Is it ITAR?

Start with what the part does and whether it was conceived for a defense or space system. This mirrors how DDTC reviewers think about USML categories versus everyday industrial goods.

Regulators care about what your part DOD or a prime contractor would call it in the system — not only the metal or plastic. This question separates everyday industrial hardware from functions that often appear on the USML or in ITAR technical data packages.

What best describes the primary function of the part?

Pick the answer that best matches how the part behaves in the finished product. If you are between two options, choose the more conservative (defense-related) one and you can refine later with JEST or counsel.

Structural / mechanical hardware for civil or industrial equipmentBrackets, frames, housings, shafts, valves, etc. for factories, buildings, or commercial machines.Consumer, medical (non-military), or general industrial electronicsTypical commercial boards, sensors, or enclosures without a weapons or military platform role.Aerospace or automotive — civil certification path (no defense program)FAA Part 23/25 civil aircraft, automotive, or similar when you are not on a defense contract line item.Performs or enables a defense article function (fire control, guidance, armor, ordnance, crypto, etc.)If the part’s job is to help a weapon system detect, track, communicate securely for weapons use, or survive battle damage, treat the path as high risk until formally classified.Space launch, missile, or military satellite-related functionLaunch vehicles, propulsion for missiles or hypersonics, or mission hardware tied to military satellite programs.Not sure yetThat is normal early in design — choose this so the tool steers you toward expert review rather than a false “all clear.”

ITAR cares whether an item was “specially designed” for defense articles, even if you could also use it commercially. A part born inside a military program or drawing tree is treated differently from a catalog commercial part.

Was the part (or its design) developed specifically for a military, missile, space, or intelligence application?

YesCreated or modified primarily for a defense or intelligence program.Partially / adapted from a commercial design for defenseCommon dual-use situation — needs a formal look at drawings and end use.No — civil or general industrial originCommercial catalog lineage with no defense-specific redesign.Not sureIf program history is unclear, assume more review is needed.

The USML lists categories of defense articles and services. If your item is described there and meets the legal tests, it is generally ITAR-controlled even when it looks like ordinary hardware. If you only know an ECCN under the EAR (BIS), say so honestly — the next sections still matter.

To your knowledge, does the part appear on the U.S. Munitions List (USML) or match a USML category description?

If you have an ECCN only, that usually points to BIS / EAR — still answer this question based on whether anyone has compared the part to the USML categories.

Yes / very likelySomeone already flagged USML language, category, or ITAR marking on drawings.Possibly — needs comparison to USMLYou have not finished a jurisdiction review yet.No — not described as a defense articleNo USML category has been identified for this design.I don't know what the USML isThat is fine — the tool will steer you toward education and expert help.

Part & technical context