U.S. Delegation to the World Telecommunication Development Conference
May 24, 2010 at 12:21 pm | Posted in Space Law | Leave a commentby P.J. Blount with the blog faculty
From the State Department:
Telecommunication Development Conference
U.S. Delegation to the World Telecommunication Development ConferenceOffice of the Spokesman
Washington, DC
May 21, 2010From May 23 to June 4, Ambassador Philip L. Verveer, U.S. Coordinator for International Communications and Information Policy, will lead an interagency delegation from Department of State, Federal Communications Commission (FCC), Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and National Telecommunications Information Administration (NTIA) to the fifth World Telecommunication Development Conference (WTDC) in Hyderabad, India. The Conference is held under the auspices of the International Telecommunication Union.
Ambassador Verveer will be joined by FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski and other State Department, FCC, DHS and NTIA officials.
The WTDC will focus on development priorities in telecommunications and information and communication technologies. The objective of the conference is to promote international cooperation, regional initiatives and partnerships that can sustain and strengthen telecommunication infrastructure and institutions in developing countries. Key topics to be addressed include broadband connectivity, cybersecurity, e-accessibility, e-applications, human capacity building and emergency communications.
On the margins of the conference, members of the delegation will travel to Delhi for a U.S.-India Information and Communication Technology Working Group meeting with the Indian Ministry of Communications and Information Technology. Members of the delegation will also travel to Bangalore to meet with leading industry representatives and to discuss new trends in technology with a group of young innovators.
PRN: 2010/662
Sea Launch Reorganization Plan
May 24, 2010 at 12:10 pm | Posted in Space Law | Leave a commentby P.J. Blount with the blog faculty
From Space Daily:
Sea Launch Files Plan Of Reorganization
by Staff Writers
Long Beach CA (SPX) May 20, 2010
Sea Launch Company LLC, a leading provider of launch services to the commercial satellite industry, has filed a Plan of Reorganization (the “Plan”) with the U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Delaware, in preparation for its emergence from Chapter 11. Sea Launch filed voluntary petitions to reorganize under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code on June 22, 2009.Pursuant to the terms of the Plan, Energia Overseas Limited (EOL) will purchase 85% of the stock in the reorganized Sea Launch in exchange for an equity investment of $140 million. . . . [Full Story]
Joint Statement by Space Organizations on the FY 2011 NASA Budget
May 24, 2010 at 12:04 pm | Posted in Space Law | Leave a commentby P.J. Blount with the blog faculty
From SpaceRef:
Joint Statement by Space Organizations on the FY 2011 NASA Budget
PRESS RELEASE
Date Released: Thursday, May 20, 2010
Source: Association of Universities for Research in Astronomyimage
We the undersigned, a diverse group of organizations with a vital interest in our Nation’s space program
, make the following statements:* We strongly support the top line FY2011 NASA budget.
* We believe an important goal of the NASA budget is to accelerate the development of the intellectual capital of the United States by investing in a high-cadence exciting program.
* We are excited by the increases in science, aeronautics and technology initiatives.
* We believe both human exploration and research are important: destination, milestones, engagement and story matter.
* We believe this is an opportunity for NASA to craft the exploration strategy in partnership with science and applied science that includes the International Space Station, safe and cost-effective access to low earth orbit, robotic precursors, and other missions. Heavy lift launch and in-space servicing enable new realms of exploration and science.
* We believe it is critically important that the American people can and must participate and be engaged in the journey of discovery and exploration.
AMERICAN ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF SCIENCE AMERICAN ASTRONOMICAL SOCIETY
AMERICAN INSTITUTE FOR AERONAUTICS AND ASTRONAUTICS
AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR GRAVITATIONAL AND SPACE BIOLOGY ASSOCIATED UNIVERSITIES, INC. ASSOCIATION OF UNIVERSITIES FOR RESEARCH IN ASTRONOMY
COMMERCIAL SPACEFLIGHT FEDERATION
MARYLAND SPACE BUSINESS ROUNDTABLE
NATIONAL SPACE SOCIETY
THE PLANETARY SOCIETY
SPACE FRONTIER FOUNDATION
UNIVERSITIES SPACE RESEARCH ASSOCIATION
Fourth IAASS Conference: Making Safety Matter – Session 36 – Regulations and Standards for Safety – Part III
May 24, 2010 at 12:03 pm | Posted in Blogcast, Space Law | Leave a commentby P.J. Blount with the blog faculty
The final legal session at the Fourth IAASS Conference: Making Safety Matter, was held on May 21, 2010 and consisted of three presentations.
