### FAA Office of Airports



# FAA Responses to Clarifying Questions

About Proposed Rulemaking for Safety Management Sys tem for Certificated Airports

For Docket Number FAA-2010-0997- 2 -



# Table of Contents

Background .........................................

................................................... ................................................... .. 3

Technical Questions................................

................................................... ................................................ 3 Applicability ......................................

................................................... ...................................... 4 Safety Policy ......................................

................................................... .................................... 6 Safety Risk Management.............................

................................................... .......................... 7 Safety Assurance ...................................

................................................... .............................. 13 Safety Promotion...................................

................................................... ............................... 14 Compliance .........................................

................................................... ................................. 15 Regulatory Oversight ...............................

................................................... ............................ 19 Integration ........................................

................................................... .................................... 26

National Database..................................

................................................... .............................. 27 Legal Questions ....................................

................................................... ................................................. 28 Regulatory Evaluation Questions....................

................................................... ................................... 31 Airport Improvement Program (AIP) Eligibility......

................................................... ........................... 34 Questions Outside Scope of NPRM ....................

................................................... ............................... 36 General Aviation Airports ..........................

................................................... ........................... 36 FAA Office of Airports SMS .........................

................................................... ........................ 36 Safety Enhancements Proposal.......................

................................................... .................... 37 Appendix A – List of Organizations Submitting Quest ions............................................... ............... 39- 3 -



### Background On October 7, 2010, the Federal Aviation Administra tion (FAA) published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) in the Federal Register titled “S afety Management System for Certificated Airports” (75 FR 62008). The proposal would requir e each holder of an Airport Operating

Certificate issued under 14 CFR Part 139 to establi sh a safety management system (SMS) for its entire airfield environment (including movement and non-movement areas) to improve safety at airports hosting air carrier operations. As stated in the preamble, “an SMS is a formalized approach to managing safety by developing an organi zation-wide safety policy, developing formal methods of identifying hazards, analyzing and mitig ating risk, developing methods for ensuring continuous safety improvement, and creating organiz ation-wide safety promotion strategies.”

Interested parties or individuals originally had un til January 5, 2011, to submit comments to the docket. However, after receiving numerous requests for additional time to comment, the FAA extended the comment period to March 7, 2011. The American Association of Airport Executives (AAAE) and Airports Council International – North A merica (ACI-NA) requested the FAA provide additional information supporting the proposed rule and again extend the comment period to allow more time for the public to analyze and comme nt on that information. In response, the FAA extended the comment period to July 5, 2011, and co mmitted to publishing a summary report on several FAA SMS pilot studies. Also, the FAA estab lished a procedure for handling clarifying questions to the proposed rule.

This document addresses clarifying questions submit ted about the above-referenced NPRM. This document does not represent a final agency dec ision on any aspect of the proposal. Additionally, the clarifications provided in this d ocument apply only to the NPRM and not to any final rule. The FAA expects the final rule may var y significantly from the proposal, and the agency remains open to all comments by interested p arties.

The FAA received questions from ten organizations o r individuals (see Appendix A). The FAA has grouped its responses to the request for clarif ication. Many parties submitting clarification requests submitted substantially similar questions. Accordingly, this document responds generally to the questions asked but may not identi fy the requestor or use the same wording

because the FAA has decided this is the most effici ent and effective way to respond to the requests.



### Technical Questions The majority of submissions were technical question s related to the proposal. The FAA analyzed each question for relevance, subject matter, and re sponse. The technical questions are answered based on subject matter in the proposal.- 4 -

Applicability

1. If it is a requirement of the proposal to incorp orate an SMS within the next few months, why is it not appropriate to simply state as an element in the table (see page 62011) a requirement to maintain a Safety Management System? (ACI-NA, A ustin)

The FAA believes this request expresses a general s ubstantive concern with the proposal rather than addressing the proposal’s clarity. The FAA is not responding to the concern in this

document and invites the submission of a comment to the NPRM. The FAA will consider this comment when developing a final rule.

2. What does the FAA intend by the term “prescribe” in its Discussion of the Proposal “(2) a new 139.402 that would prescribe the components of an a irport SMS.” Is the intent to provide airports with general guidelines or as the NPRM men tions later on page 62011, flexible, adaptable, scalable, general framework of SMS and m aximum amount of flexibility or does the FAA anticipate structured guidelines? (Landry/ Fleet)

The FAA prescribes the components and basic element s required within the four components. Hence, an approved airport SMS must include those p rescribed components and elements. How a certificate holder implements those prescribed el ements and components is left to its discretion so it can tailor the SMS to its unique operating en vironment. The FAA does not anticipate structured guidelines.

3. In the discussion of the Minimum Elements of SMS , it is suggested that the SMS “is scalable to the size and complexity of the certificate holde r.” It is clear that it is not the intent of the proposal that an airport of smaller or less complex ity could leave out certain elements of the SMS. How then is the program scalable? (ACI-NA, A ustin)

As stated in the NPRM preamble, the FAA envisions a n SMS as an adaptable and scalable system. An organization can develop an SMS to meet its unique operating environment. For those reasons, this proposal would allow an airport the maximum amount of flexibility to develop and achieve its safety goals. Throughout the pream ble, the FAA provides examples for how the SMS requirements are scalable based on the airport' s operating environment.

4. Will the FAA be providing specific guidance on h ow military joint-use airports will be expected to implement the requirements of the NPRM? Will th e FAA provide assistance and guidance in working with the Department of Defense (DOD) in this matter? (AAAE, Fairbanks)

The NPRM does not apply to DOD facilities at joint- use airports, but the certificate holder may invite the military facility to participate in SMS activities.- 5 -

5. Will general aviation areas at airports owned or operated by a part 139 airport be included in the certificate holder’s SMS requirements? (AAAE, ACI-NA, Fairbanks)

The proposal requires the certificate holder to hav e an approved SMS that encompasses “aircraft operations in the movement area, aircraft operation s in the non-movement area, and other airport operations addressed in this part.” The proposal g ives the certificate holder flexibility to scale th e implementation of the proposed requirements to its unique operations.

6. Would the non-movement area subject to SMS inclu de paved portions of the airfield that are

not accessible to aircraft? Would the non-movement area include the interior of hangars or

other structures? Does the non-movement area defin ition/description delineate between exclusive use, leased ramps, and airport-operated a reas? Will the FAA hold airports responsible for implementing SMS in areas leased to others? Will the airport’s SMS apply to areas leased exclusively by an air carrier with an SMS? How will the airport assert control and regulate areas leased to and controlled by thir d parties, such as airlines or ground handlers? (AAAE, ACI-NA, Fairbanks, Maryland Aviat ion Administration)

The FAA proposes that the non-movement area be defi ned as locations for "loading, unloading, parking, and movement of aircraft on the airside of the airport (including without limitation, ramps, apron areas, and on-airport fuel farms.)" This def inition does not include the interior of hangars.

The definition would apply to the entire non-moveme nt area regardless of lease arrangements. The proposal includes broad requirements meant to g ive the airport flexibility to implement an SMS for its unique operating environment. There is the potential for an airport to update its airport rules and regulations, revise clauses in le ase agreements at their next renewal cycle, and renegotiate lease agreements where appropriate. Th is proposal does not require airport tenants to have a separate SMS; it is applicable to Airport Operating Certificate holders only. Each airport would have to assess what actions it will h ave to take to comply with the proposed rule.

7. 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 i ntended 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? Pa ssenger safety? (AAAE)

The FAA has concluded that ensuring safety in air t ransportation requires that an SMS applies to any place that can affect safety during aircraft op erations. An airport's SMS would apply to any safety issues including employee safety, ground veh icle safety, and passenger safety to the extent they are related to aircraft operations.

8. Is the FAA’s intent to continue to expand its re gulatory authority into the non-movement area and setting other standards beyond the application of the SMS program? (ACI-NA, Austin)

The FAA believes this request expresses a general s ubstantive concern with the proposal rather than addressing the proposal’s clarity. The FAA is not responding to the concern in this- 6 -

document and invites the submission of a comment to the NPRM. The FAA will consider this comment when developing a final rule.

9. Airports are seeking consistent terms through FA A regulatory documentation and guidance. Can airports assume the terms “components” is the o fficial reference to describe Policy, Risk Assurance, and Promotion? (Landry/Fleet)

As stated in the NPRM, "the FAA would require each airport SMS include the four SMS components: Safety Policy, SRM, Safety Assurance, a nd Safety Promotion. These components are equivalent to the International Civil Aviation Organization’s (ICAO) SMS pillars." The use of “components” is consistent with the FAA's internal SMS efforts (including the Office of Airports, Air Traffic Organization, and Aviation Safety) and the part 121 SMS NPRM.

Safety Policy

10. What was the FAA’s intent behind requiring the airport operator to identify an accountable executive? Is there any particular job description that complies with this definition? How will a publicly owned airport with human and budget reso urce policies controlled by publicly elected officials comply with the proposed definiti on? (ACI-NA, LRAA, AAAE, Maryland Aviation Administration, Austin)

One of the key tenants to SMS is to actively engage airport management in airfield safety. SMS is a "management" system, and as such, it must have management commitment and responsibility. Identifying an accountable executi ve and defining that person’s responsibilities is one way of ensuring this commitment.

As stated in the preamble, “[the] proposal would re quire an airport to identify an accountable executive. The FAA understands that airport operat ions and organizational structures vary widely. Accordingly, the FAA would not prescribe a particular job title. Nevertheless, the accountable executive must be a high-level manager who can influence safety-related decisions and has authority to approve operational decisions and changes because an effective SMS requires high-level management involvement in safet y decisionmaking. Accordingly, the FAA proposes the international standard definition for an accountable executive (i.e., requiring the

accountable executive to be an individual with ulti mate responsibility and accountability, full control of the human and financial resources requir ed to maintain the SMS, and final authority over operations and safety issues.)"

