The National Transportation Safety Board: Background and Issues for Reauthorization and Congressional Oversight

The National Transportation Safety Board: Background and Issues for Reauthorization and Congressional Oversight

Order Code RS21413
Updated June 10, 2003
CRS Report for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
The National Transportation Safety Board:
Background and Issues for Reauthorization
and Congressional Oversight
Bartholomew Elias
Specialist in Aviation Safety, Security, and Technology
Resources, Science, and Industry Division
Summary
The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) is a small, independent agency
charged with the task of investigating transportation accidents; conducting transportation
safety studies; issuing safety recommendations; aiding victim’s families in aviation
disasters; and promoting transportation safety. Funding authorization for NTSB expired
at the end of FY2002. In the 108th Congress, NTSB reauthorization bills (H.R. 1527/S.
579) have been reported out of committee in both houses. The House passed H.R. 1527
by voice vote on May 15, 2003. Issues for NTSB reauthorization include transfer of
family assistance responsibilities to law enforcement agencies when it is determined that
a transportation disaster was the result of a criminal act; funding the NTSB Academy;
clarifying NTSB’s relief from federal contracting requirements for investigation-related
procurement; expanding the role of NTSB’s disaster assistance to transportation modes
other than aviation; and expanding or redefining the scope of NTSB’s investigative role
in selected transportation safety issues. This report will be updated as needed.
NTSB Background
NTSB History. The NTSB was established in 1967 as part of the newly formed
Department of Transportation (DOT). In 1974, Congress passed the Independent Safety
Board Act of 1974 (in P.L. 93-633) making the NTSB completely separate from the DOT.
Doing so gave NTSB complete independence from DOT, thereby allowing the agency to
carry out unbiased investigations and make recommendations regarding safety regulations
and oversight practices of DOT without the public perception of conflicting interests.
Over the course of its 35 year history the NTSB has established a worldwide reputation
as a model agency for investigating accidents and identifying needed transportation safety
improvements. Through the issuance of safety recommendations and advocacy for
transportation safety needs, the NTSB has earned significant respect from the Congress
for its efforts in identifying needed transportation safety improvements and maintaining
public confidence in transportation safety.
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

CRS-2
NTSB Organization. The NTSB consists of a five member board and a staff of
slightly more than 400, about half of which are located at its Washington, DC
headquarters and the rest distributed among several regional offices throughout the United
States. The Safety Board members, presidentially appointed with the advice and consent
of the Senate, serve 5-year terms and may continue to serve beyond their term until a
replacement board member is appointed. Not more than 3 Safety Board members may
be appointed from the same political party, and at least 3 members must be appointed on
the basis of technical qualifications, professional standing, and knowledge of
transportation safety issues. The Safety Board is supported by the NTSB’s technical and
administrative staff that carry out the mission of the NTSB including conducting
investigations and safety studies and prepare safety recommendations and safety advocacy
materials.
NTSB Mission. The NTSB investigates the following transportation-related
accidents and safety issues:
! All accidents involving civil aircraft and public aircraft, other than
military or intelligence agency aircraft, within the United States and its
territories;
! Selected highway and railroad grade crossing accidents;
! Railroad accidents involving passenger trains, loss of life, or significant
property damage;
! Pipeline accidents involving significant property or environmental
damage, or loss of life;
! Major marine casualties, except those involving only public vessels,
occurring on the navigable waters or territorial sea of the United States,
or involving U.S. flag vessels, jointly with the Coast Guard; and
! Other selected catastrophic accidents or recurring problems involving
transportation safety.1
Additionally, the NTSB renders assistance to the families of passengers involved in air
carrier accidents, and handles appeals of certificate actions by the FAA or the Coast
Guard and certain appeals involving civil penalties for enforcement actions by the FAA.
The NTSB also maintains a database of civil aviation accidents and conducts special
studies of selected transportation safety issues.2 In accordance with international treaties,
the NTSB also participates in investigations of foreign aviation accidents involving any
U.S. manufactured or registered aircraft.
While the NTSB has no authority to change transportation safety regulations and
practices, its principal means for effecting change in transportation safety is through the
issuance of safety recommendations to regulators, operators, and users of transportation
systems. Since investigations of complex accidents may take several years, the NTSB
routinely issues recommendations over the course of an investigation as needed safety
improvements are identified. NTSB highlights its key safety recommendations on a list
of “Most Wanted” safety improvements that currently includes:
1 See U.S. Code, Title 49, Section 1131.
2 See “About the NTSB: History and Mission”, [http://www.ntsb.gov/Abt_NTSB/history.htm]

