**NOAA ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR COMMERCIAL REMOTE SENSING (ACCRES)**

## MEETING SUMMARY

**[CLOSED SESSION]{.underline}**

The NOAA Advisory Committee for Commercial Remote Sensing (ACCRES)
convened its second meeting in a closed session at 8:30 A.M. on January
14, 2003, at the RAND Washington Office in Arlington, Virginia. Number
range CHAPTERThe session was closed to the public pursuant to Section
10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. 2, as amended
by Section 5(c) of the Government in Sunshine Act, P.L. 94-409 and in
accordance with Section 552b(c)(1) of Title 5, United States Code. The
closed session addressed classified issues and related national security
and foreign policy considerations for NOAA's licensing program.

**Committee members present:**

Dr. Wanda Austin, Aerospace Corporation

Mr. Richard Cooke, Research Systems, Incorporated

Mr. John Copple, Space Imaging, LLC

Mr. Martin Faga, MITRE

Dr. Joanne Gabrynowicz, University of Mississippi

Dr. Charles Groat, U.S. Geological Survey

Mr. Joe Heaps, on behalf of Mr. Michael Hewins, AstroVision
International, Inc.

Dr. Terrence Keating, American Society for Photogrammetry and Remote
Sensing

Ms. Roberta (Bobbi) Lenczowski, on behalf of Lt. General James Clapper,
National Imagery and Mapping Agency

Mr. Victor Leonard, Resource 21, LLC

Mr. Kevin O'Connell, RAND (Committee Vice Chair)

Mr. Robert Winokur, Earth Satellite Corporation (Committee Chair)

**Presiding Staff of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA):**

Ms. Karen Dacres, Satellite Programs Counsel

Mr. Timothy Stryker, Remote Sensing Licensing Coordinator and ACCRES
Designated Federal Officer

Mr. Gregory Withee, Assistant Administrator for Satellite and
Information Services

Mr. Winokur opened the meeting and discussed the desire for the
committee to use today to develop a work agenda. Mr. Withee then
addressed the committee thanking them for their time and stating that
NOAA wants the best information possible to do its job. He noted NOAA's
role as a regulator but also, as part of the Department of Commerce, as
an advocate for the commercial sector.

[National Security Presidential Directive-15: Commercial Remote Sensing
Space Policy]{.underline}

Gil Klinger, Director for Space Policy at the National Security Council,
discussed the upcoming Commercial Remote Sensing (CRS) Policy as part of
National Security Presidential Directive-15. The committee discussed
areas that need to be addressed in the new policy including: revised
policy guidance for government-US CRS industry relations, guidance on
exports and the foreign CRS industry, and protection of national
security. The committee discussion focused on the need to make industry
the choice of government when it needs data, emphasizing that U.S.
national security will be enhanced by a robust U.S. industry. The
committee agreed on the need to review NOAA's implementation of the
policy and provide advice as necessary.

[Overview of Commercial Remote Sensing Aspects of the Rumsfeld, National
Reconnaissance Office and NIMA Commission Reports]{.underline}

Kevin O'Connell of RAND presented an overview of these three 2000/2001
reports and how they affected national security space issues. He stated
that all of the reports were disappointed with the results of
Presidential Decision Directive-23 (Foreign Access To Remote Sensing
Space Capabilities). He discussed the "billion dollar" NIMA deal and
talked about how it distracted industry from pursuing a commercial
market. Additionally the reports criticized the U.S. Government for its
lack of policy coordination surrounding the CRS industry and how it has
led to a jumbled U.S. approach. Mr. O'Connell also stated the reports
complained about the length of the licensing process, and endorsed
approval of 0.5 meter licenses. The reports also discussed how remote
sensing licensing should be a tiered process where the commercial sector
could support low end needs and U.S. systems could then be used to
support high-end systems and more point targets. The reports considered
NIMA as a central user/depository of commercial data, and the primary
beneficiary of increased capabilities of commercial systems.

