April 6, 2 VIA Ele c Mr. Rob e Office o f Federal A 800 Inde Washin g rob.haw k RE: C C Dear Mr

. Airports clarifyin g Systems f these qu e in the F e ACI-NA airports i enplane m passeng e member s Several o also sub m organize d question s Docket. also bee n TECH N T-1. C t h

2 011

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 C larifying Q u C ertificated A

. Hawks: Council Int e g questions r f

or Certific a e stions in ac c e deral Regis t

represents l i n the Unite d m ore than 9 5 e r and cargo s of ACI-N A

o f our mem b m itted quest i d these que s s , a nd (3) b e Please note n sent to Ke r ICAL QU E C an the FA A h e NPRM? C ounsel, Re g m inistration v enue, SW 5 91

u estions, Pr o A irports, Do c

e rnational

— r egarding th e a ted Airport s c ordance w i t e r that exte n l ocal, region d St a tes and 5 percent of traffic in N o A , providing b ers provide d i ons indepe n tions into t h nefit-cost q u that separat e r i Spencer, y E STIONS A provide its g ulations Di v

o posed Rule c ket No. F A

— North Ame r e Notice of P s , which wa s i th FAA req u n ded the co m al and state g Canada. As the domesti c o rth Americ a

goods and s d input to th i n dently of A C h ree broad t o u estions. T h e letters reg a y ourself, an d

definition o f v ision

Regarding S A A-2010-09 9

r ica (ACI-N A P roposed R u s issued on O u est include d m ment perio g overning b you may k n c and virtua l a . Over 330 ervices to a i i s attached l i C I-NA. As o pic areas: ( 1 h is letter is o a rding each o d Nicole Na n

f the term “ p S afety Man a 9 7

A ) is please d u lemaking ( N O ctober 7, 2 0 d with the F A d associate d odies that o w n ow, ACI-N A

l ly all of th e aviation-re l i rports. i st of questi o requested b y 1 ) general te c o ur consolid a

of the three n ce, respecti v

p hased impl e a gement Sys

d to submit t N PRM), Sa f 0 10. ACI- N A A’s Marc h d with the N P

w n and ope r A ’s 366 me m e internation a l ated busine s

o ns and so m y the FAA, w c hnical que s a ted posting individual t o v ely also pe r

e mentation” tems for

t his set of f

ety Manage m N A has prep a h 4, 2011, n o P RM.

r ate commer m

ber airport a l airline s ses are als o

m e of them h a

w e have s tions, (2) le g to the NPR M o pic areas h a r FAA’s req u

as it is use d m ent a red o tice

r cial

s

o

a ve gal M a ve u est.

