Astrotech Subsidiary Wins $16.2 Million Contract
May 12, 2011 at 9:45 am | Posted in Space Law Current Events | Leave a commentby Sara M. Langston with the blog faculty
Source: Commercial Space Watch
Astrotech Corporation, a leading provider of commercial aerospace services, today announced that its Astrotech Space Operations subsidiary has been awarded a $16.2 million contract to fabricate, install, and test Ground Support Equipment (GSE) for the U.S. government. Under a firm fixed-price contract, fabrication begins immediately with delivery targeted for the first quarter of fiscal year 2013. [Full story]
Florida legislature delivers $43+ million for space industry
May 12, 2011 at 9:42 am | Posted in Space Law Current Events | Leave a commentby Sara M. Langston with the blog faculty
Source: Commercial Space Watch
Tallahassee, FL (May 9, 2011) – Aerospace-related economic development played a significant role in the 2011 Florida Legislative Session, with more than $43 million being committed for growth of the industry in the coming year. Governor Rick Scott laid out an aggressive plan, not only for Florida’s overall economy, but for Florida’s space industry in particular, and that plan was formalized by the Legislature. [Full story]
Aviation industry responds to the California’s Center of Environmental Health’s suit
May 12, 2011 at 8:05 am | Posted in Aviation Law Current Event | Leave a commentby Sara M. Langston with the blog faculty
Source: AVweb
News of the California environmental group Center of Environmental Health’s (CEH) intent to sue California avgas suppliers was met Wednesday with some no-nonsense opposition from GAMA, a member of the General Aviation Avgas Coalition. GAMA argued in a statement that state-level action on the matter is basically a non-starter. The organization said “Congress has reserved to the Federal government,” via the FAA, “the right and responsibility to regulate all aviation activities in the U.S.” If allowed to proceed, GAMA suggests that a state-level lawsuit could lead to “a patchwork of state regulations governing fuels pilots may or may not use in their piston-powered aircraft.” And, says GAMA, federal agencies are already addressing the problem of leaded aviation fuel. CEH is not worried about the jurisdictional issues. In a podcast interview with AVweb, CEH’s Director of Research Caroline Cox says there’s nothing in the California law the group is using that gives the Feds an exemption. She also said the group’s prime motivation is to be a player in the eventual elimination of lead in avgas and won’t necessarily pursue the suit if it believes discussions are headed in the right direction. However, if it does go to court and the oil companies and FBOs lose, CEH will get a 25-percent share of any civil penalties imposed and she said that provision is part of the funding strategy for the small ($1.7 million annual budget) non-profit organization. [Full story]
Making Germany’s space sector fit for the future – The space strategy of the German Federal Government now Available in English
May 12, 2011 at 6:39 am | Posted in Space Law Current Events | Leave a commentby Joanne Irene Gabrynowicz with the blog faculty
Source: Federal Ministry of Economics and Technology
Thanks to Dr. Mariettta Benko,Universität zu Köln
China Space Hearing Today: Prepared Remarks
May 11, 2011 at 12:32 pm | Posted in Space Law Current Events | Leave a commentby Sara M. Langston with the blog faculty
Prepared Remarks before the U.S.China Economic and Security Review Commission on
The Implications of China’s Military and Civil Space Programs
May 11, 2011
WOLF STATEMENT AT U.S. CHINA COMMISSION HEARING ON MILITARY AND CIVIL SPACE PROGRAMS IN CHINA
Says U.S. ‘Has No Business’ Helping China Develop Its Space Program
Mark A. Stokes
Executive Director
Project 2049 Institute
Bruce W. MacDonald
United States Institute of Peace
Barry D. Watts
Senior Fellow, Center for Strategic & Budgetary Assessments (CSBA)
Dean Cheng
The Heritage Foundation
Research Fellow, Asian Studies Center
Dr. Scott Pace, Director, Space Policy Institute,
Elliott School of International Affairs, The George Washington University
China’s Space Technology:International Dynamics and Implications for the United States
Dr. James Clay Moltz
Naval Postgraduate School
China’s Civil and Commercial Space Activities and their Implications
Alanna Krolikowski
Visiting scholar, Space Policy Institute, The George Washington University
PhD candidate, University of Toronto
H. Res. 255: Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that effective sharing of passenger information from inbound international flight manifests is a crucial component of our national security and that the Department of Homeland Security must maintain the information sharing standards required under the 2007 Passenger Name Record Agreement between the United States and the European Union
May 11, 2011 at 10:16 am | Posted in Aviation Law | Leave a commentby P.J. Blount with the blog faculty
H. Res. 255: Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that effective sharing of passenger information from inbound international flight manifests is a crucial component of our national security and that the Department of Homeland Security must maintain the information sharing standards required under the 2007 Passenger Name Record Agreement between the United States and the European Union was introduced on May 10, 2011 by Rep. Peter King (R-NY3):
HRES 255 IH
112th CONGRESS
1st Session
H. RES. 255
Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that effective sharing of passenger information from inbound international flight manifests is a crucial component of our national security and that the Department of Homeland Security must maintain the information sharing standards required under the 2007 Passenger Name Record Agreement between the United States and the European Union.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
May 10, 2011
Mr. KING of New York (for himself, Mr. ROGERS of Alabama, Mrs. MILLER of Michigan, Mr. MCCAUL, Mr. BILIRAKIS, Mr. MARINO, Mr. QUAYLE, Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California, and Mr. LONG) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Homeland Security
RESOLUTION
Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that effective sharing of passenger information from inbound international flight manifests is a crucial component of our national security and that the Department of Homeland Security must maintain the information sharing standards required under the 2007 Passenger Name Record Agreement between the United States and the European Union.