In the preamble, the FAA acknowledged that "it may be difficult for U.S. airports to identify an accountable executive meeting the international sta ndard" and invited comments concerning the

definition of accountable executive for certificate d airports. While the FAA proposes the definition of accountable executive, it is the airport's decis ion, based on its unique operating environment, how to comply with the requirement.- 7 -

11. How does the FAA intend to guide, inspect, or r eview the concept of acceptable level of safety as required under the SMS Safety Policy comp onent? (Landry/Fleet)

The proposal would require the certificate holder t o “establish[s] and maintain[s] safety objectives and the certificate holder’s acceptable level of sa fety.” The certificate holder would include these safety objectives in its approved Airport Certifica tion Manual (ACM) and/or SMS Manual. During the approval process or subsequent inspection, the FAA would confirm the certificate holder has established safety objectives and an acceptable lev el of safety and verify that the acceptable level of safety does not fall below other part 139 requirements.

12. Can the FAA define “employees” in its reference under Safety Policy “the statement typically would contain the following (i) the encouragement f or employees to report safety issues without fear of reprisal.” (Landry/Fleet)

The proposal uses the term “employees” to encompass those individuals working in the movement and non-movement area that could identify safety hazards and report those through the airport’s hazard reporting system.” Throughout the NPRM, the FAA invites comments on the use of the term, the proposed requirements, and the ir impacts.

Safety Risk Management

13. In the NPRM, the FAA proposes a definition of h azard that “means any existing or potential condition that can lead to injury, illness, death, or damage to or loss of a system, equipment, or property.” Would an alternative definition of h azard such as the inclusion of assumptions, statements, and actions aid in understandability? (USC)

The FAA believes this request expresses a general s ubstantive concern with the proposal rather than addressing the proposal’s clarity. The FAA is not responding to the concern in this

document and invites the submission of a comment to the NPRM. The FAA will consider this comment when developing a final rule.

14. Will the FAA provide guidelines for developing SRM risk matrices? Will airport operators be required to use a standard risk matrix such as the one included in the proposal? Whose SRM risk matrix (or SRM processes) is used if a pan el of subject matter experts is used to conduct SRM? How will FAA ensure continuity of Lik elihood and Severity criteria between certificated airports? (ACI-NA, Seattle, AAAE, LRA A)

The proposal would require airport operators to “es tablish a systematic process to analyze hazards and their associated risks by (i) describin g the system; (ii) identifying hazards; (iii) analyzing the risk of identified hazards and/or pro posed mitigations; (iv) assessing the level of risk associated with identified hazards; and, (v) mitiga ting the risks of identified hazards, when appropriate.”

To properly analyze the risk of identified hazards, an airport would need to define its levels of likelihood and severity, the two parts to determini ng safety risk. The FAA’s proposal does not- 8 -

prescribe categories or levels of likelihood or sev erity. Rather, the FAA states “a certificate holde r should develop tables commensurate with its operati onal needs and complexity.” While the FAA provides one example of likelihood and severity cat egories, the proposal allows for scalability based on the certificate holder’s unique operating environment.

The proposal also does not require the use of a pre dictive risk matrix. Rather, it requires the assessment of risk through comparison of the hazard ’s severity and likelihood to the organization’s acceptable levels of risk. The NPRM provides the use of a predictive risk matrix as a technique for performing risk analysis. Just lik e in the proposal, the FAA will include examples and guidelines for developing a risk matrix in its Advisory Circular guidance.

When a panel of subject matter experts is used to a nalyze hazards and safety risks, the FAA envisions the SRM processes (e.g., severity and lik elihood definitions, or risk levels) of the FAA line of business, airport, air carrier, or other or ganization responsible for the operational procedure or change would be used. For cases where FAA policies specifically require the FAA to lead the SRM process, the FAA's SRM processes wo uld be used.

15. Who has the responsibility and authority to not only determine the final risk, but also to rate and prioritize expenditure of resources for impleme ntation or corrective action? (LRAA)

For an airport-initiated or led SRM process, the de termination of final risk for any given hazard, mitigation, or implementation of mitigation would b e left to the discretion of the certificate holder. The procedures and policies for these items should be included in the ACM and/or SMS Manual, where applicable.

16. What is FAA’s role in the airport’s SRM process ? Will FAA judge the success of the program based on SRM findings and/or the effectiveness of m itigations? Does the FAA intend only to regulate the framework of an SRM process to ensure it is functioning in accordance with the submitted and approved ACM and/or SMS Manual? (LRA A, AAAE)

The proposal “would require a certificate holder to establish an SRM process to identify hazards and their associated risks, within the airport’s op erations.” As stated in the preamble, “the FAA intends [its] review as an evaluation of whether a certificate holder’s SMS is functioning as it is

intended to function rather than as a means to seco nd guess a certificate holder’s decisions.” The FAA reserves the right to take appropriate acti on, however, “if during the course of an inspection, these processes are determined to have failed in discovering discrepancies with part 139 or have created new discrepancies.”

17. Is the FAA’s intent for an airport to employ th e SRM process to address every hazard? Will the FAA provide a means for airports to manage nuis ance hazard reports submitted through the airport’s hazard reporting system? (ACI-NA, Fa irbanks, Austin)

The proposal would require the certificate holder t o establish SRM “processes and procedures for identifying hazards and their associated risks with in airport operations and for changes to those- 9 -

operations covered by this part.” The FAA concedes in the preamble that “many airports already have hazard identification processes in place to en sure part 139 compliance.”

The airport would analyze all identified hazards as sociated with airport operations or changes in airport operations and within the scope of their ap proved ACM and/or SMS Manual. However, the extent of that analysis and the procedure for c onducting that analysis is left to the airport’s

discretion.

Furthermore, how the certificate holder analyzes nu isance hazard reports is left to its discretion. As the airport sets up procedures for its hazard re porting system, it should account for the intake and processing of these types of hazards.

18. The SRM process seems to suggest a consensus de cision on SRM processes that use a subject matter expert panel format for hazard analy sis. Clarify the FAA’s participation in, and management of, SRM processes (airport-led SRM panel s). What role if any will FAA Airport Certification Safety Inspectors (ACSIs) play and in what level will their decisionmaking weigh in as part of an airport’s SRM process? Is the FAA committed to have the resources to participate in these SRM processes? Who will initi ate these SRM processes? Who will facilitate? Who will approve? If the FAA does not participate in the SRM process, will the findings be deemed valid? Will the FAA accept the recommendations of airport-led SRM panels? (Fairbanks, LRAA, Seattle)

The proposal requires the airport to establish “Saf ety Risk Management processes and procedures for identifying hazards and their associ ated risks within airport operations and for changes to those operations covered under this part ...” The preamble clarifies that for those operational changes that overlap with FAA SRM requi rements 1 (i.e., approval of Construction Safety Phasing Plans), “the FAA expects that the ce rtificate holder would participate in the FAA’s risk analysis instead of performing an independent risk analysis under its SMS.”

When and how an airport’s SRM processes are trigger ed will be determined by the airport and explained in their ACM and/or SMS Manual. How the analysis is conducted (e.g., whether a panel of experts is convened or an airport employee conducts the analysis) and who approves the analysis would all be identified in the ACM and /or SMS Manual.

If requested, the FAA will participate as time and resources permit. Furthermore, the preamble clearly explains that “the FAA intends its review a s an evaluation of whether a certificate holder’s SMS is functioning as it is intended to function ra ther than as a means for us to second guess a

certificate holder’s decisions.”

1 See FAA Order 8000.369, FAA Order 5200.11, FAA ATO SMS Manual v.2.1.- 10 -

19. Given the current federal budget climate, how w ill airports be assured that the FAA will participate in airport-led and initiated SRM proces ses with possibly limited staff? (AAAE)

The FAA will participate when requested as time and resources permit.

20. On page 62015, regarding SRM, the FAA states “ Ultimately, the certificate holder would formally accept the risk or approve the mitigation plan as required by its SMS.” Does the

FAA intend for this statement to be the case for th ose SRM processes performed by the FAA Air Traffic Organization? Will the FAA further cla rify who accepts the residual risk(s) and mitigation plan? Does the FAA intend for all organ izations (management) who participate in mitigation plans to accept the residual risk? (Lan dry/Fleet)

The FAA intended the quoted language would apply to airport-led and initiated SRM processes. Regardless of who leads the SRM Panel, any panel me mber who accepts to implement a mitigation, would accept residual risk.

21. What guidance will the FAA give airports on how to establish a baseline if they do not have an archive of baseline data? (AAAE)

The FAA will include guidance on baselining in its Advisory Circular guidance.

22. Is it the intent that the “accountable executiv e” be aware of and approve all efforts to address a hazard observation or report? (ACI-NA)

The proposal requires the certificate holder to “re port pertinent safety information and data on a regular basis to the accountable executive. Report able data includes without limitation...status of ongoing mitigations required under the airport’s sa fety risk management processes.” The proposal does not include a requirement for the acc ountable executive to approve all efforts to address a hazard observation or report.

23. Does the FAA intend to develop specific criteri a by which it would determine whether specific risk mitigations are adequate? (ACI-NA)

The proposal would require a certificate holder to “provide a means for monitoring safety performance.” Accordingly, the airport’s safety as surance component should have methods and procedures to assess whether risk mitigations perfo rmed under SRM are having their intended effect. When inspecting, “the FAA intends its revi ew as an evaluation of whether a certificate holder’s SMS is functioning as it is intended to fu nction rather than as a means for us to second guess a certificate holder’s decisions.”- 11 -

24. How does the FAA anticipate managing differing SRM outcomes as a result of differing tolerances for acceptable risk throughout the indus try? (ACI-NA, AAAE)

When inspecting, “the FAA intends its review as an evaluation of whether a certificate holder’s SMS is functioning as it is intended to function ra ther than as a means for us to second guess a

certificate holder’s decisions.” The FAA does not intend to compare SRM findings or outcomes from one airport to another.

25. Can an airport utilize the SRM findings from an other airport of similar change or project in lieu of performing its own assessment? Can an airport p erform an abbreviated SRM process to consider only local, site specific issues and utili ze findings/mitigation measures for another airport’s assessment as the substantive finding? C an an airport use an existing assessment from an airline or other tenant’s SMS? (Seattle, F airbanks)

There may be circumstances when a certificate holde r could use the SRM findings from another organization’s SRM processes, provided airport-spec ific conditions and hazards are considered in the analysis by persons with operational expertise. Many airports may find using another organization’s analysis challenging because that SM S may include different definitions of acceptable levels of risk, severity, likelihood, an d SRM processes.

