Petition for Extension

- for more information call Jason Dickstein at (202) 628

- 6777 Page 1 January 1 4 , 2011 submitted by email, F edEx and by electronic submission to the regulatory docket

Scott Van Buren Chief System Engineer for Aviation Safety

Office of Accident Inv estigation and Prevention (AVP)

F ederal Aviation Administration

800 Independence Avenue, SW Washington, DC 20591

R EQUEST FOR E XTENSION TO C OMMENT P ERIOD

FOR S AFETY M ANAGEMENT S YSTEMS NPRM

Dear Mr. Van Buren :

I am writing this letter on behalf of the following trade and membership organizations:

**•** Aeronautical Repair Station Association

**•** Aircraft Electronics Association

**•** Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association

**•** Aviation Suppliers Association

**•** Experimental Aircraft Association

**•** Modification and Replacement Parts Association

**•** National Air Transportation Association

**•** National Bus iness Aircraft Association

The organizations respectfully request that the Federal Aviation Administration ( FAA ) extend the comment period from its current 9 0 day period (expiring Febr uary 3 , 20 11 ) to

a 18 0 day period (expiring Ma y 4 , 20 11 ) for the review of and comment on the Safety Management Systems (SMS) NPRM found at 75 Fed. Reg. 68224 (November 5, 2010) ( Docket Number FAA

- 2009

- 0671)

.

Several of the organizations signing this letter represent companies holding FAA

authorizations , including repair sta tion certificates , production certificates, PMA approvals and TSO authorizations

. In addition, members of each of the se a ssociations

do business with and support the airworthiness of air carriers

. The other organizations represent the interests of operat ors, who would be affected (as the ultimate beneficiaries) by any net changes in safety realized by the rule, as well as being affected (as ultimate consumers) by any cost increases associated with the rule. All of the organizations represent individuals and/or small businesses.Petition for Extension

- for more information call Jason Dickstein at (202) 628

- 6777 Page 2 Although this NPRM is targeted at Part 121 Air Carriers, these organizations have a great interest in submitting comments to this NPRM as it appears that these rules are to become the framework for SMS that may be extended to othe r aspects of aviation.

The organizations signing this letter are all supporters of systems safety in aviation. The SMS proposal, however, reflects a significant theoretical departure from the manner in which aviation has been regulated in the past. This theoretical departure has imposed a significant "learning curve" in educating the membership about the details, the benefits and the obligations associated with SMS.

Our continued review of the SMS NPRM , and the supporting documentation, has convinced us that the proposed rule will require significant comments, and these comments require significant data collection and coordination.

We support the FAA’s efforts to improve industry safety programs, but we feel that

addit ional comment time is necessary:

**•** T o continue educating industry , including the industry's small businesses ;

**•** T o assure that the industry is informed about the other documents that are open for comment (in addition to the NPRM), but that seem to be escaping the notice of many industry figures because they are not published in the Federal Register in their entirety;

**•** T o adequately obtain feedback from the industry ;

**•** T o develop alternatives that meet the Administrator's safety goals and international obligations;

**•** T o provide adequa te comments to the Administrator in support of this rule

.

We believe that these comments, and the time it will take to develop them, are necessary to effective safety in the industry because the NPRM appears to have a number of implementation hurdles, inc luding, but not limited to:

**•** P roposed SMS requirements that are redundant of existing regulatory requirements;

**•** P roposed SMS requirements that fail to account for redundancies;

**•** P roposed SMS management system requirements that fail to interface with existing FAA regulations affecting management systems.

We believe that public comments must account for these hurdles, and proposed alternatives that overcome these hurdles, or else the rule will fail to achieve its stated aims of improving safety. Such alternat ives may reflect proposed changes to the fundamental structure of the rule in order to better align it with existing regulations and practice while at the same time meeting the goal of conforming to ICAO's SMS proposal.

