"With the recent announcement of Google's X-prize for a successful private landing of a robot on the Moon, someone has asked the Explainer at Slate.com if permission is required to land something on the Moon? Turns out that while there is no authority that regulates landing objects on another world, getting there does require the permission of the national government from where the launch takes place. This is in accordance with the 1967 Outer Space Treaty, signed by 91 nations, which regulates the uses of outer space by the nations of Earth.
Specifically, Article VI enjoins: 'The activities of non-governmental entities in outer space, including the Moon and other celestial bodies, shall require authorization and continuing supervision by the appropriate State Party to the Treaty.' Start your paperwork!"
Tuesday, September 25, 2007
Tuesday, September 18, 2007
Hawaii Superferry may be dead in the water
Hawaii Superferry aimed to transform how residents and tourists travel and conduct business among the islands. But after being rocked by a storm of protests and legal challenges, the company says it may be forced to shut down after investing $300 million and hiring 300 employees.
John Garibaldi, president and chief executive of the Superferry, said he needs to have "actionable information" within four to six weeks in order to determine whether to continue operations of Hawaii's first regular car-passenger ferry service. He declined to elaborate.
He also would not comment on a possible backup plan or how much money his company is losing while its high-speed, luxury catamaran remains idle in bustling Honolulu Harbor. A second ferry is currently under construction in Alabama and is scheduled for service in 2009.
"Our current efforts are focused on the resumption of services," Garibaldi said in an e-mail.
Despite fulfilling all of the state's requirements and getting the green light from the Legislature, the Superferry has run into more turbulence than just the rough Pacific seas that have discouraged previous efforts to establish such a service.
The ferry's Maui route has been suspended as state Judge Joseph E. Cardoza determines if it will be allowed to operate while an environmental assessment is conducted.
A state judge on Kauai on Monday will consider a request for a permanent injunction to keep the ferry from using that island's Nawiliwili Harbor.
The state Supreme Court last month unanimously ruled that the state should have required an environmental review before the Superferry started service. Environmentalists worry that the sleek, four-story vessel could collide with whales and spread invasive species.
The Superferry voluntarily suspended its Oahu-Kauai service Aug. 28 after two days of demonstrations at the harbor, where dozens of defiant protesters on surfboards, canoes and kayaks blocked the $95 million ferry.
The 350-foot ferry plans to resume Kauai service Sept. 26 with heightened security and a revised daytime schedule.
Jeff Mikulina, director of the Sierra Club's Hawaii chapter, said the group's goal was never to sink the Superferry but to get an environmental review completed.
"This is a brand-new sort of operation, unlike anything we've had previously. It comes with a certain amount of risk and we just want to understand that risk," he said.
Mikulina said his group requested an environmental review three years ago, so the Superferry's present challenges could have been avoided.
Gov. Linda Lingle, a strong supporter of the ferry, has maintained that the state followed the law. The state determined in 2005 that an environmental review was not necessary because the project fell under an exemption. Judge Cardoza on Maui agreed with the state.
"It was only recently that the Supreme Court came out with its own interpretation of the law, which was different than everyone in the state had interpreted," she said.
University of Hawaii law professor Jon Van Dyke, an expert on environmental and maritime law, said environmental reviews have been required in the U.S. since 1969 and are needed to protect Hawaii's fragile environment.
"This is a well established procedure that's now done all over the world," he said. "So the idea that you would try to leapfrog over this logical and important requirement is to me a little bizarre."
Despite only being required for Maui, the state plans to conduct an environmental assessment on the potential impact on harbors statewide. The review is expected to take at least eight months and possibly longer if it is challenged.
Superferry said it will be forced to cease operations if it is not allowed to sail while the review is being conducted.
"We are unable to sustain operations for that length of period without revenue," Garibaldi said.
The governor said there is no doubt the Superferry would be out of business by then.
"I don't think the majority of the people in the state want to see that happen," she said.
If the Superferry folds, the state and the federal government could wind up losing millions. The state has provided $40 million worth of harbor upgrades and equipment, and the federal government has approved $140 million in loan guarantees for the ferry.
The Superferry is a privately held company. The largest investor is New York-based private equity firm J.F. Lehman & Co., which has an $80 million stake in the venture.
