The deadline for Safety Management Systems (SMS) comments is coming soon, and MARPA is compiling its members’ comments to submit a comment package. As we discussed in January, the proposal appears to have facial flaws that will need to be addressed by the FAA. One key question asked in the FAA proposal is whether the SMS rules should be applied to PMA holders.
Comments are due to the FAA by April 11. Note that this is an extension of the original deadline. MARPA is compiling the Association’s comments now, and we would love to have your comments on the proposal(s) to add to our compilation.
While the proposed rule does not apply to PMA and TSOA holders, the SMS NPRM explains that the FAA considered including PMA holders in the rule. The NPRM explains that “[a]fter analyzing the costs and benefits, the FAA determined that there were costs to including these [PMA] holders, but was unable to estimate the magnitude of benefits.” In other words, they were not able to identify sufficient benefits to offset the costs of an SMS program.
The problem with this analysis is – of course – that the FAA’s new SMS rules will create an expectation of SMS that may cause commercial pressures forcing adoption of SMS by PMA holders. Thus, the FAA’s new SMS rules would create the “financial benefit” by fostering an environment in which the lack of an SMS becomes a commercial liability. This means that the FAA’s own actions will effectively create the appearance of a benefit of they inhibit PMA holders who do not voluntarily adopt an SMS. This hypothetical inhibition of companies who do not voluntarily adopt an SMS is a very real concern, as I have spoken with large manufacturers who have expressed an intent to flow-down SMS to their suppliers, and I have also spoken with air carriers who have suggested an intent to (commercially) require SMS be implemented by PMA manufacturers from whom they purchase parts.
Nonetheless, the FAA is specifically soliciting comments about whether to apply SMS to the PMA community:
“The FAA invites comments as to whether part 5 should apply to all holders of a TC, PC, supplemental type certificates, technical standard order authorizations, or parts manufacturer approvals. The FAA requests that comments specify whether any exceptions should be made in the event that the FAA extends part 5 to these design and production approval holders, and what those exceptions should entail. The FAA further requests information and data related to the safety benefits or impact of applying part 5 to additional design and production approval holders beyond the applicability in this proposed rule.”
Safety Management Systems, 88 FR 1932, 1967 (Jan 11, 2023).
At present, the Board has expressed support for uniform application of FAA safety rules to all design and production approval holders. If any MARPA members have another opinion then we would love to hear it.