SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “authorities having jurisdiction”

Search indexed NASA NTRS and DOE OSTI research on propulsion, heat transfer, battery materials and energy systems. Follow report and document links to the original sources.

SourceResearch connectionFrom yearThrough year

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

3 records

All sources NASA NTRS DOE OSTI

NASA NTRS2000

American National Standards: The Consensus Process

Since the early 20th Century, technical and professional societies have developed standards within their areas of expertise addressing aspects of their industries which they feel would benefit from a degree of standardization. From the beginning, the use of these standards was strictly voluntary. It did not take jurisdictional authorities long, however, to recognize that application of these voluntary standards enhanced public safety, as well as leveling the playing field in trade. Hence, laws were passed mandating their use. Purchasers of goods and services also recognized the advantages of standardization, and began requiring the use of standards in their procurement contracts. But how do jurisdictions and purchasers know that the standard they are mandating is a broad-based industry standard, or a narrowly focused set of rules which only apply to one company or institution, thereby giving them an unfair advantage? The answer is "consensus", and a unified approach in achieving it.

Schafer, Thom↗

NASA NTRS1996

Planetary protection, legal ambiguity and the decision making process for Mars sample return

As scientists and mission planners develop planetary protection requirements for future Mars sample return missions, they must recognize the socio-political context in which decisions about the mission will be made and pay careful attention to public concerns about potential back contamination of Earth. To the extent that planetary protection questions are unresolved or unaddressed at the time of an actual mission, they offer convenient footholds for public challenges in both legal and decision making realms, over which NASA will have little direct control. In this paper, two particular non-scientific areas of special concern are discussed in detail: 1) legal issues and 2) the decision making process. Understanding these areas is critical for addressing legitimate public concerns as well as for fulfilling procedural requirements regardless whether sample return evokes public controversy. Legal issues with the potential to complicate future missions include: procedural review under National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA); uncertainty about institutional control and authority; conflicting regulations and overlapping jurisdictions; questions about international treaty obligations and large scale impacts; uncertanities about the nature of the organism; and constitutional and regulatory concerns about quarantine, public health and safety. In light of these important legal issues, it is critical that NASA consider the role and timing of public involvement in the decision making process as a way of anticipating problem areas and preparing for legitimate public questions and challenges to sample return missions.

NASA Discipline Number 59-10↗

NASA NTRS1967

Report of Apollo 204 Review Board to the Administrator, National Aeronautics and Space Administration : Schedule of Physical Evidence - Appendix F

Immediately following the Apollo 204 accident of January 27, 1961. all associated equipment and material were impounded. Release of this equipment and material for normal use was under the close control of the Apollo 204 Review Board. Apollo Review Board Administrative Procedure No. 11, February 11, 1961, established the Apollo 204 Review Board Material Release Record (MRR). This MRR was the official form used to release material from full impoundment and was valid only after being approved by the Board and signed by a Member. The form was used as the authority to place any impounded item into one of the three Categories defined in Administrative Procedure No. 11. This appendix contains all of the authorized MRR's. Each item submitted on an MRR was given a control number; a description, including the part number and serial number; the relevance and location to the accident; any constraints before release; and the control category. The categories placed on the equipment were as follows: Category A - Items which may have a significant influence or bearing on the results or findings of the Apollo 204 Review Board; Category B - All material other than Category A which is considered relevant to the Apollo 204 Review Board investigation; Category C - Material released from Board jurisdiction. Several classes of equipment were released by special Board action prior to the establishment of the MRR system. The operating procedure for release of these classes is Enclosure F-l to this appendix.

Source record↗