26. On page 62008, under Background, the FAA states “as the demand for air transportation increases, the impacts of additional air traffic an d surface operations, changes in air traffic procedures, and airport construction can heighten t he risks of aircraft operations.” This statement implies the FAA is only considering chang es to the airport and airport system. Will the FAA provide direction that only changes should be considered for SRM processes after a certain date (e.g. like FAA Air Traffic Organizatio n did with changes to the NAS)? (Landry/Fleet)

The airport’s SRM processes would detail methods an d procedures for identifying hazards and their associated risks within existing airport oper ations and changes to operations from the effective date of the final rule. If an airport di scovers an existing hazard after the effective date , it would be required to follow its SRM processes as de tailed in the approved ACM and/or SMS

Manual.

27. Will the FAA provide examples, templates, or ot her informational guides to assist airport with the SRM requirements? (Landry/Fleet)

As stated in the preamble, "the FAA intends to publ ish any accompanying Advisory Circulars prior to the final rule." The Advisory Circular will pro vide guidance material to help certificate holders comply with part 139. The FAA expects to include e xamples, templates, and other information to assist certificate holders where applicable.- 12 -

28. Would it be beneficial for airports to have a s tandardized template for conducting the SRM process through safety risk assessments, especially if assessments relate to coordination

with other FAA lines of business such as the FAA’s Air Traffic Organization? (Landry/Fleet)

The FAA believes this request expresses a general s ubstantive concern with the proposal rather than addressing the proposal’s clarity. The FAA is not responding to the concern in this

document and invites the submission of a comment to the NPRM. The FAA will consider this comment when developing a final rule.

29. Would a longer retention period for mitigations provide better trending and analysis of data? This may be useful for mitigations that include cha nges in process or practices to determine if institutionalization of the change results in impro ved safety. (Landry/Fleet)

The proposal includes a records retention of SRM pr ocess documents for the longer of “thirty-six consecutive calendar months after the risk analysis of identified hazards...has be completed or twelve consecutive calendar months after mitigation s...have been implemented.” An airport could choose to implement a record retention policy longer than any FAA requirement.

30. Does the FAA intend to use the term Safety Risk Assessment (SRA) as a standard for the process of assessing or analyzing risk? This quest ion relates to the FAA Air Traffic Organization’s use of the term Safety Risk Manageme nt Document (SRMD) and Safety Risk Management Decision Memo (SRMDM) which are similar processes yet employ different terms? (Landry/Fleet)

Under this proposal, the FAA uses the term SRM and SRM processes. 2

31. Under § 139.402, Components of Airport Safety M anagement System, (b) Safety Risk Management, (1) Establish a system for identifying safety hazard, is this intended to say “hazards”? (USC)

The FAA believes this request expresses a general s ubstantive concern with the proposal rather than addressing the proposal’s clarity. The FAA is not responding to the concern in this

document and invites the submission of a comment to the NPRM. The FAA will consider this comment when developing a final rule.

2 FAA’s Office of Airports is proposing the term “Saf ety Risk Assessment” to describe the process and do cumentation associated with its own internal SRM processes (See FAA Order 5200.11). FAA’s Air Traffic Organizatio n (ATO) uses the

terms SRMD and SRMDM for documentation associated w ith its SRM processes.- 13 -

Safety Assurance

32. Does the FAA intend to provide qualified staff or guidelines for staff qualifications to conduct audits relating to quality assurance programs? Cou ld airports conduct audits of each other? (Landry/Fleet)

The NPRM does not require third party audits or aud its relating to quality assurance programs.

33. It appears that record retention and reporting are considered important aspects of promotion; therefore, how does the FAA anticipate the use of t echnology to support promotion without allocated funding? (Landry/Fleet)

The NPRM proposes a general framework. How the cer tificate holder retains records is left to its

discretion.

34. How will the FAA incorporate into airport SMS d ata from other sources such as NASA, and make this information available to airports? (Seat tle)

Under the proposal, the FAA does not prescribe what data sources an airport must use as part of its SRM processes. An airport may find it useful t o gather data or information from databases such as NASA’s Aviation Safety Reporting System (AS RS) and FAA’s Aviation Safety Information Analysis and Sharing System (ASIAS).

35. What does the term “process management function s” mean? Is there a clearer way of saying this? Shouldn’t all the internal inspections, audi ts, and tests that an airport does to ensure that it is operating in conformance with its ACM be included here? Isn’t non-compliance with a standard operating procedure or regulation by def inition a hazard that, therefore, would come under the purview of safety assurance in an SM S? (USC)

The FAA believes this request expresses a general s ubstantive concern with the proposal rather than addressing the proposal’s clarity. The FAA is not responding to the concern in this

document and invites the submission of a comment to the NPRM. The FAA will consider this comment when developing a final rule.

36. See 139.401(b), General Requirements, “and other airpo rt operations addressed in this part.”

Is this intended to mean “and other activities in t he airport environment that generate hazards and reduce the level of safety of the airport opera ting environment?” Where else would they be reported if not to the airport SMS hazard report ing channels? (USC)

The FAA believes this request expresses a general s ubstantive concern with the proposal rather than addressing the proposal’s clarity. The FAA is not responding to the concern in this

document and invites the submission of a comment to the NPRM. The FAA will consider this comment when developing a final rule.- 14 -

37. In the NPRM, “(3) Provide for regular assessmen t”, isn’t this more appropriately placed in (c) Safety Assurance? (USC)

The FAA believes this request expresses a general s ubstantive concern with the proposal rather than addressing the proposal’s clarity. The FAA is not responding to the concern in this

document and invites the submission of a comment to the NPRM. The FAA will consider this comment when developing a final rule.

38. In the NPRM, under 139.401(c), Safety Assurance , “(2) establish and maintain a hazard reporting system,” shouldn’t this be in (b) Safety Risk Management? (USC)

The FAA believes this request expresses a general s ubstantive concern with the proposal rather than addressing the proposal’s clarity. The FAA is not responding to the concern in this

document and invites the submission of a comment to the NPRM. The FAA will consider this comment when developing a final rule.

Safety Promotion

39. Would airports be permitted under the proposed rule to delegate training and recordkeeping responsibility to, for example, their tenants? (AA AE)

These proposed requirements are similar to existing recordkeeping and training requirements under part 139. Provided the certificate holder ha s access to those records and the training is being provided according to the approved ACM and/or SMS Manual, compliance is met.

40. What is the proposed scope of the training requ irement in the proposal? What are the proposed definitions of “employee” and “tenant”? ( AAAE)

As stated in the preamble, “the SMS training requir ement would apply to airport employees based on information obtained during the pilot studies.” The FAA “believes greater benefits may be achieved if that training requirement were applied to all individuals with access to the movement and non-movement areas, and it is considering that broader SMS training requirement.” The FAA invited comment on the practical and economic impli cation of the broader requirement.

The FAA believes this request expresses a general s ubstantive concern with the proposal rather than addressing the proposal’s clarity. The FAA is not responding to the concern in this

document and invites the submission of a comment to the NPRM. The FAA will consider this comment when developing a final rule.

41. Clarify specific SMS training requirements for FAA Airport Certification Safety Inspectors (ACSIs), airport staff, airlines, ground handlers, AOA drivers, and persons having access to the AOA. (Seattle)

As stated in the preamble, “part 139 currently pres cribes numerous training and communications requirements that can be used in developing an SMS. Under an SMS, these requirements would- 15 -

be enhanced and extended to more individuals operat ing on the airport because everyone has a role in promoting safety.” As an example, “instead of just training those airport employees on part 139 technical requirements (such as airfield driver training), an airport would ensure that all employees with access to the movement and non-movem ent areas receive training on operational safety and on the airport’s SMS.”

The training of FAA ACSIs will be substantially dif ferent than that for airport employees since the FAA is a regulator and not an operator. The FAA’s plans for inspector training are explained in other responses within this document.

As for the training requirements for specific posit ions on the airport, the FAA’s proposal is broad enough to allow flexibility and scalability based o n the airport’s operating structure. The proposal would require the airport to have “safety promotion processes and procedures to foster an airport operating environment that encourages safety.” Und er safety promotion, the airport would “provide formal safety training to each employee an d tenant with access to airport areas regulated under this part that is appropriate to th e individual’s role.”

Compliance

42. Will SMS be a part of the ACM or a separate pro gram? (Fairbanks)

The proposal allows flexibility for airport operato rs to either maintain a separate SMS Manual in addition to the ACM or maintain the SMS policy docu mentation directly in the ACM. As stated in the proposal, "if a certificate holder develops a s eparate manual, it would cross-reference the SMS requirements in its FAA-approved ACM."

43. How soon after approval of an airport’s ACM and /or SMS Manual does the airport’s SMS program need to be operational? What are the timel ines for implementation after SMS approval? (AAAE, ACI-NA, Fairbanks)

As stated in the NPRM, the FAA proposes implementat ion for Class I certificate holders no later

than 18 months after effective date of the final ru le and 24 months after effective date for Class II, III, and IV certificate holders. The FAA expects t hat the airport's Implementation Plan, which is also required, would detail how the airport would a chieve meeting these dates for implementation. The FAA did not propose any more detailed requireme nts because it believes the individual airport is in the best position to know how to impl ement SMS for its own organization.

44. How did the FAA determine 6 months was an appro priate timeline to develop an SMS plan when only limited pilot study data has been made av ailable? Most airports will require 8-12 months to program funding into their budget and ano ther 3-6 months to develop a Request for Proposals and execute the contract. Was this t aken into consideration when developing the NPRM? (AAAE, ACI-NA)

The FAA believes this request expresses a general s ubstantive concern with the proposal rather than addressing the proposal’s clarity. The FAA is not responding to the concern in this- 16 -

document and invites the submission of a comment to the NPRM. The FAA will consider this comment when developing a final rule.

45. How did the FAA determine 18 months was an appr opriate implementation timeline for Class I certificate holders when implementation pilot stu dies have yet to be completed? (AAAE, ACI-NA)

The FAA believes this request expresses a general s ubstantive concern with the proposal rather than addressing the proposal’s clarity. The FAA is not responding to the concern in this

document and invites the submission of a comment to the NPRM. The FAA will consider this comment when developing a final rule.

