49–006 

114TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 1st Session 114–119 

SPURRING PRIVATE AEROSPACE COMPETITIVENESS AND 

ENTREPRENEURSHIP ACT OF 2015 

MAY 18, 2015.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of 

the Union and ordered to be printed 

Mr. SMITH of Texas, from the Committee on Science, Space, and 

Technology, submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

together with 

MINORITY VIEWS 

[To accompany H.R. 2262] 

[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office] 

The Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, to whom was 

referred the bill (H.R. 2262) to facilitate a pro-growth environment 

for the developing commercial space industry by encouraging private sector investment and creating more stable and predictable 

regulatory conditions, and for other purposes, having considered 

the same, report favorably thereon with an amendment and recommend that the bill as amended do pass. 

CONTENTS 

Page 

Committee Statement and Views ........................................................................... 8 

Section-by-Section .................................................................................................... 22 

Explanation of Amendments ................................................................................... 30 

Committee Consideration ........................................................................................ 31 

Roll Call Votes ......................................................................................................... 31 

Correspondence ........................................................................................................ 44 

Application of Law to the Legislative Branch ....................................................... 46 

Statement of Oversight Findings and Recommendations of the Committee ...... 46 

Statement of General Performance Goals and Objectives .................................... 46 

Duplication of Federal Programs ............................................................................ 46 

Disclosure of Directed Rule Makings ..................................................................... 46 

Federal Advisory Committee Act ............................................................................ 46 

Unfunded Mandate Statement ............................................................................... 46 

Earmark Identification ............................................................................................ 47 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
2 

Committee Estimate ................................................................................................ 47 

Budget Authority and Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate .................... 47 

Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill as Reported ...................................... 48 

Minority Views ......................................................................................................... 67 

The amendment is as follows: 

Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the following: 

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Spurring Private Aerospace Competitiveness and 

Entrepreneurship Act of 2015’’ or the ‘‘SPACE Act of 2015’’. 

SEC. 2. CONSENSUS STANDARDS. 

Section 50905(c) of title 51, United States Code, is amended— 

(1) by striking paragraph (3); 

(2) by redesignating paragraph (4) as paragraph (8); and 

(3) by inserting after paragraph (2) the following: 

‘‘(3) INTERIM INDUSTRY VOLUNTARY CONSENSUS STANDARDS REPORT.—The Secretary, in consultation with the Commercial Space Transportation Advisory 

Committee, or its successor organization, shall provide a report to the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology of the House of Representatives and 

the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate on the 

progress of the commercial space transportation industry in developing voluntary consensus standards or any other construction that promotes best practices to improve the industry. Such report shall include, at a minimum— 

‘‘(A) any voluntary industry consensus standards or any other construction that have been accepted by the industry at large; 

‘‘(B) the identification of areas that have the potential to become voluntary industry consensus standards or another potential construction that 

are currently under consideration by the industry at large; 

‘‘(C) an assessment from the Secretary on the general progress of the industry in adopting voluntary consensus standards or any other construction; 

‘‘(D) lessons learned about voluntary industry consensus standards or any 

other construction, best practices, and commercial space launch operations; 

‘‘(E) any lessons learned associated with the development, potential application, and acceptance of voluntary industry consensus standards or any 

other construction, best practices, and commercial space launch operations; 

and 

‘‘(F) recommendations, findings, or observations from the Commercial 

Space Transportation Advisory Committee, or its successor organization, on 

the progress of the industry in developing industry consensus standards or 

any other construction. 

This report, with the appropriate updates in the intervening periods, shall be 

transmitted to such committees no later than December 31, 2016, December 31, 

2018, December 31, 2020, and December 31, 2022. Each report shall describe 

and assess the progress achieved as of 6 months prior to the specified transmittal date. 

‘‘(4) INTERIM REPORT ON KNOWLEDGE AND OPERATIONAL EXPERIENCE.—The 

Secretary shall provide a report to the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Commerce, 

Science, and Transportation of the of the Senate on the status of the knowledge 

and operational experience acquired by the industry while providing flight services for compensation or hire to support the development of a safety framework. 

Interim reports shall by transmitted to such committees no later than December 

31, 2018, December 31, 2020, and December 31, 2022. Each report shall describe and assess the progress achieved as of 6 months prior to the specified 

transmittal date. 

‘‘(5) INDEPENDENT REVIEW.—No later than December 31, 2023, an independent, private systems engineering and technical assistance organization or 

standards development organization contracted by the Secretary shall provide 

to the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the 

Senate an assessment of the readiness of the commercial space industry and the 

Federal Government to transition to a safety framework that may include regulations. As part of the review, the contracted organization shall evaluate— 

‘‘(A) the progress of the commercial space industry in adopting industry 

voluntary standards or any other construction as reported by the Secretary 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
3 

in the interim assessments included in reports provided under paragraph 

(4); and 

‘‘(B) the knowledge and operational experience obtained by the commercial space industry while providing services for compensation or hire as reported by the Secretary in the interim knowledge and operational reports 

provided under paragraph (4). 

‘‘(6) LEARNING PERIOD.—Beginning on December 31, 2025, the Secretary may 

propose regulations under this subsection without regard to paragraph (2)(C) 

and (D). The development of any such regulations shall take into consideration 

the evolving standards of the commercial space flight industry as identified 

through the reports published under paragraphs (3) and (4). 

‘‘(7) COMMUNICATION AND TRANSPARENCY.—Nothing in this subsection shall be 

construed to limit the authority of the Secretary of Transportation to discuss 

potential approaches, potential performance standards, or any other topic related to this subsection with the commercial space industry including observations, findings, and recommendations from the Commercial Space Transportation Advisory Committee, or its successor organization, prior to the issuance 

of a notice of proposed rulemaking. Such discussions shall not be construed to 

permit the Secretary to promulgate industry regulations except as otherwise 

provided in this section.’’. 

SEC. 3. INTERNATIONAL LAUNCH COMPETITIVENESS. 

(a) PURPOSE.—The purpose of this section is to provide for updating the methodology used to calculate the maximum probable loss from claims under section 50914 

of title 51, United States Code, with a validated risk profile approach to provide reasonable maximum probable loss values associated with potential third party losses 

from commercially licensed launches. An appropriately updated methodology will 

help ensure that the Federal Government is not exposed to greater financial risks 

than intended and that launch companies are not required to purchase more insurance coverage than necessary. 

(b) MAXIMUM PROBABLE LOSS PLAN.—Not later than 180 days after the date of 

enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Transportation shall provide to the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology of the House of Representatives and the 

Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate a plan to update the methodology used to calculate maximum probable loss from claims under 

section 50914 of title 51, United States Code, through the use of a validated risk 

profile approach. Such plan shall include, at a minimum— 

(1) an evaluation of the reasonableness of the current single casualty estimate 

and, if needed, the steps the Secretary will take to update such estimate; 

(2) an evaluation, in consultation with the Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration and the heads of other relevant executive 

agencies, of the reasonableness of the dollar value of the insurance requirement 

required by the Secretary for launch providers to cover damage to Government 

property resulting from a commercially licensed space launch activity, and recommendations as to a reasonable calculation if, as determined by the Secretary, 

the current statutory threshold is insufficient; 

(3) a schedule of when updates to the methodology and calculations for the 

totality of the Maximum Probable Loss will be implemented, and a detailed explanation of any changes to the current calculation; and 

(4) consideration of the impact of the cost of its implementation on the licensing process, both in terms of the cost to industry of collecting and providing the 

requisite data and cost to the Government of analyzing the data. 

(c) INDEPENDENT ASSESSMENT.—Not later than 270 days after transmittal of the 

plan under subsection (b), the Comptroller General shall provide to the Committee 

on Science, Space, and Technology of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate an assessment of— 

(1) the conclusions and analysis provided by the Secretary of Transportation 

in the plan required under subsection (b); 

(2) the implementation schedule proposed by the Secretary in such plan; 

(3) the suitability of the plan for implementation; and 

(4) any further actions needed to implement the plan or otherwise accomplish 

the purpose of this section. 

(d) LAUNCH LIABILITY EXTENSION.—Section 50915(f) of title 51, United States 

Code, is amended by striking ‘‘December 31, 2016’’ and inserting ‘‘December 31, 

2025’’. 

SEC. 4. LAUNCH LICENSE FLEXIBILITY. 

Section 50906 of title 51, United States Code, is amended— 

(1) in subsection (d), by striking ‘‘launched or reentered’’ and inserting 

‘‘launched or reentered under that permit’’; 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
4 

(2) by amending subsection (d)(1) to read as follows: 

‘‘(1) research and development to test design concepts, equipment, or operating techniques;’’; 

(3) in subsection (d)(3), by striking ‘‘prior to obtaining a license’’; 

(4) in subsection (e)(1), by striking ‘‘suborbital rocket design’’ and inserting 

‘‘suborbital rocket or rocket design’’; and 

(5) by amending subsection (g) to read as follows: 

‘‘(g) The Secretary may issue a permit under this section notwithstanding any license issued under this chapter. The issuance of a license under this chapter shall 

not invalidate a permit under this section.’’. 

SEC. 5. GOVERNMENT ASTRONAUTS. 

(a) DEFINITIONS.—Section 50902 of title 51, United States Code, is amended— 

(1) by redesignating paragraphs (4) through (22) as paragraphs (5) through 

(23), respectively; 

(2) by inserting after paragraph (3) the following new paragraph: 

‘‘(4) ‘government astronaut’ means an individual designated as such by the 

Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, pursuant 

requirements established by the Administrator, who— 

‘‘(A) is an employee of— 

‘‘(i) the United States Government, including the United States 

Armed Forces; or 

‘‘(ii) a foreign government that is a party to the Intergovernmental 

Agreement Among the Government of Canada, Governments of Member States of the European Space Agency, the Government of Japan, 

the Government of the Russian Federation, and the Government of the 

United States of America Concerning Cooperation on the Civil International Space Station, signed on January 29, 1998; and 

‘‘(B) is carried within a launch vehicle or reentry vehicle in the course of 

his or her employment, which may include performance of activities directly 

relating to the launch, reentry, or other operation of the launch vehicle or 

reentry vehicle.’’; 

(3) in paragraph (5), as so redesignated by paragraph (1) of this subsection, 

by inserting ‘‘government astronaut,’’ after ‘‘crew,’’; 

(4) in paragraph (7)(A), as so redesignated by paragraph (1) of this subsection, 

by inserting ‘‘government astronaut,’’ after ‘‘(including crew training),’’; 

(5) in paragraph (14), as so redesignated by paragraph (1) of this subsection, 

by inserting ‘‘government astronauts,’’ after ‘‘crew,’’; 

(6) in paragraph (15)(A), as so redesignated by paragraph (1) of this subsection, by inserting ‘‘government astronaut,’’ after ‘‘(including crew training),’’; 

(7) by amending paragraph (18), as so redesignated by paragraph (1) of this 

subsection, to read as follows: 

‘‘(18) ‘space flight participant’ means an individual, who is not crew or a government astronaut, carried within a launch vehicle or reentry vehicle.’’; and 

(8) in paragraph (22)(E), as so redesignated by paragraph (1) of this subsection, by inserting ‘‘, government astronauts,’’ after ‘‘crew’’. 

(b) RESTRICTIONS ON LAUNCHES, OPERATIONS, AND REENTRIES; SINGLE LICENSE OR

PERMIT.—Section 50904(d) of title 51, United States Code, is amended by inserting 

‘‘, government astronauts,’’ after ‘‘crew’’. 

(c) LICENSE APPLICATIONS AND REQUIREMENTS; APPLICATIONS.—Section 50905 of 

title 51, United States Code, is amended— 

(1) in subsection (a)(2), by striking ‘‘crews and space flight participants’’ and 

inserting ‘‘crew, government astronauts, and space flight participants’’; 

(2) in subsection (b)(2)(D), by inserting ‘‘, government astronauts,’’ after 

‘‘crew’’; and 

(3) in subsection (c)— 

(A) in paragraph (1), by inserting ‘‘, government astronauts,’’ after ‘‘crew’’; 

and 

(B) in paragraph (2), by striking ‘‘to crew or space flight participants’’ 

each place it appears and inserting ‘‘to crew, government astronauts, or 

space flight participants’’. 

(d) MONITORING ACTIVITIES.—Section 50907(a) of title 51, United States Code, is 

amended by striking ‘‘crew or space flight participant training’’ and inserting ‘‘crew, 

government astronaut, or space flight participant training’’. 

(e) ADDITIONAL SUSPENSIONS.—Section 50908(d)(1) of title 51, United States Code, 

is amended by striking ‘‘to crew or space flight participants’’ each place it appears 

and inserting ‘‘to crew, government astronauts, or space flight participants’’. 

SEC. 6. INDEMNIFICATION FOR SPACE FLIGHT PARTICIPANTS. 

Chapter 509 of title 51, United States Code, is amended— 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
5 

(1) in section 50914(a)(4), by adding at the end the following: 

‘‘(E) space flight participants.’’; and 

(2) in section 50915(a)(1)— 

(A) by striking ‘‘or a contractor’’ and inserting ‘‘a contractor’’; and 

(B) by striking ‘‘but not against’’ and inserting ‘‘or’’. 

SEC. 7. FEDERAL JURISDICTION. 

Section 50914 of title 51, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end 

the following: 

‘‘(g) FEDERAL JURISDICTION.—Any action or tort arising from a licensed launch or 

reentry shall be the sole jurisdiction of the Federal courts and shall be decided 

under Federal law.’’. 

SEC. 8. CROSS-WAIVERS. 

Section 50914(b)(1) of title 51, United States Code, is amended to read as follows: 

‘‘(1) A launch or reentry license issued or transferred under this chapter shall contain a provision requiring the licensee or transferee to make a reciprocal waiver of 

claims with its contractors, subcontractors, and customers, the contractors and subcontractors of the customers, and any space flight participants, involved in launch 

services or reentry services or participating in a flight under which each party to 

the waiver agrees to be responsible for property damage or loss it or they sustain, 

or for personal injury to, death of, or property damage or loss sustained by its own 

employees resulting from an activity carried out under the applicable license.’’. 

SEC. 9. ORBITAL TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT. 

(a) SENSE OF CONGRESS.—It is the sense of the Congress that, as none currently 

exists, there may be a need for a framework that addresses space traffic management of United States Government assets and United States private sector assets 

to minimize the proliferation of debris and decrease the congestion of the orbital environment. 

(b) STUDY REQUIRED.—Not later than 90 days after the date of enactment of this 

Act, the Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration shall 

enter into an arrangement with an independent, private systems engineering and 

technical assistance organization to study frameworks for the management of space 

traffic and orbital activities. The study shall include the following: 

(1) An assessment of current regulations, Government best practices, and industry standards that apply to space traffic management and orbital debris 

mitigation. 

(2) An assessment of current statutory authority granted to the Federal Communications Commission, the Federal Aviation Administration, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and how those agencies utilize 

and coordinate those authorities. 

(3) A review of all space traffic management and orbital debris requirements 

under treaties and other international agreements to which the United States 

is a signatory, and other nonbinding international arrangements in which the 

United States participates, and the manner in which the Federal Government 

complies with those requirements. 

(4) An assessment of existing Federal Government assets used to conduct 

space traffic management and space situational awareness. 

(5) An assessment of the risk associated with smallsats as well as any necessary Government coordination for their launch and utilization. 

(6) An assessment of existing private sector information sharing activities associated with space situational awareness and space traffic management. 

(7) Recommendations related to the framework for the protection of the 

health, safety, and welfare of the public and economic vitality of the space industry. 

(c) REPORT TO CONGRESS.—Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of 

this Act, the Administrator shall provide to the Committee on Science, Space, and 

Technology of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Commerce, 

Science, and Transportation of the Senate the report required in subsection (b). 

(d) DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORITIES.—Congress recognizes the vital and 

unique role played by the Department of Defense in protecting national security assets in space. Nothing in this section shall be construed to amend authorities granted to the Department of Defense to safeguard the national security. 

SEC. 10. STATE COMMERCIAL LAUNCH FACILITIES. 

It is the Sense of Congress that State involvement, development, ownership, and 

operation of launch facilities can help enable growth of the Nation’s commercial suborbital and orbital space endeavors and support both commercial and Government 

space programs. It is further the sense of Congress that State launch facilities and 

the people and property within the affected launch areas of those State facilities are 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
6 

subject to risks if the commercial launch vehicle fails or experiences an anomaly. 

To ensure the success of the commercial launch industry and the safety of the people and property in the affected launch areas, it is the further sense of Congress 

that States and State launch facilities should seek to take proper measures to secure their investments and the safety of third parties from potential damages that 

could be suffered from commercial launch activities. 

SEC. 11. SPACE SUPPORT VEHICLES STUDY. 

Not less than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General shall submit to the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology of the House 

of Representatives and the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation 

of the Senate, a report on the use of space support vehicle services in the commercial space industry. This report shall include— 

(1) the extent to which launch providers rely on such services as part of their 

business models; 

(2) the statutory, regulatory, and market barriers to the use of such services; 

and 

(3) recommendations for legislative or regulatory action that may be needed 

to ensure reduced barriers to the use of such services if such use is a requirement of the industry. 

SEC. 12. STREAMLINE COMMERCIAL SPACE LAUNCH ACTIVITIES. 

(a) SENSE OF CONGRESS.—It is the sense of Congress that eliminating duplicative 

requirements and approvals for commercial launch and reentry operations will promote and encourage the development of the commercial space sector. 

(b) REAFFIRMATION OF POLICY.—Congress reaffirms that the Secretary of Transportation, in overseeing and coordinating commercial launch and reentry operations, 

should— 

(1) promote commercial space launches and reentries by the private sector; 

(2) facilitate Government, State, and private sector involvement in enhancing 

U.S. launch sites and facilities; 

(3) protect public health and safety, safety of property, national security interests, and foreign policy interests of the United States; and 

(4) consult with the head of another executive agency, including the Secretary 

of Defense or the Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, as necessary to provide consistent application of licensing requirements under chapter 509 of title 51, United States Code. 

