Overview
Title
Change to the License Review Policy for Unmanned Aerial Systems (UAS) To Reflect Revised United States UAS Export Policy
Agencies
ELI5 AI
The U.S. government now has a new rule to make it a bit easier to sell certain flying robots, like drones, to other countries. This rule means they will look at each request to sell them more carefully and may say yes more often, while still trying to keep everyone safe.
Summary AI
The Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) has issued a final rule to change the U.S. export policy for certain Unmanned Aerial Systems (UAS) with the aim of providing greater flexibility in their export and reexport licensing. This adjustment aligns with President Trump's policy change announced in July 2020, and it is aimed at balancing national security and economic interests while staying committed to the Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR). The new policy treats some UAS with specific capabilities as less regulated items, allowing more case-by-case licensing. This change is expected to lead to a slight increase in license applications as it relaxes controls to facilitate the growth of the commercial UAS market.
Abstract
Consistent with President Donald J. Trump's July 24, 2020 announcement of a change in U.S. policy regarding the export of Unmanned Aerial Systems (UAS), the Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) is amending the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) licensing review policy with respect to certain UAS that are controlled for Missile Technology (MT) reasons. UAS that have a range and payload capability equal to or greater than 300 kilometers (km)/500 kilograms (kg) are identified on the Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR) Annex as Category I items. Pursuant to this amendment, BIS will review export and reexport license applications involving UAS that fall within these parameters and a maximum true airspeed of less than 800 km/hour (hr) for export licensing review purposes on a case-by-case basis under the more flexible review policy generally applied to MTCR Category II items under the EAR. BIS will also review MT items for the design, development, production, or use in such UAS on a case-by-case basis. This policy change reflects a reasonable approach to technological change and the protection of the national security and economic interests of the United States, while simultaneously remaining committed to the MTCR and its core nonproliferation objectives.
Keywords AI
Sources
AnalysisAI
Editorial Commentary
The document from the Federal Register outlines a significant change in U.S. policy regarding the export of Unmanned Aerial Systems (UAS), specifically those items under the Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR). This change, effective from January 12, 2021, revises the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) to provide greater flexibility in licensing certain UAS for export and reexport. This adjustment, consistent with President Trump's policy change in July 2020, seeks to balance the national security and economic interests of the United States while maintaining commitment to nonproliferation objectives.
Significant Issues and Concerns
The document's language and terminology are highly technical, using acronyms like MTCR and EAR, which may be challenging for the general public to understand. This complexity may hinder widespread comprehension of the policy’s implications.
The document mentions a move towards a more flexible case-by-case review policy for certain UAS that meet specific parameters, but it lacks detailed criteria explaining how these decisions will be made. This absence might lead to inconsistency or perceptions of bias, making it unclear how specific licensing applications will be evaluated.
Furthermore, the document highlights concerns about balancing economic opportunities and national security threats without providing a clear plan on how this balance will be achieved in practice. The lack of oversight or accountability measures raises questions about how effectively U.S. national security interests and nonproliferation commitments will be upheld under the new policy.
Estimations regarding the minimal increase in license applications seem conservative. Given the rapid advancement in UAS technology and its applications, there could be a larger-than-anticipated surge in interest, suggesting that the BIS should be prepared for potential regulatory and administrative challenges.
Impact on the Public and Stakeholders
Broadly, the policy change may impact the public by shifting the balance between security and economic interests in the U.S. economy. While aiming to strengthen national security partnerships and enhance economic opportunities, the approach may also raise concerns on how strictly controls are adhered to for nonproliferation purposes.
For specific stakeholders such as U.S. industries engaged with UAS technologies, this policy change could present new opportunities to access international markets. By easing the licensing constraints, companies might see expanded commercial opportunities, potentially increasing their competitive edge globally.
Conversely, for stakeholders focused on national security or nonproliferation, there might be concern over any potential risks that looser export controls could introduce. The flexibility introduced by the new policy could, in some cases, be viewed as prioritizing economic gains over tighter security measures, especially if specific guidelines for export are ambiguous or inconsistently applied.
Conclusion
This rule change represents a significant shift in how the U.S. addresses UAS exports and related security concerns. Although it offers opportunities for economic growth and strengthened global market presence for U.S. industries, it also requires careful monitoring to ensure alignment with national security and international nonproliferation standards. Therefore, clear communication and transparent implementation of this policy are crucial to address any ambiguities and to reassure both the public and concerned stakeholders of its balanced objectives.
Issues
• The document contains complex language and technical terminology that may be difficult for a layperson to understand, especially in acronyms like MTCR, UAS, EAR, and ECCNs that are not immediately explained for unfamiliar readers.
• The policy change may imply a potential shift in export control with national security implications, but the explanation of the balance between nonproliferation commitments and economic security interests is somewhat ambiguous.
• The case-by-case basis review policy lacks specific criteria, which could lead to inconsistency or perceived bias in decision-making.
• There is no mention of oversight or accountability measures to ensure the policy change aligns with U.S. national security interests and nonproliferation commitments.
• The estimated minimal increase in license applications might underestimate the potential market interest, given the rapid growth of UAS technology and applications.
• The use of technical terms like 'MT Controlled parts and components,' and 'development,' 'use' without clear definitions in the text could lead to misunderstandings about regulatory scope.
• No specific examples or scenarios are given to illustrate how the policy change will be implemented in practice, which could enhance understanding and transparency.