46. Can the FAA provide its definition of the term “phased implementation” as it is used in the NPRM? (ACI-NA, Landry/Fleet)

The proposal does not take a phased approach. The preamble states "Based on findings from the pilot study, the FAA has determined that all co mponents of an SMS are interrelated and must be implemented at the same time for an SMS to be ef fective. The FAA requests comments on the proposed implementation requirements and timefr ames. If you believe the FAA should adopt a phased-in approach for the SMS components, please provide specific recommendations for how the requirements could be phased in and analysi s of the effect on implementation costs and corresponding postponement of safety benefits."

47. How is an SMS scalable, as stated in the NPRM, if an airport of smaller size or less complexity must include all minimum elements in its SMS? (ACI-NA, Austin)

As for implementation, the FAA believes this reques t expresses a general substantive concern with the proposal rather than addressing the propos al’s clarity. The FAA is not responding to the

concern in this document and invites the submission of a comment to the NPRM. The FAA will consider this comment when developing a final rule.

48. How did the FAA come to the conclusion that a p hased implementation is not appropriate for this program? If lessons learned from the currentl y active part 139 SMS Implementation Study reflect that a longer implementation period i s revealed or recommended, will the FAA consider changing the timelines proposed under impl ementation? Would the FAA entertain phasing in the operational components of an airport SMS? Would the FAA consider a phased implementation using current budgeted availa ble labor hours until additional positions

could be funded and filled? Would the FAA consider implementing SMS for employees of the airport operator first and, once the system is runn ing smoothly, incorporate airport employees of tenants and airlines at a later date? (ACI-NA, Austin, AAAE, Landry/Fleet)

The FAA believes this request expresses a general s ubstantive concern with the proposal rather than addressing the proposal’s clarity. The FAA is not responding to the concern in this

document and invites the submission of a comment to the NPRM. The FAA will consider this comment when developing a final rule.- 17 -

49. In the past, the FAA has used the term “harmoni ze” with ICAO. Has the FAA’s position changed? Will the FAA consider allowing a phased a pproach to implementation of the components of SMS as ICAO has? (Landry/Fleet)

The FAA believes this request expresses a general s ubstantive concern with the proposal rather than addressing the proposal’s clarity. The FAA is not responding to the concern in this

document and invites the submission of a comment to the NPRM. The FAA will consider this comment when developing a final rule.

50. Where does the SMS program fit in relationship to FAA advisory circulars, other federal regulations (e.g., OSHA, NEPA, TSA), state regulati ons, and ordinances? How will SMS provide benefits beyond other regulatory and/or ind ustry standards, state regulations, local ordinances, etc.? (LRAA)

As stated in the preamble, “the FAA intends to publ ish any accompanying Advisory Circulars prior to the final rule.” Advisory Circulars provide gui dance material to help airport operators comply with part 139. The FAA cannot promulgate rules or guidance for issues outside its legal authority.

TSA, OSHA, and EPA do not have regulatory authority over aviation safety. The National Fire Protection Association and the insurance industry a re not regulators. State and local government regulations may or may not cover aviation safety is sues covered under SMS. The FAA expects a certificate holder would develop and implement an S MS that complies with a final rule and fits in with its other regulatory requirements.

51. The NPRM anticipates each airport’s SMS to be s calable and adaptable. LRAA has reviewed two pilot study airport SMS Manuals that a ppear to share striking similarities and appear nearly cookie cutter. The FAA should better define “scalable and adaptable” and relate these terms to overall agency expectations. How is the agency going to accomplish this in the regulation? Again, airport operator fl exibility is important in that self-imposed industry standards will vary based on a myriad of f actors. (LRAA)

As stated in the NPRM preamble, the FAA envisions a n SMS as an adaptable and scalable system. A certificate holder can develop an SMS to meet its unique operating environment. For those reasons, this proposal would allow an airport the maximum amount of flexibility to develop and achieve its safety goals. Throughout the pream ble, the FAA provides examples for how the SMS requirements are scalable based on the airport' s operating environment.

52. With regard to implementing the four components of SMS, how does this differ from meeting FAA safety standards and compliance requirements? (LRAA)

In the preamble, FAA states "an SMS is not a substi tute for compliance with FAA regulations or FAA oversight activities...an SMS would ensure compli ance with safety-related statutory and regulatory requirements." Also, "SMS enhances the FAA's ability to understand the safety of- 18 -

airport operations throughout the year, and not jus t when an FAA inspector is physically on the

airfield."

53. What measurable value is provided by exceeding FAA safety standards and what is the costbenefit test? (LRAA)

As stated in the NPRM, the FAA believes “an SMS is not a substitute for compliance with FAA regulations or FAA oversight activities.... An SMS e nhances the FAA’s ability to understand the safety of airport operations throughout the year an d not just when an FAA inspector is physically on the airfield.” The FAA proposes requiring the g eneral SMS framework, leaving a certificate holder with flexibility for developing and implemen ting its SMS. Cost and benefit data for the proposal can be found in the NPRM and Regulatory Ev aluation, both published to FAA Docket

Number 2010-0997 on www.regulations.gov

.

54. What statement of commitment is strong enough f or compliance? Does the FAA mean “the highest” or among the highest in its discussion of safety policy statement when it says “the statement typically would contain the following...(ii i) a commitment to make safety the highest priority.” (LRAA, Landry/Fleet)

This proposal would require the certificate holder to establish a safety policy statement. The safety policy statement is similar to a corporate m ission statement. It is an aspirational statement relating to safety at that airport.

55. What is the proper method of employee encourage ment to report safety-related issues (allegations)? (LRAA)

The proposal requires training and communication an d does not propose any encouragement or incentives beyond training and communication. An a irport could choose to go beyond these requirements. The FAA believes that communication is encouragement in that it promotes a participative environment.

56. What does a commitment to provide resources mea n? What level of resources? Who determines sufficiency of resources? How does some one budget based on the probable unknown (proactive analysis)? What constitutes mak ing safety the highest priority and how is

that to be measured? How will FAA view the lack of consistency? (LRAA)

The NRPM proposes a general SMS framework. How a c ertificate holder meets those requirements is left to its discretion. The FAA be lieves a certificate holder is in the best position to determine the amount of resources it requires to comply with a final rule.- 19 -

57. How much flexibility will exist for the manual and implementation plan and its verbiage, and is having an approved SMS Manual and implementation pl an required to maintain compliance with part 139, grant assurances, Advisory Circulars , etc.? (LRAA)

The NPRM does not propose an “approved” Implementat ion Plan. An Implementation Plan is a certificate holder’s unique plan to implement SMS, including airport-specific dates for rolling-out the various requirements for SMS compliance. The N PRM does require an approved SMS either through the update of the airport’s approved ACM or through a separate approved SMS Manual. Whatever is required in a final rule would need to be implemented by a certificate holder within the prescribed timelines to remain compliant with p art 139.

Regulatory Oversight

58. Will the airport’s SMS program be “accepted” by the FAA or more formally “approved” by the FAA? (ACI-NA, Fairbanks)

The NPRM proposes in §139.401, General Requirements , “Each certificate holder, or applicant for an Airport Operating Certificate, must develop and maintain an Airport Safety Management System that is approved by the Administrator.”

59. The NPRM states that the FAA Certification Safe ty Inspector (ACSI) would review an airport operator’s SMS implementation plan, records, and fo llow-up actions to ensure compliance. How does the FAA propose to conduct inspections and review SMS programs in conjunction with an airport’s current ACM and inspection? Does the FAA expect any changes to the annual certification inspection related to SMS impl ementation? How will the system be tested to ensure consistency? Will the FAA provide guidan ce to FAA ACSIs that airports may design and employ a different matrix than the examp le presented in AC 150/5200-37, Introduction to Safety Management Systems for Airpo rt Operators? How does the FAA intend to audit, inspect, or review SRM processes e specially if it is anticipated that the acceptable level of risk will vary from airport to airport? (ACI-NA, Landry/Fleet, Maryland Aviation Administration, LRAA)

Under SMS, FAA ACSIs will use similar means for ins pecting and ensuring compliance with the approved ACM and, if applicable, the airport's SMS Manual as they do currently for the ACM. The FAA intends to develop Advisory Circular guidan ce providing minimum standards for developing airport SMS. Further, the FAA intends t o update its ACSI guidance materials and internal Orders and train all members of the inspec tor cadre before implementation.

The proposal would require certificate holders to “ establish a systematic process to analyze hazards and their associated risks by (i) describin g the system; (ii) identifying hazards; (iii) analyzing the risk of identified hazards and/or pro posed mitigations; (iv) assessing the level of risk associated with identified hazards; and, (v) mitiga ting the risks of identified hazards, when appropriate.” To properly analyze the risk of iden tified hazards and their associated risks, a certificate holder would need to define acceptable levels of risk. The FAA’s proposal does not- 20 -

prescribe categories or levels of risk. The FAA pr ovides one example in the NPRM showing three levels of risk (high, medium, and low risk). The proposal allows for scalability based on the airport’s unique operating and governing conditions . Therefore, the FAA would not compare acceptable levels of risk from airport to airport.

60. The FAA has indicated it will update Advisory C ircular guidance in conjunction with its rulemaking activities. Provide clarification on ti ming, format, and content of the update. Will the FAA take into consideration pilot study finding s as it revises the Advisory Circular? How many and what topic areas are planned for the Advis ory Circular? Will the final rule provide prescriptive requirements and the Advisory Circular more detail and structure for airports to allow for flexibility? (Landry/Fleet)

The FAA addressed this question in its response to industry requests for more information. In Federal Register Notice (76 FR 12300) dated March 7 , 2011, the FAA stated:

“In the NPRM, the FAA stated that it would develop and make available an Advisory Circular (AC) on SMS prior to issuance of the final rule. The FAA currently is developing that document. The FAA also is conducting a third pilot study on the implementation of SMS, which began after the NPRM was published. The purpose of the pilot study and AC is to facilitate implementation of the proposed rule and to provide additional examples of how an airport could develop and implement its S MS. The AC likely will provide multiple means to comply with the regulation, some which are outlined in the NPRM preamble, but the AC is not a substitute for the re gulation nor does it provide the only means of compliance.

