Aerospace Industry Asks DDTC for ITAR Carve-Out for Routine Aircraft Maintenance Under Survivability Equipment Rule
Why It MattersUnresolved licensing language could add compliance checks and delays to civil MRO work on survivability-modified aircraft, a cost that falls mainly on maintenance providers rather than manufacturers.
Members of the aerospace industry have asked the State Department to exempt routine maintenance from the scope of a recent rule that eased controls on certain aircraft incorporating aircraft survivability equipment (ASE). The Directorate of Defense Trade Controls (DDTC) interim final rule, effective Oct. 13, excludes from the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) certain aircraft modified to incorporate ASE, meaning systems designed to protect a plane against missiles, radars, lasers and other threats.
Manufacturers and service providers mostly welcomed the changes in public comments released by DDTC but asked for clarity on how licensing will work in practice. DDTC said it will still require licenses for maintenance or repairs to parts of an aircraft "modified for the purpose of incorporating ASE," including parts controlled only under the Commerce Department's Export Administration Regulations (EAR).
International trade law firm Jacobson Burton, commenting for original equipment manufacturers and civil-aircraft maintenance, repair and overhaul (MRO) providers, said the language will likely delay MRO companies, which may need complex analyses to avoid inadvertent ITAR violations. It said providers often lack full information about ASE-related modifications before an aircraft arrives, and that determining modifications after arrival would create operational uncertainty. The firm asked for a carve-out or general authorization for routine maintenance affecting only standard civil aircraft systems, and for a published list of routine MRO activities, such as airframe inspections and maintenance of landing gear, brakes, engines, auxiliary power units, wheels and tires, that are not defense services.
The Aerospace Industries Association said it disagrees that servicing EAR-controlled ASE-related modifications should qualify as a defense service under the ITAR, and called for clear guidance on what a U.S. MRO facility must do to avoid inadvertently supporting an unlicensed export. Boeing said maintenance of EAR-controlled parts should not warrant ITAR control unless the servicing directly interfaces with, alters, tests, maintains or supports the controlled equipment, and warned the language could capture airframe or landing gear maintenance solely because the aircraft carries survivability equipment.