(c) REQUIREMENTS.— (1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary of Transportation under section 50918 of title 

51, United States Code, and subject to section 50905(b)(2)(C) of that title, shall 

consult with the Secretary of Defense, the Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, and the heads of other executive agencies, 

as appropriate— 

(A) to identify all requirements that are imposed to protect the public 

health and safety, safety of property, national security interests, and foreign policy interests of the United States relevant to any commercial launch 

of a launch vehicle or commercial reentry of a reentry vehicle; and 

(B) to evaluate the requirements identified in subparagraph (A) and, in 

coordination with the licensee or transferee and the heads of the relevant 

executive agencies— 

(i) determine whether the satisfaction of a requirement of one agency 

could result in the satisfaction of a requirement of another agency; and 

(ii) resolve any inconsistencies and remove any outmoded or duplicative requirements or approvals of the Federal Government relevant to 

any commercial launch of a launch vehicle or commercial reentry of a 

reentry vehicle. 

(2) REPORTS.—Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act, 

and annually thereafter until the Secretary of Transportation determines no 

outmoded or duplicative requirements or approvals of the Federal Government 

exist, the Secretary of Transportation, in consultation with the Secretary of Defense, the Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, 

the commercial space sector, and the heads of other executive agencies, as appropriate, shall submit to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate, the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology of the 

House of Representatives, and the congressional defense committees a report 

that includes the following: 

(A) A description of the process for the application for and approval of a 

permit or license under chapter 509 of title 51, United States Code, for the 

commercial launch of a launch vehicle or commercial reentry of a reentry 

vehicle, including the identification of— 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
7 

(i) any unique requirements for operating on a United States Government launch site, reentry site, or launch property; and 

(ii) any inconsistent, outmoded, or duplicative requirements or approvals. 

(B) A description of current efforts, if any, to coordinate and work across 

executive agencies to define interagency processes and procedures for sharing information, avoiding duplication of effort, and resolving common agency requirements. 

(C) Recommendations for legislation that may further— 

(i) streamline requirements in order to improve efficiency, reduce unnecessary costs, resolve inconsistencies, remove duplication, and minimize unwarranted constraints; and 

(ii) consolidate or modify requirements across affected agencies into 

a single application set that satisfies the requirements identified in 

paragraph (1)(A). 

(3) DEFINITIONS.—For purposes of this subsection— 

(A) any applicable definitions set forth in section 50902 of title 51, United 

States Code, shall apply; 

(B) the terms ‘‘launch’’, ‘‘reenter’’, and ‘‘reentry’’ include landing of a 

launch vehicle or reentry vehicle; and 

(C) the terms ‘‘United States Government launch site’’ and ‘‘United States 

Government reentry site’’ include any necessary facility, at that location, 

that is commercially operated on United States Government property. 

SEC. 13. SPACE LAUNCH SYSTEM UPDATE. 

(a) CHAPTER 701.— 

(1) AMENDMENT.—The chapter heading of chapter 701 of title 51, United 

States Code, is amended by striking ‘‘SPACE SHUTTLE’’ and inserting 

‘‘SPACE LAUNCH SYSTEM’’. 

(2) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—The item relating to chapter 701 in the table 

of chapters at the beginning of title 51, United States Code, is amended by 

striking ‘‘Space Shuttle’’ and inserting ‘‘Space Launch System’’. 

(b) SECTION 70101.— 

(1) AMENDMENTS.—Section 70101 of title 51, United States Code, is amended— 

(A) in the section heading, by striking ‘‘space shuttle’’ and inserting 

‘‘Space Launch System’’; and 

(B) by striking ‘‘space shuttle’’ and inserting ‘‘Space Launch System’’. 

(2) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—The item relating section 70101 in the table 

of sections for chapter 701 of title 51, United States Code is amended by striking ‘‘space shuttle’’ and inserting ‘‘Space Launch System’’. 

(c) SECTION 70102.— 

(1) AMENDMENTS.—Section 70102 of title 51, United States Code, is amended— 

(A) in the section heading, by striking ‘‘Space shuttle’’ and inserting 

‘‘Space Launch System’’; 

(B) in subsection (a)(1)(A), by striking ‘‘space shuttle’’ both places it appears and inserting ‘‘Space Launch System’’; 

(C) in subsection (a)(1)(A)(i), by inserting ‘‘directly to cis-lunar space and 

the regions of space beyond low-Earth orbit’’ after ‘‘human presence’’; 

(D) in subsection (a)(1)(B), by striking ‘‘a shuttle launch’’ and inserting 

‘‘a launch of the Space Launch System’’; 

(E) in subsection (a)(2), by striking ‘‘a space shuttle mission’’ and inserting ‘‘a mission of the Space Launch System’’; 

(F) in subsection (b)— 

(i) by striking ‘‘space shuttle’’ each place it appears and inserting 

‘‘Space Launch System’’; and 

(ii) by striking ‘‘from the shuttle’’ and inserting ‘‘from the Space 

Launch System’’; 

(G) in subsection (c), by striking ‘‘space shuttle’’ and inserting ‘‘Space 

Launch System’’; and 

(H) by adding at the end the following new subsection: 

‘‘(d) DEFINITION.—In this section, the term ‘Space Launch System’ means the 

Space Launch System authorized under section 302 of the National Aeronautics and 

Space Administration Authorization Act of 2010.’’. 

(2) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—The item relating section 70102 in the table 

of sections for chapter 701 of title 51, United States Code is amended by striking ‘‘Space shuttle’’ and inserting ‘‘Space Launch System’’. 

(d) SECTION 70103.— 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
8 

(1) AMENDMENTS.—Section 70103 of title 51, United States Code, is amended— 

(A) in the section heading, by striking ‘‘space shuttle’’ and inserting ‘‘Space Launch System’’; and 

(B) by striking ‘‘space shuttle’’ each place it appears and inserting ‘‘Space 

Launch System’’. 

(2) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—The item relating section 70103 in the table 

of sections for chapter 701 of title 51, United States Code is amended by striking ‘‘space shuttle’’ and inserting ‘‘Space Launch System’’. 

COMMITTEE STATEMENT AND VIEWS

PURPOSE AND SUMMARY

The purpose of H.R. 2262, the ‘‘SPACE Act of 2015,’’ is to facilitate a pro-growth environment for the developing commercial space 

industry by encouraging private sector investment, creating more 

stable and predictable regulatory conditions, and improving safety. 

BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR LEGISLATION

The commercial human space flight industry is still in its infancy, but has grown significantly since the Commercial Space 

Launch Amendments Act of 2004 (CSLAA). Entrepreneurial companies have raised billions of dollars with the hopes of taking customers to space. Other companies are investing and developing the 

technical capability to explore and utilize outer space resources. 

Still others are investing in space-based remote sensing technologies, an industry which is experiencing unprecedented growth. 

The safety framework that will govern the commercial human 

spaceflight industry is, as yet, undetermined. Absent a clear and 

balanced safety framework for commercial human spaceflight, the 

industry cannot effectively plan for its future, nor can it compete 

with international providers of similar services. 

Currently, any individual or private entity wishing to conduct a 

commercial space launch or reentry in the United States or operate 

a launch or reentry site in the United States must obtain a license 

from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to do so. Furthermore, citizens of the United States must obtain authorization from 

the FAA to conduct commercial space launches or reentries or to 

operate launch or reentry sites anywhere in the world. The Department of Transportation derives its authority over commercial space 

transportation from the Commercial Space Launch Act (CSLA) and 

has delegated that authority to the FAA’s Office of the Associate 

Administrator for Commercial Space Transportation (AST). AST 

has the dual mandate of regulating and promoting the commercial 

space transportation industry in the United States. 

In 1988, Congress amended the CSLA to indemnify the commercial space launch industry against successful claims by uninvolved 

third parties. The CSLA requires that private launch companies 

purchase sufficient liability insurance to cover potential losses in 

the event of an accident. This amount is determined by the FAA 

on a case-by-case basis depending on its calculation of the ‘maximum probable loss’ (MPL) from potential claims by a third party. 

MPL calculations are capped at $500 million for coverage against 

suits by private entities. Any loss incurred between $500 million 

and $1.5 billion is covered by the federal government. 

Since its enactment, the CSLA’s indemnification regime has been 

subject to an expiration date. Congress has extended the expiration 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
9 

date on several occasions. At present, FAA-licensed launch operators are offered indemnification under the statutorily prescribed 

procedures through December 31, 2016. 

H.R. 2262 is necessary to achieve several goals that will promote 

the development of the emerging commercial human space flight 

industry. First, the bill preserves FAA’s ability to regulate commercial human spaceflight in order to protect the uninvolved public, 

national security, public health and safety, safety of property, and 

foreign policy. Second, the bill extends the learning period to 2025 

to allow the FAA to gain data to inform framework safety framework that may include future regulations, and calls for a progress 

report on the status of the knowledge the industry and FAA have 

gained. The Act also allows for industry to develop consensus 

standards in the interim and coordinate those efforts with the FAA. 

Third, the bill extends indemnification to 2025 and requires an update to how the FAA calculates MPL. Fourth, the bill closes a statutory loophole that would have negated an experimental permit 

once a launch license was issued for the same vehicle design. Fifth, 

the bill adds ‘‘government astronaut’’ as a category of individuals 

carried within a spacecraft. Sixth, the bill includes spaceflight participants in indemnification coverage and cross waiver requirements. Seventh, the bill ensures that federal courts review lawsuits 

resulting from accidents since the federal government is ultimately 

the responsible party as a result of the Launch Liability Convention. Eighth, the bill requires a report on the current roles and responsibilities within the government, private sector, and international community related to space situational awareness, orbital 

traffic management, and orbital debris mitigation measures. 

The bill also makes changes to laws affecting the exploration and 

utilization of space resources by establishing a legal framework to 

govern property rights of resources obtained from asteroids. It provides civil action for relief from harmful interference to asteroid 

utilization operations subject to certain conditions, directs the 

President to facilitate commercial utilization, discourage government barriers, promote the right of United States commercial entities to explore outer space and utilize space resources, and submit 

to Congress a report containing recommendations on regulatory uncertainty and authorizations necessary to meet the international 

obligations of the U.S. 

The bill provides metrics to inform the workload affecting the Department of Commerce, informs Congress about the Department’s 

ability to meet the statutory deadline for adjudicating license applications, strengthens Congressional oversight to ensure the Department continues to monitor licensee operations to protect national 

security throughout the lifetime of the license, requires Congressional notification of violations of license conditions, and aids Congress in updating the existing statute at a future point to reflect 

the current state of the art for remote sensing technologies. Moreover, the bill reinforces Congress’ expectation that the federal government balance national security with maintaining U.S. privatesector leadership in the field. 

Finally, the bill renames the Office of Space Commercialization 

the Office of Space Commerce and updates the functions of this Office so the Office can more effectively foster the conditions of ecoVerDate Sep 11 2014 08:47 May 19, 2015 Jkt 049006 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR119.XXX HR119

rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
10 

nomic growth and technological advancement of the U.S. commercial space industry. 

COMMERCIAL SPACE LAUNCH 

Title I facilitates a pro-growth environment for the developing 

commercial space industry by encouraging private sector investment, creating more stable and predictable regulatory conditions, 

and improving safety. This Title will ensure American leadership 

in space and foster the development of advanced space technologies. The Title amends Chapter 509, Title 51, United States 

Code. 

Sec. 101. Consensus standards 

In 2004, Congress passed the Commercial Space Launch Amendments Act of 2004 (P.L. 108–492) to promote the emerging commercial human spaceflight industry following the successful suborbital 

flights of SpaceShipOne. This legislation included a ‘‘regulatory 

learning period,’’ (51 USC 50905(c)(3)). During floor debate on the 

Act, the bill’s author, Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, made clear that the 

learning period was included to ensure that the Secretary of Transportation (the Secretary) would not overregulate the industry before it had the opportunity to grow. Without launching and operating commercial human spaceflights, industry and regulators have 

limited data to inform safety regulations, which could lead to uninformed or unnecessary regulations that would stifle the growing industry. 

The 2004 Act included a sunset for the learning period which 

ended in 2012. However, recognizing there was still a great deal of 

testing and data to gather on these human launch systems, Congress extended the period to October 1, 2015 in the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 (Sec. 827 of P.L. 112–95). 

Under the CSLA, launch providers are required to provide informed consent for spaceflight participants, that ‘‘the United States 

Government has not certified the launch vehicle as safe for carrying crew or space flight participants,’’ (51 USC 50905(4)(b)). This 

informed consent mechanism is meant to ensure transparency and 

full disclosure for the participant that there is an inherent risk in 

spaceflight and that the Secretary has not certified the vehicle as 

safe for the general public. 

The Secretary is obliged to enact only those regulations which restrict design features or operating practices that (1) protect the 

public health and safety, safety of property, national security interests, and foreign policy interests of the United States (51 USC 

50905(c)(4)); (2) have resulted in a serious or fatal injury (51 USC 

50905 (c)(2)(C)(i)); or (3) contributed to an unplanned event or series of events during a licensed or permitted commercial human 

space flight that posed a high risk of causing a serious or fatal injury (51 USC 50905 (c)(2)(C)(ii)). This section does not alter those 

authorities. 

The Committee has added clarifying language to 50905(c) that 

makes it clear to the Secretary that communication and transparency are critical to the success of the development of a safety 

framework that protects spaceflight participants and encourages, 

facilitates, and promotes a vibrant commercial space industry. The 

Secretary is not limited, either by statute or congressional intent, 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
11 

from discussing potential approaches, potential performance standards, or any other topic related to the development of safety standards and regulations after the expiration of the learning period. 

The Committee encourages the Secretary to have open and transparent dialogue with the industry during the learning period that 

will facilitate and promote a culture of safety and cooperation with 

the Federal Government. 

In past extensions of the learning period, Congress chose to extend the sunset provision of 50905(c) absent benchmarking requirements to assess the development of the industry. As the industry 

continues to grow, arbitrary extensions of the learning period will 

be unhelpful to the formulation of policy as it pertains to the culture of safety and the maturity of safety systems in the industry. 

Given this, the Committee included three new benchmarking tools 

in the learning period extension that are unique to this bill and 

will assist the Committee in the development of future legislation. 

The first benchmarking tool is an amendment to 50905(c)(3) 

which creates a series of ‘‘Interim Industry Voluntary Consensus 

Standards Reports’’ to be issued biennially by the Secretary in consultation with the Commercial Space Transportation Advisory 

Committee (COMSTAC). It is the intent of the Committee that this 

report be a collaborative work product between the Secretary and 

COMSTAC. Reports issued to Congress under this section which 

are not collaborative will be viewed as in noncompliance with this 

section. Sections (D) and (E) of this report offer similar, yet distinct, data points for the Committee. While section (D) will tell the 

committee what has been learned about the voluntary industry 

consensus standards or any other construction, best practices, and 

commercial space operations, Section (E) will describe the lessons 

learned about the development, application, and acceptance of 

these voluntary industry consensus standards or any other construction, best practices, and commercial space launch operations. 

The Committee also included an ‘‘Interim Report on Knowledge 

and Operational Experience’’ to be provided to the Committee biennially in parallel with the ‘‘Interim Industry Voluntary Consensus 

Standards Reports.’’ As the Committee evaluates the development 

of the industry throughout the ten year extension of the learning 

period, it will be necessary to benchmark what was learned by both 

industry and the Secretary. Although the United States has over 

50 years of government spaceflight experience regulated under 

NASA’s tightly prescribed standards and management style, the 

Secretary has nearly no experience regulated for-profit space companies developing human spaceflight systems. As the industry 

changes during the learning period, the Committee must have a 

sense of how both commercial space companies and the Secretary 

are infusing ‘‘lessons learned’’ into the development of a sustainable safety framework. 

Finally, the Committee included a capstone report called the 

‘‘Independent Review.’’ This report is meant to evaluate the totality 

of the progress made by both the industry and the Secretary to develop industry consensus standards and assess the body of knowledge that was gained during the learning period. The independent 

review is critical to the Committee as a final benchmarking tool to 

assist in the formulation of either a statutory extension of the 

learning period or the construction of a safety framework that may 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
12 

include regulations. The Committee expects that the COMSTAC 

and the Secretary will work together with the independent contractor chosen for this review, to provide a transparent and definitive assessment of the progress that has been made. 

Sec. 102. International launch competitiveness 

The Commercial Space Launch Act Amendments of 1988 (P.L. 

100–657) established a tiered risk-sharing regime for third-party liabilities associated with commercial space launch (Section 5(a)). 

The purpose of the regime is to limit the liability of launch companies for claims made by the uninvolved public. As the federal government is responsible for the licensure and range control of 

launches, the government also shares in the liabilities associated 

with the inherently risky activity of space launch. 

There are three tiers to the regime. The first tier is the responsibility of the launch provider. Congress required that, as part of the 

licensure process for the launch, the provider must purchase insurance that covers third parties, including the government, for injury, 

loss or damage. The amount of this coverage is determined by the 

Secretary as the maximum probable loss (MPL). While the MPL 

could theoretically exceed it, the statute caps this liability at $500 

million (51 USC 50914). 

The second tier is the ‘‘indemnification’’ portion of the regime. If 

a successful claim were to be in excess of the maximum probable 

loss, the government is authorized to pay, subject to appropriation, 

an amount up to a total of $1.5 billion in claims over the first tier. 

This ceiling is adjusted for inflation and, according to a report by 

the Comptroller General, represents approximately $2.7 billion as 

of 2012. 

The final tier is the responsibility of the launch provider. The 

company or legally responsible party is liable for claims in excess 

of the maximum probable loss and the authorized $2.7 billion indemnification. 

The creation of the third-party liability regime in the CSLAA 

was debated extensively in the House Committee on Science, 

Space, and Technology as well as the House floor. When the Shuttle’s involvement in commercial satellite launches ended, there 

were 44 satellite companies that had launch services agreements 

with NASA. Following the Challenger accident and the aggressive 

campaigns of the Europeans, Japanese, Chinese, and Soviets to 

launch those commercial satellites, Congress passed the CSLAA in 

1988 in an attempt to give a backstop to a fledgling industry in 

hopes of growing domestic U.S. capabilities and keeping those 

launches and economic activities. Today, the major launching 

states—China, France, and Russia—all provide unlimited indemnification beyond the first-tier insurance requirement. Although the 

first tier varies between each regime, the fact remains that international competitors offer attractive indemnification incentives to 

launching entities. 

