Are primes trying to standardise their approach to export control?

USA

EUROPE

ASIA

Frequently Asked Questions | News | Contact Us

faqs
	How does PRI expect to get the information on what is being audited so it can be put on a TAA?
	We are a Canadian supplier and process parts for the military (US). We have a license from ''Controlled Goods Registration'' from the Canadian government. Do we need any other license?
	PRI has asked for a great deal of information to secure licenses for the PRI audit.
	We are a test laboratory – at any given time, we may have material that is ITAR / EAR.
	It sounds like suppliers will need to supply a lot of part numbers to PRI before an audit to get a license. How are we supposed to send a list of all possible partnumbers to PRI?
	We make parts for US and non-US companies for military and non-military applications. All parts should be ITAR /EAR - what license and controls are required?
	Is ITAR / EAR required if the OEM designing the part goes through several processing steps which cross the international border but eventually the part ends up at a US-based OEM?
	Isn't it the responsibility of the prime to flow down the information?
	What is the timescale involved?
	What is a TAA?
	What is a license?
	What if there is no reference to ITAR but you know that historically the work is restricted?
	Are primes trying to standardise their approach to export control?
	Are all Nadcap Staff Engineers authorised to view restricted material?
	Do part numbers and names constitute technical data?
	Is eAuditNet secure as far as ITAR / EAR is concerned?
	How do suppliers find out if a part is intended for military use?
	Why not use an auditor from the country where the audit will take place?

Are primes trying to standardise their approach to export control?

To date there has been no evidence of primes working towards this goal.