Additionally, the FAA does not anticipate the AC wi ll expand the “scope and scale” of

SMS from what is discussed in the NPRM and Initial Regulatory Evaluation. The FAA also does not anticipate the third pilot study or A C would result in significant changes to the proposed rule. Of course the FAA may change th e rule after careful consideration of comments to the proposal.

Nevertheless, the FAA intends, as it routinely does , to publish a draft AC in advance of publication of any final rule. There will be oppor tunity for the public to comment on that draft AC, for the FAA to carefully consider those c omments, and for the FAA to respond to those comments either before or simultaneously w ith publication of a final rule.”

61. Who approves: the accountable executive definit ions, the safety policy and procedures, the SMS communications plan, the line of responsibility , establishment of objectives, and acceptable level of safety? If the answer is the F AA, how does the FAA reconcile its role as a participant versus a regulator with overarching app roval of an SMS plan, process, and outcome? (LRAA)

The certificate holder defines its own accountable executive, safety policy and procedures, communications, lines of responsibility, safety obj ectives, and acceptable level of safety. These- 21 -

definitions will then be included in the airport's SMS Manual or directly in the ACM. The FAA will then approve the ACM and/or SMS Manual.

62. Is the FAA planning on auditing airport standar d operating procedures as part of the SMS program review? (Seattle, Landry/Fleet)

The FAA will include as part of its inspection a re view of the airport's approved ACM and, if applicable, the SMS Manual. The FAA ACSI will veri fy through airport records, interviews, and other means that the SMS is being communicated, tra ining is being provided, and senior management is actively engaged in the management an d oversight of the SMS.

63. What is the FAA’s definition of nonconformance? What are some examples of possible nonconformance elements associated with an SMS prog ram (Seattle, Landry/Fleet)

The FAA’s use of the term “nonconformance” in the p roposal refers to an airport’s actions or documentation not conforming to the processes, proc edures, or documentation approved in its

ACM and/or SMS Manual.

As stated in the preamble, the FAA ACSI would verif y through things like airport records, interviews, and other means that the SMS is being c ommunicated, training is being provided, senior management is actively engaged in the manage ment and oversight of the SMS, and the airport is complying with its FAA-approved ACM and, if applicable SMS Manual. For example, if the airport's approved ACM/SMS Manual includes the requirement that the hazard tracking system is used to track all hazard identified throu gh SRM, and the airport is not using the hazard tracking system, that may be an area of “nonconform ance” documented by the FAA ACSI.

64. Regarding FAA ACSIs, when and how will they be trained on the SMS requirements? What type of technical training will they receive? (AAA E, Maryland Aviation Administration, Fairbanks)

FAA ACSIs will receive training and guidance before implementation. This training and guidance will ensure they have the necessary tools to approv e SMS-related submissions and inspect an airport's SMS.

65. How will the FAA ensure consistency in program regulation throughout all regions? How will the FAA ensure new ACSIs will not overturn programs and processes that have been approved by other ACSIs? (AAAE, ACI-NA)

ACSIs will receive training and guidance before imp lementation. This training and guidance will ensure they have the necessary tools to approve SMS -related submissions and inspect an airport's SMS.- 22 -

66. How will the FAA ensure adequate government res ources are available to review and approve SMS program submittals and participate in a ll SRM processes? Has the FAA conducted any analysis to determine whether there w ill be sufficient trained staff resources available to review SMS Implementation Plans and SM S Manuals/ACM updates incorporating SMS? If so, can these be posted to t he docket? (AAAE, ACI-NA)

The FAA recognizes that safety is a high priority. The FAA has and continues to analyze resource impacts for the proposed rule. The FAA wi ll review documents and participate in airport-initiated and led SRM panels as needed.

FAA ACSIs will receive training and guidance before implementation. This training and guidance will ensure they have the necessary tools to approv e SMS-related submissions and inspect an airport's SMS.

67. Is the FAA’s position going to be to allow each airport’s SRM findings to stand on its own or does it intend to measure airports against one anot her and mandate changes that occur at one facility to apply across a broader spectrum? H ow will the FAA ensure continuity of SMS findings and software (data collection) between air ports and regions? How will the FAA share and accept SRM findings from one airport to a nother? (Seattle, Fairbanks, LRAA)

The preamble explains that “the FAA intends its rev iew as an evaluation of whether a certificate holder’s SMS is functioning as it is intended to fu nction rather than as a means for us to second guess a certificate holder’s decisions.” The FAA d oes not intend to compare the SRM findings from one airport with another. FAA ACSIs, as part of their inspections, will review SRM documentation to verify whether the airport is appl ying procedures approved in its ACM and/or

SMS Manual.

The FAA does not intend to compare the SRM findings , software, or other program elements from one airport with another. FAA ACSIs, as part of th eir inspections, will review SRM documentation to verify whether the airport is applying procedure s approved in its ACM and/or SMS Manual.

68. Does the FAA intend to regulate only the framew ork of an SMS program and SRM process to ensure it is functioning in accordance with the sub mitted and approved SMS program? Or will the FAA reserve the right to overturn collabor ative SRM processes and modify the program components through the part 139 certificati on inspection process? (ACI-NA)

Under SMS, ACSIs will use similar means for inspect ing and ensuring compliance with the approved ACM and, if applicable, the SMS Manual as they do today for the ACM. FAA ACSIs, as part of their inspections, will review SRM document ation to verify whether the airport is applying procedures approved in its ACM and/or SMS Manual.- 23 -

69. How will the FAA address compliance and regulat ory standards with regard to the variety and diversity of airports if each airport has the abili ty to manage its own SMS program in its own way? (Seattle, Landry/Fleet)

The NPRM proposes broad requirements allowing certi ficate holders flexibility in developing and implementing an SMS scalable to their operating env ironments. As stated in the preamble, “an SMS is not a substitute for compliance with FAA reg ulations or FAA oversight activities. Rather, an SMS would ensure compliance with safety-related statutory and regulatory requirements. An SMS enhances the FAA’s ability to understand the sa fety of airport operations throughout the year, not just when an FAA inspector is physically on the airport [during periodic inspection.]”

“The FAA intends this review as an evaluation of wh ether a certificate holder’s SMS is functioning

as it is intended to function rather than as a mean s for us to second guess a certificate holder’s decisions. However, if during the course of an ins pection, these processes are determined to have failed in discovering discrepancies with part 139 or have created new discrepancies, the FAA would take appropriate action to ensure the air port corrects these non-compliance

conditions.”

70. In the NPRM, the FAA commits to not second gues s airport SMS decisions. Can this be stated more explicitly in the final rule? (AAAE, A CI-NA)

The FAA believes this request expresses a general s ubstantive concern with the proposal rather than addressing the proposal’s clarity. The FAA is not responding to the concern in this

document and invites the submission of a comment to the NPRM. The FAA will consider this comment when developing a final rule.

71. Is it the FAA’s intent to restrict a certificat e holder’s ability to investigate and punish for grossly negligent, reckless, or intentional conduct ? (ACI-NA, Austin, Landry/Fleet)

The NPRM does not propose a non-punitive reporting system. Rather, it proposes a confidential reporting system. The proposal is not intended to restrict a certificate holder’s ability to enforce its rules and regulations.

72. On page 62012 of the NPRM, under Safety Risk Ma nagement, the FAA says “there are many ways to accomplish this hazard identification, but all must use the following four elements: (1) Operational expertise; (2) Training in SMS (and, if possible, hazard analysis techniques); (3) A simple, but well-defined, hazard analysis tool; a nd (4) Adequate documentation of the process.” How does the FAA plan to review this par ticular requirement? (Landry/Fleet)

The certificate holder should include how it intend s to meet this standard in its ACM and/or SMS Manual. When reviewing the SRM documentation as pa rt of the annual inspection, the FAA ACSI will verify whether the airport is applying procedu res approved in its ACM and/or SMS Manual.- 24 -

73. Many airports participate in voluntary safety i mprovement programs for their facilities. Their programs are administered by organizations such as Underwriters Labs, Chubb Companies, and FM Global. It seems that making these types of facility recommendations subject to SRM analysis would be extremely redundant and could run counter to best industry practices. How does the FAA plan to address this situation? W ill safety decisions agreed to by an airport operator to enhance insurability be subject to SRM as long as the FAA and/or industry standards are adhered to? (LRAA)

Insurability is outside the scope of this NPRM. Th ese programs appear to be very similar to elements within an SMS and may dovetail with the pr oposed rule. The certificate holder may be able to adapt a voluntary reporting system for one voluntary program to meet its SMS requirements proposed under this rule.

74. Will the FAA assume it has access to third-part y or internal audit reports? If so, how does the FAA plan on inspecting or reviewing this audit port ion of the SMS program? (Landry/Fleet)

The NPRM does not require third-party audits.

75. Relating to audit reports, if an unmitigated hi gh risk (or possible discrepancy) is discovered and documented as part of an internal or third-part y report, will the FAA take a non-punitive approach to the finding if its is discovered during an FAA inspection? (Landry/Fleet)

The NPRM does not require third-party audits. Howe ver, as stated in the NPRM, “if during the course of an inspection, these processes are determ ined to have failed in discovering discrepancies with part 139 or have created new dis crepancies, the FAA would take appropriate action to ensure the airport corrects these non-com pliant conditions.”

76. How are airports expected to “demonstrate commi tment to safety promotion in several ways...an airport could allocate sufficient resources for the initial and recurrent training of its staff,” if funding resources are limited or nonexis tent? (Landry/Fleet)

Throughout the preamble, the FAA provided examples of ways in which a certificate holder can use existing programs to serve as a foundation for developing its SMS. For example, the proposal would require the airport to have a hazard reporting system. The FAA states in the NPRM, “for some airports, the required data trackin g, data reporting, and assessment programs already exist in other formats....Many airport have f unctional occupational safety programs in place with reporting, inspection, and training requ irements. An airport can use these programs to build its operational SMS.”

