OSC Moves Ahead with Certification Framework for Novel Commercial Space Missions

The Department of Commerce’s Office of Space Commerce (OSC) is moving from proposal to implementation of a voluntary certification framework for commercial space activities that do not fit squarely within the existing US licensing regime. On July 23, 2026, OSC announced that its Space Commerce Certification proposal plans to publish a Federal Register “call for interest” for initial applications, aiming to begin certifications in the coming months.

CERTIFICATION AIMS TO FILL A REGULATORY GAP

The initiative addresses an issue that has become more pronounced as commercial space activity moves beyond communications, Earth observation, launch, and reentry. The existing US regime is largely sectoral: the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) regulates launch and reentry; the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) regulates radiofrequency communications; and OSC’s Commercial Remote Sensing Regulatory Affairs (CRSRA) division licenses private remote sensing.

Novel activities such as satellite servicing, in-space manufacturing, orbital computing, commercial space stations, and lunar operations may implicate those regimes without falling directly within any one agency’s statutory mandate. OSC’s Space Commerce Certification proposal (Certification Proposal) identifies that gap as both a source of uncertainty for operators and a consideration for the government’s ability to authorize and supervise commercial activity in space.

This potential gap also has an international law dimension. Article VI of the Outer Space Treaty requires governmental authorization and continuing supervision of nongovernmental space activities.

Executive Order 14335, issued in August 2025, directed the Department of Commerce to propose individualized mission authorizations for activities covered by Article VI of the Outer Space Treaty but “not clearly or straightforwardly governed by existing regulatory frameworks,” with affected-agency input, a definitive decision timeline, and clear applicant requirements. OSC’s answer is not a new mandatory license but rather a voluntary, opt-in certification administered by the Department of Commerce.

HOW THE PROPOSED CERTIFICATION PROCESS WOULD WORK

Under the Certification Proposal, an operator would submit an application to OSC describing the mission, spacecraft specifications, planned operations, and information relevant to national security, foreign policy, international obligations, and safety. OSC would then conduct due diligence and circulate the application for interagency review. The framework creates a presumption of approval and generally requires a decision within 120 days, subject to an extension of up to 60 additional days for dispute resolution.

Denial would be limited to specified grounds, including unmitigable national security, international obligation, foreign relations, or safety concerns. The proposal also contemplates continuing, risk-based supervision and possible revocation for unresolved noncompliance.

Voluntary certification would not displace the FAA, FCC, or CRSRA. If a mission requires a launch license, spectrum authorization, or remote-sensing license, such statutory requirement remains controlling. Instead, OSC envisions facilitating the role of a regulatory clearinghouse: information could be collected once, reviewed across governments, and—where another agency determines it is legally sufficient—used to satisfy or waive portions of that agency’s own review.

OSC specifically suggests that the FCC could rely on certification for certain orbital-debris requirements and the FAA could use OSC’s interagency review to satisfy portions of its payload review, creating efficiencies while allowing each agency to retain its statutory responsibilities. The OSC website now similarly describes the process as a consolidated, whole-of-government review while emphasizing that separate legal permissions from FAA, FCC, or CRSRA may still be necessary.

OSC DIRECTOR JORDAN’S TESTIMONY BEFORE HOUSE PANEL CLARIFIES PURPOSE

On July 15, 2026, the House Science, Space, and Technology Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics held a hearing on the OSC. The hearing sharpened both the rationale for the Certification Proposal and its legal limits. OSC Director Taylor Jordan told lawmakers that some missions would still require FAA or FCC licenses but described the certification’s primary purpose as filling regulatory gaps for novel in-space activities.

He also explained that OSC could ask questions on behalf of other agencies (e.g., FAA payload review questions or FCC orbital debris questions), aiming to reduce duplicative review.

The hearing supplied a concrete illustration of why those gaps matter. Ranking Member Zoe Lofgren discussed a recently licensed satellite, Earendil-1, intended to reflect sunlight toward Earth, about which the FCC had stated that concerns regarding the satellite’s purpose were outside the agency’s jurisdiction.

Director Jordan later made the broader point: existing regulators are confined to the authority that Congress has given them, such as the FCC’s authority over radiofrequency transmission, and those authorities do not necessarily answer who should authorize and supervise the underlying novel in-space activity.

For more information on the pattern of narrowing the commercial space regulatory scope, read our recent LawFlash, FAA and FCC Actions Signal Narrower Reviews for Commercial Space Activities.

NOVEL IMPLEMENTATION OF A NOVEL PROCESS FOR NOVEL MISSIONS

OSC is also presently confined to its own statutory jurisdiction under the Department of Commerce’s mandate. The Certification Proposal takes the position that the Department of Commerce’s existing Title 51 authorities—to foster the growth of US space commerce and seek the removal of legal, policy, and institutional impediments—are sufficient to establish an opt-in, voluntary certification scheme.

Director Jordan acknowledged during the July 15 hearing that fully filling regulatory gaps may require statutory authority that OSC does not presently possess, while additional legislation could give the program stronger enforcement mechanisms.

In other words, OSC is drawing a meaningful line between coordinating a voluntary certification under existing authority and exercising plenary, mandatory regulatory power over novel space activities.

That line will become increasingly important as implementation proceeds. The proposal suggests that the voluntary framework may not require conventional rulemaking, and Director Jordan testified that OSC intends to begin with mature missions and learn through early applications.

The July 15 hearing exposed ongoing issues, including public participation, interagency participation, liability, and OSC’s independent enforcement authority. Director Jordan, for example, acknowledged that OSC needed to develop a mechanism for public comment, which appears to have been handled by inviting “expressions of interest” from US entities. These expressions of interest must be submitted by October 5, 2026.

For now, OSC’s decision represents a pragmatic attempt to address the regulatory “swing space” between agencies without displacing their congressionally assigned jurisdictions. The certification is designed to provide a direct government pathway for novel missions where one does not exist otherwise, while reducing the incentive for sector-specific regulators to stretch their statutes to reach broader in-space conduct.

Whether that approach ultimately becomes a durable US mission-authorization regime may depend on what OSC learns from its first certifications—and whether Congress agrees to give the voluntary clearinghouse a more distinct statutory foundation.