The foreign direct product rule decides when an item made outside the United States is still subject to the EAR. Under 15 CFR 734.9, a foreign-produced item is caught only when it meets two tests from the same rule: a product scope (usually, it is the "direct product" of specified technology or software, or was made by a plant or 'major component' of a plant that is itself such a direct product) and a destination, end-user or end-use scope. Section 734.9 sets out its rules in paragraphs (b) to (l), with three Entity List rules inside paragraph (e). An item caught by any of them is subject to the EAR; whether its sale needs a licence is a separate question.
BIS calls these the "FDP rules", and many people say FDPR. The text used here is the eCFR copy of 15 CFR Part 734 current to 21 October 2026.
How the foreign direct product rule is built
An item has to satisfy both halves of the same paragraph. A chip made with equipment that is a direct product of U.S.-origin technology, shipped to a customer who falls outside every rule's second test, is not subject to the EAR through § 734.9.
Part 772 defines "direct product" as "the immediate product (including processes and services) produced directly by the use of technology or software." Section 734.9(a)(1) defines a 'major component' of a plant located outside the United States as "equipment" essential to the "production" of an item, including testing equipment. The product scope then has two routes, and two rules add a third:
- The foreign item was produced directly by the use of technology or software specified in the rule.
- The foreign item was produced outside the United States by a complete plant or 'major component' that is itself the direct product of specified U.S.-origin technology or software. In most paragraphs that plant may have been made in the United States or abroad.
- Under the Footnote 5 rule in paragraph (e)(3) and the semiconductor manufacturing equipment (SME) rule in paragraph (k), the item contains a commodity made by such a plant. Notes 3 and 7 say an integrated circuit made that way meets this, and that its production includes wafer fabrication, assembly, testing and packaging.
The technology wording differs between paragraphs. Paragraphs (b), (c), (d), (f) and (j) require U.S.-origin technology or software. The direct-product prongs of (e), (g), (h), (i) and (k) say technology or software "subject to the EAR", which is wider. Paragraph (l) is the odd one: the model weights must come from a plant that is itself subject to the EAR and specified in listed hardware ECCNs such as 3A090 or 4A090. Most second tests require "knowledge", which § 772.1 defines to include awareness of a high probability.
Which FDP rules are in § 734.9 today?
The technology lists in paragraphs (e)(1), (e)(2), (h) and (i) are long strings of Category 3, 4 and 5 ECCNs (3D001, 3E001, 4D001, 5E001 and others, with small differences between paragraphs); the list in (e)(3) is Category 3 only. Read the paragraph itself before you rely on a row. In the table, "made with X" is shorthand for "the direct product of X", and "a plant made with X" means a complete plant or 'major component' that is itself a direct product of U.S.-origin X.
| Paragraph and rule | Product scope (in brief) | Destination, end-user or end-use scope |
|---|---|---|
| (b) National Security | Direct product of U.S.-origin technology or software that needs a written assurance (for a licence or License Exception TSR), or of a plant made with such technology; item has a national security control | Country Group D:1, E:1 or E:2 |
| (c) 9x515 | Made with U.S.-origin 9D515 or 9E515 items, or by a plant made with 9E515 technology; item is 9x515 | D:5, E:1 or E:2 |
| (d) "600 series" | Made with U.S.-origin "600 series" technology or software, or by a plant made with it; item is "600 series" (or 0A919 on the direct-product route) | D:1, D:3, D:4, D:5, E:1 or E:2 |
| (e)(1) Entity List, Footnote 1 | Any item made with listed Category 3, 4 and 5 software or technology, or by a plant made with it | Knowledge that a Footnote 1 entity is a party, or that the item goes into, or is used to produce or develop, a part, component or equipment it produces, buys or orders |
| (e)(2) Entity List, Footnote 4 | As (e)(1), with 5D002 and 5E002 added | Same test for Footnote 4 entities |
| (e)(3) Entity List, Footnote 5 | Specified Category 3B equipment made with listed 3D/3E items, made by such a plant, or containing a commodity made by one | Footnote 5 entities, or an entity at a facility in Macau or D:5 producing logic or DRAM "advanced-node integrated circuits" |
| (f) Russia, Belarus and the temporarily occupied Crimea region of Ukraine | Made with U.S.-origin product group D or E items, or by a plant made with them; item is on the CCL or in supplement no. 6 or 7 to part 746 | Destined there, or going into (or used to produce or develop) a CCL or supplement 6 or 7 item produced in or destined there |
| (g) Russia/Belarus military end user and procurement | Any item made with product group D or E items, or by a plant made with them | Footnote 3 entities, as a party, or through incorporation into or use in producing or developing items they produce, buy or order |
