Satellite Industry Perspectives on Export Control Regulations

Abstract

In 2013, the Satellite Industry Association (SIA) submitted public comments recommending changes to and requesting clarifications on U.S. government proposals to modify the export-control regulations governing satellite technology. The comments represented a final stage of the decade-long effort to reform the restrictive export-control policy put in place in the late 1990s. To assist in constructing a transparent and effective regime that protects national security and U.S. competitiveness, SIA’s comments contained detailed recommendations to the State Department and Commerce Department that addressed highly technical concerns, attempted to harmonize confusing definitions, and requested additional clarity on jurisdictional questions. Taken in context, the filing represents a perspective on export control policy shared by the bulk of the U.S. satellite industry.

Notes

1. Final Report, “Defense Industrial Base Assessment: U.S. Space Industry,” 31 August 2007, U.S. Air Force, 34, https://www.bis.doc.gov/index.php/forms-documents/doc_view/38-defense-industrial-base-assessment-of-the-u-s-space-industry-2007 (accessed August 2015).

2. Organizations filing alongside SIA include: Planet Labs; Vivisat LLC; the National Space Society; Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy LLP; Alliant Techsystems Inc.; the Association of University Export Control Officers; the University of Oklahoma; and the Florida Space Development Council.

3. For a list of SIA member companies, see http://www.sia.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/SIA_MEMBERS_LIST_Website_2015-04-29.pdf (accessed July 2015).

4. See SIA’s comments on paragraph (a)(11) for a more detailed description of this proposal.

5. See Abbot and Wallace, “Decision Support in Space Situational Awareness,” 2007, https://www.ll.mit.edu/publications/journal/pdf/vol16_no2/16_2_05Abbot.pdf (accessed July 2015).

6. See SIA’s comments on the “double licensing” issue in the introductory section for one possible way of implementing this suggestion.

7. The “see-through” rule refers to the practice of classifying the entire spacecraft as ITAR-controlled if it contains a single component otherwise listed on the USML. The applicability of the see-through rule to satellite exports was subsequently clarified and limited.

8. One Lbf or “pound-force” is a physical unit defined as the force needed to accelerate a 32-pound mass by one foot per second squared.

9. The USML is subdivided into nearly 20 different technological categories. Category XV contains items referred to as “Spacecraft Systems and Related Articles” while Category XI includes “Military Electronics.” The numeration of the various categories has no regulatory implications, and as such, SIA’s recommendation was intended to avoid any duplication. ECCN 3A611 is the CCL ECCN which contains many electronics technologies similar to but less capable than those listed within USML Category XI.

10. See Government Payloads on Commercial Host Spacecraft, Solicitation Number 13-36, 28 January 2013, https://www.fbo.gov/?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=b2ae9db2cbd5b1f93707cf8c2c0e26ce&tab=core&_cview=0 (accessed July 2015).

11. For more information on the U.S. President’s Export Control Reform initiative, see http://www.export.gov/ecr/ (accessed July 2015).