Originally posted at >>>/qresearch/21149216 (061642ZJUL24) Notable: Regulating outer space after Loper Bright
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
>>183135
Yes, the FCC has statutory authority over allocating and licensing spectrum for space communications.
But the FCC wants to regulate major aspects of in-space servicing, assembly and manufacturing (ISAM) that go well beyond simply spectrum use.
And the FAA has statutory authority over licensing launch and reentry of rockets. But the FAA wants to impose rules on rocket upper stages that will affect them after they obtain orbit, a domain over which Congress has explicitly denied the FAA authority.
Finally, NIST has been tasked by the White House to develop a framework around government march-in rights on patents developed using government grants.
Each agency was doubtless counting on courts to immunize these decisions from legal challenge under Chevron deference.
In April, TechFreedom filed comments at the FCC questioning their authority over ISAM operations.
We also filed comments at the end of June questioning whether the FCC even has statutory authority to issue orbital debris rules.
Last December, we warned the FAA that its authority over launch and reentry might not apply to what happens to upper stages left in orbit.
All of these comments contemplated what might happen after Loper Bright.
Chief Justice Roberts’s opinion also implicates Congress in this inter-branch scrum. It is up to Congress to make clear what powers it is delegating to agencies.
If it wants the agency to promulgate rules of a certain type, it needs to tell the agency to do so. And that’s exactly what Congress needs to do with regard to commercial outer space development.
We need a National Space Act that clearly assigns regulatory authority to the relevant agencPost too long. Click here to view the full text.