Whereas the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States–
(1) found that `[t]argeting travel is at least as powerful a weapon against terrorists as targeting their money’; and
(2) recommended that the United States `combine terrorist travel intelligence, operations, and law enforcement in a strategy to intercept terrorist, find terrorist travel facilitators, and constrain terrorist mobility’;
Whereas terrorists continue to target international travel to the United States, as evidenced by Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab’s attempt to detonate a bomb on board Northwest Airlines Flight 253 on December 25, 2009, en route from Amsterdam to Detroit;
Whereas Congress responded to the attacks of September 11, 2001, by mandating that all air carriers flying into the United States provide passenger name record (referred to in this resolution as `PNR’) data concerning all inbound passengers to U.S. Customs and Border Protection to assist the Department of Homeland Security in fulfilling its missions of protecting the border and enhancing border security;
Whereas there is bipartisan agreement on the need to collect and share passenger travel data, which–
(1) has served as a cornerstone for interdicting terrorists by the administrations of President Barack Obama and former President George W. Bush; and
(2) continues to fulfill the mandate for increased information sharing set by Congress in–
Ì (A) the Aviation and Transportation Security Act (Public Law 107-71);
Ì (B) the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-458);
Ì (C) the Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007 (Public Law 110-53); and
Ì (D) other laws requiring information sharing internationally and within the United States Government to promote greater security;
Whereas international law and treaties have recognized that–
(1) advance information about travelers is a critical tool in identifying high-risk passengers; and
(2) the intelligence gained from the analysis of passenger travel data is critical for–
Ì (A) protecting the United States against terrorists entering the United States; and
Ì (B) preventing terrorists from boarding international flights bound for the United States;
Whereas the Agreement Between the United States of America and the European Union on the Processing and Transfer of Passenger Name Record (PNR) Data by Air Carriers to the United States Department of Homeland Security (DHS), done at Brussels and Washington on July 23 and 26, 2007 (referred to in this resolution as the `EU-U.S. PNR Agreement’)–
(1) succeeded a series of agreements between 2002 and October 2006;
(2) was intended to remain in effect until 2014; and
(3) complied with European Union and United States privacy laws by providing assurances that the United States would use PNR data for limited purposes;
Whereas PNR data gathered pursuant to the EU-U.S. PNR Agreement has been used to identify and arrest a number of dangerous terrorists, including–
(1) David Headley, who was planning an attack on Denmark and who contributed to the tragedy in Mumbai; and
(2) Faisal Shahzad, who was attempting to flee the country after attempting to set off a car-bomb in Times Square;
Whereas PNR data has been used to prevent the travel of many other individuals considered to be national security threats or otherwise inadmissible to the United States;
Whereas the privacy protections in the current EU-U.S. PNR Agreement are robust, and a February 2010 joint review by both signatories found no privacy violations, misuse, or injury from the collection of PNR data by the Department of Homeland Security;
Whereas although the United States and the European Union have different governing mechanisms that lead to differences in how oversight is conducted, both governments have a firm commitment to the protection of data and the respect of individual privacy;
Whereas in February 2011, the European Commission proposed that the European Union create its own PNR system in order to identify potential terrorists and other dangerous criminals; and
Whereas in November 2010, the Washington Post–
(1) recognized the important role that PNR data plays in securing international aviation; and
(2) recommended that data sharing should not be restricted without demonstrating specific problems with the operation of current agreement: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That the House of Representatives–
(1) acknowledges the grave threat posed by terrorists and other dangerous criminals who seek to target the United States aviation system;
(2) urges the Department of Homeland Security to respond to any modification of passenger name record (PNR) data sharing that degrades the ability to identify terrorists with stronger security requirements;
(3) urges the Department of Homeland Security to not enter into any agreement that would impose European oversight structures on the United States; and
(4) strongly urges the Department of Homeland Security to oppose any effort by the European Union to frustrate counterterrorism cooperation and information sharing between the Department of Homeland Security and non-European countries.
