Coleman had acted within his authority in permitting the Concorde to operate on a trial basis.

A statement of U.S. policy on aviation noise abatement issued by the Department of Transportation on November 18, 1976, with the support of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), was applicable to subsonic aircraft, but contained the following statement concerning supersonic aircraft:

Using information that is now available on a continuing basis from the Concorde demonstration, the FAA, not later than thirty days after the conclusion of the sixteen-month demonstration periods, will act to promulgate a noise rule applicable to supersonic aircraft that is necessary to protect the public health and welfare and that is consistent with the statutory requirement that the Administrator consider technological practicability, economic reasonableness, and appropriateness to aircraft type.

Dept. of Transportation, Aviation Noise Abatement Policy, Nov. 18, 1976, p. 8. See ante, p. 415, regarding noise abatement policy on subsonic aircraft in international service.

Preference for U.S. Air Carriers

The Department of State responded, by notes dated July 6, 1976, to notes from the Embassies of Denmark, Norway, and Sweden, stating their Governments' objections to measures taken by the U.S. Government in implementation of the "Fly U.S. Flag" program, constituting a part of the Federal Action Plan for Improved Profitability in International Air Carrier Operations proposed by the Department of Transportation on October 2, 1974. In particular, the Scandinavian countries objected to letters from the Secretary of Transportation of October 2, 1974, to American travel agents and shippers of air cargo, and October 17, 1974, to chief executives of U.S. scheduled airlines, appealing for a shift to American carriers with regard to transport of passengers as well as cargo, and the amendment of the Federal Procurement Regulations on preference for U.S. flag carriers for all Federal agencies and Government contractors and subcontractors, which became effective on October 21, 1974. They stated the opinion that these measures were inconsistent with Article 10 and 11 of the air transport agreements between the United States and each of the three countries, and noted, in addition, that the Scandinavian countries do not discriminate in government-procured transportation.

The Department's reply note in each case stated:

The Department fully appreciates the fact that the Scandinavian countries do not limit government-procured transportation to the national airline whenever possible. It is nevertheless true that most

governments agree that regulations placing such a limitation do not constitute violations of the fair and equal opportunity provisions of air transport agreements. In the light of this prevailing international interpretation, the United States cannot accept the contention that its own regulations on this subject are contrary to article 10 of the Air Transport Agreement between the United States and Sweden, as amended.

Article 11 of the Agreement does not appear pertinent to the question at hand. It relates to the effect of the operations of one party's airlines on those of the other, not to the effect of government actions.

It is true that the United States Government also tries to make its citizens aware of the important role played by U.S. flag carriers in providing them with safe, efficient and inexpensive international air services. These efforts have no legal force whatsoever, and are, no more contrary to the Agreement than airline advertising is. The choice of carriers for private sector travel remains, and should remain, an individual decision.

The United States does not propose to depart from its longstanding policy that the public interest and the national interest are best served by a mutual exchange under bilateral air transport agreements based on a fair and equal opportunity to compete. As a consequence of this policy, the Department is confident that the U.S. market will continue to offer foreign airlines a hospitable environment such as the designated carrier of the Scandinavian countries has enjoyed for many years.

Dept. of State File Nos. P76 0101-232, P76 0101-228, and P76 0101-223. For a discussion on the "Fly U.S. Flag" program, the International Air Transportation Fair Competitive Practices Act of 1974 (88 Stat. 2102; 49 U.S.C. 1159 et seq.), and the Federal Procurement Regulations of Oct. 21, 1974, see the 1974 Digest, pp. 391-397. For prior objections by the United Kingdom and the Federal Republic of Germany, see the 1975 Digest, pp. 462-464. The air transport services agreements between the United States and Denmark, Norway, and Sweden, respectively, were amended on Aug. 6, 1954 (TIAS 3013, 3014, 3015; 5 UST 1411, 1422, 1433) to add, inter alia, articles 10 and 11, which read as follows:

Article 10

There shall be a fair and equal opportunity for the airlines of each contracting party to operate on any route covered by this Agreement.

Article 11

In the operation by the airlines of either contracting party of the trunk services described in this Agreement, the interest of the airlines of the other contracting party shall be taken into consideration so as not to affect unduly the services which the latter provides on all or part of the same routes.

§ 6

Outer Space

Registration Convention

The Convention on Registration of Objects Launched into Outer Space, which was opened for signature on January 14, 1975, came into force on September 15, 1976, with the deposit of the U.S. instrument of ratification (TIAS 8480, 28 UST). Countries which had previously deposited instruments of ratification, and for which

the Convention entered into force on September 15, 1976, were Bulgaria, Canada, France, and Sweden.

The Convention provides the international community with a central, public, and current registry of objects launched into outer space. The registration process is made mandatory for the parties. Launching states are required to submit specified information to the U.N. Secretary-General regarding objects which they launch into Earth orbit or beyond. The system is built on the foundation of a voluntary system of notification to the U.N. Secretary-General by U.N. member states, in operation since 1962.

The Registration Convention provides also that states launching space objects into Earth orbit or beyond will establish and maintain a national registry of such objects. The contents of such registries are left to the discretion of the states of registry, but the Convention requires that such states inform the Secretary-General of certain facts with regard to each space object they carry on their respective registries. It encourages the publication of additional facts at the discretion of the state of registry.