77. Clarify and explain the compliance and standard s aspects of SMS with regard to the FAA’s part 139 oversight and certification program. (Sea ttle, Landry/Fleet)

As stated in the NPRM, “an SMS is not a substitute for compliance with FAA regulations or FAA oversight activities.... SMS enhances the FAA’s abil ity to understand the safety of airport- 25 -

operations throughout the year and not just when an FAA inspector is physically on the airfield.” The FAA will continue to conduct its part 139 safet y inspections and proposes to include review of an approved SMS in its certification and inspection program.

78. If airport operators decide at their location t o implement SMS throughout the airport environment (including landside and terminal operat ions), will the FAA provide guidance on how FAA certification will address this issue, beyo nd what is described later in the NPRM? Will the FAA provide guidance to the certificate ho lder on how documentation of these areas should be managed (for ease of inspection and data management)? (Landry/Fleet)

The proposal allows the certificate holder flexibil ity to develop an airport-wide SMS if it desires. However, the FAA proposed requirement and inspectio n authority would only extend to the movement and non-movement areas of the airport’s ai rfield environment. The FAA intends to address the documentation of such an all-encompassi ng program in its Advisory Circular guidance.

79. On page 62017 of the NPRM, under FAA’s Role and Oversight, the FAA states “However, if during the course of an inspection, these processes are determined to have failed in discovering discrepancies with part 139 or have cre ated new discrepancies...” Will the FAA define “failed”? Does failed constitute, one, two, or three identified discrepancies? Will the failed discrepancies be ranked, such that physical (lights, pavement, signage) reflect a higher indication of system failure than an administrative error in record keeping? Is the FAA intending to review and correct these discrepancies in a non-punitive manner? (Landry/Fleet)

If an FAA ACSI finds a discrepancy with part 139, t hen the inspector would question whether the airport’s SMS is functioning as it is intended to f unction because the proposed SMS requirements are intended to assist airports in identifying haza rds rather than assist in complying in part 139.

The preamble explains “During an airport’s periodic inspection, the FAA envisions an inspector reviewing the certificate holder’s ACM to ensure th at the SMS requirements are clearly identified

and detailed in the ACM or referenced SMS Manual. The inspector would verify through airport records, interviews, and other means that the SMS i s being communicated, training is being provided, and senior management is actively engaged in the management and oversight of the

SMS.” The FAA “intends this review as an evaluatio n of whether a certificate holder’s SMS is functioning as it is intended to function rather th an as a means for us to second guess a certificate holder’s decisions. However, if during the course of an inspection, these processes are determined to have failed in discovering discrepanc ies with part 139 or have created new discrepancies, the FAA would take appropriate actio n to ensure the airport corrects these noncompliant conditions.”- 26 -

Integration

80. Would the airport be in compliance with the pro posed rule if a hazard is reported through an air carrier’s hazard or employee reporting system? Would the airport be in compliance if the

risks associated with an identified hazard are eval uated through an air carrier’s safety risk management processes rather than an airport’s SRM p rocesses? (AAAE)

A certificate holder could comply with the hazard r eporting requirement as long as the airport has policies, procedures, or agreements in place to ens ure that the air carrier's reporting system shares airport-related information with the airport 's hazard reporting system. The certificate holder may still need to have a separate hazard rep orting system for airport employees and other tenants on the airport. Furthermore, the airport s hould be aware that the hazard reporting system is not the only way it can become aware of new haza rds and, therefore should be able to analyze other hazards, not just those that may be sent thro ugh a tenant’s hazard reporting system.

81. How will the FAA compel airlines or ground hand lers to report hazards/incidents/accidents into an airport hazard reporting system? (Seattle)

The proposal would require a certificate holder to establish a hazard reporting system. However, the FAA does not propose to require an individual t o report to the hazard reporting system. Through its safety promotion activities, the airpor t would inform tenants of its availability and encourage its use.

82. How will the part 139 change interface with the part 121 change regarding SMS? How does the FAA intend to integrate SMS programs among the regulated parties and among FAA lines of business, organizations, and offices? (Au stin, AAAE, Seattle)

Under the proposal, a certificate holder would put in place policies, processes, and procedures to comply with the requirement. Implementation of tha t general framework is left largely to the certificate holder’s discretion. However, in many instances, the certificate holder would have to work closely with its tenants, including part 121 c arriers, to ensure that employees with access to the movement and non-movement areas of the airport have proper training and understand what issues should be reported to the airports hazard re porting system (and/or the air carrier’s reporting system).

FAA lines of business are working cooperatively to integrate SMS components and elements where appropriate and maintain interoperable system s. The FAA has developed an agency-wide SMS Order, FAA Order 8000.369 and an FAA SMS Commit tee to harmonize requirements and ensure discrepancies between agency efforts are add ressed while maintaining a safe aviation system. Many efforts are underway to address integ rated risk between lines of business. The Office of Airports through FAA Order 5200.11, expla ins the roles and responsibilities for Headquarters, Regional, and Field Offices under its SMS.- 27 -

83. Can the FAA clarify how the proposed airport SM S would be required to function in an environment containing multiple SMS programs? (AAA E, ACI-NA, Fairbanks)

While on their face, SMS programs may overlap, an a irport’s safety risk management and safety assurance activities would be specific to its opera tional jurisdiction or control. For example, under the proposal, a certificate holder would have proce dures in place to examine safety risks associated with changes on the airport. An air car rier may have similar requirements under other rules. However, an airport would remain responsibl e for analyzing the hazards and safety risks associated with airport-specific operations.

84. How will airports interact with tenants that do not have an SMS program? (Maryland Aviation Administration)

There is no requirement in this proposal for a cert ificate holder to interact with another SMS. Regardless of whether a tenant has an SMS, the airp ort would still have to do some sort of outreach on reporting hazards and ensure training o f those employees with access to the

movement and non-movement areas.

85. Who will determine the lead on SRM panels? Who has jurisdiction and why? Whose findings and/or recommendation take precedence? (L andry/Fleet, Seattle)

Unless specifically excluded by FAA Order 8000.369, FAA Order 5200.11, or FAA’s Air Traffic Organization SMS Manual, the certificate holder wou ld be responsible for initiating and leading SRM activities related to airport operations or cha nges to operations on the airport. The certificate holder would identify these policies an d procedures in its approved ACM and/or SMS

Manual.

For those operational changes that overlap with FAA SRM requirements 3 (i.e., approval of Construction Safety Phasing Plans), “the FAA expect s that the certificate holder would participate in the FAA’s risk analysis instead of performing an independent risk analysis under its SMS.”

National Database

86. Will the FAA establish a data repository for ai rport SMS decisions to track trends and data and/or to issue guidance based upon data collected? If not, does the FAA foresee another mechanism to notify airports of hazards identified by other airports? (ACI-NA, Fairbanks)

The proposal does not require certificate holders t o submit individual SRM results to the FAA. The FAA plans to use existing regulatory oversight processes to ensure that systemic or national compliance issues are reported when appropriate. 4

3 See FAA Order 8000.369, FAA Order 5200.11, FAA ATO SMS Manual.

4 The FAA will adopt a hazard tracking system for SRM act ivities conducted in compliance with FAA Order 5200 .11. These actions are outside the scope of this proposa l.- 28 -



### Legal Questions

87. Does the FAA plan to seek legislative protectio n to address data protection issues? How will the FAA ensure data protection and anonymity of haz ard reporting parties, airline names, etc.? Does the FAA intend to protect confidentiali ty of program data to promote participation and minimize litigation for the airport industry an d any third-party participants? Has the FAA considered the impact on SMS if the data collected under the auspices of an SMS program is not kept confidential? (AAAE, ACI-NA, Austin, LRAA , Fairbanks)

Several respondents to the request for clarifying q uestions seemed to be interested in the ability to protect SMS data from public disclosure. Althou gh no respondent clearly stated such, the questions seemed to concern two different types of disclosure: (1) public disclosure of SMS information submitted to the FAA; and (2) public di sclosure of SMS information maintained by the airport. One respondent inquired why the proposal does not include data protection. Related to this issue, one respondent asked what level of SMS program participation by third-party stakeholders, who may not be able to protect their data from public records requests, the FAA expects.

The FAA does not propose to require submission to t he FAA of SMS information, which means there should be no implications under federal discl osure requirements. Accordingly, the FAA determined there was no need for specific public di sclosure protection. Nevertheless, the issues of SMS data protection and civil liability are bein g considered by Congress as part of the FAA Reauthorization Bill. Section 337 of R. 658 (112th Congress) exempts from disclosure SMS information voluntarily submitted to the FAA, subje ct to the existing requirements of 49 U.S.C. sec. 40123. Likewise, section 554 of S. 223 (112th Congress) also provides for protections for certain types of SMS data, information, and reports . While the FAA has not taken an official policy position on these provisions, the agency has worked with Congress to develop and refine these provisions as they move towards final enactme nt.

The FAA acknowledges that most certificated U.S. ai rports are owned by a state, owned by a subdivision of a state, or owned by a local governm ent body, and these airports may be subject to

state freedom of information or sunshine laws. The FAA believes that airports are best situated to understand and comply with their state laws.

The FAA cannot speculate on a third party’s decisio n-making with respect to an airport’s SMS program. However, the proposal does not include a requirement for third parties to turn over their SMS data to an airport. It would, however, require airports to establish a confidential reporting system for hazard identification. The FAA expects that airports would implement an SMS program that would comply with the proposed rule an d encourage participation by third-party stakeholders. The FAA believes an SMS program coul d be structured in such a way as to realize safety benefits while limiting the public release o f confidential third-party information.- 29 -

88. Has the FAA considered whether airports may be exposed to greater liability upon implementing SMS that would result in higher insura nce premiums? Will an airport harbor liability under an SMS if a tenant employee is inju red in an exclusively leased tenant area? Does the FAA plan to seek legislative protection to limit civil tort liability of airports resulting from maintaining SMS information? Has the FAA cond ucted any evaluations of how liability issues may impact the way airports structure their SMSs? (AAAE, ACI-NA, Fairbanks)

The proposed airport SMS rule is federal regulation , which would be enforced by the FAA, and does not create a private right of action. A poten tially unsafe airport condition or action poses a risk of tort liability regardless of whether the ai rport has an SMS. The FAA intends an SMS would assist in uncovering and mitigating these unsafe co nditions or actions.

All information regarding insurance that the FAA ha s been able to collect and review has demonstrated that implementing an SMS should decrea se insurance claims because an SMS enhances safety (by identifying hazards and mitigat ing risk).

