House Science Committee Chairwoman Johnson and Ranking Member Lucas Urge Biden to Rescind Proposal to Give Authority Over Commercial Space Accidents
WASHINGTON (House Science Committee PR) – Today, Chairwoman Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-TX) and Ranking Member Frank Lucas (R-OK) sent a letter [see below] to President Biden expressing their concerns regarding the Administration’s Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) for commercial space accident investigation that was issued by the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB).
“Responsibilities and authorities for space accident investigation are to be determined by congressional action, as reflected in Title 51 of the United States Code, not through proposed regulations that are outside of established authorities,” said Chairwoman Johnson (D-TX) and Ranking Member Lucas (R-OK) in the letter. “The NTSB’s proposed rulemaking is inconsistent with statutory authorities, existing interagency agreements and regulations, and it is plainly unlawful.”
The Committee leaders continued, “While we share the NTSB’s desire to promote safety, we are concerned that the NTSB’s proposed rulemaking on commercial space accident investigation contravenes existing agreements and statutory authorities including those related to commercial space launch and reentry activities represented in Title 51 United States Code Chapter 509 on Commercial Space Launch Activities and on human spaceflight accident investigation under Title 51 United States Code Chapter 707, Human Space Flight Independent Investigation Commission.”
A full copy of the letter can be found below.
April 6, 2022
The Honorable Joseph R. Biden
President
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Ave.
Washington, DC 20500
Dear President Biden:
As the Chairwoman and Ranking Member of the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, we write to express our concerns regarding the Administration’s Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) for commercial space accident investigation, as issued by the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB).1 Responsibilities and authorities for space accident investigation are to be determined by congressional action, as reflected in Title 51 of the United States Code, not through proposed regulations that are outside of established authorities. The NTSB’s proposed rulemaking is inconsistent with statutory authorities, existing interagency agreements and regulations, and it is plainly unlawful.
Spaceflight is an area of United States national leadership and is of increasing importance to the national security and economic growth of our country. Rocketry is complex and sending spacecraft, especially humans, into space remains high risk. Ongoing improvements in the safety of such operations is foundational to the continuing growth, success, and leadership of our civil and commercial space activities.
The NTSB has contributed important skill and insight to commercial spaceflight accident investigation over previous decades. The Board’s experience is an asset to such investigative processes. While we share the NTSB’s desire to promote safety, we are concerned that the NTSB’s proposed rulemaking on commercial space accident investigation contravenes existing agreements and statutory authorities including those related to commercial space launch and reentry activities represented in Title 51 United States Code Chapter 509 on Commercial Space Launch Activities and on human spaceflight accident investigation under Title 51 United States Code Chapter 707, Human Space Flight Independent Investigation Commission. Please see attachment A for more information.
We insist that these are not minor issues that can be clarified with an updated proposed rule. They are fundamental conflicts that undermine the entire NPRM. If implemented, the additional duplicative and redundant requirements would confuse operators and lead to unnecessary reporting burdens that, as one commentor stated, could “…harm the national interest and stunt the growth of this emerging industry.”2 At a time when our national and economic security increasingly depend on space and innovation, the Federal Government should seriously assess proposals that could stifle our national progress.
As the Committee of jurisdiction,3 we look forward to working with our colleagues in Congress and in the Administration and will continue to examine the overall commercial space accident investigation framework, identify changes that may be needed to strengthen the framework, and provide appropriate direction in law under Title 51 of the U.S. Code. We reiterate that this rulemaking is plainly unlawful and we urge you to terminate any further action and rescind the proposed rule.
Sincerely,
Eddie Bernice Johnson
Chairwoman
Committee on Science, Space, and Technology
Frank Lucas
Ranking Member
Committee on Science, Space, and Technology
1 https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2021/11/16/2021-24766/commercial-space-investigations, Docket No. NTSB-2021-0008.
2 Crutchfield, Allison, Sr. Manager, Regulatory Affairs, SpaceX; Public Comment on NTSB NPRM, NTSB-2021-0008, January 18, 2022.
3 “Astronautical research and development, including resources, personnel, equipment, and facilities” and “Outer space, including exploration and control thereof”. House Rule X(1)(p)(2)&(12)
13 responses to “House Science Committee Chairwoman Johnson and Ranking Member Lucas Urge Biden to Rescind Proposal to Give Authority Over Commercial Space Accidents”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
she is wrong
This will all get sorted out once Virgin Galactic kills some customers.
yeap the first flight fatality does it
I think you mean the first passenger flight fatality.