[Licensing Procedures and Practices]{.underline}

Tim Stryker of NOAA provided an overview of U.S. CRS licensing
procedures and practices. This included an overview of the initial
licensing process as well as the process for license amendments and
foreign agreements. Metrics were provided on the amount of time intended
by law and regulation to issue a license as well as average actual
response times. The committee discussed the need for companies to get
realistic information on the amount of time needed to receive a license
but also worried that setting longer deadlines would become a
self-fulfilling prophecy. Discussion focused on the need to fix the
process by addressing what is behind the delays in the review and
decision-making process. The committee considered possible means for
prior U.S. Government consideration of new technologies and operating
thresholds, as a means to expedite the licensing process.

[Overview of NOAA's Enforcement Program]{.underline}

Rick Shimon of NOAA provided an overview to the committee of the
Department of Commerce's enforcement mandate, NOAA's compliance
procedures including its "cradle to grave" audit and inspection program.
Mr. Shimon presented information on the issue of imagery sales and their
relationship to U.S. laws and regulations. He also presented an overview
of NOAA procedures for limiting commercial services during a national
security or foreign policy crisis.

**[OPEN SESSION]{.underline}**

The NOAA Advisory Committee for Commercial Remote Sensing (ACCRES) was
convened at 1:10 p.m. on January 14, 2003, at the Rand Washington Office
in Arlington, Virginia. In accordance with the provisions of Public Law
92-463, the meeting was open to the public.

The Chairman, Robert Winokur thanked Committee members and members of
the public for attending the second meeting of ACCRES. The objective for
this meeting was to continue gathering data and working towards a work
plan for future meetings of the Committee.

At the request of the Chairman, each person in the room briefly
identified themselves and their affiliations. An attendance list is
provided at Appendix 1.

**Committee members present:**

Mr. Richard Cooke, Research Systems Incorporated

Mr. John Copple, Space Imaging LLC

Mr. Martin Faga, MITRE

Dr. Joanne Gabrynowicz, University of Mississippi

Dr. Charles Groat, U.S. Geological Survey

Ms. Roberta "Bobbi" Lenczowski, on behalf of Lt. General James Clapper,
National Imagery

and Mapping Agency

Dr. Terrence Keating, American Society of Photogrammetry and Remote
Sensing

Mr. Victor Leonard, Resource 21 LLC

Mr. Kevin O'Connell, RAND (Committee Vice Chair)

Mr. Joseph Heaps, on behalf of Mr. Michael Hewins, AstroVision
International, Inc.

Mr. Robert Winokur, Earth Satellite Corporation (Committee Chair)

**Presiding Staff of National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA):**

Ms. Karen Dacres, Satellite Programs Counsel

Mr. Timothy Stryker, Remote Sensing Licensing Coordinator and ACCRES
Designated Federal Officer

# [Opening Remarks]{.underline}

The Chairman presented apologies for the absence of NOAA's Assistant
Administrator for Satellite and Information Services, Mr. Gregory
Withee, who had been called to another NOAA meeting. Mr. Stryker
welcomed everyone to the meeting on behalf of NOAA. He reported that a
very helpful closed session had been conducted during the morning, and
the full day meeting provided an opportunity to brief the Committee on a
variety of information requested at the previous meeting. Mr. Stryker
thanked Ms. Karen Dacres, NOAA Satellite Programs Counsel, for her
service to the Committee and wished her well as she moves on to a new
appointment.

Mr. Stryker reviewed meeting protocol, requesting that members of the
public hold their questions for the period set aside on the agenda for
public comments. He also invited written comments at
Timothy.Stryker@noaa.gov.

# [Review of NOAA/NASA/ASPRS Market Study Findings]{.underline}

Charles Mondello, Pictometry, Inc.