The FAA does not intend the proposed airport SMS ru le to create or change state tort liability law. Furthermore, the FAA does not believe tort liabilit y concerns should impact the way an airport would structure its SMS. The proposed rule would r equire an airport to implement an SMS and then follow the SMS processes and procedures the ai rport establishes. The FAA invites comment on any additional liability issues it shoul d consider in developing a final rule.

The issues of SMS data protection and civil liabili ty are being considered by Congress as part of

the FAA Reauthorization Bill. Section 337 of H.R. 658 (112th Congress) limits the use of SMS information in a judicial proceeding. Likewise, se ction 554 of S. 223 (112th Congress) also provides for protections for certain types of SMS d ata, information, and reports from discovery. While the FAA has not taken an official policy posi tion on these provisions, the agency has worked with Congress to develop and refine these pr ovisions as they move towards final

enactment.

89. If the FAA chooses not to fund airport-identifi ed risk mitigation projects as a result of a safety risk assessment, does the FAA share liability in th e event of an incident or accident associated with the identified hazard? (ACI-NA, AA AE, Fairbanks)

Availability of Airport Improvement Program grants does not affect the liability for hazards on the airport property. The FAA expects a certificate ho lder would use its available resources where the greatest risk mitigation benefits exist.

90. How does the FAA propose to protect the account able executive from litigation associated with responsibilities the FAA is assigning them und er the proposal? Has the FAA conducted any evaluations of the liability implications assoc iated with naming an accountable executive? (AAAE, ACI-NA)

The FAA proposes to define the accountable executiv e as “a single identifiable person, who, irrespective of other functions, has ultimate respo nsibility and accountability, on behalf of the- 30 -

certificate holder, for the implementation and main tenance of the Airport Safety Management System.” With this definition, the FAA intends tha t the accountable executive is an agent of the airport and is the contact person for the airport’s SMS. The FAA does not propose this individual would have personal liability to the FAA (through e ither certificate action or civil penalty) and does not intend this individual would have personal liab ility to any third party.

91. Will the FAA provide a legal right for an airpo rt to audit tenant records and safety programs? (AAAE, ACI-NA, Fairbanks)

The proposed SMS rule does not require a certificat e holder to audit tenant records or safety programs. If the proposed rule is adopted, a certi ficate holder may establish local rules and regulations or negotiate lease agreement provisions to ensure its SMS program is effective and in compliance with the adopted regulation.

92. Which individuals (airport employees, tenants, or both) must be trained on SMS and operational safety under the proposed rule? (Landr y/Fleet)

As stated in the preamble, the FAA proposes the tra ining requirement would apply to only airport employees and would be appropriate to that individu al’s role. The FAA is considering a broader SMS training requirement that would encompass all i ndividuals (airport employees, contractors, and tenants) accessing the movement and non-movemen t areas. The FAA invites comments about the practical and economic implications of ap plying the training requirements to all

individuals.

93. Is the FAA planning to seek an amendment to the 1958 Act because the FAA’s proposed requirement for “airports to be self-policing, safe ty facilitators” goes beyond the FAA’s legal authority to promulgate, enact, and enforce necessa ry regulations? (LRAA)

The FAA is not seeking an amendment to its statutor y authority because such an amendment is not necessary. As stated in the NPRM:

“The FAA is issuing this rulemaking under the autho rity described in subtitle VII, part A, subpart III, section 44706, “Airport operat ing certificates.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with issuing airp ort operating certificates that

contain terms that the Administrator finds necessar y to ensure safety in air transportation. This proposed rule is within the s cope of that authority because it requires all holders of an airport operating certif icate to develop, implement, and maintain an SMS. The development and implementatio n of an SMS ensures safety in air transportation by assisting airports in proactively identifying and mitigating safety hazards.”- 31 -



### Regulatory Evaluation Questions

94. It appears the gate keeper of SMS initiatives a nd study efforts should be knowledgeable of many regulations which could trump SMS studies or r un counter to SRM findings. Most airport operators do not have one person on staff w ith this deep level of regulatory understanding and rely on various staff members or consultants to support this role. Consolidating these requirements would have signifi cant cost impacts on an ongoing basis. Has the FAA considered this in their cost impacts a nd to what degree and cost benefit outcome? (LRAA)

The FAA believes this request expresses a general s ubstantive concern with the proposal rather than addressing the proposal’s clarity. The FAA is not responding to the concern in this

document and invites the submission of a comment to the NPRM. The FAA will consider this comment when developing a final rule.

95. The summary (preamble) indicates a negative cos t benefit outcome. Is this interpretation correct? (LRAA)

In terms of present value, quantitative costs do ex ceed benefits. However, in nominal dollars, quantitative benefits exceed costs. Coupled with th e qualitative benefits, the FAA found this rule to be cost-beneficial. Total benefits range between $180,294,000 ($110,604,400 present value) up to $270,441,000 ($170,874,600 present value), an d cost to airports was estimated at $248 million dollars over 10 years ($171.791 million pre sent value). The FAA also found that many accidents and incidents that would be mitigated und er SMS are not currently publicly reported, especially in the non-movement area. The FAA provid ed detailed independent examples of such accidents in the regulatory evaluations. With these accidents forming a qualitative benefit basis and the quantitative benefits, the FAA concluded th at the benefits exceeded costs.

96. Describe how estimated costs were drawn for SMS implementation at airports without existing data and SMS programs. Are estimated cost s based upon pilot studies? If so, describe any correlation. (Fairbanks)

Costs were derived from the pilot studies. The reg ulatory evaluation posted to www.regulations.gov for FAA Docket Number 2010-0997 contains detailed discussion about how

the FAA derived its cost and benefit data for this proposal.

97. How did the FAA estimate SMS implementation cos ts when few if any airport SMS programs have been fully implemented in the United States? (AAAE, ACI-NA, Seattle)

The FAA used information available from pilot study participants and asked further clarifying questions related to cost and benefit data.- 32 -

98. Why didn’t the FAA consider international SMS i mplementation, where more empirical cost data may be available? (AAAE, ACI-NA)

Due to different regulatory approaches and policies , it would be very difficult to compare international SMS cost data to the proposal. Furth er, the consideration of costs of non-U.S. airports is outside the scope of the regulatory eva luation.

99. What criteria were used to select the accidents included in the FAA’s benefit-cost analysis? (ACI-NA)

The FAA used National Transportation Safety Board ( NTSB), insurance claims, and Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) accidents t hat affected part 139 airports where multiple incidents were reported that would have been notice d through tracking under SMS. For example,

in NTSB accident number DEN07IA069 at Denver Intern ational Airport, an aircraft’s windshield was fractured due to impact with foreign object deb ris (FOD). However, it was discovered that during the course of the afternoon, at that same ai rport, 14 other airplanes experienced 26 similar

fractured windshields. The examination revealed th at the impact markings on all 26 windshields were the result of impact with FOD. This accident, and especially some of the 14 others that afternoon, may have been prevented through an airpo rt’s safety assurance and SRM processes and procedures. Under SMS, the airport would have established a hazard reporting system and enhanced communication networks for reporting immed iate safety issues by tenants, pilots, employees, or air traffic controllers. Under the a irport’s safety assurance and SRM processes and procedures, multiple reports would have trigger ed airport personnel to identify the airfield hazard and put mitigations in place possibly preven ting FOD damage to more aircraft.

100. Did each accident occur at a part 139 certific ated airport? Did the FAA (or NTSB) conclude that, in each case, the accident would have been pr evented through a functioning airport SMS or through some other SMS (e.g. air carrier, se rvice provider)? How many accidents did the FAA (or NTSB) determine would have been avo ided by a functioning airport SMS? (AAAE)

All accidents occurred at part 139 certificated air ports. The FAA determined that all may have been prevented through a functioning SMS at a part 139 certificated airport, through the accident description and possible resolutions.

101. How do the results of the FAA’s analysis chang e if non-movement areas are excluded from consideration? (AAAE, ACI-NA)

The FAA evaluated the costs and benefits based on t he entirety of the proposal, not the individual parts.

102. How did the FAA derive true costs related to i mplementing SMS? (AAAE)

The FAA used information available from pilot study participants and asked further clarifying questions related to cost and benefit data.- 33 -

103. Does the FAA have any basis, other than the on e example, for its finding that SMS may reduce an airport’s insurance costs? Has the FAA a ttempted to quantify this potential benefit? Can the FAA provide data to substantiate this claim? For example, what percent of an insurance premium has been saved by implementing an SMS and what has been the direct and indirect cost of SMS implementation? (A AAE, ACI-NA, Austin)

The regulatory evaluation does not mention reduced cost of insurance as a benefit, just reduced insurance claims from averted accidents. The examp le is simply relayed in the preamble to explain experiences of some pilot study airports.

104. Has the FAA considered or investigated whether the insurance industry would require insurance premiums for certificated airports when/i f the FAA requires SMS for all such airports (as opposed to the one example in which an airport went above and beyond current regulatory requirements)? (AAAE)

The regulatory evaluation does not mention reduced cost of insurance as a benefit, just reduced insurance claims from averted accidents. The examp le is simply relayed in the preamble to explain experiences of some pilot study airports.

105. What specific feedback has the FAA received fr om pilot study airports about their implementation and operation and maintenance costs to substantiate the cost-benefit analysis? (AAAE, ACI-NA)

The FAA used information available from the pilot s tudy participants and asked further clarifying questions related to cost and benefit data. Cost d ata used from the pilot studies are in the appendix to the regulatory evaluation.

106. In the proposal, the FAA states “Accordingly, certificated airports could realize similar SMS benefits as aircraft operators [SMS].” What are th e anticipated benefits? Will the FAA provide expected benefits to certificate holders? (Landry/Fleet)

Benefits are discussed and quantified in the regula tory evaluation, which is posted at www.regulations.gov under FAA Docket Number 2010-0997.

107. In the proposal, the FAA states “Over the 10-y ear period of analysis, the potential benefits of potentially averted accidents range from $170 to $2 50 million.” Are these costs relevant to airport operators or airline operators? (Landry/Fl eet)

The averted accidents are societal benefits and the refore are relevant to both airport operators and airline operators.- 34 -

108. In the proposal, the “Initial Burden” attempts to quantify the annual additional record-keeping

burden that contributes to downside cost associated with SMS documentation. However, the cost of safety risk analysis directed at determ ining risk mitigation is not accounted for.