Ronald F. Stowe, Assistant Legal Adviser for United Nations Affairs, Department of State, in testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on June 15, 1976, stated, in part:

An important aspect of the negotiations of the Registration Convention was the desire of many states for a central, international registry which could assist in identification of space objects both for scientific and legal purposes. In the latter instance, for example, it is felt that the existence of such a registry may assist, in particular, states without sophisticated national space tracking facilities or scientific expertise to identify the launching state of space objects which may have reentered within their territories and caused damage covered by the Liability Convention [TIAS 7762; 24 UST 2389].

... The Convention deals with space objects "launched into Earth orbit or beyond." By this it is agreed that we are referring to all space objects launched into Earth orbit and all objects launched for the purpose of deep space probes. Such probes would of course include missions designed to orbit around or land on other celestial bodies as well as those designed to pass through or beyond the solar system. Although it is not required by the Convention, the United States intends to continue the practice of informing the SecretaryGeneral about objects, launched toward orbit or beyond but which failed to achieve orbit. The Convention does not require nor has the practice of voluntary registration included, the transmission of information relating to objects which may briefly transit areas beyond air space, such as sounding rockets or ballistic missile test vehicles. The United States will, however, plan to register the flights of the space shuttle when it becomes available.

Space Technology

The Agency for International Development (AID) announced on December 16, 1976, that the United States was prepared to offer space-age technology assistance to help developing countries, and planned to establish regional training and utilization centers for communications software satellite application, one each in Africa, Asia, and Latin America. AID also announced that it was contemplating remote sensing interpretation facilities in Latin America, West Africa, East Africa, and Asia, and that it was already providing training in remote sensing techniques for foreign technicians at the Earth Resources Observation Systems Data Center in Sioux Falls, South Dakota, and in several universities.

The purpose of the program is to apply the cluster of technologies associated with Earth satellites in developing countries in the battle against poverty, disease and disaster, and help developing countries make a scientifically accurate national assessment of the natural resources available for development.

The AID Space Age Technologies (AIDSAT) operation which began August 1, 1976, used the National Aeronautics and Space Agency's Applications Technology Satellite No. 6. The ATS-6 beamed the program as it moved westward to a new position over the Pacific Ocean from India where it had been used to provide educational, health and agricultural information to 5,000 villages. AID Press Release 76-127, Dec. 16, 1976.

Peaceful Uses of Outer Space

The U.N. General Assembly's main Political Committee, during the thirty-first session of the General Assembly, reviewed the work of the U.N. Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space and approved by consensus a draft resolution cosponsored by 40 states which, in essence, recommended that high priority be given to continued work on a Moon treaty, principles governing the use of artificial Earth satellites for direct television broadcasting, the legal implications of remote sensing of the Earth from space, and that the Committee pursue its work on questions relating to the definition of outer space.

This resolution was approved by consensus by the General Assembly on November 8, 1976 (Res. 31/8).

Ambassador W. Tapley Bennett, Jr., speaking in the First Committee debate, reviewed U.S. individual space accomplishments during the year, U.S. cooperative activities with other nations in the peaceful use of outer space, and the work done by the Space Committee:

During the past year, the United States has continued to participate cooperatively with other nations in the exploration of outer space. We have, for example, launched Helios-2, built by the Federal Republic of Germany, the second scientific satellite to investigate the properties of interplanetary space close to the Sun. In January we launched the CTS, an experimental high-powered communications satellite, developed jointly with Canada.

In cooperation with the Agency for International Development, using the ATS-6 satellite, NASA [National Aeronautics and Space Administration] is currently conducting demonstrations of the applications of space age technology for the benefit of developing countries. These demonstrations will be seen in 27 countries in Asia, the Middle East, Africa and Latin America.

During July the United States, as one event in the Bicentennial of American independence, made the first successful soft landing on the planet Mars with a Viking lander; this feat was repeated in September. Dissemination of early results of this historic program has already begun, adding further to our understanding of the universe.

On July 31, 1975, India completed the one-year broadcast phase of the Indian Satellite Instructional Television Experiment using the NASA Applications Technology Satellite ATS-6 to transmit educational programs directly to some 2,400 villages in rural India. The TV programs, ground transmitting station, and village receiver sets were all funded and built by India. The social impact of the programs in the villages is still being analyzed, but the experiment has demonstrated the practicality of satellite-based instructional broadcasting for developing countries and has aroused interest throughout the world. .

We share what appears now to be the general belief that all states, regardless of their stage of economic and technical development, can realize substantial benefits from an open system of Earth observation from satellites such as the Landsat system with which we are experimenting. The United States has already shared and continues to make available to all interested parties at least one-time coverage of over 90 percent of the Earth's land surface . . . .

Direct broadcast by satellite provides an illustration of the indispensable need of bringing together diplomats and experts from the scientific, technical, economic, institutional and legal disciplines in order to understand what can flow from prospective technologies. It is against this background of multi-disciplinary analysis that the Legal Subcommittee this year intensified its work of trying to draft principles that can be accepted by states and broadcasting entities for the conduct of satellite television broadcasting once this becomes technically feasible. The Subcommittee has drawn up statements of nine proposed principles. These deal with such matters as broadcasting purposes, international legal parameters, rights and benefits for states, international cooperation, state responsibility, consultation procedures and peaceful settlement, copyright and neighboring rights, and provision of information to the United Nations. This work has been undertaken