1 

April 6, 2011 

Docket Operations 

M-30 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Ave, SE 

Room W-12140 

Washington, DC 20590-0001 

Re: Clarifying Questions, FAA-2010-0997, Safety Management Systems for 

Certificated Airports 

Submitted via www.regulations.gov and email 

The American Association of Airport Executives (AAAE) would like to thank the 

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) for the positive consideration of our 

second extension request to the comment period for FAA-2010-0997, Safety 

Management Systems (SMS) for Certificated Airports. We also appreciate the 

opportunity to submit technical clarifying questions regarding the Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) and respectfully submit the following list of 

questions of a technical, legal and cost-related nature. 

AAAE wishes to submit the following technical questions to Ms. Keri Spencer:

 How does the FAA intend to integrate SMS programs among all the lines 

of business within the FAA, along with Part 139 and Part 121 SMS 

proposals? Please clarify the hierarchy of authority that FAA expects to 

implement when multiple programs overlap and whether the Airports 

District Office, FAA Regional Offices or FAA Headquarters will be the 

governing body. 

 The proposed definition of “Accountable Executive” refers to a single 

person with financial and operational control over the airport and airport 

safety. In some instances, it may be difficult to identify a single individual 

that satisfies these requirements, in part because the governing body of an 

airport (e.g., county commission, city council) may exercise certain 

controls over the airport. Can the FAA better describe the types of airport 

employees that might qualify to be the accountable executive? Can the 

FAA clarify whether it contemplates that changes in delegations or job 

descriptions would be required to establish that the identified individual 

meets the requirements of an accountable executive? 
2 

 Proposed Section 139.402(d)(1) would require formal safety training for 

“each employee and tenant with access to airport areas regulated under 

this part.” This language is inconsistent with current Section 139.303, 

which requires formal safety training for “personnel,” and inconsistent 

with current Section 139.329(e), which requires formal safety training for 

“each employee, tenant, or contractor.” (It also is noteworthy that, on 

February, 1, 2011, the FAA proposed to amend Section 139.303 to require 

formal safety training for all “persons”.) What is the proposed scope of the 

training requirement? Put differently, what are the proposed definitions 

of “employee” and “tenant”? 

 In describing the components of airport SMS, proposed Section 139.402 

does not identify the individual or entity responsible for each task. For 

example, proposed Section 139.402(d) indicates that training and 

recordkeeping are required, but does not indicate whether the airport 

operator must provide the training and keep records. Would airports be 

permitted under the proposed rule to delegate training and recordkeeping 

responsibility to, for example, their tenants? 

 What type of data repository does the FAA envision for airport SMS 

decisions to track trends, and data collected? 

 How did the FAA determine 6 months was an appropriate timeline to 

develop a SMS plan when only limited pilot program data has been made 

available? Most airports will require 8-12 months to program funding into 

their budget and another 3-6 months to develop a RFP and execute a 

contract. Was this taken into consideration when developing the NPRM? 

 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 participants, based on their experience, indicate 

5 years is more likely and reasonable. 

 Will general aviation areas at airports owned or operated by a Part 139 

airport be included in the sponsor airport’s SMS requirements? 

 How did the FAA come to the conclusion that a phased implementation is 

not appropriate for this program? The industry finds significant benefit 

from first implementing the program in movement areas, working 

through implementation challenges and issues, and then phasing 

implementation into non-movement areas where more complex 

stakeholder relationships exist. 

 Does the FAA intend only to regulate the framework of a SMS program 

and SRM processes to ensure it is functioning in accordance with the 

submitted and approved SMS program, or will the FAA reserve the right to 
3 

overturn collaborative SRM processes and modify the program 

components through the 139 certification inspection process? 

 The NPRM defines “non-movement area” to mean the areas of the airfield 

used for the loading, unloading, parking and movement of aircraft. Would 

the non-movement area subject to SMS include paved portions of the 

airfield that are not used by or accessible to aircraft (e.g., portions of the 

ramp used for ground vehicles)? Can the FAA confirm that the nonmovement area does not include the interior of hangars or other 

structures? 