CRS-3
! Improving automobile child occupant protection;
! Reducing human fatigue in transportation operations;
! Improving event recorders including: cockpit video systems, recorders
for commercial highway vehicles, more crashworthy railroad event
recorders, and improved flight data recorder maintenance;
! Preventing runway incursions at airports;
! Mitigating the hazards of structural icing on aircraft;
! Eliminating explosive fuel air mixtures in fuel tanks on transport
category aircraft to prevent explosions such as TWA flight 800 in 1996;
! Implementing a collision avoidance system for railroads;
! Improving the safety standards of commercial trucks and buses;
! Strengthening enforcement laws requiring seatbelt usage;
! Promoting youth highway safety through graduated licensing, tougher
underage drinking and driving laws, and nighttime restrictions for novice
drivers;
! Enhancing recreational boating safety; and
! Enhancing marine post-accident drug and alcohol testing.
These “Most Wanted” transportation safety improvements typically encompass multiple
safety recommendations requesting action from the DOT, the states, and Congress for
regulatory change to address these safety concerns.
While there is no statutory requirement to adopt NTSB-issued safety
recommendations, the NTSB’s ability to bring about transportation safety enhancements
is rooted in its long-standing reputation for thorough investigation and assessment of
needed safety improvements. NTSB’s safety recommendations and safety advocacy
programs have influenced the regulatory agenda of transportation agencies regarding
safety initiatives and have also influenced Congressional decision making and oversight
of transportation safety issues. According to the NTSB, as of April 2002, it had issued
almost 12,000 safety recommendations across all modes of transportation over its 35 year
history, of which about 82% led to the implementation of acceptable safety
improvements. Despite the generally high level of acceptance of NTSB-issued safety
recommendations, there is some concern over the amount of time it can take to implement
recommended safety improvements. One significant factor contributing to the length of
time it can take to adopt NTSB safety recommendations is the process of assessing the
feasibility, cost, and benefits of adopting a recommendation and developing an
implementation plan which is left up to the recipient of a safety recommendation. NTSB
is attempting to improve this process by working more closely and collaboratively with
DOT agencies when drafting safety recommendations to better ensure that these
recommendations can be implemented in a timely and acceptable manner. Nonetheless,
Congress may want to examine NTSB’s efforts to liaison with other transportation
agencies to determine if the safety recommendation process can be further improved to
implement needed safety measures in a more timely and acceptable manner. S. 1527
would require the DOT to issue annual reports to Congress through 2008 detailing the
regulatory status of significant NTSB safety recommendations.
Reauthorization Issues
Funding Authorization and Appropriations. Funding authorization for the
NTSB expired on Oct 1, 2002. During the second session of the 107th Congress, bills