An effective P art Five and well

- tar geted is particularly important because if SMS is poorly implemented, then it may redirect quality assurance resources from the pursuit of safety goals to mere paperwork exercises designed to meet regulatory requirements,Petition for Extension

- for more information call Jason Dickstein at (202) 628

- 6777 Page 3 but that fail to have any meaningf ul positive impact on safety. Industry companies have finite resources, and if these resources are redirected to regulatory compliance efforts that do not support safety, then this c ould lead to a n unintended ne gative a ffect on safety.

The proposed Part Five is particularly important, because the Notice explains that Part Five will eventually be applied to other certificate holders, includ ing manufacturing and maintenance certificate holders, part 135 operators and part 141 and 142 flight schools.
Thus, t he expected reach of P art F ive will likely extend far beyond the air carriers who are affected by the prima facie rule. Moreover, it is a truism of regulatory development, that when a regulatory system is in place, it is often difficult or impossible to s ignificantly alter the fundamental structure of that system. This means that the fundamental structure of any Part Five regulations that are developed for air carriers, but then subsequently applied to other certificate holders, will probably be difficult or impossible to significantly alter, even if the fundamental structure impedes or undermines optimal approaches to safety.

Furthermore, once Part 121 air carriers have adopted programs in compliance with the

new P art Five requirements, they would incur costs associated with any change to P art

Five . This anticipation of costs provides a further reason for other affected parties to voice their concerns in response to this NPRM, rather than waiting until it is too late to change P art Five

.

Many of the org anizations that have signed this letter have participated as part of the SMS Aviation Rulemaking Committee (ARC). The organizations that are part of that Committee have complained that the ARC process has been rushed and the haste of the process has made it impossible to provide the Administrator with fully

- formed ideas

and recommendations.

The FAA published the NPRM at the start of the holiday season. The material subject to review and comment included both the NPRM and over 200 pages of related

documen ts. It is normal practice for many manufacturing enterprises in the industry to close for several weeks during the holiday season which further limits the practical ability of industry to collaborate and develop alternatives.

Our preliminary review of th e NPRM and related documents suggests that there may be some significant areas for additional review. Given the importance of this NPRM

, nine ty days is an insufficient amount of time for public comment. The fact that the nine ty day period falls over the holiday makes this already

- too

- short period even more inadequate.

The only counter

- argument to the extension of time in this case is the press of the Congressional deadline for implementing the SMS program rule for Part 121 Air

Carriers. The additional n inety days, however, still leave plenty of time for the FAA to obtain comments, review them, and publish a final rule within the Congressional

timeline.Petition for Extension

- for more information call Jason Dickstein at (202) 628

- 6777 Page 4 There is a need for additional review because of the serious and complicated issues that may be raised by this NPRM. There is prejudice to the notice and comment process by virtue of the short comment period, as well as the unfortunate holiday timing of the publication. It would be consistent with the significance of this rule change to

extend the comme nt period in order to permit full and fair comment on the NPRM, and such postponement would have no appreciable prejudice on safety.

We therefore ask that the comment period on the SMS NPRM be extended by an

additional nine ty days. Thank you for your dil igence on this issue.

Very truly yours,

Sarah MacLeod , Executive Director

Aeronautical Repair Station Ass'n

Paula Derks, President

Aircraft Electronics Association

Robert Hackman, VP of Regulatory Affairs

Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association

Michele Dickstein, President Aviation Suppliers Association Doug Mac n air, VP Government Relations Experimental Aircraft Association

Jason Dickstein, President Modification and Repla cement Parts Ass'n

Eric R. Byer, VP, Gov ' t & Ind ustry Affairs

National Air Transportation Association

D ouglas Carr , VP Safety, Sec urit y & Reg ' n National Business Aircraft AssociationPetition for Extension

- for more information call Jason Dickstein at (202) 628

- 6777 Page 5 CC ( by U.S. F i rst Class Mail ) :

Randy Babbitt

Administrator

Federal Aviation Administration 800 Independence Avenue, SW Washington, DC 20591

Peggy Gilligan Associate Administrator for Regulation & Certification (AVS

- 1)

Federal Aviation Administration 800 Independence Avenue, SW Washington, DC 20591