d in2

T-2. How soon after approval of an airport’s SMS manual does the airport’s program need to be operational? T-3. Would the FAA entertain phasing in the opera tional components of and airport SMS? T-4. Will FAA provide guidelines for developing SMS risk matrices? T-5. How does the FAA intend to integrate indi vidual airport SMS programs with those promulgated by the FAA’s Air Traffic Orga nization, FAA Aviation Safety, FAA Office of Airports, and individual airline programs? Please cl arify the hierarchy that FAA expects to implement when multiple programs overlap and describe how various involved parties will exercise control ove r areas where multiple SMS programs are operational (e.g., within airline exclusively l eased areas). T-6. How did the FAA determine the deadlines for development of SMS implementation plans and SMS manuals/Airport Certification Manual revisions? Do these deadlines consider (1) the time airports need to program SM S programs into thei r budgets, (2) the time required to solicit consultant support competitively in accordance with FAA requirements, (3) whether sufficient qualifie d individuals are available sufficient qualified individuals/consultants available to develop prescribed SMS documents simultaneously at all Part 139 certificated airports? If not, how does the FAA know whether these deadlines are reasonable? T-7. Has the FAA conducted any analyses to dete rmine whether there will be sufficient trained staff resources av ailable to review SMS Implementation Plans and SMS Manuals/Airport Certific ation Manual updates incorporating SMS? If so, can these be posted to the docket? If not, how does the FAA plan to ensure adequate government resources are available to review and approve SMS program submittals, and participate in all SRM processes? T-8. How did the FAA determine 18 months was an appropriate implementation timeline for Class I airports when implementation pilot programs have yet to be completed? Pilot airports, consultants, and the FAA pilot program website indicate implementation will likely take 3 years, and some program partic ipants, based on their e xperience, indicate 5 years is more likely and reasonable. T-9. How did the FAA come to the conclusion that a phased implementation is not appropriate for this program? The industry finds signi ficant benefit from first implementing the program in movement areas to work thr ough implementation challenges and issues, and then phasing implementation into non-moveme nt areas and other ar eas of the airport where more complex stakeholder relations hips and SMS program overlap exist. T-10. The FAA commits not to second guess airpor t SMS decisions in the NPRM preamble. Can this commitment be included more explicitly in the rule itself? T-11. In a similar vein, does the FAA intend only to regulate the framew ork of a SMS program and SRM processes to ensure it is func tioning in accordance with the submitted and approved SMS program? Or will the FAA rese rve the right to ove rturn collaborative3 SRM processes and modify the program co mponents through th e 139 certification inspection process? T-12. How will the FAA ensure consistency in pr ogram regulation throughout all regions? T-13. Please clarify whether the airport’s SMS progr am is to be approved or accepted by the FAA and describe any expected changes to th e annual certification inspection related to SMS implementation. T-14. Will the airport’s SMS program be “accepted” by the FAA or more formally “approved” by the FAA? T-15. Will SMS apply to non-Part 139 areas of an airport that has both certificated and noncertificated areas, such as GA runways, taxi ways, aprons and excl usively leased areas? T-16. Does the non-movement area definition/desc ription delineate between exclusive use, leased ramps and airport operated ramp areas ? Shouldn’t it? Will the FAA hold airports responsible for implementing SMS in areas leased to others? T-17. Will the FAA establish a data repository for ai rport SMS decisions to track trends, data and/or issue guidance ba sed upon data collected? T-18. Will the FAA provide a means for airports to manage frivolous or inappropriate risk reports that are submitted? T-19. Please describe the FAA’s expected time lines for SMS implementation following FAA approval of an airport’s SM S manual/Airport Cer tification Manual upda te incorporating SMS? T-20. In the airport SMS NPRM, the FAA extends the scope of Part 139 to the non-Movement Areas. In the more recent NPRM regarding Part 139 safety enhancements, the FAA addresses non-movement area training programs. Is it the FAA’s intent to continue to expand its regulatory authority into the non-move ment area and setting other standards? T-21. On page 62011, in the paragraphs relating to Flexibility, “the FAA proposes that amending 139.203 to require the FAA approved ACM contain the policies and procedures for development, implementa tion, operation and maintenance of the certificate holder’s SMS.” In paragraph 139.203 is a table of Required Airport Certification Manual Elements. The ta ble calls out the requirements to maintain or to describe specific elements. It does not specifically descri be the specifics of procedures for development, implementa tion, operation and maintenance of those elements. If it is a requirement of SMS to incorporate an SMS within the next few months, why is it not appropria te to simply state as an element in the table the requirement to maintain a Safety Management System? T-22. On the same page, in the discussion of Minimum Elements of SMS , it is suggested that the SMS is “scalable to the size and complexity of the certificate holder.” It is clear that it is not the intent that an airport of smalle r size or less complexity could leave out certain4 elements of the SMS. How then is the program scalable? Further, if the SMS is scalable, why can’t the program be phased in as opposed to implemented all at once? T-23. Would the FAA consider implementing SMS fo r employees of the airport operator first and, once the system is running smoothly, inco rporate airport employees of tenants and airlines at a later date? T-24. In addition, the actual implementation a nd operation of the SMS program requires additional operating money. Depending on an airport budget process, the funding of additional labor necessary may need to be ma de up to one year in advance. Would the FAA consider a phased implementation us ing current budgeted available labor hours until additional positions could be funded and filled? T-25. On the same page the NPRM refers to the use of a safety information system that provides an accessible and efficient means to retrieve information. Earlier references contained in the Safety Assurance paragraphs imply that airports would build a database to track trends and the results of mitigations. The database envisioned would be useful but limited to experiences of employees at th e local airport. There appears no mechanism to consider hazards identified at other locations that might apply elsewhere. Does the FAA foresee a central data base containing identified hazards and their remediation across the country? If not, doe s the FAA foresee another mech anism to notify airports of hazards identified by other airports? T-26. SRM methodology requires a detailed proce ss of hazard identification, analysis of