Novemb e VIA Ele c Mr. Rob e Office o f Federal A 800 Inde Washin g rob.haw k RE: R M Dear Mr

. Airports extensio n Certificat October 7 ACI-NA r in the Un i than 95 p traffic in providin g The Pro p certifica t understa n that it ca n In accor d commen t (1) A s t (2) D s t

e r 19, 2010
c tronic Mail

e rt Hawks f the Chief C A viation Ad m p endence A v g ton, DC 20 5 k s@faa.gov R equest for E M anagement

. Hawks: Council Int e nof the co m t ed Airports 7 , 2010.

r epresents lo c i ted States an p ercent of th

North Ame r g goods and p osed Rule w t ion require m n d the Prop o nbetter ach i d ance with th tperiod is n e A dditional i n

trategy, mo s D ata, finding

tudies need t C ounsel, Re g

m inistration v enue, SW 5 91

E xtension o f

Systems fo r

e rn a tional

— m ment perio d

” (the “Pro p

c al, regional a d Canada. A s e domestic a r ica. Over 3 services to a
w ill result in m ents in ove r o sed Rule a n i eve our mu t h is goal, we e cessary for formation i s t notably w h s, and concl u t o be made a g ulations Di v

f Comment P r Certificate d

— North Ame r d

for the Pro p p osed Rule” )

and state gov e s you may kn a nd virtuall y 3 30 aviation

a irports. the most si g r a decade a n n d offer com m tual goal of e

and our me m the followi n
s needed reg a h at will be e x
u sions— b o t a vailable in t v ision

P eriod for Pr d

Airports, D

r ica (ACI-N A p osed Rule, ) , which was

e rning bodie s n ow, ACI- N yall of the i n

- related bus i

g nificant ch a n d ACI-NA m ents that w e nhancing th

m

ber airport n g reasons:
a rding the F A x pected in th th positive a n the docket s o r oposed Rul e D ocket No. F

A ) respectf u “Safety Ma n s published i n

s that own an d N A’s 366 m e n ternational a i nesses are a

a nges in 14 C

and our me m w ill result in h e safety of t t s believe th a AA’s propo h e required S

n d negative

— o these find i e Regarding F AA-2010- 0

u lly requests n agement S y nthe Feder a
doperate co m e mber airpo r a irline pass e a lso membe r
C FR Part 13 m

ber airport improving t the nation's a
a t an extens i
sed SMS i m S MS Imple m

— from the th i ngs and co n Safety 0 997

a ninety-da y y stem for a l Register o

m mercial airp o rts enplane m e nger and ca r s of ACI-N A

9 airport t s are worki n the final rul e a ir system. i on in the

mplementati o m entation Pl h ree SMS p i n clusions ca n y
o n

o rts m ore a rgo A ,

n g to e so

o n

ans. i lot n2 inform the industry’s review of the costs, be nefits and potential i ssues 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 versi on of FAA Advisory Circular 150/5200-37. These documents, which are mentioned explicitly in the F AA’s discussion of the Proposed Rule will 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 technica l analyses by commenters, including analyses of the costs and benefits of phased SMS im plementation, 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 greate r detail in the following paragraphs. 

### Rationale for Extension of the Comment Period Reason 1—Need for More Detail Regarding SM S Implementation Plan Requirements. The Proposed Rule provides few details regarding what information should be included in SMS Implementation Plans. Section 139.403 of the Pr oposed 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 prescrib ed 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 th at the FAA provide additional information regarding the expected contents of required Implementation Plans we ll 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 Ru le, 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 im plementation 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 area s of the airfield with in the purview of the Proposed Rule, and (3) establish processes for safety risk assessment and mitigation.