 The NPRM states that an SMS would have to encompass aircraft operation 

in the non-movement area. “Hazard” is defined broadly to include any 

condition that may lead to injury, damage or loss. What is the intended 

scope of SMS within the non-movement area? In other words, is SMS 

intended to address only aircraft safety or is it intended to address safety 

that is unrelated, or only nominally related, to aircraft? Would it, for 

example, encompass the safety of workers on and around 

aircraft? Ground vehicle safety? Passenger safety? 

 How will the FAA ensure consistency in program regulation throughout all 

regions? 

 What type of technical training will FAA certification and safety 

inspectors receive? 

 How will FAA ensure new program inspectors will not overturn programs 

and processes that have been approved by prior inspectors? 

 How will numerous risk matrices be used when SRA s are conducted 

amongst the Air Traffic Organization, airports, airlines, etc? 

 How will SMS be “applied” to a master plan process that spans multiple 

years and can include numerous alternatives? 

 Which FAA offices or lines of business will participate in the master plan 

SMS process and at what point in the process will they engage? If multiple 

offices are participating, which office will be the sole voice for the FAA 

throughout the process? 

 How will the SMS process on a master plan dovetail with the SMS process 

on an Environmental Impact Statement or Environmental Assessment of 

the same Master Plan? 

 Will the standard “airspace review” currently conducted by the FAA be 

absorbed in the SMS process for a master plan or remain a separate 

process? If it is to remain separate, how does FAA propose to resolve 

conflicts and overlaps? 

 Given the current federal budget climate, how will airports be assured that 

the FAA will participate in SRAs with possibly limited staff? 
4 

 SRM as defined in the NPRM, requires the establishment of baselines of 

all hazards or potential hazards. What guidance will FAA give airports on 

how to establish a baseline if they do not have an archive of baseline data? 

 How soon after approval of an airport’s SMS manual does the airport’s 

program need to be “active”? 

 The FAA commits not to second guess airport SMS decisions in the NPRM 

preamble. Can this be stated more explicitly in the rule itself? 

 Will the FAA be providing specific guidance on how will military joint use 

airports be expected to implement the requirements of the NPRM? Will 

FAA provide assistance and guidance in working with the Department of 

Defense in this matter? 

AAAE wishes to submit the following legal questions to Mr. Robert Hawkes: 

 The FAA generally takes the position, pursuant to Dep’t of the Interior v. 

Klamath Water Users Protective Ass’n, 532 U.S. 1, 8, 121 S.Ct. 1060, 1065 

(2001), that documents provided to the agency by airport proprietors are 

not entitled to exemption from disclosure under FOIA. How does the FAA 

intend to protect confidentiality of program data to promote participation 

and minimize litigation for the airport industry and any third party 

participants? 

 What level of participation does the FAA expect from third 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? 

 Will the rulemaking give airports a legal right to audit tenant records and 

safety programs? 

 FAA acknowledged in the Preamble to the NPRM that it was pursuing 

other SMS rulemaking and other SMS initiatives. This includes a 

proposed rule requiring that air carriers certificated under FAR Part 121 

develop and implement SMS. Proposed Section 139.402 would require 

that airports develop systems for identifying and analyzing hazards and 

mitigating risks; however, the proposed rule lacks direction on the 

potential overlap or conflict among different reporting systems and safety 

risk management processes. Can the FAA clarify how the proposed airport 

SMS would be required to function in an environment containing multiple 

SMSs? 

 Would the airport be in compliance with the rule if a hazard is reported 

through an air carrier SMS but not the airport SMS? Would the airport be 

in compliance if the risks associated with an identified hazard are 

evaluated through an air carrier’s safety risk management process rather 

than the airport’s SRM process? 
5 

 Will an airport harbor liability under SMS if a tenant employee is injured 

in an exclusively leased tenant area? 

 Will the FAA share in the liability for unfunded risks identified by an 

airport SMS? 

 How does the FAA anticipate managing differing SRM outcomes as a 

result of differing tolerances for acceptable risk throughout the industry? 