What does the FAA estimate for the cost of labor to accomplish safety risk analysis? (Austin)

The regulatory evaluation provided this cost for ad ditional staff that would identify, collect, track, and analyze data plus audit their progress and prom ote safety. The 25th percentile wage was used to account for the lack of experience and the newness of the positions, thereby giving annual average salaries of $67,230 for managers and $30,130 for support staff. The burden of

an additional staff was also added to the salaries and was established from data reported by the Bureau of Labor Statistics for a total cost of $130 ,800 per SMS manager and $58,600 for support

staff.

109. Were the second pilot study results (for small er certificated airports) reviewed specifically when making the regulatory flexibility determinatio n? (Landry/Fleet)

In making an impact determination to small business es determination, the FAA determined which airports would be considered small entities and the n, from the information provided through the pilot studies (both initial and second pilot studie s) that would be applicable to small airports, determined the impact.



### Airport Improvement Program (AIP) Eligibility

110. Will the development of the SMS Manual and/or update of the ACM be eligible for federal

financial assistance under the AIP? Will the costs associated with implementing the SMS be AIP eligible (e.g., hazard tracking software)? Wil l AIP funding be made available to cover the costs of mitigations identified through SRM? How w ill the FAA prioritize funding for airports that have identified hazards that must be mitigated to an acceptable level? Does the FAA have AIP funding available to support a six-month i mplementation process? Has the FAA identified funding mechanisms to support both the p rogram implementation costs and the ongoing system operating and maintenance costs? (A AAE, ACI-NA, Maryland Aviation Administration, Seattle, Landry/Fleet)

These questions all appear to ask how much AIP fund ing the FAA is prepared to provide (and over what timeframe) to cover the costs associated with these requirements. In order to respond to these questions, we have to address the scope, c osts, eligibility, justification, and availability of

funds.

The FAA is proposing a handful of processes and pro cedures that would be required by certificated airports. The level of effort and res ources required will depend in large measure on the size and complexity of the airport or airport s ystem involved.- 35 -

The FAA has made a determination that the developme nt of an SMS Manual is eligible under the AIP because it represents planning as defined by re gulation prescribed by the Secretary. Costs involved in developing the implementation plan (whi ch should be little more than a schedule and outline of how the manual will be developed and SMS implemented) is an airport management function and are therefore not AIP eligible. Simil arly, modifications to the ACM are an airport operational function and are therefore not AIP-elig ible.

The FAA is not prescribing any requirements that sh ould involve major expenditures in new systems, including hazard reporting systems. The F AA has examined this issue as part of the pilot studies, and based on the results of those pi lot studies, the FAA now believes that many airports should be readily able to manage the assoc iated steps, processes, and data using existing off-the-shelf, end-user spreadsheet or dat abase software. Purchase, licensing, or other acquisition of specialized software for managing SM S are not AIP-eligible nor are costs associated with staffing, training, or safety promo tion.

Federally-obligated airports are already required u nder AIP Grant Assurance #19 to operate “... at

all times in a safe and serviceable condition and i n accordance with the minimum standards as may be required or prescribed by applicable federal , state and local agencies for maintenance and operation.” This includes identifying and miti gating hazards.

Therefore, although the FAA will continue to provid e AIP funding for eligible improvements to airport safety whenever possible, it has always bee n (and remains) the airport operator’s responsibility to mitigate risks regardless of whet her federal funding is available. Eligible and justified improvements are generally physical impro vements to the configuration of airfield geometry (i.e., physical layout of runways, taxiway s, and appurtenant facilities) as well as associated signage, marking, and lighting. For AIP -eligible projects requiring safety risk management review by the FAA 5 , the associated costs of convening a panel may be included as allowable costs under an AIP grant.

As always, when an airport sponsor requests AIP fun ding, the FAA reserves the right to review the existing conditions, the available alternatives , and the criteria by which the sponsor has concluded that a particular solution is the preferr ed course of action.

As to the FAA’s internal resources, it is true that the current budget environment has raised questions about internal resources (staffing and bu dgets). The FAA is working with a number of industry stakeholders to ensure that all parties un derstand the importance of supporting SMS. The FAA remains committed to supporting these effor ts as a critical priority.

111. How is the airport expected to fund the cost o f third-party audits? (Landry/Fleet)

The proposal does not require third-party audits.

5 See FAA Order 8000.369, FAA Order 5200.11, and FAA ATO SMS Manual v.2.1.- 36 -



### Questions Outside Scope of NPRM

There were a number of questions submitted that wer e outside the scope of the proposal for airport SMS. Some questions confused the proposed requirements with the FAA’s efforts to integrate safety risk management policies internall y. Others asked questions related to other ongoing rulemaking activities.

General Aviation Airports

112. What is the general aviation airport operator required to do under the proposal? Will the FAA expect the “SMS plan” to be different for gener al aviation airports versus part 139 certificated airports? Is “SMS plan” development e ligible for Airport Improvement Program funding? (LRAA)

The proposed rule does not apply to non-certificate d airports. 6

113. Who does the FAA plan to require to be the “Ac countable Executive” when many general aviation airports do not have any airport operator employees? Does the FAA anticipate requiring a board member accept the responsibility recognizing most board members serve as volunteers? (LRAA)

The proposed rule does not apply to non-certificate d airports.

FAA Office of Airports SMS

114. How will SMS and SRM be applied to a master pl an process that spans multiple years and

can include numerous alternatives? How will the SR M process on a master plan dovetail with the SRM process on an Environmental Impact Sta tement or Environmental Assessment of the same master plan? Will the standard airspac e review currently conducted by the FAA be absorbed in the SRM process for a master plan or remain a separate process? If it is to remain separate, how does the FAA propose to resolv e conflicts and overlaps? (AAAE, Seattle)

These questions relate to the FAA’s efforts to inte grate SRM policies into FAA approval actions and are unrelated to the proposal. As stated in th e preamble, where an operational change on the airport overlaps with SRM requirements under FA A SMS efforts, the “FAA expects that the

6 The FAA plans to apply the concepts of SMS to its o rganization and operations. Beginning in June 2011 , certain FAA approvals such as Airport Layout Plans, airspace de terminations, and the development of standards will require safety risk assessment before the agency aspects of the sa fety assessment will be considered eligible for Air port Improvement Program (AIP) assistance, such as procuring facilit ation assistance. Again, non-certificated airports are not required to develop an SMS program like the one proposed in the NPRM.- 37 -

certificate holder would participate in the FAA’s r isk analysis instead of performing an independent risk analysis under its SMS.”

The FAA will communicate directly to these question ers outside the docket so that these issues can remain separate from the rulemaking effort.

115. Which FAA offices or lines of business will pa rticipate in the master plan SRM 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 p rocess? (AAAE, Seattle)

This question relates to the FAA’s efforts to integ rate SRM policies into its approval actions and is unrelated to the proposal. As stated in the preamb le, where an operational change on the airport overlaps with SRM requirements under FAA SMS effort s, the “FAA expects that the certificate holder would participate in the FAA’s risk analysis instead of performing an independent risk analysis under its SMS.”

The FAA will communicate directly to this questione r outside the docket so that this issue can remain separate from the rulemaking effort.

116. Does the FAA have the necessary staff hours to commit to SRM review of a master plan from start to finish? (Seattle)

This question relates to the FAA’s efforts to integ rate SRM policies into its approval actions and is unrelated to the proposal. As stated in the preamb le, where an operational change on the airport overlaps with SRM requirements under FAA SMS effort s, the “FAA expects that the certificate holder would participate in the FAA’s risk analysis instead of performing an independent risk analysis under its SMS.”

The FAA will communicate directly to this questione r outside the docket so that this issue can remain separate from the rulemaking effort.

Safety Enhancements Proposal

117. Provide clarification on the proposal for Safe ty Enhancements Part 139 Certificated Airports (page 5510, Summary) requirements to “establish min imum standards for training of personnel who access the airport non-movement area (ramp and apron) to help prevent

accidents and incidents in that area” and its relat ionship to the proposed SMS training

initiative. How does the statement related to SMS and staff training correspond to the statement in the Safety Enhancements proposal: “A p erson would complete this training prior to accessing the non-movement area and at least yea rly thereafter. The FAA intends to make this requirement effective one year after publ ication of the final rule to allow certificate holders time to develop a training program and comp lete training for all personnel accessing

the non-movement area. After the effective date of this proposal, if adopted, all persons would complete the training prior to accessing the non-movement area, unless escorted by a trained individual”? (Landry/Fleet)- 38 -

As stated in the preamble, the FAA proposes that th e training requirement would apply to only airport employees and would be appropriate to that individual's role. The FAA is considering a broader SMS training requirement that would encompa ss all individuals (airport employees, contractors, and tenants) accessing the movement an d non-movement areas. The FAA invites comments about the practical and economic implicati ons of applying the training requirements to

all individuals.

118. Does the recent proposal regarding Safety Enha ncements Part 139, FAA Docket Number 2010-0247, foreshadow an FAA decision regarding exp ansion of training requirements to all individuals (rather than just airport employees) ac cessing the movement and non-movement area? (Landry/Fleet)

As stated in the preamble, the FAA proposes that th e training requirement would apply to only airport employees and would be appropriate to that individual's role. The FAA is considering a broader SMS training requirement that would encompa ss all individuals (airport employees, contractors, and tenants) accessing the movement an d non-movement areas. The FAA invites comments about the practical and economic implicati ons of applying the training requirements to

all individuals.- 39 -



### Appendix A – List of Organizations Submitting Quest ions

American Association of Airport Executives (AAAE) Airports Council International – North America (ACI -NA) City of Austin (Austin) Fairbanks International Airport, Operations (Fairba nks) Fresno Yosemite International Airport (Fresno) Landry/Fleet Consulting/Dave Fleet Consulting (Land ry/Fleet) Louisville Regional Airport Authority (LRAA) Maryland Aviation Administration Port of Seattle (Seattle) University of Southern California (USC)