(Presentation provided as Appendix 2)

Mr. Mondello briefed the Committee on the findings of the 10-year Remote
Sensing Industry analysis undertaken by the American Society for
Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing (ASPRS). The study was initiated
through a 1999 5-year Space Act Agreement with NASA to develop a 10-year
Remote Sensing Industry (RSI) market forecast and deliver an analysis of
the industry conducted by industry members. In 2002, ASPRS partnered
with NOAA for documentation of the forecast results. Also in 2002, the
study was expanded to include both short- and long-term effects of the
September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.

The study is divided into 4 phases. Phase 1, completed in December 2000,
characterizes the baseline U.S. RSI looking at everything but the end
user. Phase 2 focuses on end users. Phase 3 will validate the end users.
Phase 4, due for completion in December 2004, includes delivery of the
completed comprehensive market forecast. Survey data is drawn from
relevant literature, the Internet, surveys of ASPRS membership, and
surveys of industry CEO and CFOs. ASPRS is also conducting interviews
and focus groups across the country. (Responses are not for
attribution).

Data compiled to date on space-based and aerial services indicate
industry growth of 9-14% per year. However, these data do not include
information collected in 2002 to assess the market impact of September
11. A key finding reveals significant fragmentation in the industry with
the bulk of the RSI composed of relatively small firms with 100-500
employees and median 2001 annual revenue of \$3.7M. The study also found
that national and global security, civil government requirements and
mapping were the largest RSI sectors. An issue to be addressed in the
continuing study effort is to understand why the real estate,
entertainment, and insurance sectors have to date found little to no use
for remote sensing products. The study shows that space-based and aerial
data complement one another, and that sales of both continue to grow.

Technological innovations are needed to deliver data rapidly and to
provide information that is valuable to the customer. There is a
tendency to provide very enhanced data sets, providing problems for
customers who are often challenged by even basic data sets. The study
found that governmental influence is pervasive, with legislation and
policies restricting U.S. remote sensing sales while foreign companies
have no such hindrances to international commerce.

Findings related to workforce issues, competition, and the impact of the
U.S. economy on the industry were largely drawn from the Internet and
surveys. The demand for entry-level personnel exceeds supply and the
data indicate that RSI workers tend to stay for a very short time. Those
who do remain in the industry tend to stay for a long time. There is a
concern about foreign competition both because the RSI is often part of,
or supported by the government in other nations, and because a
significant number of foreign students are trained in the U.S. and then
return to their homeland to staff the foreign competition.

Spatial resolution trends show that the greatest need is for data in the
1-3 ft. range, which currently is the least well-met. After resolution,
Digital Elevation Models (DEMs) will be a key driver for the industry in
the future. The demand for higher geospatial accuracy is growing, though
projections show a very significant shortfall in high-quality elevation
data.

In conclusion, Mr. Mondello stated that the study found a very
fragmented industry due to both the range of sensor technologies and the
large number of small companies involved in the industry. He welcomed
other organizations' involvement in the study.

Chairman Winokur indicated that there might be interest on the part of
ACCRES in obtaining further data on the international market.

[Current Foreign Capabilities, Laws, and Policies]{.underline}

*Foreign Land Imaging Satellite Programs*

*William Stoney, Principal Engineer, Mitretek*

(Presentation provided as Appendix 3)

Mr. Stoney reviewed the outlook for land imaging satellites for the next
5 years. His source for this presentation was drawn solely from
publicly-available information. He anticipates a total of 25 satellites
offering resolution of 1 meter or better to be in service within the
next five years. These will be launched by nine government organizations
and companies in two nations. The lowest resolution will be provided by
U.S. commercial operators Ikonos, QuickBird and OrbView, each promising
0.25m resolution.