Ouch!
Assuming it doesn’t go broke before it gets the chance.
Actually, she’s not.
This is the NTSB trying to promote itself another mission. Small wonder, I suppose, with civil and even general aviation accidents on downward trends owing to better aircraft and reduced flight ops because of Covid and other factors. Too many investigators with too little to do.
But Congress explicitly put commercial spaceflight off-limits to most forms of regulation and thus it remains. Congresswoman Johnson is probably less annoyed about bureaucratic mission expansion initiatives in general than about this particular one as it steps on her personal toes.
This is the sort of thing one should expect from an extra-Constitutional regime with no real use for the rule of law.
several flaws here sadly
first the NTSB does not regulate anything
they have no regulatory authority. the best that they can do is SUGGEST fixes both mechanical and regulatory and thats it
they do this in all sorts of transportation issues…and the agency that regulates that mode of transportation is free to adopt or not those recommendations
that alone should be it for me. to not understand the role of the agency stops ones comments from having merit
in this case it is urgent that the NTSB get empowered to investigate commercial space/launch events. they have the expertise (or can easily get it) and are the professionals at this. there is no other group in the world that has their expertise
as the PRC admitted when they called the NTSB in.
she is s dolt 🙂
as for no real use for the rule of law. Trump has admitted he lost the election. legally 🙂 sorry F minus
As a long-time watcher of Aircraft Disasters, I’m quite aware the NTSB does not regulate anything. As you say, it just makes recommendations to agencies that do regulate the relevant transportation modes. But there is no such agency where commercial spaceflight is concerned so there seems little point in inserting the NTSB into a place where it will have no influence.
As for expertise, the NTSB has none anent spacecraft except a bit with respect to spacecraft having wings and operating as aircraft during part of their flight regimes. And, as I’ve already noted in a separate comment above, the NTSB has to borrow a lot of the expertise needed even when investigating accidents involving transportation modes with which it has long familiarity.
Rep. Johnson is, indeed, a dolt. But even a stopped clock is right twice a day. She’s right about this.
I am aware of no such admission by Mr. Trump. I am aware of a number of recent statements of his to the contrary. So, absent an actual link, I call BS.
then your entire post lacked precision. leave this matter to experts. I can school you on it if you like 🙂
They do everything from bicycles to super tankers. No reason not to do space commerce as well especially since they already were part of the Challenger and Columbia accident investigations as well as SpaceshipTwo.
https://www.ntsb.gov/safety…
https://www.ntsb.gov/safety…
NTSB: ‘Unexplained’ Course Change Was ‘A Critical Error’ in Fatal USS Fitzgerald Collision
By: Sam LaGrone
September 3, 2020 6:10 PM
https://www.lexology.com/li…
NTSB and Commercial Space: The Final Frontier
Plane-ly Spoken
LeClairRyan
“Although offering explicit statutory language spelling out the NTSB’s
authority to investigate commercial space launch accidents is useful, Plane-ly Spoken readers should realize that the NTSB has been investigating these types of accidents — and assisting in other Federal agencies’ investigations —
for more than 30 years. For example:
the NTSB participated in the investigations of the 1986 Space Shuttle Challenger and the 2003 Space Shuttle Columbia accidents.
in 1993, the NTSB investigated a procedural anomaly associated with the
launch of an expendable launch vehicle at NASA’s Wallops Flight Facility
in Virginia. See NTSB/SIR-93-02, July 26, 1993.”
The reason is that the NTSB has no statutory authority to do spacecraft accident investigations. That NTSB has been invited to participate in a handful of such investigations – most of which involved spacecraft with wings – is not a reason for the agency to unilaterally make a turf grab.
There is also, of course, the fact that NTSB has little applicable staff expertise anent spacecraft. The NTSB, in investigating terrestrial transportation accidents, routinely has to rely on the professional expertise of vehicle and component manufacturers in making their determinations and recommendations. The FAA, for that matter, does the same when evaluating new aircraft for airworthiness certification.
That being true, it’s hard to see what major value-add NTSB would bring to a spacecraft accident investigation other than a penumbra of authoritativeness that would derive entirely from its history of investigating other types of transportation accidents.
Spacecraft designers and builders have their own histories of investigating mishaps involving their own products. And they have the job of demonstrating the accuracy and credibility of their findings to customers – including the government – and to others with a stake in the conclusions, such as insurers.
I agree!