On October 10, 1967, the United States became a signatory to 

the Outer Space Treaty. Each signatory of the treaty is liable 

under Article VII for third-party damage ‘‘to another State Party 

to the Treaty or to its natural or juridical persons by such object 

or its component parts on the Earth, in air space or in outer space, 

including the moon and other celestial bodies.’’ Additionally, the LiVerDate Sep 11 2014 08:47 May 19, 2015 Jkt 049006 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR119.XXX HR119

rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
13 

ability Convention of 1974 obligates the United States to cover 

these damages whether the launch is private or government acquired. 

The use of the risk-sharing regime to satisfy treaty obligations 

is a necessary precaution under both documents. Whether the regime was in place or not, the United States would be subject to 

possible liability and restitution to the injured nation. However, it 

is unlikely that damages paid to a foreign country would exceed the 

MPL given the position of our launching facilities and that the 

early stages of launch are typically the most dangerous. It is likely 

that any damage would be covered by the first tier of the regime. 

The original legislation included a sunset provision to the launch 

liability regime which expired five years after passage. Since its 

original passage, this sunset has been extended nine times, most 

recently for three years until December 31, 2016. This section 

would extend the indemnification regime for 10 years. Stopgap extensions of the regime create significant uncertainty for the launch 

industry and jeopardize U.S. launch capabilities. The Committee 

held multiple hearings including one on February 4, 2014, wherein 

the Government Accountability Office testified that, ‘‘ending federal 

indemnification could lead to higher launch prices for U.S.-based 

launch companies, making them less price competitive than foreign 

launch companies.’’ The Committee believes that the extension of 

the regime for longer periods of time is imperative for the stability 

of the launch market. 

In addition to extension of the sunset provision, the Committee 

believes an update to the maximum probable loss calculations required in section 50914 of Title 51 are necessary to ensure the stability of the regime. In July of 2012, in response to a request from 

former Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee 

Chairman Senator John Rockefeller and House Science, Space, and 

Technology Chairman Ralph Hall, the Comptroller General did a 

review of the Secretary’s management of the launch indemnification regime. This report included recommendations for updates to 

the calculations used to determine maximum probable loss. This 

section requires that a plan to implement these updates be provided to Congress within 180 days of enactment. For the insurance 

market and launch providers to have faith in the indemnification 

regime, it is imperative that these calculations be updated in a 

timely and transparent manner such that Congress will have sufficient data to inform future legislation. 

Sec. 103. Launch license flexibility 

This section closes a statutory loophole inadvertently created in 

Subsection 2(c) of the Commercial Space Launch Act Amendments 

of 2004 (P.L. 108–492). This section invalidates an experimental 

permit issued for a particular design of a reusable suborbital rocket 

after a license had been issued for the launch or reentry of a rocket 

of that same design. The practical effect of this statute is that operators of launch or reentry vehicles can only improve on their designs under the cumbersome licensing process rather than employ 

the experimental permit which allows for constant innovation and 

development. Additionally, if the company manufacturing the 

launch or reentry vehicle is a separate entity from the one operating it, the manufacturer loses all ability to test and evolve the 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
14 

launch or reentry vehicle once a license is issued to the operational 

company. The Committee believes that this loophole significantly 

stifles the ability of the industry to improve safety systems and 

mission critical components of their vehicles. 

On February 4, 2014, the author of the 2004 Act, Rep. Dana 

Rohrabacher, told the Committee during debate over this provision 

that, ‘‘we never intended a company’s ability to test their vehicle 

or gather additional safety information to be limited simply because the license has been approved.’’ During this same hearing, 

Dr. George Nield, Assistant Administrator for the Office of Commercial Space Transportation, testified that the law as written 

‘‘doesn’t make any sense at all.’’ 

The Committee believes that the ability to innovate and improve 

safety systems is paramount to the development of a strong commercial space industry and this provision will do just that by allowing an experimental permit holder to continue testing while a license holder conducts operations. 

Sec. 104. Government astronauts 

The Administration first notified the Committee in November of 

2013 that a change to the CSLA would be needed to support the 

success of the Commercial Crew Program at NASA as well as overall commercial human space launch endeavors. At present, federal 

law does not define the term ‘‘government astronaut’’ for the purposes of launch licensure by the Secretary. This presents challenges for the Federal Aviation Administration, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the Commercial Crew Contractors, and the government astronauts themselves. At present, there 

are only two categories of persons involved in the launch or reentry 

of a launch vehicle while on board the vehicle, crew and spaceflight 

participants. Crew is defined as ‘‘any employee of a licensee or 

transferee, or of a contractor or subcontractor of a licensee or transferee, who performs activities in the course of that employment directly relating to the launch, reentry, or other operation of or in a 

launch vehicle or reentry vehicle that carries human beings,’’ and 

a spaceflight participant is defined as ‘‘an individual, who is not 

crew, carried within a launch vehicle or reentry vehicle.’’ For government astronauts to be protected under the licensing structure 

for launch vehicles, their roles and responsibilities must be codified 

in the statute. The Committee finds the underlying situation unacceptable and in need of legislative relief. 

The Committee received technical assistance from the Federal 

Aviation Administration and the National Aeronautics and Space 

Administration as to the most effective way to solve this challenge. 

While the assistance was helpful, in the opinion of the Committee, 

it was incomplete. The original technical assistance provided to the 

Committee was overly broad. The Committee chose to remedy this 

broader definition by included a designation responsibility for the 

Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (the Administrator). The Committee believes this is a key component of the government astronaut definition. The Committee believes the onus should be on the Administrator to determine who 

does or does not qualify as a government astronaut based on decades of training experience. 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
15 

This section should not be interpreted to allow the Secretary to 

exercise any jurisdiction over the interpretation of what is or is not 

a government astronaut once the Administrator has determined 

and so transmitted such determination to the Secretary. The final 

determination as to a person’s designation as such lies with the Administrator. The Committee expects the Secretary and the Administrator to develop a memorandum of agreement or some other 

framework for the efficient transmission or notification to the Secretary from the Administrator that a person has been designated 

by the Administrator as a government astronaut. 

Sec. 105. Indemnification for spaceflight participants 

The Commercial Space Launch Act currently makes a distinction 

between customers that purchase a launch (whether it is a payload 

or a launch for compensation or hire on a human spaceflight 

launch) and a customer who sponsors the launch of a spaceflight 

participant and the spaceflight participants themselves. The result 

is that there is no requirement for the launch provider to provide 

insurance coverage under named additional parties to a launch (51 

USC 50904(a)(4)) or for the government to indemnify the participant from damages that exceed the maximum probable loss calculation should there be an accident (51 USC 50915 (a)(1)(B)). This 

gap in coverage for the space flight participant results in systemic 

discrimination against those spaceflight participants that are not 

wealthy enough to purchase third-party liability insurance individually. In practice, it forces space tourism and human commercial 

space operations to be the sole province of those with the means 

to indemnify themselves. The Committee feels the ability to participate in human commercial space activities should be extended to 

everyone. 

This section addresses the inequality presented in the current 

law and requires the government and launch providers to treat 

spaceflight participants the same way it treats all other parties to 

a launch. They are required to be covered under the launch provider’s insurance for the maximum probable loss as an additional 

party to the launch but would not bear additional financial exposure above this requirement. 

Sec. 106. Federal jurisdiction 

The Launch Liability Convention, to which the U.S. is a party, 

places international liability for space launch and reentry accidents 

on the federal government. This provision ensures that federal 

courts review lawsuits resulting from accidents since the federal 

government is responsible under the Launch Liability Convention, 

not the states. This provision also prevents venue shopping to ensure that suits are treated fairly. It is not the intent for this section 

to preempt state tort law. Federal courts should apply state substantive law to resolve claims and accept a reading of this section 

that disfavors pre-emption. 

The Committee notes that there is a need to develop substantive 

Federal law in this area. Doing so will provide legal consistency for 

space transportation activities that cross state boundaries. Absent 

substantive Federal law, in future litigation there may be multiple 

state substantive laws, some of which may be in conflict, potentially applicable to the case in question creating inducements for 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
16 

plaintiffs to forum shop between state jurisdictions. However, the 

Committee is concerned that absent a more defined statutory 

framework for the Federal courts to adjudicate such claims there 

is the possibility that there may be a gap in substantive Federal 

law. For this reason, the intent of the Committee is to prohibit preemption and instruct the Courts to apply state substantive law to 

resolve claims. 

Sec. 107. Cross-waivers 

Current law requires all parties involved in a launch to exchange 

a reciprocal waiver of claims against each other in the event of an 

accident or other mishap (51 USC 50914(b)). This exchange is 

meant to ensure that, due to the inherently risky proposition of 

space travel, all the parties to the launch understand their rights 

and responsibilities should they incur some sort of damage in the 

course of their participation in this activity. The CSLAA requires 

all spaceflight participants to receive informed consent regarding 

the inherently risky activity in which they are participating (51 

USC 50905(b)). Although informed consent is required, there is no 

statutory enforcement or protection for the launch providers. 

By contrast, in the case of a payload launch, a mutual waiver of 

claims is required as part of the license for all the parties to the 

launch. This structure has served the space payload industry and 

the launch providers very well. This section of the bill requires the 

launch of spaceflight participants to follow the same regulatory 

practices as payload providers. The courts have given, and the Secretary has included in regulations, direction for relief in the case 

of gross negligence or willful misconduct. Two separate federal 

court cases in the fourth circuit held that claims of gross negligence 

are not waived, according to the Court’s dicta, under the 1988 

Amendments to the Commercial Space Launch Act. Martin Marietta Corp. v. Int’l Telecommunications Satellite Org. (INTELSAT), 

763 F. Supp. 1327 (D. Md. 1991) aff’d in part, rev’d in part sub 

nom. Martin Marietta Corp. v. Int’l Telecommunications Satellite 

Org., 991 F.2d 94 (4th Cir. 1992) and Martin Marietta Corp. v. Int’l 

Telecommunications Satellite Org., 991 F.2d 94 (4th Cir. 1992)). 

The Preamble to Part 440 of the FAA’s regulations related to 

waivers of claim explicitly recognizes that ‘‘Congress intended the 

statutory revisions of 1988 and of 2004 to reduce litigation expenses by requiring launch participants to assume responsibility 

for their own losses, except in cases of gross negligence.’’ This is reinforced by previous Committee reports on updates to the Commercial Space Launch Act. In the Commercial Space Launch Act 

Amendments of 2004 (P.L. 108–492), this Committee made clear in 

the Committee Report that ‘‘all parties to the reciprocal waiver 

agreements will benefit inasmuch as potential liabilities are eliminated in the case of a launch mishap. However, the Committee believes that claims of gross negligence against a licensee, transferee 

or permittee by space flight participants or crew are not waived,’’ 

(House Report 108–429). The Committee reiterates that it is not 

the intent of this legislation to prohibit claims of gross negligence 

or willful misconduct under the exchange of cross-waivers. 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
17 

Sec. 108. Orbital traffic management 

The Act requires a report on the current roles and responsibilities within the government, private sector, and international community related to space situational awareness, orbital traffic management, and orbital debris mitigation measures. 

As the commercial space launch market continues to grow, the 

Committee recognizes that there may be a need for Congress to 

enumerate specific responsibilities or authorities for space traffic 

management and the mitigation and prevention of orbital debris to 

a specific agency or agencies. The Committee does not have enough 

data to determine the need for such authorities. 

The Committee expects this report to be broad in scope, but at 

a minimum address the issues described in the bill text. This reporting requirement should not be interpreted by any federal agency as legislative intent to alter the authorities granted to the Department of Defense to safeguard the national security. 

Sec. 109. State commercial launch facilities 

The proliferation of state and local launch facilities in the last 

decade has been dramatic. The Committee recognizes that the regulations and federal statutes that govern space launch activities 

can be cumbersome. This provision finds that states and launch operators should seek to ensure that their activities and investments 

are properly protected in the event of an accident. The Committee 

does not believe that it is the role of the federal government to 

force states or private launch providers to purchase insurance to 

cover their assets, but does believe it behooves the parties involved 

in such activities to ensure that their assets are protected. This 

provision should not be interpreted by any federal agency to broaden the scope of the third-party liability insurance or third-party 

risk sharing regime to cover state and local launch facilities. 

Sec. 110. Space support vehicles study 

As the human commercial space launch industry has grown, several secondary industries have also emerged. One such industry, 

the space support vehicles services industry, presents unique challenges for launch operators, support vehicle services companies, 

and the government. These space support vehicle operators offer 

training services to spaceflight participants who may be party to a 

launch under the Secretary’s launch licensing authorities. 

The purpose of this section is to provide more information to 

Congress on the use of these services so as to assist the Committee 

in legislative efforts that will lead to the safe use of experimental 

aircraft in support of U.S. commercial space flight activities. 

Sec. 111. Streamline commercial space launch activities 

The development and proliferation of regulations from federal 

agencies which are responsible for various stages of a space mission could become a barrier to some small and medium sized businesses. In an effort to increase efficiency and transparency and reduce government bureaucracy, the Committee directs the Secretary, in consultation with other appropriate federal agencies, to 

identify duplicative requirements so that Congress may provide 

legislative relief in the future. 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
18 

Sec. 112. Space Launch System update 

This section is meant to provide additional flexibility for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, and other federal 

agencies as necessary, to utilize the unique capabilities of the 

Space Launch System (SLS) for the benefit of the commercial space 

industry. 

The Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel (ASAP) and the NASA Advisory Council (NAC) have warned about the dangers of a low 

flight rate for the SLS as currently planned. By amending this 

statute, the federal government will be able to utilize this important system for many purposes. Expanding the use of SLS will increase its launch rate which will, in turn, increase safety. 

This section will allow SLS to carry out a wide range of functions 

for the Federal government, including the Department of Defense, 

on a reimbursable basis. This will decrease costs of the overall program while increasing safety and mission assurance. 

It is the intent of the Committee to preserve the protections for 

commercial entities that currently exist under the law to ensure 

the SLS to be in competition with the commercial space industry. 

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY

During the 113th and 114th Congresses, the House Committee 

on Science, Space, and Technology held 14 hearings and five markups relevant to this bill. 

On February 6, 2013, the House Committee on Science, Space, 

and Technology held a hearing titled ‘‘American Competitiveness: 

The Role of Research and Development’’ to examine the status of 

and outlook for America’s science and technology enterprise, examining the impact of research and development (R&D) on the lives 

of the American people and looking ahead to potential breakthrough innovations for the future. Witnesses discussed the historical context for American R&D, how it is divided between public 

and private investments, where the U.S. ranks globally on innovation and investment, and what the future may hold for American 

innovation. The Committee heard testimony from Mr. Richard 

Templeton, President and CEO, Texas Instruments; Dr. Shirley 

Ann Jackson, President, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute; and Dr. 

Charles Vest, President, National Academy of Engineering. 

On February 28, 2013, the Subcommittee on Space held a hearing titled ‘‘A Review of the Space Leadership Preservation Act’’ to 

receive testimony on legislation (H.R. 6491) first introduced in the 

last Congress and re-introduced for the 113th Congress. This hearing informed the Science, Space, and Technology Committee’s consideration of the policies, organization, programs, and budget in reauthorizing the National Aeronautics and Space Administration in 

this Congress. The Subcommittee heard testimony from The Honorable Frank R. Wolf, Chairman of the Commerce-Justice-Science 

Subcommittee, The Honorable John Culberson, Mr. A Thomas 

Young, Chair of the Board for SAIC (testifying on his own behalf), 

and Mr. Elliot Pulham, Chief Executive Officer of The Space Foundation. 

On April 24, 2014, the Subcommittee on Space held a hearing titled ‘‘An Overview of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration Budget for Fiscal Year 2014’’ with NASA Administrator 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
19 

Charles Bolden to review the Administration’s FY 2014 budget request for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration and 

examine its priorities and challenges. 

On June 19, 2013, the Subcommittee on Space held a hearing titled, ‘‘NASA Authorization Act of 2013.’’ The purpose of the hearing 

was to review a discussion draft of the National Aeronautics and 

Space Administration (NASA) Authorization Act of 2013. The most 

recent NASA Authorization Act, passed in 2010, authorized NASA 

for three years. 

On July 10, 2013, the Subcommittee on Space met to consider 

H.R. 2687, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration Authorization Act of 2013. This measure contained many provisions 

that affect commercial space. 

On July 18, 2013, the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology met to consider H.R. 2687, the National Aeronautics and 

Space Administration Authorization Act of 2013. This measure contained many provisions that affect commercial space. 

On November 20, 2013, the Subcommittee on Space held a hearing titled ‘‘Commercial Space.’’ The hearing examined ways in 

which companies are utilizing federal support and government policies to grow their commercial businesses in space launch, communications, GPS, remote sensing, weather monitoring, suborbital 

tourism and science experimentation, and human spaceflight. The 

witnesses addressed what government policies would be helpful to 

the U.S. commercial space industry. Witnesses also addressed the 

policies contained in H.R. 3038, the Suborbital and Orbital Advancement and Regulatory Streamlining (SOARS) Act. The first 

witness panel consisted of the Honorable Kevin McCarthy, Majority 

Whip of the U.S. House of Representatives. The second panel consisted of: Ms. Patricia Cooper, President of the Satellite Industry 

Association; Mr. Stuart Witt, CEO and General Manager of the 

Mojave Air and Space Port; and Dennis Tito, Chairman of the Inspiration Mars Foundation. 

On February 4, 2014, the Subcommittee on Space held a hearing 

titled ‘‘Necessary Updates to the Commercial Space Launch Act.’’ 