The first presentation was “Technical Regulation Associated to the French Space Operations Act in the Launcher Field,” by Francois Cahuzac, CNES.His presentation built on the earlier presentations given on the new French Technical Regulations at the conference. He reiterated that the Regulations were meant to protect People, Property, the public health, and the environment. He also stated that a crucial piece to the regulations are the safety regulations that will govern the Guiana Space Center.
The next presentation was given by T. Sgobba and was titled “An International Civil Aviation and Space Agency.” This presentation was a follow up on an earlier paper that suggested an ICAO for space in order to increase safety through international standards. He stated that the current state of space law was such that it was made of many principles but no rules. He said that these rules were needed in a time of widening access to space and an increased number of stakeholders in space activities. Sgobba emphasized that with advent of commercial human spaceflight and integrated form of Air and Space traffic control would be desirable.
The final paper was given by J.N. Pelton, International Space University. His paper was titled “Global Space Safety Regulations and Standards: The Merchants, the Guardians, and the Civil Space Advocate.” His presentation also focused on the widening array of stakeholders in space activities which includes civil space actors, military space actors, and commercial actors. His paper focused on how standardized safety regulations would be favorable to all three sectors..
Fourth IAASS Conference: Making Safety Matter – Session 20 – Regulations and Standards for Safety – Part II
May 24, 2010 at 9:32 am | Posted in Blogcast, Space Law | Leave a commentby P.J. Blount with the blog faculty
The second regulations session of the Fourth IAASS Conference: Making Safety Matter occurred on May 20, 2010. Only one paper was presented, “safety and Liability Aspects of Solar Power Satellites.” It was presented by Dianne Howard a Doctoral student at McGill University’s Institute of Air and Space Law. The paper was co-authored by Ram Jahku also from McGill University.
Howard began with an overview of the technological challenges of Space Solar Power (SPS). She stated that specific risks from these technologies were those that result from the need for multiple launches, space debris, collision avoidance, wireless power transmission (WPT), beam right of way issues, exposure to the WPT, and issues dealing with the use of force. She stated that there were two relevant legal regimes that dealt with this risks: Space Law and the law that governs electric transmissions. She noted that there was at present no specific standards for such technology and no specifically defined radio bandwidth. Managing this risk is an imperative and safety standards and policies need to be in place before such technology is deployed according to the presentation.
Czech Republic becomes EUMETSAT’s latest Member State
May 21, 2010 at 10:37 am | Posted in Remote Sensing Law Current Events | Leave a commentby Sara M. Langston with the blog faculty
From EUMETSAT:
EUMETSAT welcomed the Czech Republic as its 25th Member State as of 12 May 2010.
This followed completion of the ratification process by the Czech Republic, which also informed the Depository of the EUMETSAT Convention. Czech accession brings EUMETSAT one step closer to achieving its aim of mirroring the membership of the European Union.
As a Member State, the Czech Republic will participate fully in EUMETSAT’s decision-making process and its industry will be able to bid for contracts, in addition to maintaining the unlimited access to all EUMETSAT data and products for official duty use it has enjoyed since becoming a Cooperating State in March 2005.
EUMETSAT is proud of its long relationship with the Czech Republic. The organisation’s first cooperation agreement with a Central and Eastern European country was with the Czech and Slovak Hydrometeorological Service, signed in Prague in February 1992 when the process of creating separate Czech and Slovak states was already underway. The cooperation agreement allowed Czechoslovakia to use images and information from EUMETSAT’s Meteosat satellites but did not confer any other rights. The EUMETSAT Council approved the concept of a Cooperating State in June 1995. In 2005, the Czech Republic became a Cooperating State as an interim step towards becoming a full member of EUMETSAT.
The Czech Republic is already the seventh Cooperating State to become a full member, after Slovakia, Croatia, Slovenia, Hungary, Latvia and Poland. With the Czech accession, EUMETSAT now numbers 25 full Member States and six Cooperating States.
S. Con. Res. 63: A concurrent resolution expressing the sense of Congress that Taiwan should be accorded observer status in the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO)
May 19, 2010 at 11:33 pm | Posted in Aviation Law | Leave a commentby P.J. Blount with the blog faculty
S. Con. Res. 63: A concurrent resolution expressing the sense of Congress that Taiwan should be accorded observer status in the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) was introduced on May 18, 2010 by Sen. Tim Johnson (D-SD):
H.R. 5321: To prohibit certain individuals from possessing a firearm in an airport, and for other purposes
May 19, 2010 at 11:30 pm | Posted in Aviation Law | Leave a commentby P.J. Blount with the blog faculty
H.R. 5321: To prohibit certain individuals from possessing a firearm in an airport, and for other purposes was introduced on May 18, 2010 by Rep. Henry Johnson (D-GA4):
HR 5321 IH
111th CONGRESS
2d Session
H. R. 5321
To prohibit certain individuals from possessing a firearm in an airport, and for other purposes.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
May 18, 2010
Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia (for himself, Mrs. MCCARTHY of New York, Mr. SCOTT of Georgia, and Mr. LEWIS of Georgia) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Homeland Security, and in addition to the Committee on the Judiciary, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned
A BILL
To prohibit certain individuals from possessing a firearm in an airport, and for other purposes.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the `Airport Security Act of 2010′.
