START Negotiations
April 23, 2009 at 8:45 am | Posted in Space Law | Leave a commentby P.J. Blount with the blog faculty
From RIA Novosti:
Russia’s Lavrov and Clinton to meet for START talks in May
12:18 | 23/ 04/ 2009MOSCOW, April 23 (RIA Novosti) – Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov will meet with U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in Washington on May 7 to discuss the START agreement, which expires at the end of this year.
The director of the North American Department at the Foreign Ministry, Igor Neverov, told RIA Novosti on Thursday that the first round of Russian-American expert-level consultations on preparing the new Strategic Arms Reductions Treaty (START) agreement would take place in Rome this week.
“There will be a meeting of experts in April, and the experts will continue to work until the minister (Lavrov) goes to Washington on May 7,” Neverov said. . . . [Full Story]
H.R. 2014: To award a congressional gold medal to the Women Airforce Service Pilots (“WASP”)
April 22, 2009 at 1:57 pm | Posted in Aviation Law | 1 Commentby P.J. Blount with the blog faculty
H.R. 2014: To award a congressional gold medal to the Women Airforce Service Pilots (“WASP”) was introduced on April 21, 2009 by Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL). The text is not yet available.
Latest spy satellite plan has few details, many skeptics
April 22, 2009 at 8:51 am | Posted in Remote Sensing Law, Remote Sensing Law Current Events | Leave a commentby Joanne Irene Gabrynowicz with the blog faculty
Source: GovernmentExecutive.com
The Obama administration has not provided sufficient detail to justify its ambitious plan to buy and launch spy satellites, raising concerns that billions of taxpayer dollars could be put at risk with no guarantee of success, according to lawmakers, sources and government reports.
Some critics say more than $10 billion could be put at unnecessary risk over the next decade when smaller, less expensive satellites, unmanned drones and other aerial assets could be just as effective, if not more so.
Critics also say this is the third time in 12 years the government has drafted plans to overhaul the country’s aging constellation of spy satellites. A plan proposed in 1997, called Future Imagery Architecture, was killed in 2005 amid reports of mismanagement and skyrocketing costs. More recently, sources said, another plan was terminated.
House Intelligence Technical and Tactical Intelligence Subcommittee Chairman C.A. (Dutch) Ruppersberger, D-Md., said in an interview his panel was not adequately consulted on the Obama team’s plan, adding that he is not sold on it.
Ruppersberger will play a key role in approving it, as he also sits on the House Appropriations Committee. He said it appears as if the administration adopted a plan that was put together under the Bush administration.
Senior intelligence officials declined to comment on the latest acquisition strategy, saying it is being finalized. But they said they expect to begin awarding contracts soon.
Once the acquisition strategy is in place, it is expected to set off industry and lobbying battles as major defense companies compete for prime contracts and subcontractors line up to get a piece of the action.
A central part of the plan also calls for buying more commercial space imagery in the short-term from U.S. companies like DigitalGlobe of Longmont, Colo., and GeoEye of Dulles, Va. A member of GeoEye’s board of directors sat on a panel that helped craft the plan, though sources said the panel did not have anything to do with the proposal to buy more commercial imagery.
Although the world economy began to nosedive in 2008, the global space industry saw remarkable growth and increased revenues to $257 billion, according to a report from the nonprofit Space Foundation. U.S. agencies spent about $67 billion on space activities last year, the report said.
But funding for the Obama administration’s new space plan faces significant hurdles in Congress.
He pointed to a report drafted by his subcommittee in October that included recommendations on how to prevent cost overruns and schedule delays in building new spy satellites.
Ruppersberger said he wants to ensure the administration’s proposal meets the needs of intelligence and defense users, along with NASA.
“I think to put out a plan like this, and we have to ultimately fund it, we need more input and we need to address the issues contained in my report,” he said.
Senate Intelligence Committee ranking member Christopher (Kit) Bond, R-Mo., told Obama and Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair in recent letters that he believes the plan is fundamentally flawed.
Senate Intelligence Committee Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., also laid out her concerns in a letter to Obama, but her office would not release it, saying it is classified.
Senior intelligence officials defend the plan, saying it represents the best value for the nation and will meet the full spectrum of needs across the U.S. government.