The French Pleiades satellites will serve both civilian and military
needs and promise 0.7m optical resolution. The German TerraSAR system is
government-funded primarily for commercial operations, while Italy is
planning a 3-satellite 1 meter impulse response (IPR) Synthetic Aperture
Radar (SAR). The Rapid Eye commercial system would potentially compete
with the Landsat Data Continuity Mission (LDCM). India's remote sensing
satellites are primarily designed for Indian use and are land- and
environment- oriented. The first systems the Japanese intend to launch
(initial launch anticipated mid 2004) will provide 1m resolution, equal
to anything U.S. commercial operators could provide. China has plans to
launch four more remote sensing satellites during the coming 5 years as
part of a disaster management constellation. Russia has plans for a
three-satellite system for civil and commercial use. Central Trading
Systems and Land Info International have been offering archived Russian
satellite data at 0.95-2.0m resolution for some time without great
success. Three small satellites developed by Surrey of the U.K. are
scheduled \-- two of those for the Disaster Management Constellation
international consortium.

Political and strategic concerns appear to demand national control of
land imaging. Hence, even small countries want their own satellites. The
dual use approach prevalent in Europe is a matter of concern for the
future of the U.S. CRS industry. The U.S. technological lead in optical
systems is small and getting smaller as an increasing number of other
nations develop their own systems. The United States is the exception to
other countries/firms, all of whom are developing civil and commercial
SAR systems.

Mr. Stoney noted that nobody is looking at the total picture concerning
civil satellites. While not under the purview of this Committee, Mr.
Stoney advocated a database for the ongoing evaluation of land imaging
satellites. He suggested a program to purchase and evaluate image
products, as they become available and cited the NASA/NIMA/USGS JACIE
(Joint Agency Commercial Imagery Evaluation) program as a success story
in this area.

*Foreign Commercial Remote Sensing Laws and Regulations: Current Legal
Regimes: "A Brief Survey of Remote Sensing Law Around the World"*

*Joanne Gabrynowicz, University of Mississippi*

(Presentation provided as Appendix 4)

Dr. Gabrynowicz has considered numerous legal regimes, studied trends
and looked at some specific law in developing a review of legal regimes
related to CRS. Most countries have some general space laws. Some
nations are starting to address specific issues such as launch safety,
sovereignty, and liability, but to date very little space law relates to
Earth observation remote sensing. Where remote sensing is addressed,
policy directives are employed rather than statutes and are used largely
to meet compliance with U.N. treaties and to establish international
compliance. A hybrid public/private legal environment is emerging. There
is a clear divergence in approaches to remote sensing law. In the U.S.
the law is driven by emphasis on the satellite; in Europe the focus is
on what is done with the data derived from the satellite.

The Canadian remote sensing regime is very similar to the U.S. approach.
However, because Canada has a parliamentary system, laws tend to be
initiated on the executive side of government, while in the United
States., the process tends to move in the opposite direction. The
Radarsat mission is contractually obliged to comply with Canadian policy
in a manner very similar to U.S. Presidential Decision Directive 23.

The system in Europe is very different from that in the United States.
Operations and data are inextricably intertwined. There are no private
systems and no licensing. Governments operate systems on a commercial
basis. The European approach is driven by the data, focusing on the user
and the money the user pays. A Database Protection Directive stresses
user payment.

A contractual and administrative system regulates remote sensing issues
in France. There is no legal regime. A mechanism exists to discuss a
commercial system and legal terms appear in a relevant departmental
report. Dr. Gabrynowicz noted that in France, a privatized system is one
that has been paid for by the government then moved into the commercial
sector. In general, the government is looking for a return on investment
of public funds.

India has no law relating to remote sensing but a comprehensive data
policy views data from all sources as existing for the good of the
public. Distribution is controlled (e.g., military installations are
removed from commercial imagery).

In Japan, all commercial space activities are limited exclusively to
peaceful purposes. At present no licenses are required, there are no
restrictions, and no reporting requirements. However, there are no CRS
operators in Japan yet. Currently NASDA retains all intellectual
property rights to data from government satellites.

The Russian Federation is subject to broad federal legislation under
which remote sensing includes environmental monitoring and meteorology.
Insurance is required. Conflicts between intelligence and commercial
data use are an issue.