Despite the state having a major role in the Superferry's troubles, it cannot be sued for damages.
Van Dyke said the contract between the state and Superferry stipulates that the company cannot seek damages if an environmental review is required.
"The state was very careful. They negotiated very carefully and they wrote a good contract and they protected themselves from being sued," he said.
Meanwhile, the Superferry had stirred strong emotions in this laid-back state. Many people were eager to use the Superferry, which offers the only alternative to air travel. Supporters point to Superferry's obstacles and possible shutdown as feeding the idea that Hawaii is an unfriendly place to do business and setting a dangerous precedent.
"We share the business community's concern about the message this sends to the outside world about investing in Hawaii or undertaking a viable business venture here," Garibaldi said.
The Sierra Club's Mikulina said it's the companies and government officials who are creating bad business practices by trying to "cut corners" and ignore laws.
"We have clear rules to play by," he said. "If you come here and abide by the rules, we'll get along just fine."
John Garibaldi, president and chief executive of the Superferry, said he needs to have "actionable information" within four to six weeks in order to determine whether to continue operations of Hawaii's first regular car-passenger ferry service. He declined to elaborate.
He also would not comment on a possible backup plan or how much money his company is losing while its high-speed, luxury catamaran remains idle in bustling Honolulu Harbor. A second ferry is currently under construction in Alabama and is scheduled for service in 2009.
"Our current efforts are focused on the resumption of services," Garibaldi said in an e-mail.
Despite fulfilling all of the state's requirements and getting the green light from the Legislature, the Superferry has run into more turbulence than just the rough Pacific seas that have discouraged previous efforts to establish such a service.
The ferry's Maui route has been suspended as state Judge Joseph E. Cardoza determines if it will be allowed to operate while an environmental assessment is conducted.
A state judge on Kauai on Monday will consider a request for a permanent injunction to keep the ferry from using that island's Nawiliwili Harbor.
The state Supreme Court last month unanimously ruled that the state should have required an environmental review before the Superferry started service. Environmentalists worry that the sleek, four-story vessel could collide with whales and spread invasive species.
The Superferry voluntarily suspended its Oahu-Kauai service Aug. 28 after two days of demonstrations at the harbor, where dozens of defiant protesters on surfboards, canoes and kayaks blocked the $95 million ferry.
The 350-foot ferry plans to resume Kauai service Sept. 26 with heightened security and a revised daytime schedule.
Jeff Mikulina, director of the Sierra Club's Hawaii chapter, said the group's goal was never to sink the Superferry but to get an environmental review completed.
"This is a brand-new sort of operation, unlike anything we've had previously. It comes with a certain amount of risk and we just want to understand that risk," he said.
Mikulina said his group requested an environmental review three years ago, so the Superferry's present challenges could have been avoided.
Gov. Linda Lingle, a strong supporter of the ferry, has maintained that the state followed the law. The state determined in 2005 that an environmental review was not necessary because the project fell under an exemption. Judge Cardoza on Maui agreed with the state.
"It was only recently that the Supreme Court came out with its own interpretation of the law, which was different than everyone in the state had interpreted," she said.
University of Hawaii law professor Jon Van Dyke, an expert on environmental and maritime law, said environmental reviews have been required in the U.S. since 1969 and are needed to protect Hawaii's fragile environment.
"This is a well established procedure that's now done all over the world," he said. "So the idea that you would try to leapfrog over this logical and important requirement is to me a little bizarre."
Despite only being required for Maui, the state plans to conduct an environmental assessment on the potential impact on harbors statewide. The review is expected to take at least eight months and possibly longer if it is challenged.
Superferry said it will be forced to cease operations if it is not allowed to sail while the review is being conducted.
"We are unable to sustain operations for that length of period without revenue," Garibaldi said.
The governor said there is no doubt the Superferry would be out of business by then.
"I don't think the majority of the people in the state want to see that happen," she said.
If the Superferry folds, the state and the federal government could wind up losing millions. The state has provided $40 million worth of harbor upgrades and equipment, and the federal government has approved $140 million in loan guarantees for the ferry.
The Superferry is a privately held company. The largest investor is New York-based private equity firm J.F. Lehman & Co., which has an $80 million stake in the venture.