hazards and mitigation process. It implies a high standard of rigor in the use of five steps required by the FAA even forcing the “certificat e holder to use SRM processes to analyze risk associated with hazards discove red during daily operat ions and changes to operations”. Description of the system, hazard identification, analysis of risk associated with the hazard, assessing the risk association with the hazard and mitigation steps may not always be necessary and may require a lengthy process that prevents a more immediate hazard remediation. While a Safe ty Risk Assessment may be appropriate when dealing with more complex safety issu es that involve severa l stakeholders, it may be inappropriate in addressing simple challenges. Is it the FAA’s intent to employ this process to address every hazard? Furthermor e, is it the intent that the “accountable executive” be aware of and approve all effort s to address a hazard observation or report? T-27. On page 62015, of the NPRM, the first senten ce under Safety Assurance, states, “this proposal would require a certificate holder to ensure safety risk mitigations developed through the airport’s SRM process are adequa te and the airport’s SMS is functioning effectively.” The sentence strongly suggests that the FAA intends to go beyond just verifying whether a SMS is in place and e ffective. Does the FAA intend to develop specific criteria by which it would determine whether specific risk mitigations are adequate? T-28. How will the FAA make necessary funding available to immediately implement corrective actions of identified hazards th rough this program? By regulating this program, the FAA will be placing airports in a position where they must satisfactorily5 mitigate hazards to an acceptable level, and documentation identifying the hazard and planned actions to mitigate the hazard will be made available to the public. Airports will not be able to delay mitigation of known hazards due to increased legal exposure through this process. T-29. How will FAA prioritize funding for airports th at have identified hazards that must be mitigated to an acceptable level? Does the F AA get to second guess or change the results of the collaborative process if an airport s eeks federal assistance to fund risk mitigation projects identified through its SMS program ? Will the FAA fund concerns identified by an airport’s SMS? If so, will major concerns be given priority? LEGAL QUESTIONS L-1. FAA has stressed the need for data protections with respect to other critical safety data systems. Why doesn’t the NPRM put forwar d such protections – or at a minimum – indicate the need for them? L-2. What consideration has FAA given to protec ting airport SMS data given numerous local and state sunshine laws? L-3. Has the FAA conducted any evaluations of the liability implications associated with naming an “Accountable Executive”? L-4. Has the FAA conducted any evaluations of how liability issues may impact the way airports structure their SMSs? L-5. Has FAA considered the impact on SMS if th e data collected under the auspices of an SMS program is not kept confidential? What has been the FAA’s prior experience when previously confidential safety data has been made public? If negative, how does the FAA propose to limit these negative experiences wi thin the context of airport SMS programs? L-6. How does the FAA intend to protect confid entiality of program data to promote participation and minimize litigation for the airport industry and any third party participants? L-7. What level of participation does the FAA exp ect from 3rd party stakeholders who will no longer be able to protect their data from public records requests when submitted to a public entity such as an airport? L-8. If the FAA chooses not to fund airport-identifi ed risk mitigation projects as a result of a safety risk assessment, does the FAA they shar e liability in the event of an incident or accident associated with the identified hazard? L-9. How does the FAA anticipate managing differing SRM outcomes as a result of differing tolerances for acceptable risk throughout the industry? It is clearly possible, and probably very likely that multiple airports may SRM the same types of hazards and mitigate those hazards differently based on th eir attitude and tolerance toward acceptable6 risk. This methodology will result in incr eased exposure to litigation throughout the industry. L-10. On page 62016 of the NPRM in its discussi on of Safety Assurance “the FAA proposes that airports develop a confidential ha zard reporting system. ICAO’s SMS model envisions a non-punitive repor ting system. Based on information obtained during the pilot studies, a U.S airport may be unab le to prevent punishment of non-airport employees (for example, tenant employees). Therefore, the FAA has concluded that requiring a confidential hazard reporting system will protect the reporter’s identity and achieve the goal of protection.” While c onfidentiality of a ha zard reporting system would certainly support a more open environmen t for reporting hazards, particularly for employees reporting on their own actions, overcoming current federal Freedom of Information and state and local Open Records Act requirements is difficult. The concept of confidential reporting is important not just for tenant and airline employees but for airport operator employees who choose to volun tarily disclose info rmation within the SMS. Is it the expectation of the FAA that airports seek to ex empt voluntary hazard reporting disclosures from these current legal provisions? Will the FAA seek to exempt such disclosure requirements from the Freedom of Information Act at the federal level? L-11. How does the FAA propose to protect the Accountable Executive from litigation associated with responsibilities the FAA is assigning them under the NPRM? L-12. Will the FAA provide a legal right for an ai rport to audit tenant records and safety programs? L-13. On page 62011, the NPRM requires the appoint ment of an accountable executive “who can influence safety-related decisions and ha s authority to approve operational decisions and has authority to approve operational deci sion and changes because an effective SMS requires high level management involvement in safety decision-making.” The NPRM goes on to propose an international standard for an accountable executive as “an individual with ultimate responsibility and accountability, full control of the human and financial resources required to maintain SM S, and final authority over operations and safety issues.” Can the FAA offer suggesti ons as to how this c ould be achieved at a publically owned airport whose budget and hum an resource policies are controlled by publically elected officials such as the mayor and council? L-14. On page 62012, the NPRM mandates that the SMS Policy Statement include “the encouragement for employees to report safety is sues without fear of reprisal.” Does the FAA intend that the SMS be instituted to exempt employees from reprisal for conduct that was reckless or an intentional viol ation of a standard or regulation? BENEFIT-COST QUESTIONS BC-1. What criteria were used to select the accidents included in the FAAs benefit-cost analysis? BC-2. How do the results of the FAA’s analysis change if non-movement areas are excluded from consideration?7

