Petition for Extension - for more information call Jason Dickstein at (202) 628-6777 Page 1

January 14, 2011

submitted by email, FedEx and by electronic submission to the regulatory docket

Scott Van Buren

Chief System Engineer for Aviation Safety

Office of Accident Investigation and Prevention (AVP)

Federal Aviation Administration

800 Independence Avenue, SW

Washington, DC 20591

REQUEST FOR EXTENSION TO COMMENT PERIOD

FOR SAFETY MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS 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 Business Aircraft Association

The organizations respectfully request that the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)

extend the comment period from its current 90 day period (expiring February 3, 2011) to 

a 180 day period (expiring May 4, 2011) 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 station certificates, production certificates, PMA 

approvals and TSO authorizations. In addition, members of each of these associations

do business with and support the airworthiness of air carriers. The other organizations 

represent the interests of operators, 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 other 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 

additional comment time is necessary:

• To continue educating industry, including the industry's small businesses;

• To 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;

• To adequately obtain feedback from the industry;

• To develop alternatives that meet the Administrator's safety goals and 

international obligations;

• To provide adequate 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, including, but not limited to:

• Proposed SMS requirements that are redundant of existing regulatory 

requirements;

• Proposed SMS requirements that fail to account for redundancies;

• Proposed 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 alternatives 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 Part Five and well-targeted 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 meaningful 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 could lead to an unintended negative affect on 

safety.

The proposed Part Five is particularly important, because the Notice explains that Part 

Five will eventually be applied to other certificate holders, including manufacturing and 

maintenance certificate holders, part 135 operators and part 141 and 142 flight schools. 

Thus, the expected reach of Part Five 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 significantly 

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 Part Five requirements, they would incur costs associated with any change to Part 

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 Part Five.

Many of the organizations 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 

documents. 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 the NPRM and related documents suggests that there may be 

some significant areas for additional review. Given the importance of this NPRM, ninety 

days is an insufficient amount of time for public comment. The fact that the ninety 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 ninety 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 comment 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 ninety days. Thank you for your diligence 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 Macnair, VP Government Relations

Experimental Aircraft Association

Jason Dickstein, President

Modification and Replacement Parts Ass'n

Eric R. Byer, VP, Gov't & Industry Affairs

National Air Transportation Association

Douglas Carr, VP Safety, Security & Reg'n

National Business Aircraft Association
Petition for Extension - for more information call Jason Dickstein at (202) 628-6777 Page 5

CC (by U.S. First 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