6 CFR 25.6 - Government contractor defense.

Code of Federal Regulations - Title 6: Homeland Security (December 2005)


Permanent Link: http://vlex.com/vid/19612701

Id. vLex: VLEX-19612701

Click here to download this article in graphic format (Acrobat Reader)

Search in this document

Sponsored Ads:


Text:

TITLE 6 - HOMELAND SECURITY

CHAPTER I - DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

PART 25 - REGULATIONS TO SUPPORT ANTI - TERRORISM BY FOSTERING EFFECTIVE TECHNOLOGIES

25.6 - Government contractor defense.

  (a) Criteria for certification. The Under Secretary may certify a qualified anti-terrorism technology as an Approved Product for Homeland Security for purposes of establishing a rebuttable presumption of the applicability of the government contractor defense. In determining whether to grant such certification, the Under Secretary or his or her designee shall conduct a comprehensive review of the design of such technology and determine whether it will perform as intended, conforms to the Seller's specifications, and is safe for use as intended. The Seller shall provide safety and hazard analyses and other relevant data and information regarding such technology to the Department in connection with an application. The Under Secretary or his designee may require that the Seller submit any information that the Under Secretary or his designee considers relevant to the application for approval. The Under Secretary or his designee may consult with, and rely upon the expertise of, any other governmental or non-governmental person or entity, and may consider test results produced by an independent laboratory or other person or entity engaged by the Seller.

  (b) Extent of liability. Should a product liability or other lawsuit be filed for claims arising out of, relating to, or resulting from an act of terrorism when qualified anti-terrorism technologies certified by the Under Secretary as provided in 25.6 and 25.7 of this part have been deployed in defense against or response or recovery from such act and such claims result or may result in loss to the Seller, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that the government contractor defense applies in such lawsuit. This presumption shall only be overcome by evidence showing that the Seller acted fraudulently or with willful misconduct in submitting information to the Assistant Secretary during the course of the Assistant Secretary's consideration of such technology under this subsection. This presumption of the government contractor defense shall apply regardless of whether the claim against the Seller arises from a sale of the product to Federal Government or non-Federal Government customers. Such presumption shall apply in perpetuity to all deployments of a qualified anti-terrorism technology (for which a Certification has been issued by the Under Secretary as provided in this section and 25.7) that occur on or after the effective date of the Certification applicable to such technology in defense against, response to, or recovery from any act of terrorism, provided that the sale of such technology was consummated by the Seller on or after the earliest date of sale of such technology specified in such Certification (which shall be determined by the Under Secretary in his or her discretion, and may be prior to, but shall not be later than, such effective date) and prior to the expiration or termination of such Certification.

Other documents:
Meetings: National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research, | Airworthiness directives: Bombardier, | long beach unified school district, plaintiff-appellant, v. dorothy b. godwin california living trus... | agency information collection activities proposals submissions and approvals, | 6 cfr 25.6 government contractor defense. | Anuncio de 1 de septiembre de 2008, de la Delegacion Provincial de Cordoba, por el que se da tramite de audiencia a los in... | decisión 2008/666/pesc del consejo de 24 de julio de 2008 relativa a la celebración de un acuerdo entre l... | Atribuye la irrupcion de Ciutadans al alejamiento de los problemas reales | Case of Tribunal Superior de Justicia Sevilla Andalucia Sala de lo Social of May 08 2001