1 p. 62023. “Safety Management System for Cert ificated Airports”, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 75 Fed. Reg. 62008-62023, October 7, 2010.3 We are pleased that the FAA has used data colle cted from these “real-world” pilot studies and support the use of lessons learned from the field in the FAA’s rule making efforts. However, we strongly believe that such data and “lessons lear ned” must be made available to commenters to inform their comments. In terms of pilot study documentation, we ar e aware of only one high level PowerPoint presentation 2 , 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 im plementation 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 pilo t 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 addr essing SMS program costs and benefits appear in the document Initial Regulatory Evalua tion, 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—w e believe that the data it contains are incomplete and not necessarily indicative of the co sts that all pilot study ai rports have incurred. (We also note that this key document has only be en publicly available since it was posted to the docket of the Proposed Rule on October 13, 201 0, almost a year af ter its publication.) We respectfully request that th e FAA provide current, comprehens ive reports regarding the data collected and findings from the three SMS pilo t studies well in advance of closure of the Proposed Rule’s comment period so that comment ers can (1) understand why the FAA’s initial positions as reported in October 2008 have chan ged 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 th e Proposed Rule, the FAA states “the FAA intends to publish any accompan ying Advisory Circulars prior to the final rule....” A similar commitment appear s on the FAA Office of Airports’ website 4 , which notes

2 SMS for Airports—Findings of the First Pilot Study , FAA Office of Airports, October 30, 2008. < http://www.faa.gov/airports/airpor t_safety/safety_management_systems/external/pilot_studies/ media/1st_sms_pilot_present.pdf > 3 Initial Regulatory Evaluation, Safety Manageme nt System for Certificated Airports, FAA Office of Aviation Policy and Plans, December 22, 2009. 4 http://www.faa.gov/airports/airport_safety/saf ety_management_systems/external/guidance/4 “if a regulation on SMS is adopted, FAA will update the SMS Advisory Circular (AC 150/5200- 17) [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 SM S rule—is essential to understanding the effects and consequences th at SMS will have on th e nation’s airports. Accordingly, we believe that such guidance—even if in draft form—must be made available for public review prior to closure of the Proposed Ru le’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 pr oposed rule well in adva nce of the close of the Proposed Rule’s comment period. Reason 4—Additional Time is Needed fo r 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 pr ovide specific recomm endations 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 proce ss of implementing SMS, we understand there may be great value in a phased-in implementation approach. Accordingl y, 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 studi es 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 pe riod 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 a nd December holiday travel periods, as well as months when snow clearance operations are hi ghly likely. We are very concerned that airports—including those that participated in the SMS pilo t 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 schedul e the comment period of this extremely important and conseque ntial rule during th is busy season. 

### Conclusion A ninety-day extension of the comment period w ill 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 conten ts, lessons learned from the three stages of the SMS pilot studies and revised SMS advisoryguidance. It also ca rries the deadline beyond

5 p. 62017. “Safety Management System for Cert ificated Airports”, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 75 Fed. Reg. 62008-62023, October 7, 2010.b oth the p member s the Prop o and safe t the FAA

ACI-NA with our and enh a process, w Thank y o
Sincerel y
Christop h Vice Pre

Monica H General C
cc: M ( c M ( m M

p eak holida y s of our ind u o sed Rule. N ty professio n

by providi n
appreciates members— a nce the Pro p

w e respectf u
o u for your t
y ,

h er Oswal d s ident, Safe t

H argrove C ounsel M s. Catherin e

c atherine.m. M r. Michael O m ichael.o’d o M s. Keri Spe ytravel seas u stry will be N ot only wi l n als in our i n n g for a bett e * the opportu l ooks forwa r p osed Rule. u lly request t t ime and co n

ty & Techni c

e M. Lang, A l ang@faa.g o O ’Donnell, M o nnell@faa. g ncer, FAA O on and wint e better positi l l the additi o n dustry, but a er -informed p * *

unity to com m

r d to provid i To facilitat e that FAA g r
n sideration o

c al Operati o

A cting Asso o v ) M anager, F A g ov ) O ffice of Ai r e r snow sea s oned to full y o nal time r e d

a ccess to un p rocess and

* *

m ent on the i ng the FA A e needed in d r ant the nine t
o f this reque s

o ns

ciate Admi n A A Office o

r ports Safety s ons. With t yconsider a n d

uce the bur d n hindered in d

a more sup p * * Proposed R u A with mean i d

ustry partic i ty-day exte n
s t.

n istrator for A

o f Airports S y& Standar d the addition a n d articulat e d en on the a i d

ustry expe r p ortable fin a

u le an d —in i ngful com m i pation in t h n sion of the c

A irports, F A afety & Stan d s ( keri.spe n a l time, key e comments i rport opera t rtise will be n a l rule.

collaborati o m ents that cr i h e rulemaki n

c omment pe

A A

n dards

n cer@faa.go 5

on t ions n efit

o n i tique n g e riod.

v )