NTSB commercial space regulation proposal criticized by industry and FAA

[ad_1]

WASHINGTON — A National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) proposal that would give the agency a bigger role in investigating commercial launch failures is facing strong opposition from industry and the Federal Aviation Administration. .

The NTSB issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, or NPRM, in November regarding commercial space surveys. The proposed regulations seek to codify the commission’s role in investigating accidents involving commercial launches and re-entries, just as it does in various modes of transportation.

The regulations would require companies conducting a launch or re-entry under an FAA experimental license or permit to notify the NTSB immediately in the event of an accident. The NTSB would investigate to determine probable cause and provide recommendations to avoid similar occurrences in the future.

The NTSB has helped investigate past space-related incidents, including the October 2014 crash involving Virgin Galactic’s SpaceShipTwo that killed its co-pilot and seriously injured the pilot. A 2004 memorandum of understanding that includes the NTSB, FAA and the US Air Force, as well as an older agreement between the NTSB and the FAA, currently governs this partnership.

The NTSB argues that the existing agreements are outdated and that it must now explicitly declare its authority to do so under a section of law called Subpart F in the document. “Notably, at the time the two documents were signed, commercial human space launches were not viable,” the NTSB said. “With commercial human spaceflight now a reality, however, the NTSB finds it necessary to codify its authority to investigate commercial space accidents and safety incidents in Subpart F.” The NTSB adds that it believes that under federal law it has “statutory priority over any investigation by any U.S. department or agency.”

The NPRM publication launched a public comment period which ended on January 18. It generated more than a dozen responses, most submitted as the deadline approached. It included comments from many launch companies and trade groups who opposed elements of the proposal as well as the NTSB’s efforts which, to them, seemed to usurp the existing role of the FAA to oversee the industry.

Many have argued that the NTSB’s proposed settlement would duplicate investigations overseen by the FAA. “The NRPM would effectively create duplicate and conflicting incident investigation authorities between the FAA and the NTSB, creating regulatory uncertainty for the commercial space launch industry,” Blue Origin wrote in its response to the proposal.

The company added that the way the settlement was drafted could “inadvertently lead to the NTSB’s unlimited, non-statutory authority to initiate investigations into commercial space launch vendor incidents, even without any vehicle damage or destruction.” , or serious injury or death”. [emphasis in original]

SpaceX, in its response, claimed the NTSB was overstepping its authority when the agency viewed commercial spaceflight as a “mode of transportation” within its purview when it was instead “a nascent industry sector that is still in development and is appropriately regulated as such”. ”

SpaceX cited its own iterative testing process, arguing that this approach would be affected by the NTSB’s proposal “and could create a chilling effect on safety and innovation by discouraging operators from seeking test and flight opportunities to improve the status quo by introducing new designs, performance upgrades and improved safety systems.

Industry groups have also criticized certain aspects of the proposed regulations. The Aerospace Industries Association recommended that the NTSB update the proposal to reflect comments and “conduct further analysis to ensure that regulations, if any, are aligned with existing FAA and industry requirements.” NASA before proceeding”. The Commercial Spaceflight Federation disagreed with the NTSB’s assertion that it had the authority to investigate commercial spaceflight accidents, noting existing FAA authorities and the fact that spaceflight Commercial humans are nowhere near as mature as other modes of transportation.

The FAA itself weighed in against the NTSB’s proposal. FAA Administrator Steve Dickson said the existing agreement with the NTSB was working well and “with some updates should continue to serve effectively.” Those changes, he said, would include consolidating existing agreements and updating them to reflect changes in federal law since 2004.

“I encourage the NTSB to instead refocus on its current successful working relationship with the FAA and build on past successes to create an enhanced, unified effort moving forward,” he concluded. .

Not all comments were critical of the NTSB’s proposal. Airlines for America (A4A), an airline industry trade group, has approved a greater role for the NTSB in the investigation of commercial spaceflight accidents. “Given the continued development of commercial space transportation, A4A believes that formal commercial space investigation procedures and rules should be put in place,” the organization wrote.

Outside of the official public comment period, two key members of Congress weighed in against the NTSB’s proposal. In a letter to the NTSB in November, Reps. Frank Lucas (R-Okla.) and Brian Babin (R-Texas), the most senior members of the House Science Committee and its Space Subcommittee respectively, asked documents explaining the NTSB’s rationale. for the proposed settlement.

“The NTSB’s attempts to expand its authority would alter the longstanding commercial space accident investigation process and have a significant impact on the commercial space launch industry, U.S. economic competitiveness, scientific discovery, space exploration, international cooperation, national security and safety,” they wrote.

The NTSB offered no timeline for considering the comments and either proceeding with regulation, requesting comments on an amended version, or withdrawing the proposal.

[ad_2]