Whether a part, component or manual is ITAR or EAR depends on what the U.S. Munitions List (USML) says about it. Who buys the item does not decide it. The six examples below apply the jurisdiction rules to realistic cases, each with the reasoning a reviewer would expect to see. The rules themselves are set out in ITAR vs. EAR: which regulation controls your item?
The method in one paragraph
Read the USML categories that could describe the item (the 21 USML categories are summarised separately). If a paragraph enumerates the item, it is ITAR. If a paragraph covers it only as a part, component, accessory or attachment "specially designed" for a defense article, apply the ITAR's definition in § 120.41: catch, then release. If the USML does not describe it, the item is subject to the EAR. Check the 600 series and 9x515 entries first, then the rest of the Commerce Control List.
Example 1: a hydraulic fitting on a fighter aircraft
A standard hydraulic fitting from a commercial catalogue is used on a military aircraft. USML Category VIII enumerates specific aircraft parts, and generic fittings are not among them. Under "specially designed", a standard part of this kind is released.
Result: EAR. It is likely EAR99 or a 9A991-type classification depending on its specification, and not 9A610.x if it is released under the EAR's "specially designed" definition as well.
Example 2: a flight-control computer for the same aircraft
This computer was developed under a defense contract for that aircraft and has no civil counterpart. The USML enumerates certain mission and flight-control systems for military aircraft.
Result: ITAR if enumerated. If it is not enumerated but is specially designed and not released, it may be 9A610.x under the EAR (see how to classify 600 series items). Either way, the record should cite the USML paragraph reviewed.
Example 3: a commercial thermal camera
The camera is sold to industrial customers and has a microbolometer focal plane array. Military users buy it too. Use does not decide jurisdiction. The USML Category XII paragraphs for fire control and imaging decide it, and commercial thermal cameras below their thresholds are not enumerated.
Result: EAR, typically 6A003 or 6A993 depending on the parameters.
Example 4: the same camera, ruggedised for a weapon sight
Now the camera is modified to military specification and integrated into a weapon sight. USML Category XII enumerates weapon sights and specially designed components.
Result: ITAR for the sight and, likely, for the modified camera core.
Example 5: maintenance manuals
A maintenance manual for a military vehicle (a defense article) is ITAR technical data, unless it is in the public domain. A manual for a commercial truck used by an army is EAR technology: often EAR99, or outside the EAR if published. More on this in technical data under the ITAR.
Example 6: a satellite component
The item is a reaction wheel for commercial satellites. Under export control reform, many spacecraft items moved from USML Category XV to 9A515, and the remaining USML XV paragraphs enumerate specific sensitive items.
Result: usually EAR, 9A515.x or similar, unless it is enumerated on the USML. The history is in export control reform and the 600 series.
What the examples have in common
- Enumeration decides first. If a USML paragraph names the item, the analysis ends there, whatever its commercial sales.
- Parts turn on "specially designed". Standard, catalogue and dual-purpose parts are most often released; bespoke parts for one military platform most often are not.
- Modification can change jurisdiction. The same core product can be EAR in its commercial form and ITAR once modified or integrated for a military function, so classify the specific version you export.
- Documents follow their item. Technical data for a defense article is ITAR; for a commercial item it is EAR technology, unless public.
Software works the same way. Software directly related to a defense article is generally ITAR technical data or a defense article itself, while general-purpose software used with it is usually subject to the EAR. For the wider distinction, see defense articles vs. dual-use items.
Red flags that call for a closer look
- The item was developed under a defense contract or with defense funding.
- The only customers are military, or the product has no civil counterpart.
- The specification references military standards throughout.
- A foreign customer asks whether the item is "ITAR-free".
- A supplier has classified a similar item as ITAR.
None of these decides jurisdiction on its own. Each one is a reason to record the USML review carefully and, if uncertainty remains, to request a determination.
How to document a jurisdiction decision
The file for each item should show:
- the item and version;
- the USML categories and paragraphs reviewed;
- the "specially designed" analysis, with the release relied on;
- any commodity jurisdiction determination for the same or similar item;
- the date and reviewer.
When to request a commodity jurisdiction determination
If the analysis stays uncertain, request a commodity jurisdiction determination from DDTC. This applies particularly to items developed with defense funding and to modified versions of commercial products. The process is explained in commodity jurisdiction requests.
After jurisdiction
Once an item is confirmed as subject to the EAR, classification continues on the Commerce Control List, 600 series and 9x515 first. See how to find the ECCN for your product.
Jurisdiction in ECCN.help
The ECCN.help Classification Workflow begins with the ITAR vs. EAR scope check, pre-filled from your description. If the answers point to the USML, it stops with an explanation and offers no ECCN for the item.
ECCN.help provides research and assistance, not legal advice. Verify every result against the regulation.