Space-Related Export Controls Briefing

The regulators responsible for drafting the biggest rulemaking changes to space-related export controls briefed stakeholders November 6th on the initiative,, addressed some initial questions, and urged engagement through comments as the rules are finalized.

The presentation included officials from the State Department, Commerce and NASA who shared their perspectives on their remits. The event finished with a review of some questions submitted by stakeholders.

Three Goals for ITAR Rule

Chris Weil of the U.S. Department of State outlined substantial proposed changes to the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) that govern space-related exports. As the official responsible for the U.S. Munitions List (USML) within ITAR, Weil highlighted the need to adapt export controls to align with the rapidly evolving global space industry, now valued in the hundreds of billions and encompassing more than 80 nations and numerous companies. This proposed rule, currently in a public comment phase, represents one of the most significant regulatory updates in over a decade and aims to foster both international cooperation and innovation in the U.S. commercial space sector while safeguarding national security.

Overview of the Evolving Space Industry

Weil began by noting that the space sector is undergoing an “era of extraordinary change.” With increasing global interest in space exploration, there has been a rapid expansion in both national and private sector activities. This growth has introduced new players, technologies, and strategic partnerships that challenge the traditional frameworks of control designed to manage the export of sensitive technologies. Weil stressed that in such a dynamic environment, “our regulations have to evolve as well,” so that U.S. export controls do not hinder the industry’s growth. At the same time, he underscored that these updates must continue to “protect our national security and foreign policy interests.”

Goals of the Proposed Rule

Weil’s presentation emphasized three main goals for the proposed rule: regulatory clarity, consistency, and ease of use for the industry. With these aims in mind, the rule seeks to address the specific requirements of the modern space industry while simultaneously refining and simplifying the regulatory language for greater coherence. As Weil explained, the changes aim to facilitate smoother international cooperation for commercial space activities and ensure that the U.S. remains competitive in the global space economy.

He underscored the importance of industry input in this regulatory update, stating, “the public comment process… is extremely important to our process to make sure that as we develop the final rule we are understanding the nuances as you see them within your specific space sectors.” By involving industry feedback, the Department of State hopes to create a set of regulations that are both adaptable to the needs of U.S. stakeholders and responsive to the changing global landscape.

Key Provisions and Proposed Changes

The proposed rule includes several significant revisions to space-related export controls under ITAR. These changes aim to reflect technological advancements and adjust the regulatory framework to better accommodate the needs of the space industry.

1. Expansion of Licensing Exemptions:

• Official Space Agency Programs: The rule proposes licensing exemptions for official space programs like the Lunar Gateway, Mars Sample Return, Nancy Grace Roman Space Telescope, and the Orion spacecraft. This exemption allows for “license-free transfers of defense articles” and defense services within the context of these specified programs, though it does not extend to space launch vehicles.
• Electrical Connectors and Telemetry Transmission: Another exemption pertains to specific transfers between spacecraft and launch vehicles, including “license-free transmission of launch vehicle telemetry” under certain conditions. This proposed exemption seeks public input to refine which technologies would qualify.
• Space Tourism and Research: The third exemption would allow for license-free transfers of manned aircraft used in suborbital space tourism or fundamental research, provided ownership of the craft does not transfer during the operation.

Together, these exemptions mark the first major changes to ITAR licensing requirements for the space sector in over a decade, aiming to reduce the administrative burden on commercial space ventures.

1. Removing Certain Items from the U.S. Munitions List:

• To simplify export controls, the proposed rule would remove several items from the USML, transferring their oversight to the Department of Commerce. These items include specific categories of spacecraft, such as those involved in “collision avoidance,” “collaborative docking and grappling,” and “autonomous detection and tracking” technologies. Weil noted that this revision would focus the USML on items with more direct military applications, like ballistic missile defense technology, thereby narrowing the scope of what constitutes a “munitions” item.