CRS-4
were passed separately in both the House and the Senate to reauthorize the NTSB (see
H.R. 4466 and S. 2949). Senator John McCain introduced S. 579 on March 7, 2003 to
reauthorize the National Transportation Safety Board. S. 579, which was ordered reported
favorably without amendments by the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation on March 13, 2003. Representative Don Young introduced a bill to
reauthorize the NTSB (H.R. 1527) on April 1, 2003. The House Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure reported H.R. 1527 (H.Rept. 108-83) on May 1, 2003.
Both bills, which would authorize appropriations for the NTSB from FY2003 through
FY2006, provide the same funding levels:
Table 1. NTSB Authorization Levels (in $M) in H.R. 1527/S. 579
Fiscal Year
Authorization
NTSB Academy3
2003
73.325
3.347
2004
78.757
4.896
2005
83.011
4.995
2006
87.539
5.200
In addition to these funds, S. 579 provides for such sums as may be necessary to increase
the NTSB’s emergency fund, used for unforeseen complexities in accident investigation
such as underwater recovery of wreckage, to $3M, while H.R. 1527 would authorize a
level of $6 million. The Consolidated Appropriations Resolution for FY2003 (P.L. 108-
7) specifies a funding level of $72.45M. This funding level was $1.97M above the budget
request and the additional sums are designated for 25 new positions, pay of true overtime
for investigators, and implementation of financial management initiatives. The
President’s budget request for FY2004 is $71.48M.
Family Assistance for Intentional Criminal Acts. The Aviation Disaster
Family Assistance Act of 1996 (in P. L. 104-264) requires the NTSB to coordinate
Federal efforts to assist family members following an aviation disaster. The NTSB seeks
legislation to clarify its role in providing assistance to the families of victims once a
determination is made that an aviation disaster was the result of an intentional criminal
act. H.R. 1527 and S. 579 contain language that would transfer the responsibility of
family assistance from the NTSB to the FBI when it has been determined that an aviation
disaster resulted from an intentional criminal act and the NTSB relinquishes its lead
investigative role to criminal investigators.
Sustaining Operations of the NTSB Academy. P.L. 106-424 gave NTSB the
authority to enter into agreements for facilities, technical services, and training in accident
investigation theory and practice. In 2000, NTSB awarded a 20-year contract for a
training site to the George Washington University (GWU). The NTSB Academy,
currently being constructed on the Loudon County Campus of GWU in Ashburn, Virginia
is scheduled to be completed in the summer of 2003. In addition to assessing funds
3 H.R. 1527/S. 579 provides for authorization of these funds for necessary expenses of the NTSB
Academy not otherwise provided for.

CRS-5
needed to sustain the operations of the NTSB Academy, a key issue for Congress is
whether the NTSB Academy will be a separate entity or a component of the overall NTSB
budget. Funding the NTSB Academy within the overall NTSB budget will give NTSB
greater flexibility in funding Academy activities based on internal training requirements
and external demand for training. However, doing so may place a burden on the NTSB’s
ability to carry out its investigative, research, and safety advocacy functions if fixed
operating costs for the Academy exceed projections or external demand for the NTSB
Academy is lower than projected. H.R. 1527 and S. 579 provide for authorization of
funds specified in Table 1 for expenses of the NTSB Academy not otherwise provided for.
S. 579 allows the NTSB to impose and collect such fees as it determines to be appropriate
for services provided by or through the Academy. H.R. 1527 has no such provision.
Relief from Federal Contracting Requirements. The extensive and often
lengthy processes involved in federal procurement is often not amenable to transportation
accident investigations where obtaining unique services, such as wreckage recovery, must
be completed in a timely manner, and often, only one or a very small number of vendors
possess the unique capabilities needed to perform the task. Presently, the NTSB has the
authority to enter into agreements and other transactions necessary to carry out its mission
without going through normal procurement procedures required of contracts in excess of
$25,000. However, the NTSB has been criticized in the past regarding its financial
management and oversight. At issue is striking a balance between providing investigators
with appropriate authority to complete needed investigative tasks in a timely and efficient
manner, while providing sufficient financial management controls and oversight to
minimize the risks of fraud, waste, and abuse. S. 579 seeks to clarify NTSB’s authority
regarding exemption from contracting requirements, but only if necessary to expedite an
investigation. Under provisions in S. 579, the NTSB will be responsible for reporting all
such contracts over $25,000 in its annual report to Congress. H.R. 1527 does not include
a similar provision.
Expanding the Role of Family Assistance. While no statutory requirement
exists for NTSB to provide such assistance in other transportation modes, NTSB’s family
affairs personnel often assist with disaster relief in major accidents in transportation
modes other than aviation. H.R. 874 (Young of Alaska), which was passed by the House
by 414-5 on May 8, 2003, seeks to expand NTSB’s family assistance role to provide aid
at passenger rail disasters Similar legislation (H.R. 554; H.R. 4466) was introduced in
the 107th Congress.
Expanding the Scope of NTSB’s Investigative Role. NTSB’s broadest
mandate is in aviation, where it is required to investigate all accidents involving civil
aircraft, and accidents involving certain public aircraft. In other modes, NTSB’s
involvement is more selective, allowing NTSB some discretion to focus on transportation
safety issues where identification of needed safety improvements is likely. On occasion,
legislation has been introduced to further specify the scope of NTSB’s involvement in
accident investigation and safety studies.4 Emerging safety needs that may prompt
legislation to expand the NTSB’s role or direct the NTSB to perform a special study are
4 For example, in the 107th Congress, Representative Collin Peterson and Senator Paul Wellstone
introduced bills to have NTSB investigate all fatal railroad grade crossing accidents, and H.R.
4466 contained provisions directing the NTSB to study safety issues related to carry-on luggage.