They deny the plan is too risky or will rely on unproven technology. One official said the systems will be funded based on independent cost estimates and procured using the best government practices.
Officials from GeoEye and DigitalGlobe said they were encouraged that the government will buy more commercial imagery. But they, too, need detailed information before they know exactly how much imagery will be bought and over what timeframe.
DigitalGlobe spent just over $1 million in 2008 and 2007 lobbying Congress and the executive branch on “issues relating to [the] nation’s use of commercial satellite imagery and remote sensing,” according to the firm’s lobbying disclosure reports filed with the Senate.
GeoEye spent $400,000 lobbying over the past two years on defense appropriations and authorizations to “sustain government support for commercial space imagery,” records show.
Draft Environmental Assessment for Jacksonville Aviation Authority Launch Site Operator License at Cecil Field, Florida
April 22, 2009 at 8:36 am | Posted in Space Law | Leave a commentby P.J. Blount with the blog faculty
The Draft Environmental Assessment for Jacksonville Aviation Authority Launch Site Operator License at Cecil Field, Florida in now available from the FAA/AST.
No Need For ITAR License for Space Flight Participants
April 22, 2009 at 8:32 am | Posted in Space Law | Leave a commentby P.J. Blount with the blog faculty
From the Economist:
Freedom to fly
Apr 22nd 2009
From Economist.com
A small company wins an important legal challenge to America’s space-technology export-control regimeFOR many years, parts of America’s space industry have complained that the rules governing the export of technology are too strict. Understandably, the government does not want militarily useful stuff to fall into the hands of its foes. But the result is a system that is too strict in its definition of “militarily useful” and which favours lumbering dinosaurs such as Lockheed Martin and Boeing, which survive on fat government contracts, rather than nimble but small “furry mammals” that need every customer they can get, domestic or foreign.
In December 2007 one of those mammals, a company called Bigelow Aerospace, filed the first legal challenge to America’s rules for exporting space technology. It disputed the government’s claim that foreign passengers travelling on a spaceship or space station were involved in a transfer of technology. The outcome suggests that there may be a chink in the armour of the export-controls regime. . . .
. . . Yet, taking a passenger flight does not mean you can build an aeroplane, observes Mike Gold, head of Bigelow’s office in Washington, DC. His line of argument, it seems, has been accepted. Mr Gold says that the company received the ruling in February and that it has spent the past two months digesting it. He says that Bigelow has got “everything we could want”, though the ruling still precludes passengers from what he describes as the “bad-boy list of export control”—nationals from Sudan, Iran, North Korea and China will not be allowed to fly or train on suborbital passenger flights, or visit Bigelow’s space station.
Other private space companies have welcomed the ruling. Marc Holzapfel, legal counsel for Virgin Galactic, describes it as a “major development” because it frees the industry from having to go through the “complicated, expensive and dilatory export-approval process”. Tim Hughes, chief counsel of SpaceX, says the approval is exciting, because it seems to represent a “common-sense approach” and bodes well for similar requests made by companies such as his own to carry foreign astronauts hoping to work on missions to the International Space Station. . . . [Full Story]
My article on this now moot point is available from SSRN: Informed Consent v. ITAR: Regulatory Conflicts that Could Constrain Commercial Human Space Flight
Presidential Message to Congress on Exports
April 22, 2009 at 8:12 am | Posted in Space Law | Leave a commentby P.J. Blount with the blog faculty
From the White House:
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secrectary
For Immediate Release
April 21, 2009TO THE CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES:
In accordance with the provisions of section 1512 of the Strom Thurmond National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999 (Public Law 105-261), I hereby certify to the Congress that the export of one continuous mixer to be used to manufacture conductive polymer compounds to be further processed to make circuit protection devices, one jet mill to be used for particle size reduction of pigments and other powder products for cosmetic formulations, and one filament winding cell to be used to manufacture fiberglass assembly shelter poles for use in tents and shelters is not detrimental to the U.S. space launch industry, and that the material and equipment, including any indirect technical benefit that could be derived from these exports, will not measurably improve the missile or space launch capabilities of the People’s Republic of China.
BARACK OBAMA
THE WHITE HOUSE,
April 21, 2009.
