Today, TechFreedom submitted comments in response to the NOAA Office of Space Commerce and the Department of State Office of Space Affairs’ request for U.S. stakeholder perspectives regarding the draft European Union Space Act. While comprehensive outer space legislation is long overdue, it cannot come in the form of an overly excessive regulatory regime which places outsized burdens on industry.

“The Act would force U.S operators to conform to EU rules not merely in the services provided inside Europe, but in fundamental aspects of how they operate worldwide,” said James E. Dunstan, TechFreedom’s Senior Counsel. “Due to the broad definitions proposed in the EU Draft Space Act, these new regulations would force virtually all U.S. space companies to comply with the regulations if they have any business at all in the EU. This is by design. The EU Draft Space Act does more than merely require registration and compliance with the new EU regulations, it effectively anchors U.S. space companies to European soil in a way that ensures that the EU regulations will have to be the prime governance regime, even if the footprint of the U.S. company in Europe is very small.”

“Creating separate and more onerous regulations for ‘giga-constellations’ singles out U.S. operators,” warned Dunstan. “The EU Draft Space Act creates a wholly new definition: giga constellations—and proposes heightened regulatory burdens on operators of such large satellite systems. In practice, these burdens would fall entirely on American companies. However, there is scant justification for treating larger satellite systems differently from a regulatory perspective. In fact, on a per-satellite basis, large operators often need less oversight due to advanced design and coordination. Unlike so many scenarios where satellite operators push the operational lives of their satellites far beyond their design lives, NGSO constellation operators have a proven track record of being far better orbital stewards than governments or smaller operators whose entire scientific or economic hopes ride on a single satellite.”

“If the EU fails to show respect and reciprocity toward U.S. aerospace companies, U.S. officials should respond accordingly,” Dunstan concluded. “Currently, the United States actually grants such international competitors a quicker and less onerous regulatory path. If the EU embarks on a regulatory regime for outer space that handicaps U.S. companies, then U.S. officials should rethink how it approaches its obligations under the WTO Basic Telecom Agreement. As it relates to outer space and satellite systems, the FCC would be fully justified in revising its market access rules in response to the additional burdens that U.S.-based aerospace companies will encounter entering the EU market under these draft regulations.”

###

Find these comments on our website, and share them on Twitter and Bluesky. We can be reached for comment at media@techfreedom.org. Read our related work, including:

About TechFreedom: TechFreedom is a nonprofit, nonpartisan technology policy think tank. We work to chart a path forward for policymakers towards a bright future where technology enhances freedom, and freedom enhances technology.

</>