{"id":944,"date":"2026-03-08T07:28:13","date_gmt":"2026-03-08T05:28:13","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/thedefencenews.com\/?p=944"},"modified":"2025-12-31T18:45:40","modified_gmt":"2025-12-31T16:45:40","slug":"a-step-forward-in-space-export-control-reform","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/thedefencenews.com\/?p=944","title":{"rendered":"A step forward in space export control reform"},"content":{"rendered":"

By Jeff Foust<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n

A decade ago, the commercial space industry in the United States celebrated a hard-fought victory in efforts to reform export controls. After years of effort, the State Department enacted changes to move many space technologies off the US Munitions List (USML), subject to the more restrictive export control rules known as International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) to the less-restrictive Commerce Control List. That made it easier for American companies to see those technologies, from components to full satellites, to foreign customers.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cThis is about maintaining our leadership in space technology, protecting our national security, and bolstering our partnerships around the world,\u201d a Commerce Department officials said about the revisions.<\/em><\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

The hope then was that the rule would lead to more regular updates to export control regulations to reflect the pace of technological development in the US and other countries. There have been a few tweaks to what is on the USML, and promises for years of bigger reforms, but little action.<\/p>\n

\u201cIt\u2019s been over a decade since we had the last significant amount of export control review on space technology,\u201d said Chirag Parikh, executive secretary of the National Space Council, in a speech at the Space Symposium in April. \u201cI think the technology has evolved. I think the global capabilities of space have evolved.\u201d<\/p>\n

At that time, he said that the Commerce Department, which runs the Commerce Control List (CCL), and the State Department would publish an advance notice of potential rulemaking in the summer, seeking industry input on what space technologies would be moved from the USML to the CCL.<\/p>\n

What happened was somewhat different. On October 17, the Commerce Department announced the publication of three rules, along with one from the State Department, that offer phased changes to export control rules, making it easier to export some technologies to some countries.<\/p>\n

\u201cWe\u2019re releasing three rules today the help us ensure export controls keep pace while continuing to secure these technologies and safeguard them from potential adversaries,\u201d a senior Commerce Department official, speaking on background, said in a hastily arranged call with reporters to announce the changes. \u201cThis is about maintaining our leadership in space technology, protecting our national security, and bolstering our partnerships around the world.\u201d<\/p>\n

Two of the rules deal with items already on the CCL. One\u00a0rule<\/a>, already finalized, removed the need for a license for exporting remote sensing and \u201cspace-based logistics, servicing, and assembly\u201d spacecraft and related items to Australia, Canada and the United Kingdom.\u00a0A second \u201cinterim final\u201d rule<\/a>\u2014meaning the Commerce Department can make final tweaks to is based on public comments\u2014reduces license requirements for what it called \u201cless sensitive\u201d items to 40 countries, primarily NATO and European Union countries as well as other close allies like Australia, Japan, and South Korea.<\/p>\n

The intent of those rules is to eliminate hundreds of license applications annually, said Matt Borman, principal deputy assistant secretary for export administration in the Commerce Department\u2019s Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS), at a public meeting last week to discuss the new rules. \u201cThis reflects the general approach that BIS has taken to coordinate export control with allies and build trusted technology ecosystems that secure innovation,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n

The\u00a0third Commerce Department rule<\/a>, along with\u00a0a separate one from the State Department<\/a>, would move some items from the USML to the CCL. They include spacecraft performing in-space refueling and other logistics activities, as well as for certain components such as optics, electric thrusters, and gyroscopes.<\/p>\n

The proposed rules also create certain license exemptions for specific applications. One is for commercial technology used in spacecraft for official space agency programs, which officials said range from Mars Sample Return to the Nancy Grace Roman Space Telescope. It would also extend to NASA\u2019s Commercial LEO Destinations program that seeks to support development of commercial space stations to succeed the International Space Station, which has long been exempted from ITAR.<\/p>\n

\u201cAs we at NASA look at maintaining our human spaceflight presence in low Earth orbit, it was really important to us that the accommodations that were made for ISS were also extended to items that employ similar technologies and will be of similar sensitivity as a result,\u201d said Michael Tu of NASA\u2019s Office of International and Interagency Relations at the public meeting. \u201cWe see the Commercial Low Earth Orbit Development program as a successor to the ISS and it\u2019s been an important part of our overall strategy to maintain a robust presence with human spaceflight in LEO: essentially ISS in all but name.\u201d<\/p>\n

The proposed rules would also allow the export of commercial suborbital vehicles for tourism or research provided there is no transfer of ownership. This would benefit companies like Virgin Galactic, which has long-term plans to operate a fleet of suborbital spaceplanes at spaceports around the world, not just New Mexico\u2019s Spaceport America.<\/p>\n

Both proposed rules are open to public comment until November 22, as officials at both Commerce and State requested feedback on what should be included or excluded. \u201cYou always want to be very specific,\u201d advised Timothy Mooney, senior export policy analyst at the BIS Regulatory Policy Division. \u201cA comment \u2018I don\u2019t like this\u2019 is not very helpful to the government.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cSometimes, as we change administrations, everybody wants to have a reset,\u201d Parikh said. But, he added, \u201cparty independent, everybody wants to be able to move forward on these efforts.\u201d<\/em><\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

One specific area where industry already stated they did not like the proposed rules regarded export control restrictions for synthetic aperture radar (SAR) satellites, which set a bandwidth threshold for 500 megahertz above which the new rules did not apply. Industry officials said that threshold was dated given the existence of commercial SAR satellites built in other countries with much higher bandwidth and thus improved performance.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe critical military intelligence standard when we\u2019re identifying what to retain on the US Munitions List,\u201d said Chris Weil, technology and jurisdiction analysis division chief in the State Department\u2019s Directorate of Defense Trade Controls. \u201cBased on the rule, 500 megahertz is the point at which we currently assess it.\u201d He declined to discuss how the State Department determined that threshold, but asked for input on whether a higher threshold should be used.<\/p>\n

Once the public comment period closes, Commerce and State will review the feedback they received. Officials said at the public meeting that any final changes to the interim final Commerce rule, one regarding reduced license requirements to 40 countries, should be completed fairly quickly.<\/p>\n

\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

By Jeff Foust A decade ago, the commercial space industry in the United States celebrated a hard-fought victory in efforts to reform export controls. After years of effort, the State […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":2131,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[37,40],"tags":[421,275],"class_list":["post-944","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","category-opinions","category-space","tag-export","tag-space"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/thedefencenews.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/06\/SPACE-EXPORT.png","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/thedefencenews.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/944","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/thedefencenews.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/thedefencenews.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thedefencenews.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thedefencenews.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=944"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/thedefencenews.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/944\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":2132,"href":"https:\/\/thedefencenews.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/944\/revisions\/2132"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thedefencenews.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/media\/2131"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/thedefencenews.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=944"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thedefencenews.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=944"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thedefencenews.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=944"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}