Congress Enacts Integrated Coastal and Ocean Observation System Act
April 21, 2009 at 6:39 pm | Posted in Remote Sensing Law, Remote Sensing Law Current Events | Leave a commentby Joanne Irene Gabrynowicz with the blog faculty
Source: National Sea Grant Law Center
Commission opens formal proceedings against certain members of Star and oneworld airline alliances
April 21, 2009 at 3:21 pm | Posted in Aviation Law | Leave a commentby P.J. Blount with the blog faculty
From the European Commission:
Antitrust: Commission opens formal proceedings against certain members of Star and oneworld airline alliances
The European Commission has decided to open two formal antitrust proceedings in relation to cooperation between certain airlines on transatlantic routes. The first investigation concerns both existing and planned cooperation between four current or prospective members of the Star Alliance – Air Canada, Continental, Lufthansa and United. The second investigation relates to proposed cooperation between three members of the oneworld alliance – American Airlines, British Airways and Iberia. The Commission will assess the compatibility of each of these airlines’ cooperation with European rules on restrictive business practices (Article 81 of the EC Treaty and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement).
The Commission has opened two separate investigations. They respectively relate to two sets of agreements between Air Canada, Continental, Lufthansa and United, on the one hand, and between American Airlines, British Airways and Iberia, on the other hand. The agreements provide for the coordination of the airlines’ commercial, marketing and operational activities on transatlantic routes (principally routes between the EU and North America). The level of cooperation in question appears far more extensive than the general cooperation between these airlines and other airlines which are part of the Star and oneworld alliances. In particular, the parties to each agreement intend to jointly manage schedules, capacity, pricing and revenue management on transatlantic routes, as well as share revenues and sell tickets on these routes without preference between these carriers. The scope of the Star Alliance investigation covers both the existing transatlantic cooperation between Lufthansa and United and between Lufthansa and Air Canada as well as the proposed four-party agreement between them and Continental.
The Commission is assessing whether these joint activities may lead to restrictions of competition on certain transatlantic routes. In its analysis, the Commission will take into consideration any demonstrated consumer benefits which may arise from the parties’ cooperation.
The opening of proceedings does not imply that the Commission has conclusive proof of an infringement but merely signifies that the Commission will deal with the cases as a matter of priority.
As in any other competition case, the companies will be able to rely on their rights of defence in accordance with the applicable rules.
There is no strict deadline for the Commission to complete inquiries into potentially anticompetitive conduct. Their duration depends on a number of factors, including the complexity of each case, the extent to which the undertakings concerned co-operate with the Commission and the exercise of the rights of defence.
What is the legal base for the decision?
The legal base of this procedural step is Article 11(6) of Council Regulation No 1/2003 and Article 2(1) of Commission Regulation No 773/2004.
Article 11(6) of Regulation No 1/2003 provides that the initiation of proceedings relieves the competition authorities of the Member States of their authority to apply Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty to the practices under investigation by the Commission. Moreover, Article 16(1) of the same Regulation provides that national courts must avoid giving decisions which would conflict with a decision contemplated by the Commission in proceedings that it has initiated.
Article 2 of Regulation No 773/2004 provides that the Commission can initiate proceedings with a view to adopting at a later stage a decision on substance according to Articles 7-10 of Regulation No 1/2003 at any point in time, but at the latest when issuing a statement of objections or a preliminary assessment notice in a settlement procedure. In the two present cases, the Commission has chosen to open proceedings before such further steps.
Interview with David Wade, Space Underwriter
April 21, 2009 at 1:49 pm | Posted in Space Law | Leave a commentby P.J. Blount with the blog faculty
Lloyds.com has posted an interview with David Wade a space asset underwriter with Atrium Space Insurance Consortium (ASIC). Here is the intro:
Not many risks are too far out for Lloyd’s. David Wade is a space underwriter with Atrium Space Insurance Consortium (ASIC) and a recognized expert in the business – he recently spoke at the 15th International Space Insurance Conference in Venice. Before he left for Italy David gave us a 60 second grand tour of the outer limits of risk. . . .