| (h) Advanced computing | Made with listed Category 3, 4 and 5 items (including 4D090), or by a plant made with them; item is 3A090 or 4A090 (or 3E001 or 4E001 technology for them), or a listed ".z" item such as 3A001.z or 5A992.z | As written, any location worldwide or incorporation into a non-EAR99 item; or mask or wafer technology developed by an entity headquartered in Macau or D:5 |
| (i) Supercomputer | Any item made with listed Category 3, 4 and 5 items, or by a plant made with them | Use for a "supercomputer" in or destined to the PRC or Macau, or incorporation into (or use in producing or developing) parts, components or equipment for one |
| (j) Iran | Made with U.S.-origin D or E items in Categories 3 to 9, or by a plant made with them; item is in Categories 3 to 9 or supplement no. 7 to part 746 | Destined to Iran, incorporation into (or use in producing or developing) such items located in or destined to Iran, or the Government of Iran as a party |
| (k) Semiconductor manufacturing equipment | 3B001.a.4, c, d, f.1, f.5, f.6, k to n, p.2, p.4, r, or 3B002.c, made with 3D992 or 3E992 items, by a listed plant, or containing a commodity made by one | Macau or D:5 |
| (l) AI model weights | A 4E091 item produced by a plant subject to the EAR and specified in 3A090, 4A090 or listed ".z" ECCNs | Any location worldwide |
Country Group membership comes from Supplement No. 1 to Part 740 (see our guide to EAR Country Groups). The PRC is listed in D:1, D:3, D:4 and D:5. Macau is in D:1, D:3 and D:4 but not D:5, so several rules name Macau alongside D:5.
Changes to check before you rely on the table
The introductory text of paragraphs (e) and (g) contains sentences that extend the end-user scope to foreign entities owned 50 percent or more by listed entities. Those sentences came from an interim final rule of 30 September 2025 (90 FR 47201). A rule of 12 November 2025 (90 FR 50857) stayed them until 9 November 2026, absent a future extension. Check the Federal Register after that date.
The worldwide scope in paragraph (h)(2)(i) and the model weights rule in paragraph (l) came from the Framework for Artificial Intelligence Diffusion rule (90 FR 4544, 15 January 2025). In guidance dated 31 May 2026, BIS says it announced in May 2025 that it would not enforce that rule's new compliance requirements. The same guidance says a licence requirement first introduced in November 2023 still applies to the ".a" advanced computing items when they are for entities headquartered, or with an ultimate parent headquartered, in D:5 or Macau. Both paragraphs remain in the text, so read it alongside BIS's current statements; our guides to semiconductor export controls and AI export controls go further.
BIS's FDP Rules Analysis Table, on its decision tools page, lays the rules out side by side, but it is dated 17 December 2024. It shows the older D:1, D:4 and D:5 test for paragraph (h) and has no row for (l).
Foreign direct product rule and de minimis: which comes first?
The step order in § 732.2 puts de minimis (Step 4) before the direct product rule (Step 6), and Step 4 says that an item at or below the de minimis level goes on to Step 6. They are separate routes into the EAR. De minimis under § 734.4 measures incorporated controlled U.S.-origin content by value against the 25 percent and 10 percent levels. The FDP rules ask how the item was made and where it is going, with no value threshold. A product with no U.S. parts can be subject to the EAR under § 734.9, and passing de minimis does not clear it.
The two meet in § 734.4(a)(8) and (a)(9), which set no de minimis level for certain Category 3B equipment containing a U.S.-origin integrated circuit specified in Category 3, 4 or 5 when it goes to Macau or D:5 (SME rule) or to a Footnote 5 entity or advanced-node facility, subject to the conditions in each paragraph. The calculation is covered in our guide to the de minimis rule.
In its FAQ on the Entity List FDP rule (updated 31 March 2022), BIS says that building a captured part into a larger foreign product does not necessarily make the larger product subject to the EAR; the larger item must be tested against the other FDP rules and de minimis. The same FAQ says a manufacturer sending a product to a Footnote 1 entity, knowing it contains components captured by the Footnote 1 rule, must hold a licence or have confirmation that the component maker obtained one. Failing to do either, BIS says, implicates General Prohibition Ten.
What happens when a foreign-made item is subject to the EAR?
Being caught settles jurisdiction, and a licence is a separate question. Section 734.9 says you then work out the licence requirements from the item's classification, destination, end use and end user. General Prohibition Three in § 736.2(b)(3) bars exporting from abroad, reexporting or transferring (in-country) such an item without a licence or licence exception if a licence requirement in Part 736, 742, 744, 746 or 764 applies. A Part 740 licence exception overrides it when all its terms are met and the restrictions in § 740.2 and § 744.11(a) do not apply. Those three activities have defined meanings; see export, reexport and transfer definitions.