1. Administrative Revisions for Consistency:

• Weil discussed the proposed administrative reorganization of Categories 4 and 15 of the USML, which pertain to munitions related to space and missile technologies. The restructured categories would separately describe systems and equipment versus components, enabling easier “specially designed analysis,” which is frequently used to determine ITAR compliance. Additionally, the proposal intends to consolidate definitions in a single location for user-friendly access and enhanced clarity.

Industry Feedback and the Importance of Public Comment

Throughout the presentation, Weil reiterated the critical role of industry feedback in shaping the final rule. “We want you involved not just on the takeoff, but also on the landing of these rules,” he remarked, underscoring that real-world input from companies and agencies working in the space industry would help identify potential gaps, ambiguities, or challenges in the rule’s application. Weil encouraged stakeholders to “take a close look at the three exemptions that we proposed” and to provide insights into how these might affect daily operations.

Weil specifically highlighted the importance of comments from engineers and technical experts who interact with these technologies, as their insights are crucial for understanding the practical impacts of the proposed regulations. He encouraged specificity in public comments, particularly around the proposed licensing exemptions and any unintended consequences that might arise. The State Department also seeks recommendations for refining controls on items like “loitering munitions, hypersonic glide vehicles, and spacecraft that construct or deploy other spacecraft.”

"Not Just an Update, an Opportunity"

In closing, Weil emphasized that the proposed rule represents a comprehensive update to export controls in response to a rapidly changing space environment.

By revising licensing exemptions, removing certain items from the munitions list, and enhancing regulatory clarity, the State Department aims to support innovation in the U.S. commercial space industry and bolster international partnerships while maintaining robust protections for national security.

Weil concluded by affirming the department’s commitment to a collaborative approach, stating, “this is not just an update to regulations; it’s an opportunity for the industry to help shape a framework that supports both security and progress in the space domain.”

EAR Rules five years in the making

Tim Mooney  of the Regulatory Policy Division, and Jason Chauvin, Senior Licensing Officer with BIS’s Sensors, Aviation, Aerospace, and Marine Division, discussed the latest updates to U.S. space export control regulations.

These updates include three new rules published by the Department of Commerce on October 10, 2024. These rules aim to balance the need to protect U.S. national security and foreign policy interests with the necessity to foster a globally competitive U.S. industrial base, as outlined by the U.S. Vice President and the National Space Council in their 2023 directive.

The presentation provided details on each rule and highlighted the importance of public feedback during the comment period, which runs until November 22, 2024.

Background and Development of the Rules

The rulemaking process began in 2019 when the Department of Commerce and the State Department issued Advanced Notices of Proposed Rulemaking, seeking public comments to inform potential changes.

These comments, along with input from multiple federal agencies, technical advisory committees, and NASA, shaped the development of the new rules. In 2023, the U.S. government accelerated these efforts, emphasizing the importance of aligning space export controls with the needs of the U.S. space industry while safeguarding national security.

On October 10, 2024, three rules were published: a final rule, an interim final rule, and a proposed rule, all of which took effect on October 23, 2024. These rules collectively revise various licensing requirements, introduce new exemptions, and propose further regulatory changes.

Overview of the Three New Rules

The three rules, commonly referred to as Space 1, Space 2, and Space 3, each serve distinct purposes:

