November 19, 2010
VIA Electronic Mail
Mr. Robert Hawks
Office of the Chief Counsel, Regulations Division
Federal Aviation Administration
800 Independence Avenue, SW
Washington, DC 20591
rob.hawks@faa.gov
RE:
Request for Extension of Comment Period for Proposed Rule Regarding Safety
Management Systems for Certificated Airports, Docket No. FAA-2010-0997
Dear Mr. Hawks:
Airports Council International—North America (ACI-NA) respectfully requests a ninety-day
extension of the comment period for the Proposed Rule, “Safety Management System for
Certificated Airports” (the “Proposed Rule”), which was published in the Federal Register on
October 7, 2010.
ACI-NA represents local, regional and state governing bodies that own and operate commercial airports
in the United States and Canada. As you may know, ACI-NA’s 366 member airports enplane more
than 95 percent of the domestic and virtually all of the international airline passenger and cargo
traffic in North America. Over 330 aviation-related businesses are also members of ACI-NA,
providing goods and services to airports.
The Proposed Rule will result in the most significant changes in 14 CFR Part 139 airport
certification requirements in over a decade and ACI-NA and our member airports are working to
understand the Proposed Rule and offer comments that will result in improving the final rule so
that it can better achieve our mutual goal of enhancing the safety of the nation's air system.
In accordance with this goal, we and our member airports believe that an extension in the
comment period is necessary for the following reasons:
(1) Additional information is needed regarding the FAA’s proposed SMS implementation
strategy, most notably what will be expected in the required SMS Implementation Plans.
(2) Data, findings, and conclusions—both positive and negative—from the three SMS pilot
studies need to be made available in the docket so these findings and conclusions can
inform the industry’s review of the costs, benefits and potential issues arising from the
implementation of the Proposed Rule.
(3) The Proposed Rule needs to be reviewed in conjunction with key guidance documents,
especially the revised version of FAA Advisory Circular 150/5200-37. These documents,
which are mentioned explicitly in the FAA’s discussion of the Proposed Rule will
2
describe the standard means of compliance with the Proposed Rule and are needed to
understand the scope and scale of airport SMS requirements.
(4) Additional time will be needed for technical analyses by commenters, including analyses
of the costs and benefits of phased SMS implementation, an implementation approach on
which the FAA has specifically requested comments.
(5) The comment period—which extends from October 7, 2010, to January 5, 2011—occurs
during a time period that is extremely busy for airport operations departments—which
have a key role in commenting on the proposed rule.
These reasons are discussed in greater detail in the following paragraphs.
Rationale for Extension of the Comment Period
Reason 1—Need for More Detail Regarding SMS Implementation Plan Requirements. The
Proposed Rule provides few details regarding what information should be included in SMS
Implementation Plans. Section 139.403 of the Proposed Rule specifies that the Plans must
provide (1) a proposal on how the certificate holder will meet the requirements of the Proposed
Rule and (2) a schedule for implementing the SMS components prescribed in the Proposed
Rule.1 The discussion of the implementation plan requirements that precede the proposed rule
under the heading “Proposed Implementation Plan Requirements:” does not elaborate on these
requirements. To facilitate meaningful public comment on the Implementation Plan
requirements, ACI-NA respectfully requests that the FAA provide additional information
regarding the expected contents of required Implementation Plans well in advance of the close of
the comment period.
Reason 2—Documentation Regarding All Three SMS Pilot Studies Needs to Be Made
Available in the Docket. In its discussion of the Proposed Rule, the FAA frequently references
findings and conclusions from its three airport SMS pilot studies. Findings from the pilot studies
appear to have been used to establish SMS implementation deadlines and costs. These findings
also appear to have played key roles in FAA’s decisions to (1) reject a phased-in approach to
SMS implementation, (2) include non-movement areas of the airfield within the purview of the
Proposed Rule, and (3) establish processes for safety risk assessment and mitigation.
We are pleased that the FAA has used data collected from these “real-world” pilot studies and
support the use of lessons learned from the field in the FAA’s rulemaking efforts. However, we
strongly believe that such data and “lessons learned” must be made available to commenters to
inform their comments.
p. 62023. “Safety Management System for Certificated Airports”, Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking, 75 Fed. Reg. 62008-62023, October 7, 2010.
1
3
In terms of pilot study documentation, we are aware of only one high level PowerPoint
presentation2, which deals with only the first of the three SMS pilot studies. This presentation
seems to contradict several assertions made in the Proposed Rule. For example, the presentation
notes that phased implementation of SMS “seemed universally accepted” and that program
implementation would require “years not months”. The presentation also notes that “scant data”
were available regarding SMS implementation costs and schedules.
Since issuance of the October 2008 presentation, we expect that the FAA has collected additional
data from participants in all three SMS pilot studies to support findings presented in the
Proposed Rule including (1) the FAA’s rejection a phased approach to SMS implementation and
(2) implementation schedules that take place over a period of months rather than years.
However, as far as we are aware, these data have not been made available to commenters.
Similarly, the only data that we have seen addressing SMS program costs and benefits appear in
the document Initial Regulatory Evaluation, Safety Management System for Certificated
Airports, dated December 22, 2009.3 Because of this document’s release date—which is prior to
the commencement of the third SMS pilot study—we believe that the data it contains are
incomplete and not necessarily indicative of the costs that all pilot study airports have incurred.