The industry has grown since the passage of the Commercial Space 

Launch Act of 1984 (P.L. 98–575) thirty years ago, and this law 

has been amended several times since then. The Commercial Space 

Launch Act (CSLA) provides authority to the FAA to license 

launches and indemnify launch providers from third-party claims 

should an accident occur. The law also provides a framework for 

the FAA’s authority. This hearing examined the various changes in 

the industry and what, if any, accompanying changes to the Commercial Space Launch Act may be needed going forward. The Committee heard from three witnesses: Dr. George Nield, Associate Administrator for Commercial Space Transportation at the Federal 

Aviation Administration; Dr. Alicia Cackley, Director of Financial 

Markets and Community Investment Team at the Government Accountability Office; and Dr. Henry Hertzfeld, Research Professor of 

Space Policy and International Affairs at the Elliot School of International Affairs at George Washington University. 

On March 27, 2014, the Subcommittee on Space of the House 

Committee on Science, Space, and Technology held a hearing titled 

‘‘A Review of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration 

Budget for Fiscal Year 2015’’ to review the Administration’s fiscal 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
20 

year 2015 (FY15) budget request for the National Aeronautics and 

Space Administration and examine its priorities and challenges. 

The hearing had one witness, the Honorable Charles F. Bolden, Jr., 

Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. 

On December 11, 2013, the Committee on Science, Space, and 

Technology met to consider H.R. 2413, the Weather Forecasting 

Improvement Act of 2013. This measure contained provisions regarding public safety and commercial satellites. 

On April 9, 2014, the Subcommittee on Space met to consider 

H.R. 4412, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration Authorization Act of 2014. The Act contained several provisions regarding barriers to commercial use of space. 

On April 29, 2014, the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology met to consider H.R. 4412, the National Aeronautics and 

Space Administration Authorization Act of 2014. The Act contained 

several provisions regarding barriers to commercial use of space. 

On May 9, 2014, the Space Subcommittee held a hearing titled 

‘‘Space Traffic Management: How to Prevent a Real Life ‘Gravity’.’’ 

There are currently three agencies that play a primary role in 

tracking and mitigation of orbital debris that may be hazardous to 

operational satellites or life and property on Earth, if the debris is 

large enough upon reentering the Earth’s atmosphere. The Joint 

Functional Component Command for Space (JFCC SPACE), part of 

the Department of Defense, is responsible for tracking orbital debris, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) asserts jurisdiction for mitigating orbital debris from satellites, and the Federal 

Aviation Administration (FAA) regulates orbital debris from launch 

and reentry activities. This hearing explored the roles and responsibilities of the Department of Defense, FAA, and FCC in policing 

orbital debris, what authorities are currently granted by Congress 

to federal agencies, and how they coordinate these activities. The 

Subcommittee heard from five witnesses: Lt. Gen. John ‘‘Jay’’ Raymond—Commander, 14th Air Force, Air Force Space Command; 

and Commander, Joint Functional Component Command for Space, 

U.S. Strategic Command, Mr. George Zamka—Deputy Associate 

Administrator, Office of Commercial Space Transportation, Federal 

Aviation Administration, Mr. Robert Nelson—Chief Engineer, 

International Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, Mr. 

P.J. Blount—Adjunct Professor, Air and Space Law, University of 

Mississippi School of Law, and Mr. Brian Weeden—Technical Advisor, Secure World Foundation. 

On June 25, 2014, the Science, Space, and Technology Committee 

held a hearing titled ‘‘Pathways to Exploration: A Review of the Future of Human Space Exploration.’’ Section 204 of the NASA Authorization Act of 2010 required the agency to enter into a contract 

with the National Academies to review the future of human 

spaceflight. In 2012, the National Research Council appointed an 

ad hoc Committee on Human Spaceflight co-chaired by Governor 

Daniels and Dr. Lunine. This hearing reviewed the conclusions and 

recommendations of the Committee’s report Pathways to Exploration—Rationales and Approaches for a U.S. Program of Human 

Space Exploration released in June 2014. The Committee heard 

from two witnesses: Governor Mitch Daniels, Co-Chair of the Report and President, Purdue University and Dr. Jonathan Lunine, 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
21 

Co-Chair of the Report and Director, Cornell University’s Center 

for Radiophysics and Space Research. 

On September 10, 2014, the hearing titled ‘‘Exploring Our Solar 

System: The ASTEROIDS Act as a Key Step’’ gave the Committee 

an overview of the variety of issues facing the planetary science 

community, including challenges the community is facing due to 

the low inventories of Pu-238 for deep space missions, NASA’s proposed budget for planetary science, and potential commercial interests. Witnesses were also asked to comment on H.R. 5063, the 

American Space Technology for Exploring Resource Opportunities 

In Deep Space (ASTEROIDS) Act. The Subcommittee heard from 

five witnesses: Dr. Jim Green, NASA Planetary Science Division 

Director, Dr. Jim Bell, Professor of Earth and Space Science Exploration, Arizona State University, and President, Board of Directors, 

The Planetary Society, Dr. Mark Sykes, CEO and Director, Planetary Science Institute, Professor Joanne Gabrynowicz, Professor 

Emerita, Director Emerita, Journal of Space Law Editor-in-Chief 

Emerita, University of Mississippi, Dr. Philip Christensen, CoChair, NRC Committee on Astrobiology and Planetary Science 

(CAPS), Chair, Mars Panel, NRC Planetary Decadal Survey, Regents Professor, Arizona State University. 

On December 10, 2014, the Subcommittee on Space held a hearing titled ‘‘An Update on the Space Launch System and Orion: 

Monitoring the Development of the Nation’s Deep Space Exploration Capabilities’’ to receive testimony regarding the heavy-lift 

Space Launch System (SLS) and the Orion Multipurpose Crew Vehicle. This hearing informed the Committee on SLS and Orion 

issues relating to funding, staying on schedule, and NASA authorization among others. The Subcommittee heard testimony from Bill 

Gerstenmaier, Associate Administrator for Human Exploration and 

Operations Mission Directorate, NASA and Christina Chaplain, Director, Government Accountability Office. 

On February 12, 2015 the Environment and Oversight Subcommittees held a joint hearing titled ‘‘Bridging the Gap: America’s 

Weather Satellites and Weather Forecasting.’’ The purpose of the 

hearing was to provide an update of the operations and development of National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s polarorbiting and geostationary weather satellite programs and discuss 

recent Government Accountability Office reports on the two programs. In addition, the hearing discussed the use of satellite data 

in operational and research weather models and prediction methods. The Subcommittees received testimony from Mr. David 

Powner, Director, Information Technology Management Issues, 

Government Accountability Office; Dr. Stephen Volz, Assistant Administrator, National Environmental Satellite, Data, and Information Services, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration; 

and Mr. Steven Clarke, Director, Joint Agency Satellite Division, 

National Aeronautics and Space Administration. The Subcommittees were also joined for questioning by Dr. Alexander MacDonald, 

President, American Meteorological Society; Director, Earth System 

Research Laboratory, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration; and Chief Science Advisor, Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration; and Mr. John Murphy, Director, Office of Science and TechVerDate Sep 11 2014 08:47 May 19, 2015 Jkt 049006 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR119.XXX HR119

rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
22 

nology, National Weather Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 

On February 27, 2015, the Subcommittee on Space held a hearing titled ‘‘The Commercial Crew Program: Challenges and Opportunities’’ to review NASA’s efforts to develop and acquire safe, reliable, and affordable crew transfer services to the International 

Space Station (ISS). The Subcommittee examined the progress of 

NASA’s Commercial Crew Program, its acquisition model, and future challenges for the program as the contractors move towards 

certification. The Subcommittee heard from four witnesses: Mr. Bill 

Gerstenmaier, Associate Administrator, Human Exploration and 

Operations Mission Directorate, National Aeronautics and Space 

Administration (NASA); Vice Admiral Joseph Dyer, USN (Ret.), 

Chairman, Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel, National Aeronautics 

and Space Administration (NASA); Mr. John Mulholland, Vice 

President and Program Manager, Commercial Programs, The Boeing Company; and Dr. Garret Reisman, Director, Crew Operations, 

Space Exploration Technologies Corporation. 

On April 16, 2015, the Space Subcommittee held a hearing titled 

‘‘An Overview of the Budget Proposal for the National Aeronautics 

and Space Administration for Fiscal Year 2016.’’ The purpose of the 

hearing was to review the Administration’s fiscal year 2016 (FY16) 

budget request for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and examine the Administration’s priorities and challenges. The sole witness was the Honorable Charles F. Bolden, Jr., 

Administrator, National Aeronautics and Space Administration 

(NASA). 

COMMITTEE VIEWS

SECTION-BY-SECTION

COMMERCIAL SPACE LAUNCH 

Title I facilitates a pro-growth environment for the developing 

commercial space industry by encouraging private sector investment, creating more stable and predictable regulatory conditions, 

and improving safety. This Title will ensure American leadership 

in space and foster the development of advanced space technologies. The Title amends Chapter 509, Title 51, United States 

Code. 

Sec. 101. Consensus standards 

In 2004, Congress passed the Commercial Space Launch Amendments Act of 2004 (P.L. 108–492) to promote the emerging commercial human spaceflight industry following the successful suborbital 

flights of SpaceShipOne. This legislation included a ‘‘regulatory 

learning period,’’ (51 USC 50905(c)(3)). During floor debate on the 

Act, the bill’s author, Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, made clear that the 

learning period was included to ensure that the Secretary of Transportation (the Secretary) would not overregulate the industry before it had the opportunity to grow. Without launching and operating commercial human spaceflights, industry and regulators have 

limited data to inform safety regulations, which could lead to uninformed or unnecessary regulations that would stifle the growing industry. 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
23 

The 2004 Act included a sunset for the learning period which 

ended in 2012. However, recognizing there was still a great deal of 

testing and data to gather on these human launch systems, Congress extended the period to October 1, 2015 in the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 (Sec. 827 of P.L. 112–95). 

Under the CSLA, launch providers are required to provide informed consent for spaceflight participants, that ‘‘the United States 

Government has not certified the launch vehicle as safe for carrying crew or space flight participants,’’ (51 USC 50905(4)(b)). This 

informed consent mechanism is meant to ensure transparency and 

full disclosure for the participant that there is an inherent risk in 

spaceflight and that the Secretary has not certified the vehicle as 

safe for the general public. 

The Secretary is obliged to enact only those regulations which restrict design features or operating practices that (1) protect the 

public health and safety, safety of property, national security interests, and foreign policy interests of the United States (51 USC 

50905(c)(4)); (2) have resulted in a serious or fatal injury (51 USC 

50905(c)(2)(C)(i)); or (3) contributed to an unplanned event or series 

of events during a licensed or permitted commercial human space 

flight that posed a high risk of causing a serious or fatal injury (51 

USC 50905(c)(2)(C)(ii)). This section does not alter those authorities. 

The Committee has added clarifying language to 50905(c) that 

makes it clear to the Secretary that communication and transparency are critical to the success of the development of a safety 

framework that protects spaceflight participants and encourages, 

facilitates, and promotes a vibrant commercial space industry. The 

Secretary is not limited, either by statute or congressional intent, 

from discussing potential approaches, potential performance standards, or any other topic related to the development of safety standards and regulations after the expiration of the learning period. 

The Committee encourages the Secretary to have open and transparent dialogue with the industry during the learning period that 

will facilitate and promote a culture of safety and cooperation with 

the Federal Government. 

In past extensions of the learning period, Congress chose to extend the sunset provision of 50905(c) absent benchmarking requirements to assess the development of the industry. As the industry 

continues to grow, arbitrary extensions of the learning period will 

be unhelpful to the formulation of policy as it pertains to the culture of safety and the maturity of safety systems in the industry. 

Given this, the Committee included three new benchmarking tools 

in the learning period extension that are unique to this bill and 

will assist the Committee in the development of future legislation. 

The first benchmarking tool is an amendment to 50905(c)(3) 

which creates a series of ‘‘Interim Industry Voluntary Consensus 

Standards Reports’’ to be issued biennially by the Secretary in consultation with the Commercial Space Transportation Advisory 

Committee (COMSTAC). It is the intent of the Committee that this 

report be a collaborative work product between the Secretary and 

COMSTAC. Reports issued to Congress under this section which 

are not collaborative will be viewed as in noncompliance with this 

section. Sections (D) and (E) of this report offer similar, yet distinct, data points for the Committee. While section (D) will tell the 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
24 

committee what has been learned about the voluntary industry 

consensus standards or any other construction, best practices, and 

commercial space operations, Section (E) will describe the lessons 

learned about the development, application, and acceptance of 

these voluntary industry consensus standards or any other construction, best practices, and commercial space launch operations. 

The Committee also included an ‘‘Interim Report on Knowledge 

and Operational Experience’’ to be provided to the Committee biennially in parallel with the ‘‘Interim Industry Voluntary Consensus 

Standards Reports.’’ As the Committee evaluates the development 

of the industry throughout the ten year extension of the learning 

period, it will be necessary to benchmark what was learned by both 

industry and the Secretary. Although the United States has over 

50 years of government spaceflight experience regulated under 

NASA’s tightly prescribed standards and management style, the 

Secretary has nearly no experience regulated for-profit space companies developing human spaceflight systems. As the industry 

changes during the learning period, the Committee must have a 

sense of how both commercial space companies and the Secretary 

are infusing ‘‘lessons learned’’ into the development of a sustainable safety framework. 

Finally, the Committee included a capstone report called the 

‘‘Independent Review.’’ This report is meant to evaluate the totality 

of the progress made by both the industry and the Secretary to develop industry consensus standards and assess the body of knowledge that was gained during the learning period. The independent 

review is critical to the Committee as a final benchmarking tool to 

assist in the formulation of either a statutory extension of the 

learning period or the construction of a safety framework that may 

include regulations. The Committee expects that the COMSTAC 

and the Secretary will work together with the independent contractor chosen for this review, to provide a transparent and definitive assessment of the progress that has been made. 

Sec. 102. International launch competitiveness 

The Commercial Space Launch Act Amendments of 1988 (P.L. 

100–657) established a tiered risk-sharing regime for third-party liabilities associated with commercial space launch (Section 5(a)). 

The purpose of the regime is to limit the liability of launch companies for claims made by the uninvolved public. As the federal government is responsible for the licensure and range control of 

launches, the government also shares in the liabilities associated 

with the inherently risky activity of space launch. 

There are three tiers to the regime. The first tier is the responsibility of the launch provider. Congress required that, as part of the 

licensure process for the launch, the provider must purchase insurance that covers third parties, including the government, for injury, 

loss or damage. The amount of this coverage is determined by the 

Secretary as the maximum probable loss (MPL). While the MPL 

could theoretically exceed it, the statute caps this liability at $500 

million (51 USC 50914). 

The second tier is the ‘‘indemnification’’ portion of the regime. If 

a successful claim were to be in excess of the maximum probable 

loss, the government is authorized to pay, subject to appropriation, 

an amount up to a total of $1.5 billion in claims over the first tier. 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
25 

This ceiling is adjusted for inflation and, according to a report by 

the Comptroller General, represents approximately $2.7 billion as 

of 2012. 

The final tier is the responsibility of the launch provider. The 

company or legally responsible party is liable for claims in excess 

of the maximum probable loss and the authorized $2.7 billion indemnification. 

The creation of the third-party liability regime in the CSLAA 

was debated extensively in the House Committee on Science, 

Space, and Technology as well as the House floor. When the Shuttle’s involvement in commercial satellite launches ended, there 

were 44 satellite companies that had launch services agreements 

with NASA. Following the Challenger accident and the aggressive 

campaigns of the Europeans, Japanese, Chinese, and Soviets to 

launch those commercial satellites, Congress passed the CSLAA in 

1988 in an attempt to give a backstop to a fledgling industry in 

hopes of growing domestic U.S. capabilities and keeping those 

launches and economic activities. Today, the major launching 

states—China, France, and Russia—all provide unlimited indemnification beyond the first-tier insurance requirement. Although the 

first tier varies between each regime, the fact remains that international competitors offer attractive indemnification incentives to 

launching entities. 

On October 10, 1967, the United States became a signatory to 

the Outer Space Treaty. Each signatory of the treaty is liable 

under Article VII for third-party damage ‘‘to another State Party 

to the Treaty or to its natural or juridical persons by such object 

or its component parts on the Earth, in air space or in outer space, 

including the moon and other celestial bodies.’’ Additionally, the Liability Convention of 1974 obligates the United States to cover 

these damages whether the launch is private or government acquired. 

The use of the risk-sharing regime to satisfy treaty obligations 

is a necessary precaution under both documents. Whether the regime was in place or not, the United States would be subject to 

possible liability and restitution to the injured nation. However, it 

is unlikely that damages paid to a foreign country would exceed the 

MPL given the position of our launching facilities and that the 

early stages of launch are typically the most dangerous. It is likely 

that any damage would be covered by the first tier of the regime. 

The original legislation included a sunset provision to the launch 

liability regime which expired five years after passage. Since its 

original passage, this sunset has been extended nine times, most 

recently for three years until December 31, 2016. This section 

would extend the indemnification regime for 10 years. Stopgap extensions of the regime create significant uncertainty for the launch 

industry and jeopardize U.S. launch capabilities. The Committee 

held multiple hearings including one on February 4, 2014, wherein 

the Government Accountability Office testified that, ‘‘ending federal 

indemnification could lead to higher launch prices for U.S.-based 

launch companies, making them less price competitive than foreign 

launch companies.’’ The Committee believes that the extension of 

the regime for longer periods of time is imperative for the stability 

of the launch market. 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
26 

In addition to extension of the sunset provision, the Committee 

believes an update to the maximum probable loss calculations required in section 50914 of Title 51 are necessary to ensure the stability of the regime. In July of 2012, in response to a request from 

former Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee 

Chairman Senator John Rockefeller and House Science, Space, and 

Technology Chairman Ralph Hall, the Comptroller General did a 

review of the Secretary’s management of the launch indemnification regime. This report included recommendations for updates to 

the calculations used to determine maximum probable loss. This 

section requires that a plan to implement these updates be provided to Congress within 180 days of enactment. For the insurance 

market and launch providers to have faith in the indemnification 

regime, it is imperative that these calculations be updated in a 

timely and transparent manner such that Congress will have sufficient data to inform future legislation. 