1. Space 1 (Final Rule):
• Space 1 introduces specific revisions to the Commerce Control List (CCL), reducing certain licensing requirements for remote sensing and space-based logistics spacecraft. One key change under Space 1 is the removal of licensing requirements for exports to Australia, Canada, and the UK, facilitated through Regional Stability (RS) paragraph 742.6. This rule is expected to reduce the licensing burden by approximately 90 applications annually.
• Space 1’s changes aim to streamline licensing for U.S. allies, reducing administrative requirements for less sensitive space-related technologies while maintaining controls for sensitive exports.
2. Space 2 (Interim Final Rule):
• Space 2 introduces the most substantive changes of the three rules, implementing modifications that affect items under Commerce’s direct purview. It adjusts licensing requirements for specific spacecraft items, easing export restrictions for less sensitive and commercially available technologies to allied countries while still preserving security controls for exports to sanctioned nations like China and Russia.
• Under Space 2, several categories of “dot Y” items (i.e., less sensitive items) are added, including space-grade plugs and connectors, which no longer require licenses for exports to non-sanctioned countries. This category expansion allows the transfer of less sensitive items to allied nations with minimal administrative hurdles.
• Space 2 also revises standards for licensing requirements under categories 9A515, 9E515, and 9D515, further reducing the licensing burden for less critical space technology components.
3. Space 3 (Proposed Rule):
• Space 3 proposes broader regulatory changes, aligning with concurrent updates to the U.S. Munitions List (USML) under Categories IV and XV, managed by the Department of State. Space 3 introduces specific control parameters for new space technologies, including electric thrusters, control moment gyros, and separation mechanisms. It also seeks to transfer certain space-related items from the USML to the CCL to facilitate more flexible export controls for commercial technologies with minimal military relevance.
• This proposed rule includes a request for industry feedback on these changes, particularly around control thresholds for commercially significant technologies.

Key Changes Across the Rules

The new rules aim to facilitate collaboration with U.S. allies while preserving national security. Notable changes include:

• Consolidation of Control Parameters: The rules introduce a clearer organizational structure, grouping systems, and components separately for easier compliance.
• Addition of New License Exemptions: Space 2 introduces exemptions for official space agency programs, space tourism, and certain research activities, allowing U.S. companies more freedom to operate in the commercial space sector without burdensome licensing requirements.
• International Water Operations: The rules clarify licensing requirements for exports to facilities in international waters, treating transfers to facilities like Chinese launch platforms as exports to China.
• Focus on Commercially Insignificant Items: The addition of “dot Y” items facilitates the export of commercially available, low-sensitivity items, reducing unnecessary export controls while keeping high-security items tightly regulated.

Encouraging Public Comment

Both Mooney and Chauvin emphasized the importance of public input, particularly for the interim final rule (Space 2) and the proposed rule (Space 3). The public comment period, running until November 22, 2024, is critical for refining these regulations. Stakeholders are encouraged to provide detailed feedback, particularly regarding specific control thresholds and whether the updated rules align with industry needs. They noted that broad comments (e.g., “I don’t like this”) are unhelpful; instead, they urged commenters to identify specific issues, suggest alternatives, and provide examples to improve the rule’s effectiveness.

Implications for U.S. Industry and International Partnerships

The revised export controls align with the U.S. government’s aim to strengthen the domestic space sector by reducing regulatory barriers for companies that engage in international partnerships with allied nations. These updates are expected to:

• Reduce Administrative Burden: The rule changes, especially the addition of “dot Y” items, reduce the volume of license applications required for non-sensitive exports, improving efficiency for both companies and government agencies.
• Enhance Industry Competitiveness: By relaxing controls on items with minimal military utility, U.S. companies can more readily participate in the global market and collaborate with international partners, bolstering the U.S. space industry’s competitive position.
• Strengthen National Security: The updated rules retain strict controls on items with high-security implications, ensuring that U.S. technologies remain safeguarded against adversaries.

Anticipated Outcomes and Industry Feedback

The anticipated impact of these rules includes a significant reduction in license applications for items under Space 1 and Space 2, totaling approximately 490 fewer applications annually.

However, some industry representatives have raised questions regarding the extent of these controls. For instance, the requirement for “on-orbit defense articles” to be exempt from licensing requirements has been flagged for further discussion.

Additionally, the presentation noted that more complex space technologies, such as those involving sensitive optics, propulsion systems, and radio frequency transmissions, may require further clarification and refinement in regulatory language.

Conclusion

The recent updates to U.S. space export controls reflect a concerted effort by the Departments of Commerce and State to support the evolving needs of the U.S. commercial space industry while preserving national security.

The new Space 1, Space 2, and Space 3 rules introduce critical adjustments to licensing requirements, streamline regulatory frameworks, and offer new exemptions designed to promote international cooperation and innovation.

