This may turn out to be where most of the interesting changes will occur. Will the FAA revisit their ODA (Organization Designation Authorization) process? Or will they continue with their process oriented certification model. "As long as you do what you say you are going to do, its approved."
Meanwhile, the NTSB is pursuing the technical issues. But they are doing so only in an advisory capacity. Should they actually find something important, will the FAA mandate a change? Probably. But for future designs, the regulatory body with the technical expertise (NTSB) is sitting outside the loop. Until there's an incident. Then, they'll get to contribute.
I thought this was a regulatory model we were supposed to be moving away from.
Still other views on this are;
There are level of technical expertise. I wouldn't go to far in assigning a greater or lesser level to the FAA or NTSB
From a regulatory standpoint the FAA has more than the NTSB, while from an investigation standpoint the NTSB has more depth than the FAA and from a design standpoint(what actually can be done) Boeing tops them both. From a working standpoint the FAA participates in the investigation process and selects top level product related engineering candidates from world wide resources in their "specialist" categories.
So who's right? neither even including Boeing. The way we get at this is to include the issues in a ,"special condition" that applies to all manufacturers. That not only evens the playing field but ferrets out where all the expertise lies in ARAC style meetings concluding with public comment.
For me I am quite content for the FAA to use this process to solicit comments and not to attempt to force anything on them via internet chat forums.
I really doubt that the NTSB will participate since by expressing acquiescent to an issue may diminish their ability to conduct an impartial investigation should it turn out wrong.