In the United Kingdom, the tenor of the remote sensing legal regime was
set by the House of Lords in 1984, with the mandate that the main effort
should be the ground and user segments. U.K. systems specialize in radar
and data is distributed nationally. The Space Act of 1986 makes no
mention of remote sensing but authorizes the government to require
licenses. The British government is currently developing legislation to
ensure that the government does not pay for any aspects of CRS provision
or distribution.

Space law is emerging around the world and there are countries that need
help in developing their legal regimes. Bilateral and multilateral
agreements are very important in formulating customary law at the
international level. The CRS legal regime is evolving on a
satellite-by-satellite basis and will have an impact on the
international space law environment because of the hybrid nature of the
regime.

[Civil Agency Use of Commercial Remote Sensing Products and Services and
Related Licensing Issues]{.underline}

Sherri Stephan, Professional Staff Member, Subcommittee on International
Security, Proliferation, and Federal Services, Government Affairs
Committee, U.S. Senate

(Presentation provided at Appendix 5)

Dr. Stephan emphasized that the Congressional Research Service
assessment of remote sensing data use by civilian federal agencies dealt
only with civilian agency use and did not include intelligence
applications. 20 agencies were surveyed; 19 responded. 11 agencies make
extensive use of remote sensing data. The full report is available at
www.senate.gov/\~gov affairs/ispfs.htm.

In her presentation, Dr. Stephan gave particular attention to licensing
concerns. Responses were received from participating agencies in the
summer of 2001 and an additional segment was added to obtain responses
on the impact of September 11.

The study found that research agencies want raw data while other
agencies want derived products. The Committee briefly discussed the
extent to which USAID employs remote sensing data. Dr. Gabrynowicz
stated that the Committee should keep in mind that remote sensing is a
staple in conflict resolution and has many foreign policy applications.

Sharing data is a major problem. Sharing between agencies, between an
agency and a company, and between an agency and an overseas entity
create various licensing issues. There are also difficulties if new uses
arise after data has been shared. As a result, some agencies choose not
to use CRS data in order to avoid these concerns. USAID is unable to
share data internationally because their overseas partners cannot afford
the licensing charges. Some agencies find that their overseas contacts
are unable to download data and others lack trained personnel.

The primary uses for CRS within U.S. civil government agencies are for
natural resource management, conservation, and environmental issues.
USDA, FEMA, Commerce, Interior, State, USAID and EPA use CRS extensively
for these purposes. Transportation and HHS indicated much lower usage.
Lack of communication within some agencies could mean that there is
possibly more use than reported. Aerial data are used extensively by
agencies, aerial and space-based data are used in a complimentary
fashion.

Agencies' concerns about CRS data availability included the relatively
small number of satellites collecting needed data, the time it takes to
get data in a useful form or the availability of data from a specific
time period, and anxiety about continuity of availability of data from a
specific source.

The number one concern with access to data is the cost of CRS data, with
licensing concerns about sharing commercial data a close second.

Agencies also identified a workforce issue. There is a lack of in-house
expertise because it is difficult to attract and retain trained remote
sensing staff. Further, a lack of vision and limited understanding of
what can be achieved with CRS on the part of upper management is
stifling progress. Additionally, data from non-NOAA satellites may be
restricted to research use, precluding other beneficial uses.

As an example, Dr. Stephan drew attention to the problems encountered by
the Coast Guard , where licensing constraints severely limit the
service's ability to distribute valuable data to partner agencies, such
as port authorities, with which it works. Committee members wondered how
the Homeland Security Agency will deal with licensing and sharing
issues.

The report did not contain any concluding recommendations, but general
recommendations from the participating agencies are included in the
final section of the report. Dr. Stephan expressed the hope that the
E-government Act will clarify some issues.