Public feedback remains essential, and both Mooney and Chauvin emphasized that constructive, specific comments from stakeholders will help shape these regulations to best support U.S. industry and national interests. 

NASA's Perspective

Michael Tu, NASA’s Associate Headquarters Export Administrator, outlined NASA’s perspective on recent changes in export control regulations, particularly concerning international partnerships and NASA’s space missions. Tu emphasized that NASA's goals are closely tied to fostering international cooperation, a core part of the agency’s mandate since its founding. As he noted, "international cooperation is a cornerstone of everything we do at NASA," and recent export control changes impact how NASA collaborates with foreign partners.

Importance of Export Control Reforms to NASA

Tu highlighted that NASA, guided by the National Aeronautics and Space Act and the 2020 National Space Policy, views international collaboration as essential for its mission. Currently, NASA manages hundreds of agreements with global partners, spanning all mission areas and geographic regions. Many of these agreements involve “traditional partners” for which recent licensing relief by the Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) will help streamline collaboration. Tu explained, "We absolutely have an inherent interest in as competitive of a space industrial base as possible," emphasizing NASA's alignment with U.S. competitiveness goals.

One crucial benefit of the regulatory reforms, Tu explained, is the potential reduction of bureaucratic obstacles in collaborating with trusted international partners. The reforms reflect a strategic effort to "demarcate who are our friends and allies… and reduce friction points with those known and trusted partners.” By reducing licensing requirements for less sensitive items, the reforms foster smoother operations for collaborative missions and projects.

Overview of NASA’s Engagement with Export Control Reform

NASA’s role in the reform process involved coordination with interagency partners to ensure that the proposed changes align with NASA's mission objectives. Tu praised the collaboration across agencies, acknowledging the extensive "body of work that went into this" and expressing appreciation for the interagency support that made the reforms possible. NASA’s staff, stationed at various centers, engaged in thorough discussions about how these changes would affect its projects and partnerships.

Tu emphasized that NASA is still evaluating the new rules, particularly around certain thresholds and categories impacting NASA programs. He highlighted that public feedback would be essential to refining the rule's application, encouraging input that considers both NASA’s needs and broader industry perspectives.

Key Provisions Impacting NASA’s Mission Areas

Several elements of the new regulations directly affect NASA’s operations and international agreements. These include changes to the U.S. Munitions List (USML) categories under the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR), updates to controls on the Commerce Control List (CCL), and specific exemptions under the Export Administration Regulations (EAR).

1. New Licensing Exemptions: Tu noted that recent changes under the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) include exemptions for certain space agency programs, such as the Lunar Gateway and Mars Sample Return, allowing “more efficient and more well-understood options” for international exchanges. This aligns with NASA’s mission to engage in cooperative space exploration while maintaining national security. The new exemptions also cover space tourism and certain research activities, providing NASA with greater flexibility in partnering with international organizations.
2. Impact on Cooperative Space Missions: The USML updates offer clarifications for categories involving cooperative rendezvous, proximity operations, and docking capabilities. NASA’s collaborative projects, such as the International Space Station (ISS) and Commercial Crew Program, will benefit from clearer definitions around what qualifies as sensitive or restricted technology. This clarity enables NASA to plan long-term missions without the constraints posed by ambiguous regulations.

Tu explained that these revisions are “beneficial both in our ability to outlook and plan and mission plan going forward,” allowing NASA to focus on its scientific and exploration missions. He noted that these changes are critical for projects involving commercial systems that interact with the ISS, as well as for planning future missions.