Sec. 103. Launch license flexibility 

This section closes a statutory loophole inadvertently created in 

Subsection 2(c) of the Commercial Space Launch Act Amendments 

of 2004 (P.L. 108–492). This section invalidates an experimental 

permit issued for a particular design of a reusable suborbital rocket 

after a license had been issued for the launch or reentry of a rocket 

of that same design. The practical effect of this statute is that operators of launch or reentry vehicles can only improve on their designs under the cumbersome licensing process rather than employ 

the experimental permit which allows for constant innovation and 

development. Additionally, if the company manufacturing the 

launch or reentry vehicle is a separate entity from the one operating it, the manufacturer loses all ability to test and evolve the 

launch or reentry vehicle once a license is issued to the operational 

company. The Committee believes that this loophole significantly 

stifles the ability of the industry to improve safety systems and 

mission critical components of their vehicles. 

On February 4, 2014, the author of the 2004 Act, Rep. Dana 

Rohrabacher, told the Committee during debate over this provision 

that, ‘‘we never intended a company’s ability to test their vehicle 

or gather additional safety information to be limited simply because the license has been approved.’’ During this same hearing, 

Dr. George Nield, Assistant Administrator for the Office of Commercial Space Transportation, testified that the law as written 

‘‘doesn’t make any sense at all.’’ 

The Committee believes that the ability to innovate and improve 

safety systems is paramount to the development of a strong commercial space industry and this provision will do just that by allowing an experimental permit holder to continue testing while a license holder conducts operations. 

Sec. 104. Government astronauts 

The Administration first notified the Committee in November of 

2013 that a change to the CSLA would be needed to support the 

success of the Commercial Crew Program at NASA as well as overall commercial human space launch endeavors. At present, federal 

law does not define the term ‘‘government astronaut’’ for the purposes of launch licensure by the Secretary. This presents chalVerDate Sep 11 2014 08:47 May 19, 2015 Jkt 049006 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR119.XXX HR119

rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
27 

lenges for the Federal Aviation Administration, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the Commercial Crew Contractors, and the government astronauts themselves. At present, there 

are only two categories of persons involved in the launch or reentry 

of a launch vehicle while on board the vehicle, crew and spaceflight 

participants. Crew is defined as ‘‘any employee of a licensee or 

transferee, or of a contractor or subcontractor of a licensee or transferee, who performs activities in the course of that employment directly relating to the launch, reentry, or other operation of or in a 

launch vehicle or reentry vehicle that carries human beings,’’ and 

a spaceflight participant is defined as ‘‘an individual, who is not 

crew, carried within a launch vehicle or reentry vehicle.’’ For government astronauts to be protected under the licensing structure 

for launch vehicles, their roles and responsibilities must be codified 

in the statute. The Committee finds the underlying situation unacceptable and in need of legislative relief. 

The Committee received technical assistance from the Federal 

Aviation Administration and the National Aeronautics and Space 

Administration as to the most effective way to solve this challenge. 

While the assistance was helpful, in the opinion of the Committee, 

it was incomplete. The original technical assistance provided to the 

Committee was overly broad. The Committee chose to remedy this 

broader definition by including a designation responsibility for the 

Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (the Administrator). The Committee believes this is a key component of the government astronaut definition. The Committee believes the onus should be on the Administrator to determine who 

does or does not qualify as a government astronaut based on decades of training experience. 

This section should not be interpreted to allow the Secretary to 

exercise any jurisdiction over the interpretation of what is or is not 

a government astronaut once the Administrator has determined 

and so transmitted such determination to the Secretary. The final 

determination as to a person’s designation as such lies with the Administrator. The Committee expects the Secretary and the Administrator to develop a memorandum of agreement or some other 

framework for the efficient transmission or notification to the Secretary from the Administrator that a person has been designated 

by the Administrator as a government astronaut. 

Sec. 105. Indemnification for spaceflight participants 

The Commercial Space Launch Act currently makes a distinction 

between customers that purchase a launch (whether it is a payload 

or a launch for compensation or hire on a human spaceflight 

launch) and a customer who sponsors the launch of a spaceflight 

participant and the spaceflight participants themselves. The result 

is that there is no requirement for the launch provider to provide 

insurance coverage under named additional parties to a launch (51 

USC 50904(a)(4)) or for the government to indemnify the participant from damages that exceed the maximum probable loss calculation should there be an accident (51 USC 50915 (a)(1)(B)). This 

gap in coverage for the space flight participant results in systemic 

discrimination against those spaceflight participants that are not 

wealthy enough to purchase third-party liability insurance individually. In practice, it forces space tourism and human commercial 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
28 

space operations to be the sole province of those with the means 

to indemnify themselves. The Committee feels the ability to participate in human commercial space activities should be extended to 

everyone. 

This section addresses the inequality presented in the current 

law and requires the government and launch providers to treat 

spaceflight participants the same way it treats all other parties to 

a launch. They are required to be covered under the launch provider’s insurance for the maximum probable loss as an additional 

party to the launch but would not bear additional financial exposure above this requirement. 

Sec. 106. Federal jurisdiction 

The Launch Liability Convention, to which the U.S. is a party, 

places international liability for space launch and reentry accidents 

on the federal government. This provision ensures that federal 

courts review lawsuits resulting from accidents since the federal 

government is responsible under the Launch Liability Convention, 

not the states. This provision also prevents venue shopping to ensure that suits are treated fairly. It is not the intent for this section 

to preempt state tort law. Federal courts should apply state substantive law to resolve claims and accept a reading of this section 

that disfavors pre-emption. 

The Committee notes that there is a need to develop substantive 

Federal law in this area. Doing so will provide legal consistency for 

space transportation activities that cross state boundaries. Absent 

substantive Federal law, in future litigation there may be multiple 

state substantive laws, some of which may be in conflict, potentially applicable to the case in question creating inducements for 

plaintiffs to forum shop between state jurisdictions. However, the 

Committee is concerned that absent a more defined statutory 

framework for the Federal courts to adjudicate such claims there 

is the possibility that there may be a gap in substantive Federal 

law. For this reason, the intent of the Committee is to prohibit preemption and instruct the Courts to apply state substantive law to 

resolve claims. 

Sec. 107. Cross-waivers 

Current law requires all parties involved in a launch to exchange 

a reciprocal waiver of claims against each other in the event of an 

accident or other mishap (51 USC 50914(b)). This exchange is 

meant to ensure that, due to the inherently risky proposition of 

space travel, all the parties to the launch understand their rights 

and responsibilities should they incur some sort of damage in the 

course of their participation in this activity. The CSLAA requires 

all spaceflight participants to receive informed consent regarding 

the inherently risky activity in which they are participating (51 

USC 50905(b)). Although informed consent is required, there is no 

statutory enforcement or protection for the launch providers. 

By contrast, in the case of a payload launch, a mutual waiver of 

claims is required as part of the license for all the parties to the 

launch. This structure has served the space payload industry and 

the launch providers very well. This section of the bill requires the 

launch of spaceflight participants to follow the same regulatory 

practices as payload providers. The courts have given, and the SecVerDate Sep 11 2014 08:47 May 19, 2015 Jkt 049006 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR119.XXX HR119

rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
29 

retary has included in regulations, direction for relief in the case 

of gross negligence or willful misconduct. Two separate federal 

court cases in the fourth circuit held that claims of gross negligence 

are not waived, according to the Court’s dicta, under the 1988 

Amendments to the Commercial Space Launch Act. Martin Marietta Corp. v. Int’l Telecommunications Satellite Org. (INTELSAT), 

763 F. Supp. 1327 (D. Md. 1991) aff’d in part, rev’d in part sub 

nom. Martin Marietta Corp. v. Int’l Telecommunications Satellite 

Org., 991 F.2d 94 (4th Cir. 1992) and Martin Marietta Corp. v. Int’l 

Telecommunications Satellite Org., 991 F.2d 94 (4th Cir. 1992)) 

The Preamble to Part 440 of the FAA’s regulations related to 

waivers of claim explicitly recognizes that ‘‘Congress intended the 

statutory revisions of 1988 and of 2004 to reduce litigation expenses by requiring launch participants to assume responsibility 

for their own losses, except in cases of gross negligence.’’ This is reinforced by previous Committee reports on updates to the Commercial Space Launch Act. In the Commercial Space Launch Act 

Amendments of 2004 (P.L. 108–492), this Committee made clear in 

the Committee Report that ‘‘all parties to the reciprocal waiver 

agreements will benefit inasmuch as potential liabilities are eliminated in the case of a launch mishap. However, the Committee believes that claims of gross negligence against a licensee, transferee 

or permittee by space flight participants or crew are not waived,’’ 

(House Report 108–429). The Committee reiterates that it is not 

the intent of this legislation to prohibit claims of gross negligence 

or willful misconduct under the exchange of cross-waivers. 

Sec. 108. Orbital traffic management 

The Act requires a report on the current roles and responsibilities within the government, private sector, and international community related to space situational awareness, orbital traffic management, and orbital debris mitigation measures. 

As the commercial space launch market continues to grow, the 

Committee recognizes that there may be a need for Congress to 

enumerate specific responsibilities or authorities for space traffic 

management and the mitigation and prevention of orbital debris to 

a specific agency or agencies. The Committee does not have enough 

data to determine the need for such authorities. 

The Committee expects this report to be broad in scope, but at 

a minimum address the issues described in the bill text. This reporting requirement should not be interpreted by any federal agency as legislative intent to alter the authorities granted to the Department of Defense to safeguard the national security. 

Sec. 109. State commercial launch facilities 

The proliferation of state and local launch facilities in the last 

decade has been dramatic. The Committee recognizes that the regulations and federal statutes that govern space launch activities 

can be cumbersome. This provision finds that states and launch operators should seek to ensure that their activities and investments 

are properly protected in the event of an accident. The Committee 

does not believe that it is the role of the federal government to 

force states or private launch providers to purchase insurance to 

cover their assets, but does believe it behooves the parties involved 

in such activities to ensure that their assets are protected. This 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
30 

provision should not be interpreted by any federal agency to broaden the scope of the third-party liability insurance or third-party 

risk sharing regime to cover state and local launch facilities. 

Sec. 110. Space support vehicles study 

As the human commercial space launch industry has grown, several secondary industries have also emerged. One such industry, 

the space support vehicles services industry, presents unique challenges for launch operators, support vehicle services companies, 

and the government. These space support vehicle operators offer 

training services to spaceflight participants who may be party to a 

launch under the Secretary’s launch licensing authorities. 

The purpose of this section is to provide more information to 

Congress on the use of these services so as to assist the Committee 

in legislative efforts that will lead to the safe use of experimental 

aircraft in support of U.S. commercial space flight activities. 

Sec. 111. Streamline commercial space launch activities 

The development and proliferation of regulations from federal 

agencies which are responsible for various stages of a space mission could become a barrier to some small and medium sized businesses. In an effort to increase efficiency and transparency and reduce government bureaucracy, the Committee directs the Secretary, in consultation with other appropriate federal agencies, to 

identify duplicative requirements so that Congress may provide 

legislative relief in the future. 

Sec. 112. Space Launch System update 

This section is meant to provide additional flexibility for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, and other federal 

agencies as necessary, to utilize the unique capabilities of the 

Space Launch System (SLS) for the benefit of the commercial space 

industry. 

The Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel (ASAP) and the NASA Advisory Council (NAC) have warned about the dangers of a low 

flight rate for the SLS as currently planned. By amending this 

statute, the federal government will be able to utilize this important system for many purposes. Expanding the use of SLS will increase its launch rate which will, in turn, increase safety. 

This section will allow SLS to carry out a wide range of functions 

for the Federal government, including the Department of Defense, 

on a reimbursable basis. This will decrease costs of the overall program while increasing safety and mission assurance. 

It is the intent of the Committee to preserve the protections for 

commercial entities that currently exist under the law to ensure 

the SLS to be in competition with the commercial space industry. 

EXPLANATION OF AMENDMENTS

An amendment offered by Mr. Knight alters the underlying bill 

to extend the learning period from December 31, 2023 to December 

31, 2025 and extend the indemnification period from December 31, 

2023 to December 31, 2025. The amendment also adds additional 

reporting requirements for the ‘‘Interim Industry Voluntary Consensus Standards Report’’ and the ‘‘Interim Report on Knowledge 

and Operational Experience.’’ The amendment was adopted. 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
31 

An amendment offered by Mr. Bridenstine adds a new section to 

the bill that directs the Comptroller General to provide to the relevant Congressional Committees a report on the use of space support vehicle services in the commercial space industry. The Amendment was adopted. 

An amendment offered by Mr. Posey adds a new section to the 

bill that requires the Secretary of transportation, in consultation 

with other relevant agencies, to eliminate duplicative requirements 

for commercial space launch operations. The amendment also requires the Secretary to report on such duplicative requirements 

and recommendations for legislative relief, if needed. The amendment was adopted. 

An amendment offered by Mr. Brooks adds a new section to the 

bill that updates Chapter 701 of Title 51 to reflect the use of new 

launch vehicles for launches under certain circumstances by replacing all mentions of ‘‘Space Shuttle’’ with ‘‘Space Launch System.’’ 

This amendment was adopted. 

COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

On May 13, 2015, the Committee met in open session and ordered reported favorably the bill, H.R. 2262, as amended, by roll 

call vote, a quorum being present. 

ROLL CALL VOTES


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
32 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 31 here HR119.001
33 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 32 here HR119.002
34 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 33 here HR119.003
35 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 34 here HR119.004
36 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 35 here HR119.005
37 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 36 here HR119.006
38 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 37 here HR119.007
39 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 38 here HR119.008
40 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 39 here HR119.009
41 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 40 here HR119.010
42 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 41 here HR119.011
43 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 42 here HR119.012
44 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 43 here HR119.013
45 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 44 here HR119.014
46 

APPLICATION OF LAW TO THE LEGISLATIVE BRANCH

Section 102(b)(3) of Public Law 104–1 requires a description of 

the application of this bill to the legislative branch where the bill 

relates to the terms and conditions of employment or access to public services and accommodations. This bill facilitates a pro-growth 

environment for the developing commercial space industry by encouraging private sector investment, creating more stable and predictable regulatory conditions, and improving safety. As such this 

bill does not relate to employment or access to public services and 

accommodations. 

STATEMENT OF OVERSIGHT FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF

THE COMMITTEE

In compliance with clause 3(c)(1) of rule XIII and clause (2)(b)(1) 

of rule X of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the Committee’s oversight findings and recommendations are reflected in the 

descriptive portions of this report. 

STATEMENT OF GENERAL PERFORMANCE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

In accordance with clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, the Committee’s performance goals and 

objectives for H.R. 2262 are to ensure American leadership in space 

and foster the development of advanced space technologies. 

DUPLICATION OF FEDERAL PROGRAMS

No provision of H.R. 2262 establishes or reauthorizes a program 

of the Federal Government known to be duplicative of another Federal program, a program that was included in any report from the 

Government Accountability Office to Congress pursuant to section 

21 of Public Law 111–139, or a program related to a program identified in the most recent Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance. 

DISCLOSURE OF DIRECTED RULE MAKINGS

The Committee estimates that enacting H.R. 2262 does not direct 

the completion of any specific rule makings within the meaning of 

5 U.S.C. 551. 

FEDERAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE ACT

The Committee finds that the legislation does not establish or 

authorize the establishment of an advisory committee within the 

definition of 5 U.S.C. App., Section 5(b). 

UNFUNDED MANDATE STATEMENT

Section 423 of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act (as amended by Section 101(a)(2) of the Unfunded Mandate 

Reform Act, P.L. 104–4) requires a statement as to whether the 

provisions of the reported include unfunded mandates. In compliance with this requirement the Committee has received a letter 

from the Congressional Budget Office included herein. 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
47 

EARMARK IDENTIFICATION

H.R. 2262 does not include any congressional earmarks, limited 

tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits as defined in clause 9 of rule 

XXI. 

COMMITTEE ESTIMATE

Clause 3(d)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives requires an estimate and a comparison by the Committee of the costs that would be incurred in carrying out H.R. 

2262. However, clause 3(d)(3)(B) of that rule provides that this requirement does not apply when the Committee has included in its 

report a timely submitted cost estimate of the bill prepared by the 

Director of the Congressional Budget Office under section 402 of 

the Congressional Budget Act. 

BUDGET AUTHORITY AND CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE COST

ESTIMATE

With respect to the requirements of clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII of 

the Rules of the House of Representatives and section 308(a) of the 

Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and with respect to requirements 

of clause (3)(c)(3) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives and section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 

1974, the Committee has received the following cost estimate for 

H.R. 2262 from the Director of Congressional Budget Office: 

U.S. CONGRESS, 

CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE, 

Washington, DC, May 18, 2015. 

Hon. LAMAR SMITH, 

Chairman, Committee on Science, Space and Technology, 

House of Representatives, Washington, DC. 

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: The Congressional Budget Office has prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 2262, the SPACE Act of 

2015. 

If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be pleased 

to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Marin Burnett. 

Sincerely, 

KEITH HALL. 

Enclosure. 

H.R. 2262—SPACE Act of 2015 

H.R. 2262 would direct the Department of Transportation (DOT), 

the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), and 

the Government Accountability Office to submit various reports to 

the Congress regarding commercial space operations and services, 

industry practices, as well as the potential liabilities associated 

with commercial space launches. Additionally, the bill would require DOT and NASA to contract with independent organizations 

to assess the commercial space industry and current regulations on 

space traffic and orbital activities. 

Based on information from those agencies and prior spending levels for related and similar activities, CBO estimates that implementing H.R. 2262 would cost about $5 million over the next few 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
48 

years, assuming appropriation of the necessary amounts. Enacting 

H.R. 2262 would not affect direct spending or revenues; therefore, 

pay-as-you-go procedures do not apply. 

H.R. 2262 contains no intergovernmental mandates as defined in 

the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) and would impose no 

costs on state, local, or tribal governments. 