In response to a query from Fernando Echevarria from the State
Department, Dr. Stephan assured the Committee that Congressmen and
Senators are hearing from local users such as police chiefs who want to
use CRS. As a result, there is recognition on Capitol Hill that issues
of access to data, cost, and licensing considerations are a growing
concern. The Senate can be expected to take up the question of CRS
licensing at some point.

In Committee discussion following Dr. Stephan's report, Mr. Copple
suggested that pricing must be a factor if people do not want to pay for
licenses. The chairman said that some parts of some agencies see this to
be a legitimate problem. Dr. Gabrynowicz reported that the U.S National
Research Council is undertaking a new study on licensing issues for
civil agencies and asked whether NOAA might form a liaison with that
effort.

[Public Comments]{.underline}

Jim Plasker (ASPRS) stated that the problem of license cost is a value
versus cost issue. At present, the cost of the data set is high relative
to the perceived value of the data. If cost, not licensing is the issue,
then volume becomes an issue. He suggested viability will come with
expanded volume of customer-optimized data. Mr. Plasker also emphasized
that the lack of an adequately developed workforce and poor standards of
task-specific education of the customer base had been highlighted by the
ASPRS study and the Senate Subcommittee study. Emphasis needs to be
placed on growing the industry and getting the costs down.

Dr. Lenczowski stated that NIMA is developing a new generation of
contracts that simplify the licensing issue by requiring a single
license that would cover the data inventory and use across domain users.
She stated that vendors had been receptive to this idea.

Allan Brown (Allan Brown Consulting) urged the government to stay out of
licensing matters and leave partners to resolve licensing issues as part
of their business plans.

Ray Williamson (George Washington University) reported on a workshop
held in the spring of 2002 by George Washington University to look at
ways to improve the transfer of remote sensing data. The meeting
revealed that the greatest difficulties were encountered in sharing
derived data across political and institutional boundaries. One example
is the failure of agencies to work together after September 11.

Mr. Plasker indicated that the major debate at their conference last
year was about the complexity of CRS licensing and policy. He made a
plea for the ASPRS to make recommendations, not just observations. Mr.
Mondello stated that ASPRS is trying to do just that. The Chairman
encouraged agencies to work together more and share funding
responsibility where appropriate sooner rather than later.

[Discussion Among the Committee Members]{.underline}

The Chairman suggested that the Committee may be interested in having
the ASPRS study examine the international demand for data. There is a
perceived demand for data and Mr. Keating suggested it could be possible
to summarize what overseas users are looking for. He proposed to discuss
the matter further with NOAA staff and circulate a proposal to the
Committee.

Discussion moved on to assessment of competition. Mr. Leonard was
concerned that studies always lag 2 years behind reality. The Chairman
noted that the afternoon's briefings had been helpful, but a database
has to be a living document so that NOAA and other agencies can use it
to determine licensing needs in the future. The chairman expressed an
interest in U.S. development of high-resolution civil and commercial SAR
systems.

[Next Steps]{.underline}

Vice Chairman Kevin O'Connell, led this part of the discussion. He
proposed that the next Committee meeting be held in April or May when
more information will be available from the National Space Policy
Review.

The first and second meetings of the Committee have focused on gathering
information from the major studies. That task has been completed.
However, during this session the Committee had only dealt with the tip
of the iceberg on the question of where the U.S. industry stands
relative to various competitors. This is a multidimensional problem that
is much broader than the issues considered to date. The National Space
Policy Review should provide additional background and guidance to
agencies on these issues.

Mr. O'Connell proposed establishing work teams that will conduct
business informally (electronically) and provide briefings on progress
at the next public meeting.

[Summary by the Chair]{.underline}

The Chair and Vice Chair will review the comments made at this meeting
and will circulate them to everybody over the next few weeks. They would
also develop a framework for future committee endeavors. Comments will
be welcome.

Mr. Faga of MITRE expressed the appreciation of the Committee for all
the briefings provided at this meeting.