1. Updates to Remote Sensing and Space Object Tracking: Recent reforms adjust control thresholds for space-based remote sensing and tracking technologies. These updates are particularly relevant to NASA’s sample return missions and other projects involving space object tracking. Tu remarked that the “devil will be in the details of definitions,” indicating NASA’s interest in ensuring that the revised terms are appropriately defined for specific mission needs.
2. Enhanced Controls for Large Telescopes: NASA also sees potential benefits from the clarification of controls around large telescopes. The updated remote sensing entry aims to distinguish between military and scientific applications, which could streamline compliance for NASA’s science missions. This differentiation between applications could facilitate the global use of U.S.-developed space telescopes for peaceful and scientific purposes.
3. Definition of "Spacecraft": One significant addition to ITAR involves a new definition of "spacecraft." This clarification helps streamline export compliance by specifying the criteria under which an item qualifies as a spacecraft, thus determining if it falls under export controls. Tu encouraged stakeholders to review this new definition, saying, “I think it’s very useful for us… and hopefully you feel the same.” He highlighted that clarity in the term "spacecraft" is critical given the many export regulations tied to the classification of space items.
4. Adjustments for In-Space Habitats: Another change includes the classification of in-space habitats, such as those envisioned under NASA's Commercial Low Earth Orbit Development Program, within dedicated control parameters. This ensures that similar technologies used in the ISS and future habitats will receive consistent treatment. Tu pointed out that this change “will be of similar sensitivity,” aligning with NASA’s mission to maintain human spaceflight presence in low Earth orbit.

Encouragement of Public and Industry Feedback

Tu stressed the importance of public and industry feedback to improve the utility of these export control changes for NASA’s mission. He echoed sentiments from other presenters, highlighting the need for specific comments that address real-world challenges. He encouraged industry representatives to provide feedback on thresholds, control parameters, and definitions, particularly around items that are difficult to categorize between military and scientific applications.

Tu specifically asked industry partners to share perspectives on how the new exemptions might affect their operations, especially as NASA’s partnerships often involve unique technologies and agreements that may differ from commercial setups. He added that feedback on how foreign producers’ capabilities align with U.S. control thresholds would be invaluable to refining future revisions.

Tu concluded by emphasizing the importance of the recent export control reforms in supporting NASA’s mission. The changes are designed to facilitate NASA’s international collaborations by reducing unnecessary bureaucratic barriers for items with limited security concerns. This aligns with NASA’s mission to engage in “competitive and cooperative” international space exploration. By easing licensing requirements for less sensitive technologies and improving regulatory clarity, NASA can strengthen its international partnerships while still protecting national security.

Industry Q& A

The Q&A session following NASA’s export control presentation, led by Jason Chauvin and other officials, addressed various questions on the recent rule changes, focusing on timelines, specific technologies, and procedural concerns. Key clarifications were made around when the new rules take effect, how certain technologies are classified, and the intent behind specific regulatory language. Officials urged stakeholders to submit detailed public comments, particularly where ambiguity exists, to improve the regulatory framework.

Effective Dates and Process Concerns

The first set of questions centered on when the rule changes would take effect. Jason confirmed, “the final rule is effective as of October 23, 2024,” clarifying that most changes published under the interim final rule are already in force. He advised that any minor inconsistencies in the document text were being reviewed, and corrections would be addressed promptly.

On document redactions, officials cautioned against using simple digital redaction techniques, as these could be reversed. For sensitive information, they recommended, “scan the document using an old-school scanner” to ensure redactions are secure before submitting. This measure helps avoid accidental disclosure of confidential business information.

Synthetic Aperture Radar and Frequency Thresholds

One significant technical question involved synthetic aperture radar (SAR) technology, particularly why the frequency threshold was set at 500 MHz rather than the industry-standard 1200 MHz. Officials explained that the U.S. Munitions List (USML) threshold was set at 500 MHz based on what they assessed as “a critical military intelligence advantage.” This threshold determines what capabilities are controlled under ITAR. Chris Weil, a representative, acknowledged that “500 MHz is the point at which we currently assess it provides a critical military intelligence advantage.” However, he refrained from further detailing the internal deliberations, emphasizing that stakeholders should provide comments if they believe 1200 MHz is a more appropriate threshold.