 How does the FAA propose to protect the Accountable Executive from 

litigation associated with responsibilities the FAA is assigning them under 

the NPRM? 

AAAE wishes to submit the following questions related to costs and benefits to 

Ms. Nicole Nance:

 How did the FAA estimate SMS implementation costs when few if any 

airport SMS programs have been fully implemented in the United States? 

 Why didn’t the FAA consider international SMS implementations, where 

more empirical cost data are available? 

 Does the FAA have the available funding to support a six month 

implementation process? 

 The Initial Regulatory Evaluation states, “According to NTSB, insurance 

claims, and OSHA reports, there were approximately 89 accidents on 

airports that may have been prevented through a functioning SMS.” The 

Initial Regulatory Evaluation does not give details regarding these 

accidents (other than one example). Did each accident occur at a Part 139 

certificated airport? Did the FAA (or NTSB) conclude that, in each case, 

the accident would have been prevented through a functioning airport

SMS, or through some other SMS (e.g., air carrier, service provider)? How 

many accidents did the FAA (or NTSB) determine would have been 

avoided by a functioning airport SMS? 

 How do the results of the FAA’s analysis change if non-movement areas 

are excluded from consideration? 

 How will FAA prioritize funding for airports that have identified hazards 

that must be mitigated to an acceptable level? Will the FAA have the 

authority to second guess or change the results of the collaborative process 

if federal funds are being used? If the FAA chooses not to fund a program 

as a result of a SRM, does the agency share in liability? 

 How did the FAA derive true industry costs related to implementing a SMS 

program? Airports and industry stakeholders will be subject to significant 

costs associated with increased internal and external training, personnel 

hours, consultants, audits, software, Safety Risk Assessment (SRA) 

facilitation and logistics and SRA mitigations as well as recordkeeping. 
6 

 How will the FAA ensure adequate government resources are available to 

review and approve SMS program submittals, and participate in all SRM 

processes? 

 In the NPRM, the FAA stated that the potential benefits of SMS may 

include “reduced insurance costs.” The FAA identifies one example of an 

airport that reduced its insurance costs, without providing any 

details. The Initial Regulatory Evaluation does not identify reduced 

insurance costs as a potential quantified or qualitative benefit of 

SMS. Does the FAA have any basis, other than the one example, for its 

finding that SMS may reduce an airport’s insurance costs? Has the FAA 

attempted to quantify this potential benefit? 

 Has the FAA considered or investigated whether the insurance industry 

would reduce insurance premiums for certificated airports when/if the 

FAA requires SMS for all such airports (as opposed to the one example in 

which an airport went above and beyond regulatory requirements)? 

 Has the FAA considered or investigated whether airports may be exposed 

to greater liability upon implementing SMS that would result in higher

insurance premiums? 

 How will the FAA make necessary funding available to immediately 

implement corrective actions of identified hazards through this program? 

(By regulating this program, the FAA will be placing airports in a position 

where they must satisfactorily 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 exposure through this 

process.) 

 Has the FAA identified a funding mechanism to support both the program 

development and implementation costs, and the ongoing Operations and 

Maintenance (O&M) costs? Specifically, will AIP funding be made 

available for software and data tracking? 

 What specific feedback has FAA received from pilot airports about their 

implementation and O&M costs to substantiate the cost-benefit analysis? 

 How will the FAA make necessary funding available to immediately 

implement corrective actions of identified hazards through this program? 

Again, thank you for the opportunity to ask these additional questions prior to 

the close of the comment period. We look forward to your response as outlined in 

the second extension request. 

Sincerely, 

Melissa Sabatine 

Vice President, Regulatory Affairs 

American Association of Airport Executives 
7 

cc: Ms. Catherine M. Lang, Acting Associate Administrator for Airports, FAA 

(catherine.m.lang@faa.gov) 

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) 

Ms. Nicole Nance, Office of Aviation Policy and Plans (Nicole.nance@faa.gov) 

Mr. Robert Hawks, Office of the Chief Counsel (rob.hawks@faa.gov)