph (b)(4) in its construction, so what is the purpose of paragraph (b)(6)?

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,"...

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.

Q.28: Is there guidance on the type of documentation that is needed for relying on the “development” ‘releases’ under paragraphs (b)(4), (b)(5) and (b)(6)?

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.

Q.29: If I do not have “knowledge” of the “development” history, does that mean I cannot rely on paragraphs (b)(4), (b)(5) and (b)(6)?

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).

Q.30: If I develop a “part,” or “component” for use in different types of commodities, such as machine tools, medical equipment and aircraft, is there a paragraph (b) ‘release’ for such general purpose commodities or software?

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.

Self-determination of an item's jurisdictional and classification status by a foreign person

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...

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?

A.1: Yes. Absent such a determination, a foreign person may make a self-determination of an item’s jurisdictional and classification status. Indeed, a foreign person is obligated to know whether an item is subject to the ITAR or, if subject to the EAR, how it is classified before reexporting or transferring the item in order to ensure compliance with the ITAR’s and the EAR’s licensing and other obligations. The U.S. exporter is responsible for determining the jurisdictional and classification status of the items it is exporting. However, if reliable jurisdictional and classification information has not already been provided by another party, such as the original equipment manufacturer, then the foreign person may and, indeed, must make these determinations itself in order to avoid violating the ITAR or the EAR if it later reexports or retransfers the article or item. As a matter of due diligence, however, the foreign person should seek jurisdictional and classification information from the manufacturer of the items or the owner of the technology in question and resolve any potential differences in interpretation. If after reviewing the ITAR’s U.S. Munitions List (USML) and all relevant facts, doubt exists regarding whether the item is enumerated or otherwise described on the USML, the foreign person should request from DDTC a commodity jurisdiction determination pursuant to 22 C.F.R. § 120.4. If the item is clearly not enumerated or otherwise described on the USML and, after reviewing the EAR and all relevant facts, there is doubt regarding whether or where the item is enumerated or otherwise described on the EAR’s Commerce Control List, then the foreign person should request from the Department of Commerce’s Bureau of Industry and Security a commodity classification determination pursuant to 15 C.F.R. § 748.3.

 

Applying the definition of parts

Applying the definition of parts

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.

Q.1: Where can I find a definition for the term “part” as used under the EAR?

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

Q.2: How is the term “part” defined in 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.

Q.3: If an Export Control Classification Number (ECCN) does not use the term “parts,” does that mean no “parts” are controlled under that ECCN?

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.....

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...

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”?

A.5: The questioner is correct that "parts" made from castings are the easiest way to determine whether you are classifying a "part" compared to a "component." However, the definition of "part" also extends to other types of manufacturing processes where the commodity being created is a single unassembled element and, importantly, is not normally subject to disassembly without the destruction or the impairment of design use. These phrases from the definition of "part" help to refine the scope of what is considered a "part."

Must be a single element. For example, any commodity that includes assembly instructions or blue prints for connecting more than one single element, would take the commodity in question outside the scope of the definition of "part." In this example, the commodity would be considered an assembly, a term which under the EAR, is also referred to as a "component."

Must not normally be subject to disassembly without the destruction or the impairment of the commodity’s design use. Manufacturing methods where a "part" is made by welding or diffusion bonding that permanently combines together elements to make a single unassembled element would meet this criterion from the definition because any disassembly would clearly destroy the commodity or at a minimum impair its design use.

 

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.....

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.6: Any type of manufacturing method that is not permanent (meaning the commodity could be disassembled without the destruction or impairment of the commodity’s design use), such as gluing or press fitting, would take the commodity outside the scope of the definition of "part," which would most likely mean the commodity is a "component."

 

Q.7: If I have a single unassembled commodity that includes certain inserts that can be removed (such as a helix coil that could be pulled out) does that commodity fall under the definition of a “part”?

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."

Q.8: Can a commodity that includes moving elements, such as door hinge, be considered a single element of a “part?

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.

Note: Flexing and bending are not considered moving elements. Certain "parts" may be capable of flexing and bending or may have been designed to flex and bend.

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.....

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."

Q.10: If I determine my commodity is not classified under an ECCN, such as an ECCN in a “xY0zz” ECCN that does not control “parts,” does that mean that all the “technology” related to my “part” is not controlled either?

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."

Transition Issues

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.....

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......

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?

A.2: You are not required to report the ECCNs of "600 series" items shipped under grandfathered DDTC licenses during the transition period. However, you may do so without making an AES error.

 

   
   
© BIS 2016