CRS-6
often brought to the center of attention by high profile transportation accidents or accident
trends. While expanding the role of the NTSB may improve transportation safety by
identifying needed safety improvements in specific areas, doing so may further strain the
limited resources of this small agency and would likely not be feasible without additional
resources. Key issues are how well legislative proposals to expand NTSB’s role might
fit with the NTSB’s overall mission and whether NTSB involvement in these areas will
likely lead to improvements in transportation safety.
Oversight Issues
Investigative Process. In 1999, the Rand Institute for Civil Justice completed
a review of NTSB’s practices and procedures in major aviation accidents.5 That study
found that NTSB investigators were being overworked and weren’t receiving adequate
training to keep pace with the technical complexity of major aviation accidents, resulting
in an over-reliance on subject matter expertise from airlines; aircraft manufacturers; pilots
organizations; and so on. These groups participate as “parties” in NTSB investigations,
but have vested interests in various aspects of the investigation that may be used in
potential litigation against a particular party. Consequently, the study identified a need
for an increased reliance on objective, independent, technical expertise to assist NTSB
investigators.
The study recommended that NTSB increase its efforts to partner with federal
laboratories, universities, and independent organizations with unique resources and
expertise that can augment NTSB’s capabilities. The study also recommended that NTSB
should: (1) streamline internal operating procedures to reduce workload and improve
product throughput; (2) implement full cost accounting to better manage resources; (3)
establish a strategic plan for maintaining and training its technical staff; and (4) improve
facilities for engineering and training. In light of this report, congressional oversight may
focus on the effectiveness of measures that have been taken to improve NTSB’s
investigative process..
Lead Role in Marine Investigations. The NTSB currently has priority over all
other federal agencies in every transportation mode except marine investigations, which
are conducted under regulations prescribed jointly by the NTSB and the Coast Guard.6
P.L. 106-424 set a one year deadline for resolving differences between the NTSB and the
Coast Guard. While negotiations had been at a standstill, an MOU establishing standards
for determining when NTSB will lead a marine accident investigation was agreed to in
September 2002, following Congressional hearings on NTSB reauthorization. The 108th
Congress may consider whether any further legislative action is needed to clarify the roles
of the two agencies. In doing so, Congress may consider the potential impact to the
NTSB and Coast Guard in terms of manpower, appropriations, and public confidence in
the marine accident investigation process.
5 Cynthia C. Lebow, Liam P. Sarsfield, William L. Stanley, Emile Ettedgui, and Garth Henning.
“Safety in the Skies: Personnel and Parties in NTSB Aviation Accident Investigations.” Santa
Monica, CA: RAND Institute for Civil Justice, 1999.
6 See U.S. Code, Title 49, Section 1131.