Texas Space Liability Act
May 11, 2011 at 10:10 am | Posted in Space Law | Leave a commentby P.J. Blount with the blog faculty
The Texas Space Alliance issued a press release noting the passage of the SB115: Relating to limiting the liability of space flight entities. The bill was signed by the Texas Governor on April 21, 2011.
S.B. No. 115
AN ACT
relating to limiting the liability of space flight entities.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS:
SECTION 1. Title 4, Civil Practice and Remedies Code, is
amended by adding Chapter 100A to read as follows:
CHAPTER 100A. LIMITED LIABILITY FOR SPACE FLIGHT ACTIVITIES
Sec. 100A.001. DEFINITIONS. In this chapter:
(1) “Launch” means a placement or attempted placement
of a vehicle or rocket and any payload, crew, or space flight
participant in a suborbital trajectory, earth orbit, or outer
space, including activities involved in the preparation of a launch
vehicle or payload for launch.
(2) “Reentry” means a purposeful return or attempt to
return a reentry vehicle and the payload, the crew, or a space
flight participant from earth orbit or from outer space to earth.
(3) “Space flight activities” means activities and
training in all phases of preparing for and undertaking space
flight, including:
(A) the preparation of a launch vehicle, payload,
crew, or space flight participant for launch, space flight, and
reentry;
(B) the conduct of the launch;
(C) conduct occurring between the launch and
reentry;
(D) the preparation of a reentry vehicle,
payload, crew, or space flight participant for reentry;
(E) the conduct of reentry and descent;
(F) the conduct of the landing; and
(G) the conduct of postlanding recovery of a
reentry vehicle, payload, crew, or space flight participant.
(4) “Space flight entity” means a person who has
obtained the appropriate Federal Aviation Administration license
or other authorization, including safety approval and a payload
determination. The term includes:
(A) a manufacturer or supplier of components,
services, or vehicles used by the entity and reviewed by the Federal
Aviation Administration as part of issuing the license or other
authorization; and
(B) an employee, officer, director, owner,
stockholder, member, manager, or partner of the entity,
manufacturer, or supplier.
(5) “Space flight participant” means an individual,
who is not crew, carried aboard a launch vehicle or reentry vehicle.
(6) “Space flight participant injury” means an injury
sustained by a space flight participant, including bodily injury,
emotional distress, death, property damage, or any other loss
arising from the individual’s participation in space flight
activities.
Sec. 100A.002. LIMITED LIABILITY. (a) Except as provided
by Subsection (b), a space flight entity is not liable to any person
for a space flight participant injury or damages arising out of the
space flight participant injury if the space flight participant has
signed the agreement required by Section 100A.003 and given written
consent as required by 49 U.S.C. Section 70105.
(b) This section does not limit liability for an injury:
(1) proximately caused by the space flight entity’s
gross negligence evidencing wilful or wanton disregard for the
safety of the space flight participant; or
(2) intentionally caused by the space flight entity.
Sec. 100A.003. WARNING REQUIRED. (a) A space flight
participant must sign an agreement and warning statement before
participating in any space flight activity. The agreement must
include the following language and any other language required by
federal law:
AGREEMENT AND WARNING
I UNDERSTAND AND ACKNOWLEDGE THAT A SPACE FLIGHT ENTITY IS NOT
LIABLE FOR ANY INJURY TO OR DEATH OF A SPACE FLIGHT PARTICIPANT
RESULTING FROM SPACE FLIGHT ACTIVITIES. I UNDERSTAND THAT I HAVE
ACCEPTED ALL RISK OF INJURY, DEATH, PROPERTY DAMAGE, AND OTHER LOSS
THAT MAY RESULT FROM SPACE FLIGHT ACTIVITIES.