Despite the state having a major role in the Superferry's troubles, it cannot be sued for damages.
Van Dyke said the contract between the state and Superferry stipulates that the company cannot seek damages if an environmental review is required.
"The state was very careful. They negotiated very carefully and they wrote a good contract and they protected themselves from being sued," he said.
Meanwhile, the Superferry had stirred strong emotions in this laid-back state. Many people were eager to use the Superferry, which offers the only alternative to air travel. Supporters point to Superferry's obstacles and possible shutdown as feeding the idea that Hawaii is an unfriendly place to do business and setting a dangerous precedent.
"We share the business community's concern about the message this sends to the outside world about investing in Hawaii or undertaking a viable business venture here," Garibaldi said.
The Sierra Club's Mikulina said it's the companies and government officials who are creating bad business practices by trying to "cut corners" and ignore laws.
"We have clear rules to play by," he said. "If you come here and abide by the rules, we'll get along just fine."
Sunday, September 16, 2007
Former Haleakala head urged Superferry EIS
WAILUKU, Maui — The former head of Haleakala National Park urged federal officials in March 2005 to request that Hawai'i conduct an environmental impact statement of the Hawaii Superferry to examine ways to prevent the spread of fire ants, stinging nettle caterpillars, Himalayan raspberry and other invasive species that could threaten the park's delicate ecosystems.
Donald Reeser, who retired in July 2005 after 18 years at Haleakala, told the chief of the Maritime Administration that he was most concerned about "the obvious deficiency" in the number of state Department of Agriculture inspectors, who already were struggling to keep pests from arriving via international, national and interisland air and sea routes.
"It is certainly true the Superferry would not be the only means of transport for such interisland invasions via vehicles," Reeser's letter said. "The point is that the Superferry would increase vehicular transport and that all forms of both trans-Pacific and interisland transportation are in serious need of better measures for prevention of transport of invasive species."
Maritime Administration acting Chief Counsel J. Patrick Wiese responded in a July 15, 2005, letter that the agency was not supplying direct funding or a loan to the Hawaii Superferry, but a $140 million loan guarantee for construction of the company's two 350-foot catamarans.
Wiese said an environmental review was not necessary for the loan guarantee. "However, recognizing the importance of the environmental issues, the Letter Commitment (to Hawaii Superferry) provides that the closing is preconditioned on the State of Hawaii having given all governmental and environmental clearances."
Wiese also said the agency understood that a Maui court case to force the state Department of Transportation to conduct an assessment of ferry-related improvements at Kahului Harbor had been dismissed and that the company had taken "significant steps to address many of the concerns you have raised. ..."
The DOT granted the harbor projects an exemption from environmental review laws a month after Hawaii Superferry was told by the Maritime Administration that the loan guarantee was conditional on a confirmation that no environmental assessment was required.
Sunday, September 9, 2007
No-anchoring areas 'marked'
Barbados has designated two areas off its coast as "No Anchoring Areas (NAAs)" in a bid to preserve its marine environment, particularly the coral reefs.
This was revealed by marine biologist at the Coastal Zone Management Unit, Angelique Brathwaithe, who said the decision was expected to be rubber-stamped by the Maritime Safety Committee (MSC) of the International Maritime Organisation in about six months.
Long Shoal Reef on the West Coast and Sharks Bank, situated about one mile off the Harbour Wall, will be established as NAAs.
Brathwaite explained that there was a history of damage to both reefs, primarily from the anchors of commercial vessels, and this process was part of an effort to stop the degradation of the island's valuable marine environment.
She said this process began in 2006 with the development of the NAA proposal and culminated with the submission of the document to the Sub-Committee on Safety of Navigation at its annual meeting in London, England, from July 23 to 27.
Barbados was supported in its proposal by The Bahamas and the United States of America and a plenary session approved the designation on July 27.
This will be forwarded to the MSC for final adoption and will come into force no earlier than six months after acceptance.
After the designation, all international charts will have these two areas marked as NAAs.
The "No Anchoring Areas" will protect reefs from cargo vessels only. However, Barbados already has domestic laws in place to protect coral reefs from damage from other vessels.