(We also note that this key document has only been publicly available since it was posted to the
docket of the Proposed Rule on October 13, 2010, almost a year after its publication.)
We respectfully request that the FAA provide current, comprehensive reports regarding the data
collected and findings from the three SMS pilot studies well in advance of closure of the
Proposed Rule’s comment period so that commenters can (1) understand why the FAA’s initial
positions as reported in October 2008 have changed and (2) have necessary data to perform
benefit-cost analyses of phased implementation strategies as requested by the FAA (see “Reason
4” below).
Reason 3—Proposed Advisory Guidance Regarding Airport SMS Needs to be Available
Prior to Closure of the Comment Period. In its discussion of the Proposed Rule, the FAA
states “the FAA intends to publish any accompanying Advisory Circulars prior to the final
rule….” A similar commitment appears on the FAA Office of Airports’ website4, which notes
“if a regulation on SMS is adopted, FAA will update the SMS Advisory Circular (AC 150/520017) [and] issue additional guidance as necessary for its implementation, including a detailed
checklist and possibly a model SMS plan document.” We believe that this advisory guidance—
which will detail what will be expected from airports under a final SMS rule—is essential to
understanding the effects and consequences that SMS will have on the nation’s airports.
2
SMS for Airports—Findings of the First Pilot Study, FAA Office of Airports, October 30, 2008.
<http://www.faa.gov/airports/airport_safety/safety_management_systems/external/pilot_studies/
media/1st_sms_pilot_present.pdf>
3
Initial Regulatory Evaluation, Safety Management System for Certificated Airports, FAA
Office of Aviation Policy and Plans, December 22, 2009.
4
http://www.faa.gov/airports/airport_safety/safety_management_systems/external/guidance/
4
Accordingly, we believe that such guidance—even if in draft form—must be made available for
public review prior to closure of the Proposed Rule’s comment period. In particular, we request
that revised draft AC 150/5200-17, a model SMS manual, and a model SMS implementation
plan be made available via the docket for the proposed rule well in advance of the close of the
Proposed Rule’s comment period.
Reason 4—Additional Time is Needed for Technical Analysis by Commenters. In its
discussion of the Proposed Rule, the FAA notes, “If you believe the FAA should adopt a phasedin approach for the SMS components, please provide specific recommendations for how the
requirements could be phased in and analysis of the effect on implementation costs and the
corresponding postponement of the safety benefits.”5 ACI-NA has not yet taken a position
regarding a phased-in approach to SMS at U.S. airports. However, through conversations with
representatives from U.S. airports that participated in the FAA’s SMS pilot studies and Canadian
airports that are in the process of implementing SMS, we understand there may be great value in
a phased-in implementation approach. Accordingly, we do expect that an independent analysis
of the benefits and costs of a phased-in approach will be needed. Such analysis will require both
time and data regarding the U.S. SMS pilot studies that have not yet been released by FAA.
Reason 5—Current Comment Period Coincides with Extremely Busy Periods for Airport
Operations and Safety Professionals. The comment period—which extends from October 7,
2010, to January 5, 2011—occurs during a time period that is extremely busy for airport
operations departments—which have a key role in commenting on the proposed rule. This
period encompasses the very busy Thanksgiving and December holiday travel periods, as well as
months when snow clearance operations are highly likely. We are very concerned that
airports—including those that participated in the SMS pilot studies—will find their ability to
provide meaningful comments regarding the Proposed Rule limited by these operational
circumstances. We urge the FAA to reconsider its decision to schedule the comment period of
this extremely important and consequential rule during this busy season.
Conclusion
A ninety-day extension of the comment period will bring the comment period to a close at the
beginning of April, which should provide the FAA with sufficient time to provide needed
guidance regarding SMS implementation plan contents, lessons learned from the three stages of
the SMS pilot studies and revised SMS advisory guidance. It also carries the deadline beyond
both the peak holiday travel season and winter snow seasons. With the additional time, key
members of our industry will be better positioned to fully consider and articulate comments on
the Proposed Rule. Not only will the additional time reduce the burden on the airport operations
and safety professionals in our industry, but access to unhindered industry expertise will benefit
the FAA by providing for a better-informed process and a more supportable final rule.
p. 62017. “Safety Management System for Certificated Airports”, Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking, 75 Fed. Reg. 62008-62023, October 7, 2010.
5
5
*
*
*
*
*
*
ACI-NA appreciates the opportunity to comment on the Proposed Rule and—in collaboration
with our members—looks forward to providing the FAA with meaningful comments that critique
and enhance the Proposed Rule. To facilitate needed industry participation in the rulemaking
process, we respectfully request that FAA grant the ninety-day extension of the comment period.
Thank you for your time and consideration of this request.
cc:
Ms. Catherine M. Lang, Acting Associate Administrator for Airports, FAA
(catherine.m.lang@faa.gov)
Mr. Michael O’Donnell, Manager, FAA Office of Airports Safety & Standards
(michael.o’donnell@faa.gov)
Ms. Keri Spencer, FAA Office of Airports Safety & Standards (keri.spencer@faa.gov)