SEC. 2. PROHIBITION OF POSSESSION OF FIREARMS AT AIRPORTS.
(a) Program To Prohibit Possession- Section 44903 of title 49, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:
`(m) Program To Prohibit Possession of Firearms at Airports-
`(1) ESTABLISHMENT- The Assistant Secretary of Homeland Security (Transportation Security Administration) shall establish and carry out a program to prohibit, except as provided in paragraph (3), any individual from possessing a firearm at a covered airport, including any individual who enters the airport, or who exits public transportation at the airport, for the following purposes:
`(A) Air travel.
`(B) Meeting another individual.
`(C) Picking up cargo.
`(D) Employment at the airport.
`(2) REQUIREMENTS FOR AIRPORT OPERATORS- In carrying out the program established under paragraph (1), the Assistant Secretary shall require each airport operator to–
`(A) conspicuously display notices summarizing the program–
`(i) at each entrance to the airport; and
`(ii) in such form, and containing such information, as the Assistant Secretary shall by regulation prescribe; and
`(B) require law enforcement personnel to–
`(i) monitor the airport to prevent violations of paragraph (1); and
`(ii) escort any individual described in paragraph (3)(B)(ii) who is discovered by such personnel to be in possession of a firearm referred to in paragraph (3)(B)(i), to ensure that such individual continues to be excepted from paragraph (1) by reason of paragraph (3)(B).
`(3) EXCEPTIONS- The following individuals shall not be prohibited by paragraph (1) from possessing a firearm under such paragraph:
`(A) INDIVIDUALS AUTHORIZED TO CARRY A FIREARM- An individual who, by regulation, is authorized by the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration or the Assistant Secretary to carry a firearm at the covered airport.
`(B) TRAVELERS- An individual who possesses a firearm, if–
`(i) the firearm is unloaded, carried in a hard-sided container that is locked, and the key or combination to the lock is in the exclusive possession of the individual; and
`(ii) the individual–
`(I) is carrying a ticket in the name of the individual for a flight that is scheduled for departure from the covered airport within 24 hours or that has arrived at the airport within the preceding 24 hours; or
`(II) communicates the intention to obtain a ticket for departure referred to in subclause (I) at the covered airport and obtains and carries such ticket or does not obtain such ticket for a compelling reason.
`(C) INDIVIDUALS SHIPPING FIREARMS- An individual who possesses a firearm in a capacity relating to the shipment of the firearm in air commerce and who, by regulation, is authorized by the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration or the Assistant Secretary to possess the firearm at the covered airport in such capacity.
`(D) LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS- An on-duty law enforcement officer of a State or political subdivision of a State, or an officer or employee of the Federal Government, who is authorized to carry a firearm.
`(E) CERTAIN INDIVIDUALS ON PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION- An individual passing through an airport on public transportation.
`(F) ADDITIONAL AUTHORIZED INDIVIDUALS- An individual who is otherwise authorized by the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration or the Assistant Secretary to possess a firearm at a covered airport.
`(4) ISSUANCE OF REGULATIONS- Not later than one year after the date of enactment of this Act, the Assistant Secretary of Homeland Security (Transportation Security Administration) shall issue regulations to carry out this subsection.
`(5) DEFINITIONS- In this subsection:
`(A) AIRPORT- The term `airport’ means an airport and any appurtenant building or area that is related to the operation of the airport, including a building or area on the site of the airport designed to–
`(i) receive passengers or cargo before or after a flight; or
`(ii) facilitate arrival at or departure from the airport, including–
`(I) a road or section of road used primarily for arrival at or departure from the airport;
`(II) an airport parking area; and
`(III) a public transportation stop.
`(B) AIRPORT OPERATOR- The term `airport operator’ means the operator of a covered airport.
`(C) ASSISTANT SECRETARY- The term `Assistant Secretary’ means the Assistant Secretary of Homeland Security (Transportation Security Administration).
`(D) COVERED AIRPORT- The term `covered airport’ means an airport that in the preceding fiscal year received an amount allocated or apportioned under chapter 471.
`(E) FIREARM- The term `firearm’ has the meaning given the term in section 921(a)(3) of title 18.
`(F) PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION- The term `public transportation’ means a conveyance that provides regular and continuing general or special transportation to the public.’.