In addition, Government has placed 42 moorings around the island so that dive boats could be tied to them properly instead of dropping anchor. (BGIS)
This was revealed by marine biologist at the Coastal Zone Management Unit, Angelique Brathwaithe, who said the decision was expected to be rubber-stamped by the Maritime Safety Committee (MSC) of the International Maritime Organisation in about six months.
Long Shoal Reef on the West Coast and Sharks Bank, situated about one mile off the Harbour Wall, will be established as NAAs.
Brathwaite explained that there was a history of damage to both reefs, primarily from the anchors of commercial vessels, and this process was part of an effort to stop the degradation of the island's valuable marine environment.
She said this process began in 2006 with the development of the NAA proposal and culminated with the submission of the document to the Sub-Committee on Safety of Navigation at its annual meeting in London, England, from July 23 to 27.
Barbados was supported in its proposal by The Bahamas and the United States of America and a plenary session approved the designation on July 27.
This will be forwarded to the MSC for final adoption and will come into force no earlier than six months after acceptance.
After the designation, all international charts will have these two areas marked as NAAs.
The "No Anchoring Areas" will protect reefs from cargo vessels only. However, Barbados already has domestic laws in place to protect coral reefs from damage from other vessels.
In addition, Government has placed 42 moorings around the island so that dive boats could be tied to them properly instead of dropping anchor. (BGIS)
Monday, September 3, 2007
Perdock's failure to assume responsibility part of issue
Article Last Updated: 09/01/2007 02:48:49 AM PDT
The op-ed piece in Thursday's Record-Bee by former highway patrol officer Steve Davis demands response. Davis freely admits that during his career he had never been called upon to investigate a boating accident, and this is obvious from his conclusions.
Had he been more experienced he would have known that the laws, rules and customs of the U.S. Coast Guard are not catch-all boating laws his phrase but are well-established maritime laws designed to reduce accidents.
From responses to the television reports on the tragedy involving Deputy Perdock and sailor Dinius, it is apparent that many Clear Lake boaters need to brush up on these rules.
A good place for everyone to start might be the book Chapman's Piloting, Seamanship and Small Boat Handling which is the boater's bible. This would make it clear that in at least three basic areas, Deputy Perdock violated these rules:
--Speed. He admits to running at 40 knots or more on a moonless night, with limited visibility. This is the equivalent of driving 80 MPH in a school zone, and is an absolute invitation to disaster.
--Failure to yield right-of-way. The law clearly states that in virtually ALL cases a boat under power MUST give way to a boat under sail. Clearly
Advertisement
--The overtaking vessel is the burdened vessel, meaning that its operator must assume responsibility not to overtake the lead boat and, in fact, must come to a complete stop if there is evidence that the lead boat operator either doesn't see him, or is uncertain as to actions either party might take.
The fact that Deputy Perdock's boat crashed into the stern of the sailboat, killing a passenger, demonstrates pretty clearly that this rule was violated.
Lieutenant Davis asks if it is reasonable to expect a powerboat operator to drive 15 miles and hour on the lake just because there might be a log or something else in the water.
Actually, 15 miles an hour is probably excessive on a dark night, because that something in the water might be a human head. In fact one of your readers stated in an earlier letter to the editor, that she enjoyed water skiing at night. What if she'd been out there skiing that night?
Davis also states flatly that Perdock had not been drinking, but apparently the Deputy may not have been tested until the next day, which would make that argument moot.
Whether or not the sailboat had its running lights on is also beside the point, even though many credible witnesses had said they were. If a driver whips around a corner at 45 MPH and crashes into a parked car, is he any less liable because the car had the lights off?
Finally, the Lieutenant makes a major point that the sailboat operators were intoxicated. Well, obviously nobody should operate any vehicle if they've had too much to drink, but the reason sailors seldom face charges if they are a point or two above California's low alcohol standard, is that the law generally concedes that anything traveling at four or five knots is probably not going to pose much of a threat.
Adding to the tragedy in this whole dismal affair, is Deputy Perdock's failure to assume responsibility for his actions. I understand that he is a fine law officer and an upstanding citizen and this was, after all, an accident. Had he only faced up to the problem, we would probably not be embroiled in the present controversy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