A follow-up question requested more transparency on the basis for selecting 500 MHz, as industry considers it lower than necessary. Chris suggested that the “critical military intelligence” standard used in setting the threshold could be unclear to industry. He encouraged stakeholders to submit comments explaining any discrepancies they see between the government’s control parameters and industry standards.

Anti-Jam Antennas for GPS and Civil Applications

Several participants raised questions about anti-jam antennas, which fall outside categories 4 and 15 but are crucial for precision navigation and timing resilience in civil aviation and maritime applications. Jason noted that while the current rules don’t specifically address these antennas, the Office of Management and Budget is reviewing a related rule (RIN 1400-8F42) focused on GPS resilience. This rule could potentially address the commercial interest in these antennas. Jason advised industry stakeholders to monitor notifications from the Federal Register for updates on this rule.

Thermal Management and Materials Control

Another area of concern involved the classification of thermal management items under 9C515. Questions were raised about potential overreach or vagueness in this classification, with some stakeholders unsure if all relevant materials would fall under the U.S. Munitions List. Officials clarified that during interagency discussions, there was debate on whether 9C515 might be redundant. However, the agencies decided to keep it as a “backstop control,” capturing any materials not explicitly listed on the USML but still subject to export control.

Officials encouraged industry representatives to submit public comments if they found 9C515 unclear or overreaching. They recommended being specific, noting that public input is vital in clarifying scope and refining regulatory language.

CubeSat Export Licensing

Questions about export licensing for CubeSat kits brought up another classification issue. (A CubeSat is a small, standardized satellite that's used for space exploration and education).  Chris clarified that “CubeSats are not specifically controlled by the USML or CCL based on their size (e.g., 1U or 3U configurations).” Instead, their classification depends on functional capabilities. For example, a CubeSat designed for directed energy weapon use would be classified as such rather than based on its form factor. He advised companies uncertain about CubeSat classifications to seek official guidance via classification requests to either the State Department or the Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS).

Additionally, officials recommended the "Export Control Guidebook for Startups," which outlines steps for determining export classifications and navigating regulatory requirements for space technologies.

Light Collection Capabilities in Remote Sensing

The updated standards for remote sensing satellites also generated questions, particularly concerning the term “minimum light collecting surface.” Industry representatives expressed confusion over how this criterion impacts regulatory scope. Chris explained that “minimum light collecting surface” refers to “the surface of any light-collecting sensor in aggregate on the satellite.” However, he recognized that further clarity might be necessary and encouraged stakeholders to explain specific edge cases or technical ambiguities in their public comments to aid the policy team in refining the term.

Clarifications on Separation Mechanisms and Planetary Rovers

A question on separation mechanisms focused on whether these mechanisms apply only to stages of rockets or include payload separations. Officials confirmed that the regulation covers all separation systems, including those between stages and between payloads. This clarification addressed stakeholder concerns about which systems are regulated.

Regarding planetary rovers, a participant asked whether the recent exclusion of “Rovers” under Note 8 of 9A515 implies they are not regulated. Jason clarified that Rovers, particularly those operating on other celestial bodies, are treated as “not classified under 9A515.” This distinction ensures that non-sensitive, planetary exploration-focused Rovers do not fall under the stringent controls reserved for spacecraft with potential military applications.

Signature Reduction and Satellite Brightness

Lastly, industry participants asked about materials used for signature reduction, specifically for reducing satellite brightness to avoid interference with astronomical observations. Officials explained that this new materials control arose from interagency concerns about unlicensed export of certain coatings. They emphasized that the rule intends to allow brightness reduction for astronomical purposes without unintentionally aiding military signature reduction. Stakeholders were encouraged to comment on specific edge cases to ensure the regulation properly addresses the balance between peaceful scientific and potential military uses.

More Encouragement for Public Comments

The session concluded with a reminder to submit public comments by November 22,

Jason Chauvin reiterated the importance of industry engagement: “We hope this has helped you formulate your questions and comments for the docket.” He assured stakeholders that their input would help shape future export control policy, ensuring that regulations remain aligned with the needs of the U.S. space sector.

Slides and Background Materials