(b) Criminal Penalty for Possession-
(1) IN GENERAL- Chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new section:
`Sec. 932. Possession of firearms at airports
`(a) In General- Except as provided in subsection (b), an individual who knowingly possesses a firearm at a covered airport shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both.
`(b) Exceptions- Subsection (a) shall not apply to an individual described in section 44903(m)(3) of title 49.
`(c) Definition of Covered Airport- In this section, the term `covered airport’ has the meaning given the term in section 44903(m)(5)(D) of title 49.’.
(2) EFFECTIVE DATE- The amendment made by paragraph (1) shall take effect on the date that is 30 days after the date on which the Assistant Secretary of Homeland Security (Transportation Security Administration) has issued regulations pursuant to section 44903(m)(4) of title 49, United States Code (as added by subsection (a)).
(3) CONFORMING AMENDMENT- The table of sections for chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new item:
`932. Possession of firearms at airports.’.
H.R. 5327: To authorize assistance to Israel for the Iron Dome anti-missile defense system
May 19, 2010 at 11:25 pm | Posted in Space Law | Leave a commentby P.J. Blount with the blog faculty
H.R. 5327: To authorize assistance to Israel for the Iron Dome anti-missile defense system was introduced on May 18, 2010 by Rep. Glenn Nye (D-VA2):
HR 5327 IH
111th CONGRESS
2d Session
H. R. 5327
To authorize assistance to Israel for the Iron Dome anti-missile defense system.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
May 18, 2010
Mr. NYE (for himself, Ms. GIFFORDS, Mr. MCMAHON, Mr. HIMES, Mr. ACKERMAN, Mr. BERMAN, Ms. KOSMAS, Mr. BISHOP of New York, Mr. TURNER, and Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs
A BILL
To authorize assistance to Israel for the Iron Dome anti-missile defense system.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ‘United States-Israel Missile Defense Cooperation and Support Act’.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
Congress finds the following:
(1) The State of Israel is under grave threat and frequent attack from missiles fired indiscriminately by Hamas terrorists on its southern border and Hezbollah terrorists on its northern border.
(2) The Jewish State of Israel, as a close ally of the United States, requires and deserves all necessary assistance to defend itself from such indiscriminate attacks on its citizens.
(3) The United States remains committed to Israel’s qualitative military edge, including its advantage over non-state actors such as Hezbollah and Hamas, which boast increasingly sophisticated and powerful weapons as a result of support from Iran and other state actors.
(4) Regional stability and lasting peace between Israelis and Palestinians requires that Israel can ensure the safety of its population against missile and other threats.
(5) The United States can help to advance the cause of peace by supporting Israel’s ability to defend itself against missile and other threats.
(6) The State of Israel announced in January 2010 the successful testing of its Iron Dome anti-missile defense system which is capable of intercepting short-range missiles launched by militants in Gaza and South Lebanon.
(7) In the face of threats from its neighbors and non-state actors, Israel historically has requested it be given the means to defend itself, by itself.
(8) President Barack Obama has stated: ‘Our commitment to Israel’s security is unshakable.’.
(9) Vice President Joe Biden has stated: ‘From my experience, the one precondition for progress is that the rest of the world knows this–there is no space between the U.S. and Israel when it comes to security–none.’.
(10) Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates has stated: ‘President Obama has affirmed, the United States commitment to Israel’s security is unshakable, and our defense relationship is stronger than ever, to the mutual benefit of both nations.’.
(11) President Obama recently requested funds to help the State of Israel procure and maintain Iron Dome missile batteries.
SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION OF ASSISTANCE TO ISRAEL FOR IRON DOME ANTI-MISSILE DEFENSE SYSTEM.
The President, acting through the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of State, is authorized to provide assistance to the Government of Israel for the procurement, maintenance, and sustainment of the Iron Dome anti-missile defense system for purposes of intercepting short-range missiles launched against Israel.
Russian Court Blocks Air Traffic Controller Strike
May 19, 2010 at 9:46 pm | Posted in Aviation Law | Leave a commentby P.J. Blount with the blog faculty
From RIA Novosti:
Court bans Russian air traffic controllers from going on strike
17:2618/05/2010A Moscow court has ruled that Russian air traffic controllers cannot go on strike, Russia’s air transport agency Rosaviatsiya said Tuesday.
The national union of air traffic controllers is in dispute over a new contract and is demanding the resignation of Valery Gorbenko, who heads Russia’s state air traffic corporation.
The protest started in April and by the end of the month staff at 55 air traffic management centers were involved. Rather than stopping work, the controllers are on hunger strike, reportedly consuming less food when not on the job. . . . [Full Story]
Clone this site at WordPress.com | Theme: Pool by Borja Fernandez.
Entries and comments feeds.