H.R. 2262 would impose private-sector mandates, as defined in 

UMRA, on the commercial space flight industry by imposing additional requirements on licensees that engage in manned space 

flights. The bill would require a licensee, as a condition of the license, to enter into a reciprocal waiver of claims with space flight 

participants (passengers). Based on information about current industry practice, CBO expects that licensees would enter into such 

waivers in the absence of the bill. Consequently, the cost of the 

mandate would be negligible. The bill also would require licensees 

to obtain insurance to cover passengers’ activities. Based on information from industry experts, CBO expects that the cost of that 

mandate also would be small. Consequently, CBO estimates that 

the aggregate cost of the mandates would fall below the annual 

threshold established in UMRA for private-sector mandates ($154 

million in 2015, adjusted annually for inflation). 

The CBO staff contacts for this estimate are Marin Burnett (for 

federal costs) and Amy Petz (for the private-sector impact). The estimate was approved by Theresa Gullo, Assistant Director for 

Budget Analysis. 

CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW MADE BY THE BILL, AS REPORTED

In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by the bill, 

as reported, are shown as follows (existing law proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new matter is printed in italic, 

and existing law in which no change is proposed is shown in 

roman): 

TITLE 51, UNITED STATES CODE 

Subtitle I—General 

Chap. Sec. 

101. Definitions ................................................................................................... 10101 

* * * * * * * 

Subtitle VII—Access to Space 

701. Use of øSpace Shuttle¿ Space Launch System or Alternatives .............. 70101 

* * * * * * * 

Subtitle V—PROGRAMS TARGETING 

COMMERCIAL OPPORTUNITIES 

* * * * * * * 

CHAPTER 509—COMMERCIAL SPACE LAUNCH 

ACTIVITIES 

* * * * * * * 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
49 

§ 50902. Definitions 

In this chapter— 

(1) ‘‘citizen of the United States’’ means— 

(A) an individual who is a citizen of the United States; 

(B) an entity organized or existing under the laws of the 

United States or a State; or 

(C) an entity organized or existing under the laws of a 

foreign country if the controlling interest (as defined by 

the Secretary of Transportation) is held by an individual 

or entity described in subclause (A) or (B) of this clause. 

(2) ‘‘crew’’ means any employee of a licensee or transferee, or 

of a contractor or subcontractor of a licensee or transferee, who 

performs activities in the course of that employment directly 

relating to the launch, reentry, or other operation of or in a 

launch vehicle or reentry vehicle that carries human beings. 

(3) ‘‘executive agency’’ has the same meaning given that term 

in section 105 of title 5. 

(4) ‘‘government astronaut’’ means an individual designated 

as such by the Administrator of the National Aeronautics and 

Space Administration, pursuant requirements established by 

the Administrator, who— 

(A) is an employee of— 

(i) the United States Government, including the 

United States Armed Forces; or 

(ii) a foreign government that is a party to the Intergovernmental Agreement Among the Government of 

Canada, Governments of Member States of the European Space Agency, the Government of Japan, the Government of the Russian Federation, and the Government of the United States of America Concerning Cooperation on the Civil International Space Station, 

signed on January 29, 1998; and 

(B) is carried within a launch vehicle or reentry vehicle 

in the course of his or her employment, which may include 

performance of activities directly relating to the launch, reentry, or other operation of the launch vehicle or reentry vehicle. 

ø(4)¿ (5) ‘‘launch’’ means to place or try to place a launch vehicle or reentry vehicle and any payload, crew, government astronaut, or space flight participant from Earth— 

(A) in a suborbital trajectory; 

(B) in Earth orbit in outer space; or 

(C) otherwise in outer space, 

including activities involved in the preparation of a launch vehicle or payload for launch, when those activities take place at 

a launch site in the United States. 

ø(5)¿ (6) ‘‘launch property’’ means an item built for, or used 

in, the launch preparation or launch of a launch vehicle. 

ø(6)¿ (7) ‘‘launch services’’ means— 

(A) activities involved in the preparation of a launch vehicle, payload, crew (including crew training), government 

astronaut, or space flight participant for launch; and 

(B) the conduct of a launch. 

ø(7)¿ (8) ‘‘launch site’’ means the location on Earth from 

which a launch takes place (as defined in a license the SecVerDate Sep 11 2014 08:47 May 19, 2015 Jkt 049006 PO 00000 Frm 00049 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR119.XXX HR119

rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
50 

retary issues or transfers under this chapter) and necessary facilities at that location. 

ø(8)¿ (9) ‘‘launch vehicle’’ means— 

(A) a vehicle built to operate in, or place a payload or 

human beings in, outer space; and 

(B) a suborbital rocket. 

ø(9)¿ (10) ‘‘obtrusive space advertising’’ means advertising in 

outer space that is capable of being recognized by a human 

being on the surface of the Earth without the aid of a telescope 

or other technological device. 

ø(10)¿ (11) ‘‘payload’’ means an object that a person undertakes to place in outer space by means of a launch vehicle or 

reentry vehicle, including components of the vehicle specifically 

designed or adapted for that object. 

ø(11)¿ (12) except in section 50904(c), ‘‘permit’’ means an experimental permit issued under section 50906. 

ø(12)¿ (13) ‘‘person’’ means an individual and an entity organized or existing under the laws of a State or country. 

ø(13)¿ (14) ‘‘reenter’’ and ‘‘reentry’’ mean to return or attempt to return, purposefully, a reentry vehicle and its payload, crew, government astronauts, or space flight participants, 

if any, from Earth orbit or from outer space to Earth. 

ø(14)¿ (15) ‘‘reentry services’’ means— 

(A) activities involved in the preparation of a reentry vehicle and payload, crew (including crew training), government astronaut, or space flight participant, if any, for reentry; and 

(B) the conduct of a reentry. 

ø(15)¿ (16) ‘‘reentry site’’ means the location on Earth to 

which a reentry vehicle is intended to return (as defined in a 

license the Secretary issues or transfers under this chapter). 

ø(16)¿ (17) ‘‘reentry vehicle’’ means a vehicle designed to return from Earth orbit or outer space to Earth, or a reusable 

launch vehicle designed to return from Earth orbit or outer 

space to Earth, substantially intact. 

ø(17) ‘‘space flight participant’’ means an individual, who is 

not crew, carried within a launch vehicle or reentry vehicle.¿ 

(18) ‘‘space flight participant’’ means an individual, who is 

not crew or a government astronaut, carried within a launch 

vehicle or reentry vehicle. 

ø(18)¿ (19) ‘‘State’’ means a State of the United States, the 

District of Columbia, and a territory or possession of the 

United States. 

ø(19)¿ (20) unless and until regulations take effect under 

section 50922(c)(2), ‘‘suborbital rocket’’ means a vehicle, rocketpropelled in whole or in part, intended for flight on a suborbital trajectory, and the thrust of which is greater than its 

lift for the majority of the rocket-powered portion of its ascent. 

ø(20)¿ (21) ‘‘suborbital trajectory’’ means the intentional 

flight path of a launch vehicle, reentry vehicle, or any portion 

thereof, whose vacuum instantaneous impact point does not 

leave the surface of the Earth. 

ø(21)¿ (22) ‘‘third party’’ means a person except— 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
51 

(A) the United States Government or the Government’s 

contractors or subcontractors involved in launch services 

or reentry services; 

(B) a licensee or transferee under this chapter; 

(C) a licensee’s or transferee’s contractors, subcontractors, or customers involved in launch services or reentry 

services; 

(D) the customer’s contractors or subcontractors involved 

in launch services or reentry services; or 

(E) crew, government astronauts, or space flight participants. 

ø(22)¿ (23) ‘‘United States’’ means the States of the United 

States, the District of Columbia, and the territories and possessions of the United States. 

* * * * * * * 

§ 50904. Restrictions on launches, operations, and reentries 

(a) REQUIREMENT.—A license issued or transferred under this 

chapter, or a permit, is required for the following: 

(1) for a person to launch a launch vehicle or to operate a 

launch site or reentry site, or to reenter a reentry vehicle, in 

the United States. 

(2) for a citizen of the United States (as defined in section 

50902(1)(A) or (B) of this title) to launch a launch vehicle or 

to operate a launch site or reentry site, or to reenter a reentry 

vehicle, outside the United States. 

(3) for a citizen of the United States (as defined in section 

50902(1)(C) of this title) to launch a launch vehicle or to operate a launch site or reentry site, or to reenter a reentry vehicle, 

outside the United States and outside the territory of a foreign 

country unless there is an agreement between the United 

States Government and the government of the foreign country 

providing that the government of the foreign country has jurisdiction over the launch or operation or reentry. 

(4) for a citizen of the United States (as defined in section 

50902(1)(C) of this title) to launch a launch vehicle or to operate a launch site or reentry site, or to reenter a reentry vehicle, 

in the territory of a foreign country if there is an agreement 

between the United States Government and the government of 

the foreign country providing that the United States Government has jurisdiction over the launch or operation or reentry. 

Notwithstanding this subsection, a permit shall not authorize a 

person to operate a launch site or reentry site. 

(b) COMPLIANCE WITH PAYLOAD REQUIREMENTS.—The holder of a 

license or permit under this chapter may launch or reenter a payload only if the payload complies with all requirements of the laws 

of the United States related to launching or reentering a payload. 

(c) PREVENTING LAUNCHES AND REENTRIES.—The Secretary of 

Transportation shall establish whether all required licenses, authorizations, and permits required for a payload have been obtained. If no license, authorization, or permit is required, the Secretary may prevent the launch or reentry if the Secretary decides 

the launch or reentry would jeopardize the public health and safety, safety of property, or national security or foreign policy interest 

of the United States. 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
52 

(d) SINGLE LICENSE OR PERMIT.—The Secretary of Transportation 

shall ensure that only 1 license or permit is required from the Department of Transportation to conduct activities involving crew, government astronauts, or space flight participants, including 

launch and reentry, for which a license or permit is required under 

this chapter. The Secretary shall ensure that all Department of 

Transportation regulations relevant to the licensed or permitted activity are satisfied. 

§ 50905. License applications and requirements 

(a) APPLICATIONS.—(1) A person may apply to the Secretary of 

Transportation for a license or transfer of a license under this 

chapter in the form and way the Secretary prescribes. Consistent 

with the public health and safety, safety of property, and national 

security and foreign policy interests of the United States, the Secretary, not later than 180 days after accepting an application in accordance with criteria established pursuant to subsection (b)(2)(D), 

shall issue or transfer a license if the Secretary decides in writing 

that the applicant complies, and will continue to comply, with this 

chapter and regulations prescribed under this chapter. The Secretary shall inform the applicant of any pending issue and action 

required to resolve the issue if the Secretary has not made a decision not later than 120 days after accepting an application in accordance with criteria established pursuant to subsection (b)(2)(D). 

The Secretary shall transmit to the Committee on Science of the 

House of Representatives and the Committee on Commerce, 

Science, and Transportation of the Senate a written notice not later 

than 30 days after any occurrence when the Secretary has not 

taken action on a license application within the deadline established by this subsection. 

(2) In carrying out paragraph (1), the Secretary may establish procedures for safety approvals of launch vehicles, reentry 

vehicles, safety systems, processes, services, or personnel (including approval procedures for the purpose of protecting the 

health and safety of øcrews and space flight participants¿ 

crew, government astronauts, and space flight participants, to 

the extent permitted by subsections (b) and (c)) that may be 

used in conducting licensed commercial space launch or reentry activities. 

(b) REQUIREMENTS.—(1) Except as provided in this subsection, all 

requirements of the laws of the United States applicable to the 

launch of a launch vehicle or the operation of a launch site or a 

reentry site, or the reentry of a reentry vehicle, are requirements 

for a license or permit under this chapter. 

(2) The Secretary may prescribe— 

(A) any term necessary to ensure compliance with this 

chapter, including on-site verification that a launch, operation, or reentry complies with representations stated in 

the application; 

(B) any additional requirement necessary to protect the 

public health and safety, safety of property, national security interests, and foreign policy interests of the United 

States; 

(C) by regulation that a requirement of a law of the 

United States not be a requirement for a license or permit 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
53 

if the Secretary, after consulting with the head of the appropriate executive agency, decides that the requirement is 

not necessary to protect the public health and safety, safety of property, and national security and foreign policy interests of the United States; 

(D) additional license requirements, for a launch vehicle 

carrying a human being for compensation or hire, necessary to protect the health and safety of crew, government 

astronauts, or space flight participants, only if such requirements are imposed pursuant to final regulations 

issued in accordance with subsection (c); and 

(E) regulations establishing criteria for accepting or rejecting an application for a license or permit under this 

chapter within 60 days after receipt of such application. 

(3) The Secretary may waive a requirement, including the requirement to obtain a license, for an individual applicant if the 

Secretary decides that the waiver is in the public interest and 

will not jeopardize the public health and safety, safety of property, and national security and foreign policy interests of the 

United States. The Secretary may not grant a waiver under 

this paragraph that would permit the launch or reentry of a 

launch vehicle or a reentry vehicle without a license or permit 

if a human being will be on board. 

(4) The holder of a license or a permit under this chapter 

may launch or reenter crew only if— 

(A) the crew has received training and has satisfied 

medical or other standards specified in the license or permit in accordance with regulations promulgated by the 

Secretary; 

(B) the holder of the license or permit has informed any 

individual serving as crew in writing, prior to executing 

any contract or other arrangement to employ that individual (or, in the case of an individual already employed 

as of the date of enactment of the Commercial Space 

Launch Amendments Act of 2004, as early as possible, but 

in any event prior to any launch in which the individual 

will participate as crew), that the United States Government has not certified the launch vehicle as safe for carrying crew or space flight participants; and 

(C) the holder of the license or permit and crew have 

complied with all requirements of the laws of the United 

States that apply to crew. 

(5) The holder of a license or a permit under this chapter 

may launch or reenter a space flight participant only if— 

(A) in accordance with regulations promulgated by the 

Secretary, the holder of the license or permit has informed 

the space flight participant in writing about the risks of 

the launch and reentry, including the safety record of the 

launch or reentry vehicle type, and the Secretary has informed the space flight participant in writing of any relevant information related to risk or probable loss during 

each phase of flight gathered by the Secretary in making 

the determination required by section 50914(a)(2) and (c); 

(B) the holder of the license or permit has informed any 

space flight participant in writing, prior to receiving any 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
54 

compensation from that space flight participant or (in the 

case of a space flight participant not providing compensation) otherwise concluding any agreement to fly that space 

flight participant, that the United States Government has 

not certified the launch vehicle as safe for carrying crew 

or space flight participants; 

(C) in accordance with regulations promulgated by the 

Secretary, the space flight participant has provided written informed consent to participate in the launch and reentry and written certification of compliance with any regulations promulgated under paragraph (6)(A); and 

(D) the holder of the license or permit has complied with 

any regulations promulgated by the Secretary pursuant to 

paragraph (6). 

(6)(A) The Secretary may issue regulations requiring space 

flight participants to undergo an appropriate physical examination prior to a launch or reentry under this chapter. This 

subparagraph shall cease to be in effect three years after the 

date of enactment of the Commercial Space Launch Amendments Act of 2004. 

(B) The Secretary may issue additional regulations setting reasonable requirements for space flight participants, 

including medical and training requirements. Such regulations shall not be effective before the expiration of 3 years 

after the date of enactment of the Commercial Space 

Launch Amendments Act of 2004. 

(c) SAFETY REGULATIONS.—(1) The Secretary may issue regulations governing the design or operation of a launch vehicle to protect the health and safety of crew, government astronauts, and 

space flight participants. 

(2) Regulations issued under this subsection shall— 

(A) describe how such regulations would be applied 

when the Secretary is determining whether to issue a license under this chapter; 

(B) apply only to launches in which a vehicle will be carrying a human being for compensation or hire; 

(C) be limited to restricting or prohibiting design features or operating practices that— 

(i) have resulted in a serious or fatal injury (as defined in 49 CFR 830, as in effect on November 10, 

2004) øto crew or space flight participants¿ to crew, 

government astronauts, or space flight participants 

during a licensed or permitted commercial human 

space flight; or 

(ii) contributed to an unplanned event or series of 

events during a licensed or permitted commercial 

human space flight that posed a high risk of causing 

a serious or fatal injury (as defined in 49 CFR 830, as 

in effect on November 10, 2004) øto crew or space 

flight participants¿ to crew, government astronauts, or 

space flight participants; and 

(D) be issued with a description of the instance or instances when the design feature or operating practice 

being restricted or prohibited contributed to a result or 

event described in subparagraph (C). 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
55 

ø(3) Beginning on October 1, 2015, the Secretary may propose regulations under this subsection without regard to paragraph (2)(C) and (D). Any such regulations shall take into consideration the evolving standards of safety in the commercial 

space flight industry.¿ 

(3) INTERIM INDUSTRY VOLUNTARY CONSENSUS STANDARDS

REPORT.—The Secretary, in consultation with the Commercial 

Space Transportation Advisory Committee, or its successor organization, shall provide a report to the Committee on Science, 

Space, and Technology of the House of Representatives and the 

Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the 

Senate on the progress of the commercial space transportation 

industry in developing voluntary consensus standards or any 

other construction that promotes best practices to improve the 

industry. Such report shall include, at a minimum— 

(A) any voluntary industry consensus standards or any 

other construction that have been accepted by the industry 

at large; 

(B) the identification of areas that have the potential to 

become voluntary industry consensus standards or another 

potential construction that are currently under consideration by the industry at large; 

(C) an assessment from the Secretary on the general 

progress of the industry in adopting voluntary consensus 

standards or any other construction; 

(D) lessons learned about voluntary industry consensus 

standards or any other construction, best practices, and 

commercial space launch operations; 

(E) any lessons learned associated with the development, 

potential application, and acceptance of voluntary industry 

consensus standards or any other construction, best practices, and commercial space launch operations; and 

(F) recommendations, findings, or observations from the 

Commercial Space Transportation Advisory Committee, or 

its successor organization, on the progress of the industry 

in developing industry consensus standards or any other 

construction. 

