Novembe

VIA Elec

Mr. Robe

Office of

Federal A

800 Inde

Washing

rob.hawk

RE: R

M

Dear Mr.

Airports 

extension

Certificat

October 7

ACI-NA r

in the Uni

than 95 p

traffic in 

providing

The Prop

certificat

understan

that it can

In accord

comment

(1) A

st

(2) D

st

er 19, 2010 

ctronic Mail 

ert Hawks 

f the Chief C

Aviation Adm

pendence Av

gton, DC 205

ks@faa.gov

Request for E

Management 

. Hawks: 

Council Inte

n of the com

ted Airports

7, 2010. 

represents loc

ited States an

percent of th

North Amer

g goods and 

posed Rule w

tion requirem

nd the Propo

n better achi

dance with th

t period is ne

Additional in

trategy, mos

Data, finding

tudies need t

Counsel, Reg

ministration 

venue, SW 

591 

Extension of

Systems for

ernational—

mment period

” (the “Prop

cal, regional a

d Canada. As

e domestic a

rica. Over 3

services to a

will result in 

ments in over

osed Rule an

ieve our mut

his goal, we 

ecessary for 

formation is

t notably wh

s, and conclu

to be made a

gulations Div

f Comment P

r Certificated

—North Amer

d for the Prop

posed Rule”)

and state gove

s you may kn

and virtually

330 aviationairports. 

the most sig

r a decade an

nd offer comm

tual goal of e

and our mem

the followin

s needed rega

hat will be ex

usions—bot

available in t

vision 

Period for Pr

d Airports, D

rica (ACI-NA

posed Rule, 

), which was

erning bodies

now, ACI-N

y all of the in

-related busi

gnificant cha

nd ACI-NA 

ments that w

enhancing th

mber airport

ng reasons: 

arding the FA

xpected in th

th positive an

the docket so

roposed Rule

Docket No. F

A) respectfu

“Safety Man

s published in

s that own and

NA’s 366 me

nternational a

inesses are a

anges in 14 C

and our mem

will result in 

he safety of t

ts believe tha

AA’s propo

he required S

nd negative—

o these findi

e Regarding 

FAA-2010-0

ully requests 

nagement Sy

n the Federa

d operate com

ember airpor

airline passe

also member

CFR Part 13

mber airport

improving t

the nation's a

at an extensi

sed SMS im

SMS Implem

—from the th

ings and con

Safety 

0997 

a ninety-day

ystem for 

al Register o

mmercial airpo

rts enplane m

enger and ca

rs of ACI-NA

9 airport 

ts are workin

the final rule

air system. 

ion in the 

mplementatio

mentation Pl

hree SMS pi

nclusions can

y

on 

orts 

more 

argo 

A, 

ng to 

e so 

on 

ans. 

ilot 

n
 2 

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 

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. 

 

1

 p. 62023. “Safety Management System for Certificated Airports”, Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking, 75 Fed. Reg. 62008-62023, October 7, 2010. 
 3 

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. 

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 

 

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 

“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 SMS rule—is essential to 

understanding the effects and consequences that SMS will have on the 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 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 

 

5

 p. 62017. “Safety Management System for Certificated Airports”, Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking, 75 Fed. Reg. 62008-62023, October 7, 2010. 
both the p

members

the Propo

and safet

the FAA 

ACI-NA 

with our 

and enha

process, w

Thank yo

Sincerely

Christoph

Vice Pre

Monica H

General C

cc: M

(c

M

(m

M

peak holiday

s of our indu

osed Rule. N

ty profession

by providin

appreciates 

members—

ance the Prop

we respectfu

ou for your t

y, 

her Oswald

sident, Safet

Hargrove 

Counsel 

Ms. Catherine

catherine.m.

Mr. Michael O

michael.o’do

Ms. Keri Spe

y travel seas

ustry will be 

Not only wil

nals in our in

ng for a bette

* 

the opportu

looks forwar

posed Rule. 

ully request t

time and con

ty & Technic

e M. Lang, A

lang@faa.go

O’Donnell, M

onnell@faa.g

ncer, FAA O

on and winte

better positi

ll the additio

ndustry, but a

er-informed p

* *

unity to comm

rd to providi

To facilitate

that FAA gr

nsideration o

cal Operatio

Acting Asso

ov) 

Manager, FA

gov) 

Office of Air

er snow seas

oned to fully

onal time red

access to un

process and 

* *

ment on the 

ing the FAA

e needed ind

rant the ninet

of this reques

ons 

ciate Admin

AA Office o

rports Safety

sons. With t

y consider an

duce the burd

nhindered ind

a more supp

* *

Proposed Ru

A with meani

dustry partici

ty-day exten

st. 

nistrator for A

of Airports S

y & Standard

the additiona

nd articulate

den on the ai

dustry exper

portable fina

ule and—in 

ingful comm

ipation in th

nsion of the c

Airports, FA

afety & Stan

ds (keri.spen

al time, key 

e comments 

irport operat

rtise will ben

al rule. 

collaboratio

ments that cri

he rulemakin

comment pe

AA 

ndards 

ncer@faa.go

5 

on 

tions 

nefit 

on 

itique 

ng 

eriod. 

v)