COMMISSION DECISION of 20 April 2009 establishing an expert group on the security of the European GNSS systems (Text with EEA relevance) (2009/334/EC)
April 21, 2009 at 8:24 am | Posted in Space Law | Leave a commentby P.J. Blount with the blog faculty
The Commission Decision of 20 April 2009 establishing an expert group on the security of the European GNSS systems (Text with EEA relevance) (2009/334/EC) has been published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2009 L 101/22). The Decision implements the following:
Article 1
The Security Board for the European GNSS Systems An expert group on the security of the European GNSS systems, called the Security Board for the European GNSS Systems (hereinafter referred to as the Security Board) is hereby established.Article 2
Mission
The Security Board shall assist the Commission in implementing the provisions of Article 13(1) of Regulation (EC) No 683/2008 and in examining matters concerning the security of the European GNSS systems. The Commission shall consult it prior to defining the main requirements, provided for in Article 13(2), concerning the security of the systems and it shall provide ongoing support to the Commission as regards the implementation of the provisions of Article 13(3).Article 3
Consultation
The Commission shall regularly consult the Security Board and take its opinions fully into account.Article 4
Composition
1. The Security Board shall be composed of one representative of each Member State, selected from among the recognised experts in the field of safety and security, and a representative of the Commission.2. Representatives of the European GNSS Supervisory Authority, the European Space Agency and the SG/HR may be involved as observers in the work of the Security Board under the conditions laid down in its rules of procedure.
3. Agreements concluded by the European Community may make provision for representatives of third countries to participate in the work of the Security Board, including as full members thereof.
4. With effect from the entry into force of this Decision, representatives of Norway and Switzerland may be temporarily involved as observers in the work of the Security Board under the conditions laid down in its rules of procedure. This is conditional upon Norway and Switzerland each providing prior confirmation of their intention to apply, on their territory, all the necessary security measures to ensure an appropriate degree of protection of the infrastructure, services and technologies of the European GNSS programmes and systems, particularly as regards export controls. The duration of this temporary participation must be sufficient to allow an agreement as referred to in paragraph 3 to be concluded and may not, in any event, exceed three years.
5. The participation of a third country in the work of the Security Board may be reduced or suspended if it appears that the actions taken by that country do not make it possible to ensure the degree of protection required as regards security or to comply with the security rules laid down for the European GNSS programmes.
6. The chairperson of the Security Board may invite other experts to participate in the work of the Security Board on occasion, under the conditions laid down in its rules of procedure. The reasons justifying the presence of such experts must be notified in advance by the chairperson to the members of the Security Board.
7. The representatives nominated by a country or organisation shall remain in their position until they are replaced or their mandate ends. The Commission may refuse the expert nominated by a country or organisation when this nomination does not seem appropriate, particularly in the event of a conflict of interest. In such a case, the Commission shall quickly inform the country or organisation, which shall then nominate another expert.
Article 5
Operation
1. The Security Board shall be chaired by a representative of the Commission.2. In agreement with the Commission, sub-committees may be set up to examine specific matters on the basis of a mandate established by the Security Board. They shall be disbanded as soon as their mandates are fulfilled.
3. The Security Board and its sub-committees shall normally meet on Commission premises in accordance with the procedures and schedule established by the Commission. The meeting locations shall be secured in a manner appropriate to the nature of the work. The secretariat shall be provided by the Commission. Other Commission officials concerned may take part in the meetings.
4. The Security Board shall adopt its rules of procedure on the basis of the standard rules of procedure adopted by the Commission ( 1 ). The rules of procedure shall specify, inter alia, that the Security Board shall adopt its opinions or reports by consensus as far as possible and that each member may raise any relevant issue linked to the security of the European GNSS systems.
5. The participants in meetings of the Security Board and its sub-committees must strictly comply with the Commission’s safety and security rules, particularly as regards classified documents.
Article 6
Meeting expenses
1. The travel and accommodation expenses incurred by the members, experts and observers in connection with the Security Board’s activities shall be reimbursed by the Commission in accordance with the Commission rules in force. There shall be no remuneration for the tasks performed.2. Meeting expenses shall be reimbursed within the limits of the appropriations allocated to the departments concerned under the annual procedure for allocating resources.
Article 7
Entry into force
This Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption by the Commission. It shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union.Done at Brussels, 20 April 2009.
For the Commission
Antonio TAJANI
Vice-President
Blog at WordPress.com. | Theme: Pool by Borja Fernandez.
Entries and comments feeds.
