**GAO-02-996**                      Published: Sep 20, 2002. Publicly Released: Sep 20, 2002.                  

-   
-   
-   
-   

    Jump To:  
-  Elder Abuse 
-  Services for Older Adults 
-  State and Local-Level Drivers and Trends 
-  State and Local Fiscal Projections 
-  Federal Borrowing 
-  Managing the Debt 
-  Summary of Funding Provisions 
-  Auditing the Government's Books 
-  Unpacking the Financial Report 
-  Highlights 
-  Recommendations 
-  Background 
-  About This Work 
-  About This Work 
-  Trends 
-  About the Center 
-  Why It's High Risk 
-  What Remains To Be Done 
-  Key Reports 
-  Newest COVID-Related Reports 
-  AI Use Cases 
-  Flood Insurance 
-  Past Pandemic-Related Reports 
-  CARES Act Oversight Reports 
-  All COVID-19 Reports 
-  Report Suspected Fraud 
-  Subjects 
-  How to Get Notified 
-  Past Reports 
-  Public Health Threats 
-  Explore the FY 2022 and 2023 Funds 
-  Status of FY22 Projects 
-  Lessons Learned 
-  Agency Reports 
-  Recent Reports 
-  Recommendations 
-  Supplemental Material 
-  Full Report 
-  Additional Data 
-  View Decision 
-  Downloads 
-  Previously Identified Actions 
-  Related Pages 
-  Associated Agencies 
-  Tough Choices and Opportunities Ahead 
-  Americas Fiscal Future Key Areas 
-  Retirement Security Key Areas 
-  Current List 
-  About The High Risk List 
-  Area Ratings 
-  Previous High Risk Products 
-  Search Federal Vacancies 
-  Past Federal Vacancies 
-  Violation Letters 
-  About the Yellow Book 
-  Advisory Council 
-  Related Resources 
-  Comment Letters 
-  Related Publications 
-  Contacts and Resources 
-  Major Issues Facing the Nation 
-  Meeting Strategic Challenges 
-  Additional Resources 
-  Resources 
-  GAO Contacts 
-  Mission Teams 
-  Operations and Staff Offices  
-  Organization Chart  
-  Why a Career at GAO? 
-  Am I Qualified? 
-  Company Culture 
-  Reasonable Accommodations 
-  Video Gallery 
-  Paid Internships 
-  Student Volunteers 
-  Professional Development Program 
-  Advancement 
-  Executive Candidate Program 
-  Summer Associates 
-  Externships 
-  Benefits 
-  Contacts 

Skip to Highlights

## Highlights

The U.S. government controls the export of defense-related items to minimize the risk such exports may pose to its interests. The U.S. export control system is primarily divided between two regulatory regimes, one managed by the Department of State for defense items and another managed by the Department of Commerce for dual-use items that have both military and commercial applications. Companies are responsible for determining which department to use and what requirements apply when exporting their items, but can obtain government assistance through two different processes. If companies have determined that their items are Commerce-controlled but are uncertain of export licensing requirements, they may request a classification from Commerce through the commodity classification process. Commerce can refer classification requests to State and the Department of Defense to confirm that the items are Commerce-controlled. However, if companies are unsure of which department has jurisdiction over their items, they can request a determination through the commodity jurisdiction process from State, which consults with Commerce and Defense. In implementing the commodity classification process, Commerce has improperly classified some State-controlled items as Commerce-controlled and has not adhered to regulatory time frames for responding to requests. Improper classifications have occurred because Commerce rarely obtains input from State and Defense before making decisions. Commerce officials stated that they have sufficient experience to determine which items can be classified as Commerce-controlled without referring requests to State and Defense, which could delay the process. However, in several instances, Commerce improperly provided companies with classifications for State-controlled items, increasing the risk of such items being inappropriately exported. State has not adhered to established time frames when implementing the commodity jurisdiction process and has been unable to issue determinations for some items due to interagency disputes occurring outside the process. Causes for delays included late input from Defense and Commerce, disagreements over the appropriate jurisdiction for an item, need for sufficient information to make determinations, and untimely initial determinations to Defense and Commerce before finalizing an item's jurisdiction. Delays in the process can discourage companies from requesting determinations, as well as affect their ability to compete in certain markets.

## Recommendations

## Recommendations for Executive Action

See All 11 Recommendations

## Full Report

Full Report (54 pages)

Accessible Text 

## Office of Public Affairs

### Media Inquiries

Sarah Kaczmarek
kaczmareks@gao.gov

(202) 512-4800

### Public Inquiries

Public Affairs
PublicAffairs@gao.gov

(202) 512-4800

## Topics

International Affairs

Export regulationExportingJurisdictional authorityInteragency relationsObject classificationsNational securityExport controlsDefense tradePublic officialsUntimely protests