US Chambers Comments for the EU Space Act
Published
November 10, 2025
The U.S. Chamber supports the EU’s goal to harmonize space rules and create a single market, but the draft EU Space Act (EUSA) is overly prescriptive, duplicative, and effectively discriminatory toward non‑EU operators. As written, it layers new authorization steps, undefined implementing acts, and constellation‑size triggers onto existing national regimes, creating uncertainty and cost that could slow LEO broadband deployment, raise prices for EU consumers and industry, and deter investment—undermining the EU’s own aims for safety, resilience, innovation, and sustainability.
We urge a neutral, outcome‑based, standards‑aligned approach. Neutrality means eliminating “mega/giga‑constellation” thresholds and dual tracks that burden non‑EU firms, replacing them with a single authorization process and uniform, binding timelines for all applicants. To avoid duplication, the Commission should prioritize early equivalence determinations—especially with the United States—so robust home‑country regimes (e.g., FCC/FAA/NASA debris practices) are recognized and costly redesigns are avoided during transition. Core technical obligations and decision deadlines should be codified in the primary act, with safe harbors for existing assets and clear pathways to modify authorizations as constellations iterate; rigid concepts like identical satellites or single launch sites should be dropped.
Compliance should be tied to measurable outcomes—collision‑avoidance performance, de‑orbit reliability, cybersecurity risk management—recognized via international standards (ASTM, ITU, ISO, CCSDS, IADC) to preserve interoperability. Sustainability rules must be science‑based and feasible: do not rely on undefined methodologies that make approvals unworkable; align debris, brightness, and interference provisions with established practice and realistic phase‑ins. Ensure due process and proportionate enforcement (independent appeals, access to files, penalties calibrated to EU turnover), protect confidential data, and avoid extra‑territorial inspections that conflict with U.S. law. Align cybersecurity with NIS2 and avoid duplicative audits; keep general‑purpose tech (e.g., AI) out of scope absent a clear gap. Implement through transparent, expert consultations, with phased timelines (faster for licensing/registration; longer for design and operational changes).
Bottom line: With neutrality, equivalence, legal certainty, and outcome‑based standards, the EUSA can raise safety, resilience, and sustainability without constraining investment or service availability.
Note: The PDF submission is attached to the website.