This report, with the appropriate updates in the intervening periods, shall be transmitted to such committees no later than December 31, 2016, December 31, 2018, December 31, 2020, and 

December 31, 2022. Each report shall describe and assess the 

progress achieved as of 6 months prior to the specified transmittal date. 

(4) INTERIM REPORT ON KNOWLEDGE AND OPERATIONAL EXPERIENCE.—The Secretary shall provide a report to the Committee 

on Science, Space, and Technology of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the of the Senate on the status of the knowledge and 

operational experience acquired by the industry while providing 

flight services for compensation or hire to support the development of a safety framework. Interim reports shall by transmitted to such committees no later than December 31, 2018, December 31, 2020, and December 31, 2022. Each report shall describe and assess the progress achieved as of 6 months prior to 

the specified transmittal date. 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
56 

(5) INDEPENDENT REVIEW.—No later than December 31, 2023, 

an independent, private systems engineering and technical assistance organization or standards development organization 

contracted by the Secretary shall provide to the Committee on 

Science, Space, and Technology of the House of Representatives 

and the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation 

of the Senate an assessment of the readiness of the commercial 

space industry and the Federal Government to transition to a 

safety framework that may include regulations. As part of the 

review, the contracted organization shall evaluate— 

(A) the progress of the commercial space industry in 

adopting industry voluntary standards or any other construction as reported by the Secretary in the interim assessments included in reports provided under paragraph (4); 

and 

(B) the knowledge and operational experience obtained by 

the commercial space industry while providing services for 

compensation or hire as reported by the Secretary in the interim knowledge and operational reports provided under 

paragraph (4). 

(6) LEARNING PERIOD.—Beginning on December 31, 2025, the 

Secretary may propose regulations under this subsection without regard to paragraph (2)(C) and (D). The development of any 

such regulations shall take into consideration the evolving 

standards of the commercial space flight industry as identified 

through the reports published under paragraphs (3) and (4). 

(7) COMMUNICATION AND TRANSPARENCY.—Nothing in this 

subsection shall be construed to limit the authority of the Secretary of Transportation to discuss potential approaches, potential performance standards, or any other topic related to this 

subsection with the commercial space industry including observations, findings, and recommendations from the Commercial 

Space Transportation Advisory Committee, or its successor organization, prior to the issuance of a notice of proposed rulemaking. Such discussions shall not be construed to permit the 

Secretary to promulgate industry regulations except as otherwise provided in this section. 

ø(4)¿ (8) Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to 

limit the authority of the Secretary to issue requirements or 

regulations to protect the public health and safety, safety of 

property, national security interests, and foreign policy interests of the United States. 

(d) PROCEDURES AND TIMETABLES.—The Secretary shall establish 

procedures and timetables that expedite review of a license or permit application and reduce the regulatory burden for an applicant. 

§ 50906. Experimental permits 

(a) A person may apply to the Secretary of Transportation for an 

experimental permit under this section in the form and manner the 

Secretary prescribes. Consistent with the protection of the public 

health and safety, safety of property, and national security and foreign policy interests of the United States, the Secretary, not later 

than 120 days after receiving an application pursuant to this section, shall issue a permit if the Secretary decides in writing that 

the applicant complies, and will continue to comply, with this chapVerDate Sep 11 2014 08:47 May 19, 2015 Jkt 049006 PO 00000 Frm 00056 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR119.XXX HR119

rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
57 

ter and regulations prescribed under this chapter. The Secretary 

shall inform the applicant of any pending issue and action required 

to resolve the issue if the Secretary has not made a decision not 

later than 90 days after receiving an application. The Secretary 

shall transmit to the Committee on Science of the House of Representatives and Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate a written notice not later than 15 days after 

any occurrence when the Secretary has failed to act on a permit 

within the deadline established by this section. 

(b) In carrying out subsection (a), the Secretary may establish 

procedures for safety approvals of launch vehicles, reentry vehicles, 

safety systems, processes, services, or personnel that may be used 

in conducting commercial space launch or reentry activities pursuant to a permit. 

(c) In order to encourage the development of a commercial space 

flight industry, the Secretary may when issuing permits use the 

authority granted under section 50905(b)(2)(C). 

(d) The Secretary may issue a permit only for reusable suborbital 

rockets that will be ølaunched or reentered¿ launched or reentered 

under that permit solely for— 

ø(1) research and development to test new design concepts, 

new equipment, or new operating techniques;¿ 

(1) research and development to test design concepts, equipment, or operating techniques; 

(2) showing compliance with requirements as part of the 

process for obtaining a license under this chapter; or 

(3) crew training øprior to obtaining a license¿ for a launch 

or reentry using the design of the rocket for which the permit 

would be issued. 

(e) Permits issued under this section shall— 

(1) authorize an unlimited number of launches and reentries 

for a particular øsuborbital rocket design¿ suborbital rocket or 

rocket design for the uses described in subsection (d); and 

(2) specify the type of modifications that may be made to the 

suborbital rocket without changing the design to an extent that 

would invalidate the permit. 

(f) Permits shall not be transferable. 

ø(g) A permit may not be issued for, and a permit that has already been issued shall cease to be valid for, a particular design 

for a reusable suborbital rocket after a license has been issued for 

the launch or reentry of a rocket of that design.¿ 

(g) The Secretary may issue a permit under this section notwithstanding any license issued under this chapter. The issuance of a 

license under this chapter shall not invalidate a permit under this 

section. 

(h) No person may operate a reusable suborbital rocket under a 

permit for carrying any property or human being for compensation 

or hire. 

(i) For the purposes of sections 50907, 50908, 50909, 50910, 

50912, 50914, 50917, 50918, 50919, and 50923 of this chapter— 

(1) a permit shall be considered a license; 

(2) the holder of a permit shall be considered a licensee; 

(3) a vehicle operating under a permit shall be considered to 

be licensed; and 

(4) the issuance of a permit shall be considered licensing. 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
58 

This subsection shall not be construed to allow the transfer of a 

permit. 

§ 50907. Monitoring activities 

(a) GENERAL REQUIREMENTS.—A licensee under this chapter 

must allow the Secretary of Transportation to place an officer or 

employee of the United States Government or another individual as 

an observer at a launch site or reentry site the licensee uses, at a 

production facility or assembly site a contractor of the licensee uses 

to produce or assemble a launch vehicle or reentry vehicle, at a site 

used for øcrew or space flight participant training¿ crew, government astronaut, or space flight participant training, or at a site at 

which a payload is integrated with a launch vehicle or reentry vehicle. The observer will monitor the activity of the licensee or contractor at the time and to the extent the Secretary considers reasonable to ensure compliance with the license or to carry out the 

duties of the Secretary under sections 50904(c), 50905, and 50906 

of this title. A licensee must cooperate with an observer carrying 

out this subsection. 

(b) CONTRACTS.—To the extent provided in advance in an appropriation law, the Secretary may make a contract with a person to 

carry out subsection (a) of this section. 

§ 50908. Effective periods, and modifications, suspensions, 

and revocations, of licenses 

(a) EFFECTIVE PERIODS OF LICENSES.—The Secretary of Transportation shall specify the period for which a license issued or 

transferred under this chapter is in effect. 

(b) MODIFICATIONS.—(1) On the initiative of the Secretary or on 

application of the licensee, the Secretary may modify a license 

issued or transferred under this chapter if the Secretary decides 

the modification will comply with this chapter. 

(2) The Secretary shall modify a license issued or transferred 

under this chapter whenever a modification is needed for the 

license to be in conformity with a regulation that was issued 

pursuant to section 50905(c) after the issuance of the license. 

This paragraph shall not apply to permits. 

(c) SUSPENSIONS AND REVOCATIONS.—The Secretary may suspend 

or revoke a license if the Secretary decides that— 

(1) the licensee has not complied substantially with a requirement of this chapter or a regulation prescribed under this 

chapter; or 

(2) the suspension or revocation is necessary to protect the 

public health and safety, the safety of property, or a national 

security or foreign policy interest of the United States. 

(d) ADDITIONAL SUSPENSIONS.—(1) The Secretary may suspend a 

license when a previous launch or reentry under the license has resulted in a serious or fatal injury (as defined in 49 CFR 830, as 

in effect on November 10, 2004) øto crew or space flight participants¿ to crew, government astronauts, or space flight participants 

and the Secretary has determined that continued operations under 

the license are likely to cause additional serious or fatal injury (as 

defined in 49 CFR 830, as in effect on November 10, 2004) øto crew 

or space flight participants¿ to crew, government astronauts, or 

space flight participants. 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
59 

(2) Any suspension imposed under this subsection shall be 

for as brief a period as possible and, in any event, shall cease 

when the Secretary— 

(A) has determined that the licensee has taken sufficient 

steps to reduce the likelihood of a recurrence of the serious 

or fatal injury; or 

(B) has modified the license pursuant to subsection (b) 

to sufficiently reduce the likelihood of a recurrence of the 

serious or fatal injury. 

(3) This subsection shall not apply to permits. 

(e) EFFECTIVE PERIODS OF MODIFICATIONS, SUSPENSIONS, AND

REVOCATIONS.—Unless the Secretary specifies otherwise, a modification, suspension, or revocation under this section takes effect 

immediately and remains in effect during a review under section 

50912 of this title. 

(f) NOTIFICATION.—The Secretary shall notify the licensee in 

writing of the decision of the Secretary under this section and any 

action the Secretary takes or proposes to take based on the decision. 

* * * * * * * 

§ 50914. Liability insurance and financial responsibility requirements 

(a) GENERAL REQUIREMENTS.—(1) When a launch or reentry license is issued or transferred under this chapter, the licensee or 

transferee shall obtain liability insurance or demonstrate financial 

responsibility in amounts to compensate for the maximum probable 

loss from claims by— 

(A) a third party for death, bodily injury, or property 

damage or loss resulting from an activity carried out under 

the license; and 

(B) the United States Government against a person for 

damage or loss to Government property resulting from an 

activity carried out under the license. 

(2) The Secretary of Transportation shall determine the 

amounts required under paragraph (1)(A) and (B) of this subsection, after consulting with the Administrator of the National 

Aeronautics and Space Administration, the Secretary of the Air 

Force, and the heads of other appropriate executive agencies. 

(3) For the total claims related to one launch or reentry, a 

licensee or transferee is not required to obtain insurance or 

demonstrate financial responsibility of more than— (A)(i) $500,000,000 under paragraph (1)(A) of this subsection; or (ii) $100,000,000 under paragraph (1)(B) of this subsection; or 

(B) the maximum liability insurance available on the 

world market at reasonable cost if the amount is less than 

the applicable amount in clause (A)(i) or (ii) of this paragraph. 

(4) An insurance policy or demonstration of financial responsibility under this subsection shall protect the following, to the 

extent of their potential liability for involvement in launch 

services or reentry services, at no cost to the Government: 

(A) the Government. 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
60 

(B) executive agencies and personnel, contractors, and 

subcontractors of the Government. 

(C) contractors, subcontractors, and customers of the licensee or transferee. 

(D) contractors and subcontractors of the customer. 

(E) space flight participants. 

(b) RECIPROCAL WAIVER OF CLAIMS.—ø(1) A launch or reentry license issued or transferred under this chapter shall contain a provision requiring the licensee or transferee to make a reciprocal 

waiver of claims with its contractors, subcontractors, and customers, and contractors and subcontractors of the customers, involved in launch services or reentry services under which each 

party to the waiver agrees to be responsible for property damage 

or loss it sustains, or for personal injury to, death of, or property 

damage or loss sustained by its own employees resulting from an 

activity carried out under the applicable license.¿ (1) A launch or 

reentry license issued or transferred under this chapter shall contain a provision requiring the licensee or transferee to make a reciprocal waiver of claims with its contractors, subcontractors, and customers, the contractors and subcontractors of the customers, and 

any space flight participants, involved in launch services or reentry 

services or participating in a flight under which each party to the 

waiver agrees to be responsible for property damage or loss it or 

they sustain, or for personal injury to, death of, or property damage 

or loss sustained by its own employees resulting from an activity 

carried out under the applicable license. 

(2) The Secretary of Transportation shall make, for the Government, executive agencies of the Government involved in 

launch services or reentry services, and contractors and subcontractors involved in launch services or reentry services, a 

reciprocal waiver of claims with the licensee or transferee, contractors, subcontractors, crew, space flight participants, and 

customers of the licensee or transferee, and contractors and 

subcontractors of the customers, involved in launch services or 

reentry services under which each party to the waiver agrees 

to be responsible for property damage or loss it sustains, or for 

personal injury to, death of, or property damage or loss sustained by its own employees or by space flight participants, resulting from an activity carried out under the applicable license. The waiver applies only to the extent that claims are 

more than the amount of insurance or demonstration of financial responsibility required under subsection (a)(1)(B) of this 

section. After consulting with the Administrator and the Secretary of the Air Force, the Secretary of Transportation may 

waive, for the Government and a department, agency, and instrumentality of the Government, the right to recover damages 

for damage or loss to Government property to the extent insurance is not available because of a policy exclusion the Secretary of Transportation decides is usual for the type of insurance involved. 

(c) DETERMINATION OF MAXIMUM PROBABLE LOSSES.—The Secretary of Transportation shall determine the maximum probable 

losses under subsection (a)(1)(A) and (B) of this section associated 

with an activity under a license not later than 90 days after a licensee or transferee requires a determination and submits all inforVerDate Sep 11 2014 08:47 May 19, 2015 Jkt 049006 PO 00000 Frm 00060 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR119.XXX HR119

rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
61 

mation the Secretary requires. The Secretary shall amend the determination as warranted by new information. 

(d) ANNUAL REPORT.—(1) Not later than November 15 of each 

year, the Secretary of Transportation shall submit to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate 

and the Committee on Science of the House of Representatives a 

report on current determinations made under subsection (c) of this 

section related to all issued licenses and the reasons for the determinations. 

(2) Not later than May 15 of each year, the Secretary of 

Transportation shall review the amounts specified in subsection (a)(3)(A) of this section and submit a report to Congress 

that contains proposed adjustments in the amounts to conform 

with changed liability expectations and availability of insurance on the world market. The proposed adjustment takes effect 30 days after a report is submitted. 

(e) LAUNCHES OR REENTRIES INVOLVING GOVERNMENT FACILITIES

AND PERSONNEL.—The Secretary of Transportation shall establish 

requirements consistent with this chapter for proof of financial responsibility and other assurances necessary to protect the Government and its executive agencies and personnel from liability, death, 

bodily injury, or property damage or loss as a result of a launch 

or operation of a launch site or reentry site or a reentry involving 

a facility or personnel of the Government. The Secretary may not 

relieve the Government of liability under this subsection for death, 

bodily injury, or property damage or loss resulting from the willful 

misconduct of the Government or its agents. 

(f) COLLECTION AND CREDITING PAYMENTS.—The head of a department, agency, or instrumentality of the Government shall collect a payment owed for damage or loss to Government property 

under its jurisdiction or control resulting from an activity carried 

out under a launch or reentry license issued or transferred under 

this chapter. The payment shall be credited to the current applicable appropriation, fund, or account of the department, agency, or 

instrumentality. 

(g) FEDERAL JURISDICTION.—Any action or tort arising from a licensed launch or reentry shall be the sole jurisdiction of the Federal 

courts and shall be decided under Federal law. 

§ 50915. Paying claims exceeding liability insurance and financial responsibility requirements 

(a) GENERAL REQUIREMENTS.—(1) To the extent provided in advance in an appropriation law or to the extent additional legislative 

authority is enacted providing for paying claims in a compensation 

plan submitted under subsection (d) of this section, the Secretary 

of Transportation shall provide for the payment by the United 

States Government of a successful claim (including reasonable litigation or settlement expenses) of a third party against a licensee 

or transferee under this chapter, a contractor, subcontractor, or 

customer of the licensee or transferee, øor a contractor¿ a contractor or subcontractor of a customer, øbut not against¿ or a space 

flight participant, resulting from an activity carried out under the 

license issued or transferred under this chapter for death, bodily 

injury, or property damage or loss resulting from an activity carried out under the license. However, claims may be paid under this 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
62 

section only to the extent the total amount of successful claims related to one launch or reentry— 

(A) is more than the amount of insurance or demonstration of financial responsibility required under section 

50914(a)(1)(A) of this title; and 

(B) is not more than $1,500,000,000 (plus additional 

amounts necessary to reflect inflation occurring after January 1, 1989) above that insurance or financial responsibility amount. 

(2) The Secretary may not provide for paying a part of a 

claim for which death, bodily injury, or property damage or 

loss results from willful misconduct by the licensee or transferee. To the extent insurance required under section 

50914(a)(1)(A) of this title is not available to cover a successful 

third party liability claim because of an insurance policy exclusion the Secretary decides is usual for the type of insurance involved, the Secretary may provide for paying the excluded 

claims without regard to the limitation contained in section 

50914(a)(1). 

(b) NOTICE, PARTICIPATION, AND APPROVAL.—Before a payment 

under subsection (a) of this section is made— 

(1) notice must be given to the Government of a claim, or a 

civil action related to the claim, against a party described in 

subsection (a)(1) of this section for death, bodily injury, or 

property damage or loss; 

(2) the Government must be given an opportunity to participate or assist in the defense of the claim or action; and 

(3) the Secretary must approve any part of a settlement to 

be paid out of appropriations of the Government. 

(c) WITHHOLDING PAYMENTS.—The Secretary may withhold a 

payment under subsection (a) of this section if the Secretary certifies that the amount is not reasonable. However, the Secretary 

shall deem to be reasonable the amount of a claim finally decided 

by a court of competent jurisdiction. 

(d) SURVEYS, REPORTS, AND COMPENSATION PLANS.—(1) If as a 

result of an activity carried out under a license issued or transferred under this chapter the total of claims related to one launch 

or reentry is likely to be more than the amount of required insurance or demonstration of financial responsibility, the Secretary 

shall— 

(A) survey the causes and extent of damage; and 

(B) submit expeditiously to Congress a report on the results of the survey. 