BC-3. How did the FAA estimate SMS implementation costs when few if any airport SMS programs have been fully implemented in the US? In a similar vein, has the FAA received thorough feedback from pilot air ports about their implementation and O&M costs to substantiate their cost-benefit analysis? BC-4. Why hasn’t the FAA considered internati onal SMS implementations in its regulatory assessment, where empirical co st data are available? BC-5. Has the FAA identified funding mechan isms to support both the program implementation costs and the ongoing system operating and maintenance costs? BC-6. The NPRM refers to the financial benefits associated with the implementation of a Safety Management System such as reduced insurance benefits but does not quantify the upside opportunity. In the Federal Register, Volume 75, No. 194, dated October 7, 2010, page 62010 the document states that ove rtime the identifica tion of previously unknown hazards and risks “should prevent acci dents and incidents, thereby reducing the direct and indirect costs and risks of ai rport operations.” Ca n the FAA provide data that substantiates the claim? For example, what percent of an insurance premium has been saved by implementing the SMS program and what has been the direct and indirect cost of SMS implementation? * * * * * * Again, ACI-NA appreciates the opportunity to provi de these questions regarding the NPRM and looks forward to your response to them. Please do not hesitate to contact me directly at 202.293.4539 should you need additional information or clarification regarding this submittal. Sincerely,

Christopher Oswald Vice President, Safety & Technical Operations cc: Mr. Michael O’Donnell, Manager, FAA Office of Airports Safety & Standards ( michael.o’donnell@faa.gov ) Ms. Keri Spencer, FAA Office of Airports Safety & Standards ( keri.spencer@faa.gov )