Most rules name their own licence provision: § 744.11(a)(2) for the Entity List rules, § 746.8 for Russia and Belarus, § 742.6(a)(6) for advanced computing, § 744.23 for supercomputers, § 746.7 for Iran, §§ 742.4(a)(4) and 742.6(a)(6)(i)(A) for SME, and § 742.6(a)(13) for model weights. Under § 744.11(a)(2)(i), for example, any item caught by the Footnote 1 rule needs a licence to any destination or party. Part 740 licence exceptions remain available when all their terms are met and § 740.2 does not rule them out, and applications for items capable of supporting the development or production of telecom systems below the 5G level are reviewed case by case. Our Entity List guide explains footnotes and review policies. BIS can also inform a person directly that its foreign-produced items are caught (§ 734.9(a)(3)), but the absence of a notice does not excuse compliance with the rest of § 734.9.
A worked example (hypothetical)
Take a hypothetical fabless company in Singapore that designs a motor-control microcontroller. Contractors in Asia fabricate, package and test it, and the chip contains nothing U.S.-origin, so de minimis is not in play. Assume it is not 3A090, a ".z" item, a 9x515 item or a "600 series" item, and that it would carry no national security control if it were subject to the EAR.
On product scope, the company needs to know which software and technology were used to design and produce the chip and their ECCNs, and whether the fab or test house used equipment that is itself a direct product of the listed U.S.-origin ECCNs. In the 2022 FAQ, BIS said integrated circuits designed with U.S.-origin technology and made by contractors using U.S.-origin equipment were captured in two ways under the Entity List rule, assuming the technology and equipment fell under the listed ECCNs. Section 734.9 has been amended several times since, so check the FAQ's paragraph references against the current text.
A sale to a car-parts maker in Germany, with no listed party and nothing to suggest the parts go on to Russia, Belarus or Iran, falls outside paragraph (b), since Germany is not in D:1, E:1 or E:2. It also falls outside the rules tied to Entity List footnotes, Russia, Belarus, Iran, Macau or D:5. The chip's classification keeps it out of (h). On those facts § 734.9 does not reach it.
Change one fact: the buyer is a distributor whose customer is a Footnote 1 entity. If the chip meets the product scope of § 734.9(e)(1) and the company has "knowledge" of that party, the chip is subject to the EAR and § 744.11(a)(2)(i) requires a licence. In practice the product-scope answer belongs to the part number and holds until the design tools or production equipment change. The second test depends on each order.
Steps for non-U.S. manufacturers
- Map the inputs for each product line: the U.S.-origin and EAR-subject software and technology used in design and production, with supplier ECCNs, and the production and test equipment, with each supplier's statement on whether it is a direct product of the listed ECCNs. BIS's FAQ says BIS is not in a position to list the equipment it considers "essential"; you assess each machine's function in production.
- Classify your own output against the CCL, because several rules reach only items in particular ECCNs.
- Screen each order against the second tests: the named Country Groups, Macau, Russia, Belarus, the temporarily occupied Crimea region of Ukraine, Iran and the Government of Iran, Entity List footnotes 1, 3, 4 and 5, advanced-node facilities, and supercomputer end uses in the PRC or Macau.
- Resolve Red Flag 26 in Supplement No. 3 to Part 732 before you proceed when a foreign-produced item in the relevant Category 3B ECCN contains at least one integrated circuit.
- Use the model certification in Supplement No. 1 to Part 734 where it helps. The EAR does not require it, BIS says it does not replace due diligence, and a certificate you rely on must be kept under Part 762. Its entry for paragraph (h) still describes the older D:1, D:4 and D:5 test. The supplement allows parties to add elements, and ECCN.help suggests matching that entry to the current paragraph.
- Record the reasoning for each product and order (see how to document an ECCN classification).
Start with step 1 for the product you sell most often to Macau, D:5 or Entity List customers.
Using ECCN.help for this
Several FDP rules turn on the foreign item's own ECCN. ECCN.help's classification workflow checks ITAR or EAR jurisdiction, then walks the item to a CCL entry with rules taken from the published EAR and names the entry and paragraph that decided it; licence checks read that ECCN and the destination against the Commerce Country Chart. See how the workflow runs. The FDP tests themselves still have to be applied to your production inputs and each order.
ECCN.help provides research and assistance, not legal advice. Verify every result against the current regulation before you rely on it.