(b) An agreement under Subsection (a) is considered
effective and enforceable if it is:
(1) in writing;
(2) in a document separate from any other agreement
between the space flight participant and the space flight entity
other than a different warning, consent, or assumption of risk
statement;
(3) printed in not less than 10-point bold type; and
(4) signed by the space flight participant and a
competent witness.
Sec. 100A.004. AGREEMENT EFFECTIVE AND ENFORCEABLE.
(a) Except as provided by Subsection (b), an agreement between a
space flight entity and a space flight participant limiting or
otherwise affecting liability arising out of space flight activity
is effective and enforceable and is not unconscionable or against
public policy.
(b) An agreement described by this section may not limit
liability for an injury:
(1) proximately caused by the space flight entity’s
gross negligence evidencing wilful or wanton disregard for the
safety of the space flight participant; or
(2) intentionally caused by a space flight entity.
SECTION 2. The change in law made by this Act applies only
to a cause of action that accrues on or after the effective date of
this Act. A cause of action that accrues before the effective date
of this Act is governed by the law in effect immediately before the
effective date of this Act, and that law is continued in effect for
that purpose.
SECTION 3. This Act takes effect immediately if it receives
a vote of two-thirds of all the members elected to each house, as
provided by Section 39, Article III, Texas Constitution. If this
Act does not receive the vote necessary for immediate effect, this
Act takes effect September 1, 2011.______________________________ ______________________________
President of the Senate Speaker of the HouseI hereby certify that S.B. No. 115 passed the Senate on
March 15, 2011, by the following vote: Yeas 31, Nays 0.______________________________
Secretary of the SenateI hereby certify that S.B. No. 115 passed the House on
April 12, 2011, by the following vote: Yeas 147, Nays 0, one
present not voting.______________________________
Chief Clerk of the HouseApproved:
______________________________
Date______________________________
Governor
US-Colombia Open Skies Agreement
May 11, 2011 at 10:01 am | Posted in Aviation Law | Leave a commentby P.J. Blount with the blog faculty
Source – the State Department:
United States and Colombia Sign Open Skies Agreement
Media Note
Office of the Spokesman
Washington, DC
May 10, 2011On May 10, in Bogota, Under Secretary of State William J. Burns and Colombian Foreign Minister Maria Angela Holguin signed a new air transport agreement which, following a subsequent exchange of notes between the two countries, will establish a bilateral Open Skies air transportation relationship.
The Agreement will strengthen and expand our already strong trade and tourism links with Colombia, benefiting U.S. and Colombian businesses and travelers by expanding air service and encouraging vigorous price competition by airlines, while safeguarding aviation safety and security.
For more information about Open Skies, please visit: http://www.state.gov/e/eeb/tra/ata/.
PRN: 2011/726
Federal Register: Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to Space Vehicle and Missile Launch Operations at Kodiak Launch Complex, Alaska
May 11, 2011 at 10:00 am | Posted in Space Law | Leave a commentby P.J. Blount with the blog faculty
NOAA published a notice on Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to Space Vehicle and Missile Launch Operations at Kodiak Launch Complex, Alaska (PDF) in today’s Federal Register (76 Fed. Reg. 27308-27309):
SUMMARY: In accordance with the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), as amended, and implementing regulations, notification is hereby given that a Letter of Authorization (LOA) has been issued to the Alaska Aerospace Corporation (AAC) to take two species of seals and sea lions incidental to space vehicle and missile launch operations at the Kodiak Launch Complex (KLC) in Kodiak, Alaska.
U.S. Appropriations Bill Prohibits NASA from Working with China
May 11, 2011 at 9:46 am | Posted in Space Law Current Events | Leave a commentby Sara M. Langston with the blog faculty
Source: Discovery News
As noted by Forbes blogger William Pentland last week, and reported by the American Association for the Advancement of Science’s (AAAS) Science Insider blog in April, a clause included in the U.S. spending bill approved by Congress to avert a government shutdown a few weeks ago has prohibited NASA from coordinating any joint scientific activity with China. The clause also extends to the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP).
The short two sentence clause was included by Rep. Frank Wolf (R-VA) to prevent NASA and OSTP from using federal funds “to develop, design, plan, promulgate, implement or execute a bilateral policy, program, order, or contract of any kind to participate, collaborate, or coordinate bilaterally in any way with China or any Chinese-owned company.” This clause would also prevent NASA facilities from hosting “official Chinese visitors.” [Fully story]
Blog at WordPress.com. | Theme: Pool by Borja Fernandez.
Entries and comments feeds.