(2) Not later than 90 days after a court determination indicates that the liability for the total of claims related to one 

launch or reentry may be more than the required amount of 

insurance or demonstration of financial responsibility, the 

President, on the recommendation of the Secretary, shall submit to Congress a compensation plan that— 

(A) outlines the total dollar value of the claims; 

(B) recommends sources of amounts to pay for the 

claims; 

(C) includes legislative language required to carry out 

the plan if additional legislative authority is required; and 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
63 

(D) for a single event or incident, may not be for more 

than $1,500,000,000. 

(3) A compensation plan submitted to Congress under paragraph (2) of this subsection shall— 

(A) have an identification number; and 

(B) be submitted to the Senate and the House of Representatives on the same day and when the Senate and 

House are in session. 

(e) CONGRESSIONAL RESOLUTIONS.—(1) In this subsection, ‘‘resolution’’— 

(A) means a joint resolution of Congress the matter after 

the resolving clause of which is as follows: ‘‘That the Congress approves the compensation plan numbered 

lllll submitted to the Congress on lllll ll, 

20ll.’’, with the blank spaces being filled appropriately; 

but 

(B) does not include a resolution that includes more than 

one compensation plan. 

(2) The Senate shall consider under this subsection a compensation plan requiring additional appropriations or legislative authority not later than 60 calendar days of continuous 

session of Congress after the date on which the plan is submitted to Congress. 

(3) A resolution introduced in the Senate shall be referred 

immediately to a committee by the President of the Senate. All 

resolutions related to the same plan shall be referred to the 

same committee. 

(4)(A) If the committee of the Senate to which a resolution 

has been referred does not report the resolution within 20 calendar days after it is referred, a motion is in order to discharge 

the committee from further consideration of the resolution or 

to discharge the committee from further consideration of the 

plan. 

(B) A motion to discharge may be made only by an individual favoring the resolution and is highly privileged (except that the motion may not be made after the committee 

has reported a resolution on the plan). Debate on the motion is limited to one hour, to be divided equally between 

those favoring and those opposing the resolution. An 

amendment to the motion is not in order. A motion to reconsider the vote by which the motion is agreed to or disagreed to is not in order. 

(C) If the motion to discharge is agreed to or disagreed 

to, the motion may not be renewed and another motion to 

discharge the committee from another resolution on the 

same plan may not be made. 

(5)(A) After a committee of the Senate reports, or is discharged from further consideration of, a resolution, a motion to 

proceed to the consideration of the resolution is in order at any 

time, even though a similar previous motion has been disagreed to. The motion is highly privileged and is not debatable. 

An amendment to the motion is not in order. A motion to reconsider the vote by which the motion is agreed to or disagreed 

to is not in order. 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
64 

(B) Debate on the resolution referred to in subparagraph 

(A) of this paragraph is limited to not more than 10 hours, 

to be divided equally between those favoring and those opposing the resolution. A motion further to limit debate is 

not debatable. An amendment to, or motion to recommit, 

the resolution is not in order. A motion to reconsider the 

vote by which the resolution is agreed to or disagreed to 

is not in order. 

(6) The following shall be decided in the Senate without debate: 

(A) a motion to postpone related to the discharge from 

committee. 

(B) a motion to postpone consideration of a resolution. 

(C) a motion to proceed to the consideration of other 

business. 

(D) an appeal from a decision of the chair related to the 

application of the rules of the Senate to the procedures related to a resolution. 

(f) APPLICATION.—This section applies to a license issued or 

transferred under this chapter for which the Secretary receives a 

complete and valid application not later than December 31, ø2016¿ 

2025. This section does not apply to permits. 

* * * * * * * 

Subtitle VII—ACCESS TO SPACE 

* * * * * * * 

CHAPTER 701 

Sec. 

70101. Recovery of fair value of placing Department of Defense payloads in orbit 

with øspace shuttle¿ Space Launch System. 

70102. øSpace shuttle¿ Space Launch System use policy. 

70103. Commercial payloads on øspace shuttle¿ Space Launch System. 

§ 70101. Recovery of fair value of placing Department of Defense payloads in orbit with øspace shuttle¿ Space 

Launch System 

Notwithstanding any other provision of law, or any interagency 

agreement, the Administrator shall charge such prices as are necessary to recover the fair value of placing Department of Defense 

payloads into orbit by means of the øspace shuttle¿ Space Launch 

System. 

§ 70102. øSpace shuttle¿ Space Launch System use policy 

(a) USE POLICY.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.— 

(A) POLICY.—It shall be the policy of the United States 

to use the øspace shuttle¿ Space Launch System— 

(i) for purposes that require a human presence directly to cis-lunar space and the regions of space beyond low-Earth orbit; 

(ii) for purposes that require the unique capabilities 

of the øspace shuttle¿ Space Launch System; or 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
65 

(iii) when other compelling circumstances exist. 

(B) DEFINITION OF COMPELLING CIRCUMSTANCES.—In this 

paragraph, the term ‘‘compelling circumstances’’ includes, 

but is not limited to, occasions when the Administrator determines, in consultation with the Secretary of Defense 

and the Secretary of State, that important national security or foreign policy interests would be served by øa shuttle launch¿ a launch of the Space Launch System. 

(2) USING AVAILABLE CARGO SPACE FOR SECONDARY PAYLOADS.—The policy stated in paragraph (1) shall not preclude 

the use of available cargo space, on øa space shuttle mission¿ 

a mission of the Space Launch System otherwise consistent 

with the policy described in paragraph (1), for the purpose of 

carrying secondary payloads (as defined by the Administrator) 

that do not require a human presence if such payloads are consistent with the requirements of research, development, demonstration, scientific, commercial, and educational programs 

authorized by the Administrator. 

(b) ANNUAL REPORT.—At least annually, the Administrator shall 

submit to Congress a report certifying that the payloads scheduled 

to be launched on the øspace shuttle¿ Space Launch System for the 

next 4 years are consistent with the policy set forth in subsection 

(a)(1). For each payload scheduled to be launched from the øspace 

shuttle¿ Space Launch System that does not require a human presence, the Administrator shall, in the certified report to Congress, 

state the specific circumstances that justified the use of the øspace 

shuttle¿ Space Launch System. If, during the period between 

scheduled reports to Congress, any additions are made to the list 

of certified payloads intended to be launched øfrom the shuttle¿ 

from the Space Launch System, the Administrator shall inform 

Congress of the additions and the reasons therefor within 45 days 

of the change. 

(c) ADMINISTRATION PAYLOADS.—The report described in subsection (b) shall also include those Administration payloads designed solely to fly on the øspace shuttle¿ Space Launch System 

which have begun the phase C/D of its development cycle. 

(d) DEFINITION.—In this section, the term ‘‘Space Launch System’’ 

means the Space Launch System authorized under section 302 of 

the National Aeronautics and Space Administration Authorization 

Act of 2010. 

§ 70103. Commercial payloads on øspace shuttle¿ Space 

Launch System 

(a) DEFINITIONS.—In this section: 

(1) LAUNCH VEHICLE.—The term ‘‘launch vehicle’’ means any 

vehicle constructed for the purpose of operating in, or placing 

a payload in, outer space. 

(2) PAYLOAD.—The term ‘‘payload’’ means an object which a 

person undertakes to place in outer space by means of a launch 

vehicle, and includes subcomponents of the launch vehicle specifically designed or adapted for that object. 

(b) IN GENERAL.—Commercial payloads may not be accepted for 

launch as primary payloads on the øspace shuttle¿ Space Launch 

System unless the Administrator determines that— 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
66 

(1) the payload requires the unique capabilities of the øspace 

shuttle¿ Space Launch System; or 

(2) launching of the payload on the øspace shuttle¿ Space 

Launch System is important for either national security or foreign policy purposes. 

* * * * * * * 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
(67) 

MINORITY VIEWS 

H.R. 2262, as amended, ‘‘Spurring Private Aerospace Competitiveness and Entrepreneurship Act of 2015,’’ proposes to extend 

and amend key provisions of the Commercial Space Launch 

Amendments Act (CSLAA) of 2004 as included in USC Title 51. 

The two time sensitive provisions concern the moratorium on the 

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) proposing any safety regulations on commercial human space flight, which ends on September 30, 2015 and the extension of commercial space launch indemnification, which ends on December 31, 2016. 

The Committee has held no hearings during the 114th Congress 

on commercial space transportation, or the broader area of commercial space, or on the legislation that was being marked up. The 

members of the Minority are strong supporters of the commercial 

space launch industry, but consider holding hearings and subcommittee markups and important part of the process. The bill as 

amended is unbalanced, giving strong preference to the priorities 

of the commercial space launch industry in matters related to the 

safety of the general public and the safety of the future customers 

of this industry. 

Sec. 2. Consensus standards 

There currently is a prohibition against FAA issuing regulations 

to protect the safety of the crew and spaceflight participants [passengers] on a commercially licensed suborbital or orbital human 

spaceflight system. That moratorium, which was put in place in 

2004, was supposed to expire in 2012. It was extended for an additional three years and is now set to expire on September 30, 2015. 

H.R. 2262, as amended, extends the moratorium for an additional 

10 years, until 2025, further delaying any regulations to protect the 

safety of the people who will fly on commercial human spaceflight 

systems. While it is argued by some that the commercial human 

spaceflight industry is a fledgling industry that needs room to grow 

without regulatory burdens, there have been significant advances 

made in the development of commercial human spaceflight systems 

since 2004. In addition, the head of the FAA Office of Commercial 

Space Transportation (AST) has testified that 50 years of U.S. 

human spaceflight provides ample experience on which to base 

safety regulations and that continuing a no-regulation learning period for another decade would unnecessarily delay detailed discussions between industry and FAA that could form the basis of either 

safety regulations or voluntary consensus standards. 

A Democratic amendment was offered to extend the learning period for 5 years—a length consistent with the amount of time specified in the bipartisan Senate bill that was recently introduced— 

half the time period included in H.R. 2262, as amended. 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
68 

Sec. 3. International launch competitiveness 

The provisions for the commercial space launch indemnification 

regime have been extended numerous times since they were first 

passed in 1988. Most recently, on January 16, 2014, Congress 

passed the ‘‘Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2014’’ and as part of 

it, extended the third party liability and indemnification provisions 

for an additional three years [to December 31, 2016]. It was the 8th 

extension of these provisions. H.R. 2262, as amended, would provide another extension, this time until December 31, 2025. 

The industry has come a long way in the quarter of a century 

since indemnification was first enacted. A Democratic amendment 

to H.R. 2262, sought to extend the indemnification for 4 years, 

until 2020, to allow for review of a plan to update the Maximum 

Probable Loss calculation and an independent review of the plan 

before any longer term extension. Four years is a sensible, pragmatic approach that provides for a report and a review as well as 

appropriate Congressional oversight, following the results of the 

plan and review. The bipartisan Senate bill also seeks a 4-year extension. 

Sec. 4. Launch license flexibility 

This section has been overtaken by events. The provision was 

first sought by a single launch company, Virgin Galactic. However, 

following the Spaceship Two accident in 2014, which resulted in 

the death of a pilot, Virgin Galactic made the decision to take on 

all of the testing responsibilities that it had originally contracted 

to Scaled Composites. Virgin would continue development and testing of its vehicles within the Virgin Galactic company. This decision eliminated the problem that prompted the proposed language 

included in this Section. 

Officials from the FAA’s Office of Commercial Space Transportation told Democratic staff that a commercial launch license enables a launch provider to carry out testing and improvements to 

a vehicle, providing that the licensee has specified such activities 

in obtaining the license. Once Virgin Galactic obtains a license, it 

can continue to carry out testing and make safety improvements to 

a vehicle, providing those activities are included as part of its license. There is thus no compelling need for this Section. The expectation that companies other than Virgin Galactic may need such 

flexibility does not have merit. No other companies have come forth 

seeking this language be enacted into law. 

Sec. 5. Government astronauts 

The inclusion of this clause has potential consequences beyond 

this bill as the term ‘‘Astronaut’’ has never been clearly defined in 

a statute up to this point, and thus the final language selected may 

have far reaching implications. The Majority’s addition of ‘‘Government Astronaut’’ as a new category is in response to a request by 

the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) for 

this addition to existing statutes. NASA has explained that neither 

of the two current definitions in the CSLA, ‘‘Space Flight Participants’’ and ‘‘Crew,’’ effectively covered NASA astronauts. This is 

because, at the time the CSLA was drafted, no one envisioned a fuVerDate Sep 11 2014 08:47 May 19, 2015 Jkt 049006 PO 00000 Frm 00068 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6604 E:\HR\OC\HR119.XXX HR119

rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
69 

ture where NASA would fly astronauts using commercial crew 

transportation services. 

However, both NASA’s and the Majority’s proposed definitions 

leave out some cases that are important to address. For example, 

both proposals define a ‘‘Government Astronaut’’ as either a U.S. 

government employee or as the employee of a foreign government. 

However, both proposals limit a foreign astronaut to only those foreign astronauts who come from signatories to the Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) relating to operations on the International 

Space Station (ISS). Commercial space operations are likely to 

have missions other than directly related to the ISS, and as such, 

the definition of foreign astronauts should not be limited by that 

agreement. In addition, neither NASA’s language nor the Majority’s takes into account the fact that there might be U.S. government employees who have not been trained as astronauts but who 

will still need to fly on a commercial space vehicle as part of their 

employment activities, e.g., as government researchers. Both situations raise cross-waiver and indemnification issues. 

Sec. 6. Indemnification for spaceflight participants 

This section proposes to include spaceflight participants in the 

third party liability risk-sharing regime established by Congress in 

the Commercial Space Launch Act Amendments of 1988. That regime insured that the government would indemnify any participants whose liability went above their insurance coverage. The proposal to include spaceflight participants in this regime is based on 

the notion that any accident involving third-party claims will result 

in claims being made on spaceflight participants who are not covered in the launch party’s third-party insurance. The argument is 

also that spaceflight participants be put on the same playing field 

as contractors and subcontractors who are included in the indemnification regime. However, this policy change has not been examined at any Committee hearings, and thus there are a number of 

unresolved questions relative to this policy change. First, 

spaceflight participants were explicitly excluded from the liability 

regime in the 2004 updates to the Commercial Space Launch Act, 

because of the appearance of indemnifying wealthy individuals who 

would be seeking to become space tourists flying on commercial 

human spaceflight systems. In addition, the question of whether 

the U.S. Government should indemnify spaceflight participants for 

third-party claims should be considered in the context of other 

high-risk adventure activities such as skydiving. If an individual 

who understands the risks chooses to take a commercial space 

flight, and is able to purchase insurance coverage or have it provided by the launch provider, the American taxpayer should not be 

responsible for indemnifying that individual. 

The proposal to include spaceflight participnts in the third party 

liability regime deserves further study and investigation and is premature to include in this update of the CSLA. 

Sec. 7. Federal jurisdiction 

This provision provides that any legal ‘‘action or tort arising from 

a licensed launch shall be the sole jurisdiction of the federal courts 

and shall be decided under federal law.’’ This provision removes all 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
70 

legal actions arising out of federally licensed launches from state 

courts to the federal courts. Second, the provision preempts the application of state law and requires that the actions be decided 

under federal law. This provision is unconscionable as there is no 

Federal civil tort law that would apply to commercial space launch 

providers. To quote from a letter by American Association for Justice dated May 12, 2015, to Chairman Smith and Ranking Member 

Johnson: 

‘‘AAJ recognizes the challenges of trying to give a new 

industry the flexibility to grow and innovate without unnecessary burdens. However, language included in the bill 

will provide companies involved in commercial space travel 

immunity for torts arising from a licensed commercial 

space launch or reentry. More specifically, Section 7 of the 

bill states: ‘‘Any action or tort arising from a licensed 

launch or reentry shall be the sole jurisdiction of the Federal courts and shall be decided under federal law.’’ Since 

there is no federal tort law applicable to private companies, there is no remedy available to anyone injured or any 

property damage incurred as a result of a negligent launch 

or reentry. Essentially, Section 7 provides immunity for 

recklessness and intentional misconduct. Notably, this immunity could stretch to foreign companies involved in commercial space travel at the expense of United States citizens, businesses and government. 

* * * 

As the commercial space travel indutry grows, safety 

should be put first and foremost. But, providing no recourse for grossly negligent, reckless or even intentional 

misconduct leading to personal injury or death is irresponsible and wrong. Simply put, industry interests should not 

be valued over the safety of the American public. As written, the SPACE Act of 2015 gives reckless and bad actors 

complete immunity, while innocent participants and bystanders are left without recourse, regardless of the circumstance.’’ 

A Democratic amendment sought to address these concerns, by 

striking this section of the amended bill, but it was not adopted. 

Sec. 8. Cross-waivers of liability 

The argument for including this provision is that since 

spaceflight participants know that spaceflight is risky and agree to 

sign informed consent, then they should also agree to waive claims 

against the launch provider and related parties to the launch. Furthermore, stakeholders assert that the informed consent does not 

relieve a launch provider from claims and thus cross-waivers are 

required to ensure they remain immune from suit. However, inclusion of this provision is another way in which this unbalanced bill 

is skewed against individuals. To quote from the American Association for Justice letter dated May 12, 2015, that was sent to Chairman Smith and Ranking Member Johnson: 

In addition to providing broad liability protections, Section 8 of the SPACE Act of 2015 also requires passengers 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
71 

on commercial spacecraft to waive any right to damages 

for personal injury, property damage or death resulting 

from commercial air travel. While it may be acceptable for 

businesses with equal footing and negotiating power to 

execute cross waivers limiting their responsibility to each 

other, this waiver language should not extend to passengers. This provision is unfair and harmful to individuals. 

Sec. 10. State commercial launch facilities 

States, municipalities, and commercial entities have and continue to participate in commercial space transportation, in particular, through ownership or investment in commercial spaceports 

and related launch facilities. Such commercial launch facilities can 

support the growth of the commercial space transportation industry 

and support U.S. Government launch activities. 

Some commercial launch facilities involve considerable State investment. However, there are liability and indemnification issues 

that warrant further attention before making policy in this area. 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON. 

Æ 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING