Vol. 81 Thursday, 

No. 135 July 14, 2016 

Part V 

Department of Transportation 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 139 

Safety Management System for Certificated Airports; Proposed Rules 

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS4

45872 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 135 / Thursday, July 14, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 139 

[Docket No.: FAA–2010–0997; Notice No. 

16–04] 

RIN 2120–AJ38 

Safety Management System for 

Certificated Airports 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Supplemental notice of 

proposed rulemaking (SNPRM). 

SUMMARY: On October 7, 2010, the FAA 

published in the Federal Register a 

notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) 

to require certificate holders to establish 

a safety management system (SMS) for 

the entire airfield environment, 

including movement and nonmovement areas, to improve safety at 

airports hosting air carrier operations. 

After reviewing the comments received 

and conducting further internal 

analysis, the FAA is amending that 

proposal. The FAA now proposes to 

require an SMS only for a certificated 

airport classified as a small, medium, or 

large hub airport in the National Plan of 

Integrated Airport Systems; serving 

international air traffic; or having more 

than 100,000 total annual operations. 

The FAA is also proposing changes that 

would extend the implementation 

period from 18 to 24 months; require 

submission of an implementation plan 

within 12 months instead of 6 months 

of the effective date of the final rule; 

modify the training requirements; 

ensure consistency among various FAA 

SMS initiatives, and reduce the 

implementation burden. 

DATES: Send your comments on or 

before September 12, 2016. 

ADDRESSES: You may send comments 

identified by Docket Number FAA– 

2010–0997 using any of the following 

methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 

http://www.regulations.gov and follow 

the online instructions for sending your 

comments electronically. 

• Mail: Send comments to Docket 

Operations, M–30; U.S. Department of 

Transportation, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue SE., Room W12–140, West 

Building Ground Floor, Washington, DC 

20590–0001. 

• Hand Delivery or Courier: Bring 

comments to Docket Operations in 

Room W12–140 of the West Building 

Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 

a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through 

Friday, except Federal holidays. 

• Fax: Fax comments to Docket 

Operations at 202–493–2251. 

For more information on the 

rulemaking process, see the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of 

this document. 

Privacy: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 

553(c), the Department of 

Transportation (DOT) solicits comments 

from the public to better inform its 

rulemaking process. DOT posts these 

comments, without edit, including any 

personal information the commenter 

provides, to www.regulations.gov, as 

described in the system of records 

notice (DOT/ALL–14 FDMS), which can 

be reviewed at www.dot.gov/privacy. 

Docket: To read background 

documents or comments received, go to 

http://www.regulations.gov and follow 

the online instructions for accessing the 

docket. Or, go to the Docket 

Management Facility in Room W12–140 

of the West Building Ground Floor at 

1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., 

Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 

p.m., Monday through Friday, except 

Federal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

technical questions concerning this 

proposed rule, contact Keri Lyons, 

Office of Airports Safety and Standards, 

Airport Safety and Operations Division, 

AAS–300, Federal Aviation 

Administration, 800 Independence 

Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; 

telephone (202) 267–8972; email 

keri.lyons@faa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Later in 

this preamble under the Additional 

Information section, we discuss how 

you can comment on this proposal and 

how we will handle your comments. 

This discussion includes related 

information about the docket, privacy, 

and the handling of proprietary or 

confidential business information. We 

also discuss how you can get a copy of 

this proposal and related rulemaking 

documents. 

Authority for This Rulemaking 

The FAA’s authority to issue rules 

regarding aviation safety is found in 

Title 49 of the United States Code. 

Subtitle I, section 106 describes the 

authority of the FAA Administrator. 

Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, 

describes in more detail the scope of the 

agency’s authority. 

The FAA is proposing this rulemaking 

under the authority described in 

Subtitle VII, part A, subpart III, section 

44706, ‘‘Airport operating certificates.’’ 

Under that section, Congress charges the 

FAA with issuing airport operating 

certificates (AOC) that contain terms 

that the Administrator finds necessary 

to ensure safety in air transportation. 

This proposed rule is within the scope 

of that authority because it requires 

certain certificated airports to develop 

and maintain an SMS. The development 

and implementation of an SMS ensures 

safety in air transportation by assisting 

these airports in proactively identifying 

and mitigating safety hazards. 

I. Executive Summary 

A. Purpose of This SNPRM 

The increasing demands on the U.S. 

air transportation system, including 

additional air traffic and surface 

operations and airport construction, 

have the potential to heighten risk to 

operating aircraft. Historically, the 

approach to aviation safety was based 

on the reactive analysis of past 

accidents and the introduction of 

corrective actions to prevent the 

recurrence of those events. An SMS, 

however, helps airport operators to 

proactively identify potential hazards in 

the operating environment, analyze the 

risks of those hazards, and mitigate 

those risks to prevent an accident or 

incident. In its most general form, SMS 

is a set of decision making tools that an 

airport operator would use to plan, 

organize, direct, and control its 

everyday activities in a manner that 

enhances safety. 

On October 7, 2010, the FAA 

published an NPRM entitled ‘‘Safety 

Management System for Certificated 

Airports’’ (75 FR 62008). In the NPRM, 

the FAA proposed to require all 14 Code 

of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 139 

certificate holders to establish an SMS 

to improve the safety of their aviationrelated activities. 

The FAA received 65 comments in 

response to the NPRM from a variety of 

commenters. Because of the complexity 

of the issues and concerns raised by the 

commenters, the FAA began to 

reevaluate whether deployment of SMS 

at all certificated airports was the most 

effective approach. As part of this 

process, the FAA looked at applicability 

for various categories of certificate 

holders to determine which option 

would maximize safety benefits in the 

least burdensome manner. While the 

FAA is proposing a preferred alternative 

in this SNPRM, the FAA requests 

comments on the other applicability 

alternatives discussed in this SNPRM. 

The preferred alternative harmonizes 

with the intent of ICAO SMS standards 

by including all certificated airports 

accepting international operations. The 

FAA supports conformity of U.S. 

aviation safety regulations with ICAO 

standards and recommended practices 

and believes the SNPRM meets the 

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS4

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 135 / Thursday, July 14, 2016 / Proposed Rules 45873 

1Additional information regarding the purpose of 

the proposed SMS requirement can be found in the 

‘‘Background’’ section of the NPRM (75 FR 62008). 2The FAA’s use of the term hub airport is 

different than that of airlines, which use the term 

to denote an airport with significant connecting 

traffic by one or more carriers. As defined in 49 

U.S.C. 47102, large hubs are those airports that 

account for 1 percent or more of total U.S. 

passenger boardings (U.S. passenger enplanements); 

medium hubs are airports that account for between 

0.25 percent and 1 percent of total U.S. passenger 

boardings; and small hubs are airports that enplane 

0.05 percent to 0.25 percent of total U.S. passenger 

boardings. 3The Secretary of Transportation is required to 

maintain a plan for developing public-use airports 

that are important to the national transportation 

system. The NPIAS identifies the types of projects 

and estimated costs eligible for federal financial 

assistance necessary to provide a safe, efficient, and 

integrated system of airports. The FAA Office of 

Airports maintains the NPIAS and publishes a 

Report to Congress every other year. Current and 

past reports are available at http://www.faa.gov/

airports/planning_capacity/npias/. 

intent of the ICAO standard in a way 

that complements existing airport safety 

regulations in part 139. 

The FAA continues to believe that an 

SMS can address potential safety gaps 

through improved management 

practices.1 SMS’s proactive emphasis on 

hazard identification and mitigation, 

and on communication of safety issues, 

would provide certificate holders with 

robust tools to improve safety. While the 

comments generated some changes to 

the proposal in this document, most of 

the proposed core elements of the SMS 

program remain in this SNPRM. 

B. Summary of the Major Provisions of 

the SNPRM 

The major change in this SNPRM is to 

the proposed applicability. Rather than 

requiring an SMS at all certificated 

airports, the FAA now proposes to 

require an SMS be developed, 

implemented, maintained, and adhered 

to at any certificated airport: 

• Classified as a small, medium, or 

large hub 2 airport in the National Plan 

of Integrated Airport Systems 

(NPIAS); 3

• Identified by the U.S. Customs and 

Border Protection (CBP) as a port of 

entry (under 19 CFR 101.3), designated 

international airport (under 19 CFR 

122.13), landing rights airport (under 19 

CFR 122.14), or user fee airport (19 CFR 

122.14) (collectively referred to 

throughout this proposal as 

‘‘international airports’’); or 

• Identified as having more than 

100,000 total annual operations 

(according to best available data). 

Additionally, the FAA proposes 

extending the implementation period 

from 18 to 24 months, requiring 

submission of an implementation plan 

within 12 months instead of 6 months 

of the effective date of the final rule, and 

changes to the training requirements. 

Other changes have also been made to 

ensure consistency among various FAA 

SMS initiatives and to reduce the 

implementation burden. 

Throughout the document, the FAA 

requests specific comment on the 

following issues: 

• What other methods may be 

available to accurately account for and 

determine applicability based on annual 

operations or whether the FAA should 

use a different baseline for determining 

applicability; 

• What other methods may be 

available to identify international 

airports; 

• What types of data or other 

information certificated airports could 

provide under a national reporting 

database; 

• Whether the estimates of the 

average pool of employees needing 

comprehensive SMS training is an 

accurate average across all airports 

affected by the proposal; 

• What types of job roles would 

require comprehensive SMS training; 

and 

• Whether the implementation of the 

proposed accountable executive 

definition is feasible. 

C. Summary of the Costs and Benefits 

This proposed rule would require 

certain certificate holders under part 

139 to establish an SMS. SMS is a set 

of tools designed to help airports 

effectively integrate formal risk control 

procedures into normal operational 

practices to improve operational safety. 

Benefits are estimated at $370.8 million 

($225.9 million present value) and total 

costs are estimated at $238.9 million 

($157.5 million present value), with 

benefits exceeding costs. The following 

table shows benefits and costs of the 

alternatives over 10 years. 

Base case All 

($) 

Class I 

($) 

International 

($) 

L, M, S and 

>100K ops 

($) 

Preferred 

alternative: L, 

M, S, >100K 

ops, and 

international 

($) 

Benefits ................................................................................ $382,987,281 $368,096,671 $360,907,166 $356,128,301 $370,788,457 

Costs .................................................................................... 471,104,787 341,021,606 215,010,997 163,760,850 238,865,692 

Net Benefits .................................................................. ¥88,117,506 27,075,065 145,896,169 192,367,451 131,922,764 

PV Benefits (7%) ................................................................. 233,282,770 224,210,033 219,830,291 216,919,352 225,850,869 

PV Costs (7%) ..................................................................... 307,842,595 223,584,687 141,796,001 108,819,973 157,496,312 

PV Net Benefits (7%) ................................................... ¥74,559,825 625,346 78,034,290 108,099,379 68,354,557 

PV Benefits (3%) ................................................................. 307,499,272 295,542,114 289,769,378 285,932,407 297,704,052 

PV Costs (3%) ..................................................................... 389,440,320 282,304,199 178,432,284 136,340,226 198,211,977 

PV Net Benefits (3%) ................................................... ¥74,559,825 625,346 78,034,290 108,099,379 68,354,557 

Mitigation Costs: Not quantified, estimates not included. 

Given the range of mitigation actions possible, it is difficult to quantify potential benefits. 

The estimated costs of this rule do not 

include the costs of mitigations that 

operators could incur as a result of 

conducting the risk analysis proposed in 

this rule. Given the range of mitigation 

actions possible, it is difficult to provide 

a quantitative estimate of both the costs 

and benefits of such mitigations. We 

anticipate that operators will only 

implement mitigations where benefits of 

doing so exceed the costs of mitigations. 

In order for the estimated benefits to 

exceed the costs of the rule, the 

mitigation costs must be below $68.4 

million over 10 years (discounted at 

7%). The FAA requests comment on 

this assumption, as well as data 

regarding costs and benefits associated 

with any mitigations implemented 

through voluntary SMS programs. 

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS4

45874 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 135 / Thursday, July 14, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

4 ‘‘FAA Responses to Clarifying Questions About 

Proposed Rulemaking for SMS for Certificated 

Airports’’ is available at http://

www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FAA2010-0997-0073). 

5Safety Management System Pilot Studies 

(Technical Report) is available at http://

www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FAA2010-0997-0074. 

6FAA Responses to Clarifying Questions (May 24, 

2011), available at http://www.regulations.gov/

#!documentDetail;D=FAA-;2010-0997-0073. 

II. Background 

A. NPRM 

In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to 

require all part 139 certificate holders to 

develop and implement an SMS to 

improve the safety of their aviationrelated activities. An SMS is a 

formalized approach to managing safety 

by developing an organization-wide 

safety policy, developing formal 

methods of identifying hazards, 

analyzing and mitigating risk, 

developing methods for ensuring 

continuous safety improvement, and 

creating organization-wide safety 

promotion strategies. 

The original comment period was to 

close on January 5, 2011, but, in 

response to several commenters’ 

requests, the FAA extended the 

comment period to July 5, 2011. 

Additionally, the FAA permitted 

commenters to submit clarifying 

questions to the docket during the 

comment period. The FAA answered 

these questions before the comment 

period closed in a document that was 

placed in the docket (the ‘‘Responses to 

Clarifying Questions’’).4 The FAA also 

published a technical report detailing 

results of the Office of Airports’ SMS 

pilot studies that was also placed in the 

docket.5

In the NPRM, the FAA proposed a 

new subpart E that would have: (i) 

Required all holders of an airport 

operating certificate (AOC) to have an 

approved airport SMS; (ii) prescribed 

the components of an SMS; and (iii) 

prescribed implementation 

requirements for an airport SMS. 

Certificate holders would have 

implemented SMS throughout the 

airport environment, including the 

movement and non-movement areas 

(e.g., runways, taxiways, run-up areas, 

ramps, apron areas, and on-airport fuel 

farms). 

Under the proposal, the FAA 

envisioned an SMS as an adaptable and 

scalable system. For example, the 

proposal permitted certificate holders to 

maintain a separate SMS manual in 

addition to the Airport Certification 

Manual (ACM), or maintain SMS 

documentation directly in the ACM. 

Options such as these would have 

permitted certificate holders that 

operate multiple airports maximum 

flexibility in the development of their 

SMS. Similarly, the proposal included a 

requirement for certificate holders to 

establish a system for identifying safety 

hazards and a systematic process to 

analyze hazards and their associated 

risks. By not prescribing any one means 

for identifying hazards or analyzing risk, 

the proposal permitted certificate 

holders flexibility in developing 

scalable and adaptable processes under 

their SMS. 

B. Summary of Comments on NPRM 

The FAA received 65 comments in 

response to the NPRM from a variety of 

commenters including air carriers, 

airport operators/certificate holders, 

representatives of airline employees, 

trade associations, an airport user group, 

attorneys general, consultants, 

universities and private citizens. 

Commenters included: 

• Air carriers: Delta Airlines, 

• Airport operators/certificate 

holders: Alaska Department of 

Transportation and Public Facilities, 

Austin-Bergstrom International Airport 

(TX), Bangor International Airport (ME), 

City of Albuquerque (NM), City of 

Merced (CA), City of Phoenix (AZ), City 

of Prescott (AZ), Clark County 

Department of Aviation (NV), Coastal 

Carolina Regional Airport (NC), 

Columbus Regional Airport Authority 

(OH), Contra Costa County (CA), Dallas/ 

Fort Worth International Airport (TX), 

Denver International Airport (CO), 

Floyd Bennett Memorial Airport (NY), 

Glynn County Airport Commission 

(GA), Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta 

International Airport (GA), Houston 

Airport System (TX), Huntingburg 

Airport (IN), Indianapolis Airport 

Authority (IN), Jacksonville 

International Airport (FL), Lee County 

Port Authority (FL), Louisville Regional 

Airport Authority (KY), ManchesterBoston Regional Airport (MA), March 

Inland Port Authority (CA), Maryland 

Aviation Administration (MD), MiamiDade Aviation Department (FL), 

Modesto City-County Airport (CA), 

Myrtle Beach International Airport (SC), 

Norm Y. Mineta San Jose International 

Airport (CA), Pitkin County (CO), 

Pittsburgh International Airport (PA), 

Port Authority of New York and New 

Jersey (NY/NJ), Port of Portland (OR), 

Rapid City Regional Airport (SD), 

Rochester Airport Company (MN), San 

Antonio Airport System (TX), Santa 

Barbara Airport (CA), Tri-Cities 

Regional Airport (TN), Tucson Airport 

Authority (AZ), Tulsa Airport Authority 

(OK), Wayne County Airport Authority 

(MI), 

• Representatives of airline 

employees: Airline Pilots Association 

(ALPA), 

• Trade associations: Airlines for 

America (A4A), Aircraft Owners and 

Pilots Association (AOPA), Airports 

Council International-North America 

(ACI–NA), American Association of 

Airport Executives (AAAE), American 

Association for Justice (AAJ), Colorado 

Airport Operators Association (CAOA), 

Experimental Aircraft Association 

(EAA), National Air Transportation 

Association (NATA), 

• Airport users groups: Prescott 

Airport Users Association, 

• Attorneys General: Attorney 

General for the District of Columbia, 

Attorney General for the State of 

Oklahoma, 

• Consultants and universities: 

Landry Consultants and Dave Fleet 

Consulting, Purdue University, the 

University of Southern California 

Aviation Safety and Security Program 

(U.S.C.), and 

• Eight individuals and 9 anonymous 

submissions. 

One individual submitted a comment 

that was out-of-scope, and portions of 

Clark County, Dallas-Fort Worth 

International, and AOPA’s submissions 

were out-of-scope. 

In addition to the above, the FAA 

received clarifying questions from the 

following entities during the comment 

period: AAAE, ACI–NA, AustinBergstrom International Airport, 

Fairbanks International Airport, Fresno 

Yosemite International Airport, Landry 

Consultants and Dave Fleet Consulting, 

Louisville Regional Airport Authority, 

Maryland Aviation Administration, Port 

of Seattle, and U.S.C.. The FAA 

answered these questions in the 

Responses to Clarifying Questions.6

Those questions are not addressed in 

this document. 

C. Need for SNPRM 

While reviewing the comments to the 

NPRM, the FAA began to re-evaluate 

whether requiring an SMS at all 

certificated airports was the most 

effective option. As part of this process, 

the FAA looked at the applicability for 

various categories of certificate holders 

to determine which option would 

maximize safety benefits in the least 

burdensome manner. While the FAA is 

proposing a preferred alternative in this 

SNPRM, the FAA requests comments on 

the other applicability alternatives 

discussed in this SNPRM. 

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS4

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 135 / Thursday, July 14, 2016 / Proposed Rules 45875 

7The number of certificated airports at the time 

of SNPRM development. 

8Section V(B), Applicability contains detailed 

analysis of these alternatives. 

III. Discussion of Proposals in the 

SNPRM 

A. Differences Between the SNPRM and 

the NPRM 

1. Applicability 

In the NPRM, the FAA proposed that 

all 544 7 certificated airports be covered 

by the SMS requirements. 

Based on comments and other 

information gathered, it became evident 

that application of SMS across all 

certificated airports was not practical. In 

response, the FAA revised its 

assumptions used to calculate overall 

costs associated with this SNPRM’s 

proposal. The FAA also reviewed 

additional accident and incident 

databases to obtain more accurate 

assumptions of benefits derived from an 

SMS. These additional databases 

included the FAA Accident and 

Incident Database (AIDS), NASA’s 

Aviation Safety Reporting System 

(ASRS), the FAA’s Wildlife Strike 

Database, and the FAA’s Runway 

Incursion Database. 

Using these revised cost and benefit 

estimates, the FAA considered a range 

of alternatives to determine how to 

apply an SMS requirement that would 

reduce risk at the largest group of 

airports while still producing net 

benefits. The FAA focused on airports 

with the highest passenger 

enplanements and largest total 

operations so that safety benefits would 

flow to the overwhelming majority of 

aircraft operations in the United States. 

The FAA also focused on incorporating 

airports with international passenger 

operations to ensure conformity with 

international standards and 

recommended practices. To that end, 

the FAA developed the following 

alternatives for additional analysis: 

• All part 139 airports (as originally 

proposed) (544 airports covering 99.8% 

of U.S. passenger enplanements); 

• Airport operators holding a Class I 

AOC (388 airports covering 99.7% of 

U.S. passenger enplanements); 

• Certificated international airports 

(240 airports covering 96.1% of U.S. 

passenger enplanements); 

• Large, medium, and small hub 

airports (as identified in the NPIAS) and 

certificated airports with more than 

100,000 total annual operations (177 

airports covering 97.5% of U.S. 

passenger enplanements); and 

• Large, medium, and small hub 

airports, certificated airports with more 

than 100,000 total annual operations, 

and certificated international airports 

(268 airports covering 98% of U.S. 

passenger enplanements). 

Because the FAA chose to analyze 

various alternatives based on 

classifications outside the scope of part 

139 (e.g., hubs or international status 

instead of AOC class), it relied on the 

best available information to develop 

the list of affected airports under each 

alternative. To identify those airports 

classified as large, medium, or small 

hubs, the FAA relied on the 2011–2015 

NPIAS, current at the time of this 

analysis. Similarly, the FAA relied on 

annual operations data reported through 

FAA Form 5010–1, Airport Master 

Record (downloaded August 1, 2012). 

The FAA relied on data obtained from 

Title 19 of the CFR (see §§ 101.3, 122.13, 

122.14, 122.15) and the CBP to identify 

certificated airports authorized to accept 

international traffic. 

After reviewing each of the 

alternatives and the associated costs and 

benefits of each, the FAA’s preferred 

proposal would require an SMS be 

developed, implemented, maintained, 

and adhered to only at a certificated 

airport: 

• Classified as a small, medium, or 

large hub airport in the NPIAS; or 

• Identified as an international 

airport; or 

• Identified as having more than 

100,000 total annual operations. 

This preferred alternative covers 268 

airports across Classes I, II, III, and IV, 

thus eliminating the NPRM’s SMS 

requirements for 276 airports that have 

few passenger enplanements and less 

complex operations. The airports that 

comprise this alternative account for 

over 98% of all passenger enplanements 

in the U.S. 

While simply applying the proposed 

SMS requirements to large, medium, 

and small hub-certificated airports 

would account for most of this traffic, 

many critical airports would not be 

included because they do not meet 

those enplanement thresholds. Simply 

accounting for airports with higher 

passenger enplanements fails to 

acknowledge the many other complex, 

certificated airports that have significant 

levels of aircraft operations.8 Therefore, 

to ensure that these busy airports are 

covered by the proposal, the preferred 

alternative includes airports with more 

than 100,000 total annual operations 

based on their operations data 

submitted through FAA Form 5010–1, 

Airport Master Record available on 

August 1, 2012. The FAA acknowledges 

that data submitted through FAA Form 

5010–1 may be estimates for airports 

that do not have an air traffic control 

tower. While more definitive data may 

be available through the FAA’s air 

traffic control tower counts, this 

information may not be readily 

available, may not be accessible to the 

public, and does not account for 

certificated airports that do not have an 

air traffic control tower. The FAA 

requests comments on what other 

methods may be available to accurately 

account for and determine the proposed 

rule’s applicability based on annual 

operations, or whether the FAA should 

use a different baseline for determining 

applicability. 

The preferred alternative also 

harmonizes with the intent of 

International Civil Aviation 

Organization (ICAO) SMS standards by 

including all certificated airports 

accepting international operations. In 

December 1996, the FAA published 

Advisory Circular (AC) 150/5000–5C, 

Designated U.S. International Airports, 

which explained the different categories 

of U.S. airports designated to serve 

international air traffic and provided a 

list of those airports. However, the FAA 

cancelled that AC in September 2010 

when it published AC 150/5000–16, 

Announcement of Availability of the 

Guide for Private Flyers—U.S. 

International Airports. The Guide for 

Private Flyers, published by the CBP, 

lists all U.S. international airports, 

designated airports, landing rights 

airports, and user fee airports. It also 

defines the term ‘‘international airport’’ 

and clarifies the use of the word 

‘‘international’’ in an airport name. 

Since the FAA no longer maintains its 

own list of international airports, the 

FAA believes the CBP list serves as the 

best available source of this information 

because it is developed based on Title 

19 (Customs Duties) of the CFR. The 

FAA believes this approach corresponds 

with the intent of ICAO Annex 14 

standards. The FAA requests comments 

on this approach, and what other 

methods may be available to identify 

international airports. 

The FAA acknowledges that an 

airport’s status in any one of these 

categories may change over time. For 

example, a small hub airport may 

become a nonhub airport during the 

FAA’s annual update of passenger 

enplanement data if its enplanements 

fall below 0.05% of the total U.S. 

passenger enplanements. Similarly, an 

airport not currently considered a hub 

might see its enplanements increase 

making it a small hub. The same case 

could be made for annual operations 

and international status. 

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS4

45876 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 135 / Thursday, July 14, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

9The Office of Airports regularly tracks the status 

of certificated airports. As such, this review would 

result in an insignificant increase in cost based on 

current FAA oversight activities. 

10This data is available online at http://

www.faa.gov/airports/planning_capacity/

passenger_allcargo_stats/passenger/. Passenger 

enplanement data is gathered from the Air Carrier 

Activity Information System (ACAIS). 

11As discussed in the Supplementary Initial 

Regulatory Evaluation, the analysis classifies large, 

medium, and small hub airports as large airports 

and all others as small airports. 

In these cases, the FAA would review 

each airport’s status annually,9

consistent with published enplanement 

data,10 to determine which airports are 

covered by the SMS requirement then in 

effect. If there is a change to an airport’s 

status that affects its need to comply 

with those SMS requirements, the FAA 

would then notify the certificate holder 

in writing of its changed status. If the 

change would require the certificate 

holder to comply with those SMS 

requirements, the certificate holder 

would then have two years to comply 

with the SMS requirements then in 

effect. Certificate holders whose status 

changed to be outside the scope of the 

SMS requirements then in effect would 

be encouraged to voluntarily maintain 

and adhere to an SMS. The FAA would 

maintain a list of those certificate 

holders meeting the required 

applicability on its public Web site, 

updating the list annually. 

The FAA requests comment on this 

approach. Specifically, if a certificate 

holder meets the threshold to trigger an 

SMS requirement, should the certificate 

holder be required to maintain an SMS 

even if it no longer meets the threshold? 

Should a certificate holder meet the 

applicability threshold for two 

consecutive years prior to triggering an 

SMS requirement? 

2. Implementation 

Under this proposal, certificate 

holders would be required to develop 

and implement an SMS within 2 years 

of the effective date of the final rule. 

The NPRM originally proposed SMS 

implementation within 1 year from the 

effective date of the final rule. This 

change responds to commenters’ 

requests for additional time to 

implement SMS. 

The FAA recognizes the complexity of 

implementing SMS in the airport 

environment and, therefore, increased 

the timeframes for implementation. The 

FAA requests comments whether this 

proposed implementation timeframe is 

sufficient. Comments should be 

supported by specific data 

demonstrating a different 

implementation timeframe is necessary. 

3. Training 

The NPRM proposed an SMS training 

requirement for all employees and 

tenants with access to the movement 

and non-movement areas of the airport. 

To maximize the potential for 

proactively identifying hazards, the 

intent was to ensure that individuals 

authorized access to the movement and 

non-movement area received training. 

The FAA’s intent was to create a broad 

training requirement, allowing 

certificate holders flexibility in how 

they trained persons with access to 

these areas. This flexibility included 

allowing train-the-trainer programs and 

training specific to the person’s role in 

the SMS. This would allow certificate 

holders to provide orientation to the 

majority of persons accessing the nonmovement and movement areas of 

hazard identification and reporting, 

rather than training on all of the 

certificate holder’s SMS initiatives. 

Commenters appear to have 

interpreted the proposed training 

requirement to be cumbersome, time 

consuming, and excessively costly. In 

light of these comments and lessons 

learned from the pilot studies, this 

proposal offers a two-pronged approach 

to training: (i) Comprehensive SMS 

training specific to the individual’s role 

and responsibility in implementation 

and maintenance of the SMS; and (ii) 

hazard awareness and reporting 

awareness orientation for all other 

individuals with access to the 

movement and non-movement areas. 

The FAA expects certificate holders to 

provide training appropriate to the 

person’s role in the certificate holder’s 

SMS. For example, those persons 

responsible for analyzing hazard reports 

to determine action should be properly 

trained in Safety Risk Management 

(SRM) and hazard assessment 

procedures. Individuals, including staff 

and/or managers, with responsibility for 

daily oversight of the SMS would be 

trained in all requirements of the SMS. 

The certificate holders could use trainthe-trainer formats where necessary. 

By clarifying this proposed 

requirement, the FAA anticipates that, 

on average, 10 employees or managers 

would need this training at large 

airports and 3 employees or managers 

would require it at small airports.11 The 

supplemental initial regulatory 

evaluation uses these estimates in the 

cost analysis. The FAA requests 

comments on whether these estimates 

are accurate as an average across all 

airports affected by this proposal. The 

FAA acknowledges that there may be 

certificate holders included in the 

preferred applicability alternative who 

have smaller staffs than these numbers 

take into account. The FAA also 

requests comments on the job roles that 

would require this type of specific 

training. 

For the remaining persons with access 

to the movement and non-movement 

areas, certificate holders could use a 

variety of means to provide awareness. 

For example, a certificate holder could 

develop a brochure or white paper for 

inclusion in the employee’s 

indoctrination package, or add a 

reference to hazard identification and 

reporting to existing training programs 

such as security or driver training. 

The certificate holder would bear the 

cost of publishing this awareness 

material and updating it as necessary. 

For persons employed by tenants, the 

certificate holder would be responsible 

for providing the materials to the 

tenants for distribution. Tenants, such 

as air carriers, caterers, fueling agents, 

and FBOs, all would potentially receive 

this information if their employees 

access the movement or non-movement 

areas. However, the certificate holder 

could choose to provide this material or 

briefings during badging or security 

training. 

There should be minimal recordkeeping costs associated with this type 

of training/awareness. The FAA 

anticipates that certificate holders 

would retain copies of the materials 

provided and a distribution log detailing 

when the materials are provided to 

employees and tenants. 

The FAA does not intend for the 

proposed requirement to apply to 

persons escorted by a trained 

individual. As for an air carrier’s 

crewmember training, those individuals 

authorized to enter the movement and 

non-movement areas unescorted would 

receive training appropriate to their 

role; in this case, awareness of hazard 

identification and reporting. The air 

carrier would then distribute the 

materials provided by the certificate 

holder. 

While the NPRM did not explicitly 

propose recurrent training, the FAA 

envisioned the need for certificate 

holders to provide individuals with 

updated information, all in support of a 

positive safety culture. This proposal 

includes a requirement for recurrent 

training every other year. It also would 

require the update of publications for 

the hazard awareness orientation 

requirement on the same schedule. 

4. Definition of Accountable Executive 

Numerous commenters thought the 

definition of accountable executive 

proposed in the NPRM was impractical 

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS4

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 135 / Thursday, July 14, 2016 / Proposed Rules 45877 

and needed to be revised. After 

considering these comments, the FAA 

agrees that the proposed definition will 

present compliance and operational 

challenges in the U.S. airport 

environment. Therefore, in this SNPRM, 

the new proposed definition (i) 

eliminates the substantive differences 

between the part 121 and part 139 

definitions, and (ii) clarifies that the 

accountable executive should not be 

personally liable to the FAA through 

certificate action or civil penalty. The 

FAA requests comment on the 

feasibility of implementing this 

proposed definition. 

B. Proposals Remaining From NPRM 

As proposed in the NPRM, the 

certificate holder’s SMS would be 

required to contain the following four 

components: Safety policy, safety risk 

management, safety assurance, and 

safety promotion. To satisfy the safety 

policy component, the certificate holder 

would establish a policy which, among 

other things, defines the certificate 

holder’s safety objectives, establishes a 

safety policy statement, defines the 

certificate holder’s management 

responsibilities and accountabilities for 

safety issues, and identifies and 

communicates the organization’s 

structure for handling safety issues. 

The certificate holder would also be 

required to designate an accountable 

executive, within the certificate holder’s 

own organization or governance 

structure, who would act on its behalf 

in overseeing the implementation and 

daily operation of the SMS. For most 

airports, the FAA anticipates the 

accountable executive would be an 

airport manager or airport director 

rather than a lower level manager or 

supervisor. 

Under safety risk management, the 

certificate holder would develop 

processes to identify hazards that may 

impact the airport’s operations. The 

certificate holder would use these 

processes to systematically analyze 

those hazards and their risks, as well as 

proactively mitigate risk unacceptable to 

the certificate holder. The certificate 

holder would retain any documentation 

developed through these processes to 

assist in trend and root cause analysis. 

Through safety assurance, the 

certificate holder would develop and 

implement processes to monitor the 

safety performance of its SMS. 

Additionally, the certificate holder 

would establish and maintain a hazard 

reporting system that provides reporters 

confidentiality when communicating 

safety issues to the system. The 

certificate holder’s staff would regularly 

update the accountable executive on 

pertinent safety information such as the 

certificate holder’s compliance with part 

139 subpart D requirements, and its 

performance with regard to its safety 

objectives, safety critical information, 

the status of any ongoing mitigations 

established through safety risk 

management, and the status of 

implementing the SMS. 

Under safety promotion, the 

certificate holder would identify 

managers and staff employees 

responsible for oversight and 

implementation of the SMS and would 

provide training on their SMS 

responsibilities. These individuals 

would receive recurrent training every 

24 months. For all other individuals 

with regular access to the movement 

and non-movement areas of the airfield, 

the certificate holder would develop 

and distribute hazard reporting and 

awareness orientation materials, 

ensuring those individuals are made 

aware of hazards and how to report 

them to the certificate holder’s hazard 

reporting system. The certificate holder 

would then keep records of training 

provided and hazard reporting and 

awareness orientation materials for 24 

calendar months. 

The certificate holder would also be 

required to develop processes and 

procedures to communicate important 

safety information that ensures all 

persons authorized access to the 

movement and non-movement areas are 

aware of the SMS and their safety roles 

and responsibilities. Feedback would be 

provided to individuals using the 

certificate holder’s hazard reporting 

system. Lessons learned that are 

relevant to airport employees or 

stakeholders also would be 

communicated. 

The certificate holder would have the 

option of either developing and 

maintaining a separate SMS manual in 

addition to the Airport Certification 

Manual (ACM), or incorporating these 

proposed requirements directly in the 

ACM. If the certificate holder develops 

a separate SMS manual, it would crossreference the SMS requirements in its 

FAA-approved ACM. 

IV. Discussion of Comments Received 

on NPRM 

A. FAA Rulemaking Authority 

The NPRM proposed implementing 

SMS throughout the airport 

environment, including the movement 

and non-movement areas (e.g., runways, 

taxiways, run-up areas, ramps, apron 

areas, and on-airport fuel farms). In the 

NPRM, the FAA acknowledged the 

proposal extended the scope of part 139 

by including the non-movement area 

but concluded that ensuring air 

transportation safety required that an 

SMS apply to any place that affects 

safety during aircraft operations. An 

association and a certificate holder 

noted that the application of SMS to the 

non-movement area is an 

unprecedented expansion of the FAA’s 

regulatory scope. 

The FAA has authority under 49 

U.S.C. 44706 to issue AOCs that contain 

terms to ensure safety in air 

transportation. The FAA acknowledges 

that it has historically focused its 

regulatory practice on the movement 

area. However, the statutory authority 

encompasses the entire airport operating 

environment, which includes the nonmovement area. The proposed 

requirement to develop and implement 

an SMS ensures safety in air 

transportation by assisting certificate 

holders in proactively identifying and 

mitigating safety hazards. Furthermore, 

as discussed later, findings from the 

SMS pilot studies and the large number 

of safety incidents occurring in the nonmovement area support extending SMS 

to the non-movement area to ensure 

safety in air transportation. 

Accordingly, as stated in the NPRM, 

this proposal, to the extent it would 

apply to both the movement and nonmovement areas, is within the FAA’s 

statutory authority. 

B. Applicability 

The NPRM proposed requiring all 

certificate holders, including airport 

operators holding a Class I, II, III, or IV 

AOC, to develop and implement an 

SMS for the movement and nonmovement areas of the airport. One 

Class IV certificate holder recommended 

that the FAA require SMS only at 

airports holding a Class I AOC, stating 

this would target the majority of air 

carrier passengers in the U.S. and allow 

small airports to avoid costly 

burdensome regulations. The certificate 

holder recommended a voluntary 

program for Class II, III, and IV 

certificate holders. 

The FAA partially agrees with the 

commenter. The FAA believes all 

certificate holders would realize 

benefits from formalized hazard 

identification, risk analysis, training and 

communications processes. However, 

further review of costs and benefits 

indicate that, for certificate holders with 

fewer operations, the costs of SMS 

implementation may be 

disproportionate to the benefits realized. 

The FAA continues to evaluate means to 

reduce costs for smaller airports, but, in 

the absence of significant regulatory cost 

reductions, the FAA’s preferred 

proposal is to require SMS 

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS4

45878 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 135 / Thursday, July 14, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

12These figures are current as of October 2012. 

implementation at large, medium, and 

small hub airports, certificated airports 

with more than 100,000 total annual 

operations, and certificated 

international airports. 

Requiring an SMS for only the largest 

and most complex of operations will 

enhance safety at airports receiving 98% 

of all passenger enplanements. The 

revised proposed rule would apply to 

268 airports, thus eliminating the 

burden on 276 airports that have few 

passenger enplanements and less 

complex operations.12 This proposed 

requirement advances the FAA’s safety 

goals and at the same time reduces the 

burden imposed by the NPRM. 

Although not proposing to require SMS 

implementation at all certificated 

airports, the FAA encourages all 

certificate holders to voluntarily 

implement SMS based on this proposed 

rule and accompanying agency 

guidance. 

Besides the alternative proposed in 

this SNPRM and the proposal in the 

NPRM, the FAA analyzed a variety of 

other applicability scenarios including: 

• Airport operators holding a Class I 

AOC; 

• Certificated international airports; 

and, 

• Large, medium, and small hub 

airports and certificated airports with 

more than 100,000 total annual 

operations. 

i. Airport Operators Holding a Class I 

AOC 

Since the last major revision to part 

139, the FAA typically has applied 

technical requirements based on AOC 

class. Consistent with this past practice, 

the FAA first analyzed limiting 

applicability to Class I certificate 

holders. When reviewed as a whole, the 

388 airports identified as holding a 

Class I AOC (as of October 2012) 

account for 99.7% of the total U.S. 

passenger enplanements as of the end of 

calendar year 2011. All certificated 

airports account for 99.8% of the total 

U.S. passenger enplanements, a 

difference of 0.1%. However, the list 

fails to account for many busy airports 

by total annual operations (not 

passenger enplanements), some of 

which receive more total annual 

operations than some Class I airports. 

Class I certificate holders also appear to 

include many smaller airports that 

support only domestic operations. For 

these reasons, the FAA does not believe 

that limiting applicability to Class I 

certificate holders alone is the best way 

to enhance safety through SMS. 

ii. Certificated International Airports 

The FAA also analyzed certificated 

international airports. Limiting the 

scope to these airports meets the intent 

of the ICAO standard. In the NPRM, the 

FAA addressed the ICAO standard by 

proposing all certificate holders 

implement an SMS. However, many 

commenters expressed concerns about 

the expansion of applicability beyond 

the ICAO standard (i.e., applying the 

standard to airports serving only 

domestic traffic). The FAA identified 

240 certificated airports with 

international services (as of August 1, 

2012). Relying on data prepared by the 

CBP, these 240 airports encompass all 

certificated airports that serve as ports 

of entry, designated international 

airports, landing rights airports, and 

user fee airports. 

These international airports account 

for 96.1% of the total U.S. passenger 

enplanements (as of the end of calendar 

year 2011). While these airports account 

for the vast majority of international 

operations within the U.S., this scenario 

fails to capture some of the nation’s 

busiest airports that accept only 

domestic operations. Based on the 

limitation of applicable airports under 

this scenario, the FAA does not believe 

that limiting applicability to 

international airports is a viable option 

to achieve the most safety benefit. 

iii. Large, Medium, and Small Hub 

Airports and Certificated Airports With 

More Than 100,000 Total Annual 

Operations 

The FAA also analyzed airports by 

their NPIAS category, looking at the 

airports that receive the vast majority of 

enplanements, otherwise known as 

hubs. Including only large, medium, 

and small hub airports does not capture 

airports receiving large numbers of total 

annual operations. Therefore, the FAA 

included in its analysis of this scenario 

certificated airports with more than 

100,000 total annual operations 

according to their Airport Master 

Record, FAA Form 5010–1 (available on 

August 1, 2012). 

This grouping gets much closer to the 

goal of accounting for the most complex, 

busiest and highest passenger 

enplanements throughout the country. 

Using this grouping for applicability 

would include 177 certificated airports 

that account for 97.5% of total U.S. 

passenger enplanements, and all 

certificated airports having more than 

100,000 total annual operations. The 

FAA believes this alternative achieves 

the goal of integrating safety 

management practices into the most 

complex, highest operation and 

passenger enplanement airports. Also, 

of those alternatives for which FAA has 

estimated benefits and costs, this 

alternative has the highest estimated net 

benefits. However, this alternative does 

not harmonize with ICAO standards 

because 91 international airports would 

not be required to implement an SMS, 

which could expose small international 

airports to the risk that international 

carriers refuse to operate there. Opting 

out would also require the FAA to file 

a difference with international 

standards. 

iv. Preferred Alternative 

The FAA now proposes to require an 

SMS be developed, implemented, 

maintained, and adhered to at any 

certificated airport: 

• Classified as a small, medium, or 

large hub airport; 

• Identified as an international 

airport; or 

• Identified as having more than 

100,000 total annual operations. 

This preferred alternative ensures that 

safety management practices will be 

integrated into the busiest airports and 

harmonizes with international 

standards. This alternative applies to 

268 airports, encompassing 98% of total 

U.S. passenger enplanements. In 

addition, this alternative positively 

responds to the commenters’ requests to 

limit applicability. 

On the other hand, including the 

additional 91 small international 

airports that would not be captured by 

the preceding alternative reduces the 

estimated net benefits of the rule. This 

is largely due to the small number of 

reported accidents at these 91 airports. 

However, FAA’s analysis does not 

consider the possibility that 

international airports without SMS risk 

losing international business due to a 

lack of compliance with ICAO 

standards. If this were to occur, airlines 

and other operators would incur costs to 

re-route to suboptimal locations. The 

magnitude of this potential effect is 

uncertain, as it would depend on the 

decisions of foreign actors to cease 

operations to domestic airports without 

a compliant SMS. FAA welcomes 

comments on this issue. 

v. Large, Medium, and Small Hub 

Airports; Certificated Airports With 

More Than 100,000 Total Annual 

Operations; and an Optional Certificate 

of Compliance Program for Airports 

With Less Than 100,000 Annual 

Operations 

The FAA is also seeking comment on 

an alternative featuring an optional 

certificate of compliance program for 

airports that aren’t required to 

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS4

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 135 / Thursday, July 14, 2016 / Proposed Rules 45879 

implement an SMS, but is otherwise 

identical to the alternative discussed in 

part iii of this section. This option 

would allow airports with less than 

100,000 annual operations to choose to 

implement a compliant SMS if they 

believe the benefits to them will 

outweigh the costs to them. 

This alternative mitigates the concern 

that small international airports would 

suffer a decline in their international 

traffic due to a lack of compliance with 

ICAO’s SMS standards, as airports could 

implement a compliant SMS if they so 

choose. Providing choice to these 

airports should also lead to higher net 

benefits than the preferred alternative, 

as those airports where the benefits of 

SMS do not exceed the costs can forego 

those costs. 

As previously stated, this alternative 

could present business risks to those 

small airports choosing to not 

implement a compliant SMS. Civil 

aviation authorities could prohibit their 

international air carriers from serving 

non-compliant airports. Similarly, the 

FAA could receive unsatisfactory audit 

findings with additional potential 

unforeseen consequences for failure to 

conform to international standards. 

vi. Inactive Airports 

Another Class IV certificate holder 

and an association requested the FAA 

not require certificate holders in an 

‘‘inactive status,’’ or with a Limited 

AOC, to have an SMS. 

Placement in an ‘‘inactive’’ status 

simply defers the FAA’s annual periodic 

inspections. That way, the agency can 

focus its efforts on certificate holders 

with active air carrier service. However, 

certificate holders in an inactive status 

must continue to meet all part 139 

requirements. As of May 2013, of the 

fourteen airports in an inactive status, 

only two would fall under the proposed 

applicability standards. If a certificated 

airport was later placed in an ‘‘inactive’’ 

status, it would still be required to 

comply with the proposed SMS 

requirements if it met the applicability 

requirements of this proposal. 

As for the commenters’ request about 

Limited AOCs, the FAA no longer issues 

Limited AOCs. Therefore, this issue is 

moot. 

vii. Adherence to SMS 

This SNPRM also proposes changes to 

§ 139.401(a) to specify that the 

certificate holder must adhere to an 

airport SMS. While the FAA received no 

comments regarding this issue, the FAA 

believes that adding ‘‘adhere to’’ 

emphasizes the point that an SMS is an 

ongoing obligation and should not be 

shelved after implementation. Further, 

it adds distinction between the phases 

of SMS from development to 

implementation to maintenance to 

adherence. 

viii. Scalability 

The majority of commenters, 

including certificate holders and 

associations, commented both directly 

and indirectly on the need for 

scalability and flexibility when 

developing and implementing an SMS. 

To address those comments and 

harmonize with other FAA rules, the 

FAA proposes a new § 139.401(c) 

permitting scalability of an SMS based 

on the size, nature, and complexity of 

the operations, activities, hazards and 

risks associated with the certificate 

holder’s operations. 

C. Implementation Deadlines and 

Phasing 

The NPRM included a two-pronged 

approach to implementation based on 

the certificate holder’s AOC class. 

Certificate holders with a Class I AOC 

would have developed an 

implementation plan and SMS manual 

and/or ACM update within 6 months 

and 18 months of the final rule’s 

effective date. Under the NPRM, all 

other certificate holders would have 9 

months and 24 months, respectively, to 

develop an implementation plan and 

SMS manual and/or ACM update. The 

NPRM did not propose any other 

implementation approach. 

Twenty-six commenters, including 

five associations, twenty certificate 

holders, and one consultant offered 

comments about the FAA’s proposed 

implementation deadlines and the lack 

of phasing. These commenters generally 

recommended a phased approach, citing 

pilot study findings, ICAO’s 

recommended approach, the Airport 

Cooperative Research Program SMS 

Guidebook, and the FAA’s internal SMS 

policies. A phased approach usually 

includes implementing SMS through a 

series of management steps, such as (1) 

planning and organization, (2) basic 

safety management, (3) fully functional 

SMS, and (4) continuous improvement. 

In addition to a phased approach, 

fourteen commenters, including three 

associations and eleven certificate 

holders, believed the deadlines for 

submitting the implementation plan and 

implementing SMS were not adequate. 

Four certificate holders and one 

association believed the proposed 

deadlines were aggressive. Two other 

certificate holders commented that the 

implementation plan deadline is not 

adequate based on the complexity and 

lack of familiarity with SMS concepts. 

Two certificate holders stated that it 

would be difficult, if not impossible, to 

procure consultant assistance within the 

proposed timeframes associated with 

the implementation plan. 

Two certificate holders stated that if 

the FAA includes the non-movement 

area in the final rule, the 

implementation deadlines should be 

extended and phased. Furthermore, an 

association and several certificate 

holders believed the FAA should 

require implementation of SMS in the 

movement area, or those areas already 

covered under part 139, before requiring 

SMS in the non-movement area. Doing 

so would allow certificate holders time 

to renegotiate lease agreements where 

necessary, update airport rules and 

regulations or minimum standards, and 

use lessons learned for applying SMS to 

the non-movement area. 

One commenter contended that large 

airports needed as much time as smaller 

airports to implement SMS, and that 

two different implementation schedules 

based on AOC class was not justified. 

Similarly, an association did not believe 

the FAA explained why Class I airports 

need less time to implement SMS than 

small certificated airports that may have 

a less complex system to analyze and 

less cumbersome requirements to adopt. 

Nine certificate holders, one 

association, and one consultant 

provided implementation schedules 

which can be summarized into the 

following three general 

recommendations: 

(1) Longer deadlines after the effective 

date of the rule for developing 

implementation plans (ranging from 9 to 

18 months for Class I certificate holders, 

and 12 to 18 months for all other 

certificate holders), and SMS manuals 

and/or ACM updates (ranging from 24 to 

60 months for Class I certificate holders 

and 36 months for all other certificate 

holders); 

(2) Phased implementation over the 

course of 63 months for all certificated 

airports; and 

(3) Airport-centric implementation, 

which would allow each certificate 

holder to propose its own phased 

approach to implementation within 

reasonable timeframes. 

One certificate holder requested the 

FAA clarify whether SMS programs 

implemented before the final rule would 

be automatically recognized as 

complying with the final requirements. 

To facilitate maximum flexibility and 

scalability, the FAA does not propose to 

mandate a one-size-fits-all 

implementation approach. A certificate 

holder can phase implementation, either 

by SMS component or by movement 

versus non-movement area. 

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS4

45880 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 135 / Thursday, July 14, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

The FAA agrees that additional time 

is needed to facilitate the effective 

development and implementation of 

SMS. This proposal would require 

submission of the implementation plan 

within 12 months of the effective date 

of a final rule and submission of the 

SMS manual and/or ACM update within 

24 months of the effective date of a final 

rule. The FAA believes that 12 months 

to develop an implementation plan and 

24 months to develop and submit the 

SMS manual and/or ACM update is an 

acceptable length of time based on 

lessons learned from the pilot studies. 

In developing these documents, 

certificate holders will benefit from the 

experience of the pilot study airports. 

Similarly, the FAA plans to incorporate 

those experiences into advisory circular 

guidance, including templates for 

development of an implementation 

plan. 

The FAA encourages voluntary 

implementation of SMS prior to the 

establishment of the requirements in a 

potential final rule. In creating these 

programs, the FAA encourages each 

certificate holder to establish flexible 

programs and processes that would 

allow it to make changes if its program 

differs from the requirements in a final 

rule. Additionally, the proposed 

implementation deadlines would apply 

to each certificate holder regardless of 

whether it has a pre-existing program or 

not. Therefore, a certificate holder with 

a voluntary SMS program would have 

the same 24 months to come into 

compliance with any differences 

between its program and the 

requirements of a final rule. The 

certificate holder would provide the 

FAA with an implementation plan 

identifying the gaps between its existing 

program and the final requirements and 

timelines for implementing processes or 

changes to close those gaps within the 

24 months. 

The FAA anticipates that a certificate 

holder’s SMS will continually evolve 

over time based on lessons learned and 

best practices. Therefore, the certificate 

holder may find it necessary to amend 

its implementation plan or SMS manual 

over time. 

D. Implementation Plan Approval and 

Inspector Authority 

The NPRM proposed to require a 

certificate holder to submit an 

implementation plan describing how it 

would meet the SMS requirements and 

a schedule for implementing SMS 

components and elements. The proposal 

called for the FAA to accept the 

certificate holder’s implementation 

plan. 

One association requested inclusion 

of regulatory provisions for FAA review 

and feedback on the implementation 

plan, SMS manual, and ACM update. 

Also, related to implementation plan 

review, one certificate holder 

questioned the role of the FAA 

inspector in verifying completion of the 

implementation plan and whether the 

inspector would have authority to 

amend or alter the implementation plan 

after its approval. 

The intent of an implementation plan 

is for the certificate holder to identify its 

plan for implementing SMS within the 

applicable areas and map its schedule 

for implementing the SMS 

requirements. While the FAA originally 

proposed accepting the implementation 

plan, the FAA now proposes to approve 

submitted implementation plans. This 

approval is consistent with the FAA’s 

part 121 SMS rule and would provide 

certificate holders with feedback earlier 

in the development of SMS programs. 

While the FAA originally planned to 

include examples of implementation 

plan content in advisory circular 

guidance, the FAA has chosen to 

enhance the rule text regarding the 

implementation plan submission, 

incorporating minimum details the FAA 

expects when a certificate holder 

submits an implementation plan. These 

details correspond to the key 

requirements of SMS that a certificate 

holder should be considering early in 

the implementation process. Developing 

a plan for these details would allow a 

certificate holder to adequately plan for 

requirements that may present time 

constraints and allow the certificate 

holder to meet implementation 

deadlines. 

The FAA does not agree that timelines 

for feedback should be incorporated into 

regulatory language. Based on the 

preferred alternative and new proposed 

approach for approving implementation 

plans, the FAA would need to review 

and approve approximately 268 

implementation plans. The Regional 

Airports Division Offices have 

experience with reviewing and 

approving large-scale changes to 

certificate holder documents, including 

the ACM, from past rulemaking actions. 

The FAA would handle these approvals 

in a timely manner in each Regional 

Airports Division Office. 

The FAA would review 

implementation plans using a ‘‘first-infirst-out’’ approach. However, the FAA 

recognizes that some certificate holders 

may choose to wait until the deadline to 

submit implementation plans for 

approval. If the majority of 

implementation plans were submitted 

near the deadline, the FAA may then 

switch to a more risk-based approach for 

approval, reviewing submissions from 

certificate holders with the largest 

number of passenger enplanements or 

annual operations first. To ensure 

consistency in these approvals, the FAA 

intends to provide guidance in its 

Advisory Circulars and training to 

Regional Airports Division Offices on 

the review of the implementation plans. 

The FAA would review an 

implementation plan to verify that the 

certificate holder identified its timeline 

for complying with each requirement 

and defined its methods for compliance. 

A certificated airport could proceed 

with development and implementation 

of its SMS while its implementation 

plan is under FAA review. 

During the periodic inspection, 

inspectors would verify that the 

certificate holder continues to comply 

with the unique deadlines approved by 

the FAA. As more thoroughly discussed 

in later sections, an inspector would 

develop the inspection checklist based 

on the unique characteristics of the 

certificate holder’s SMS, operations, and 

past compliance. 

The NPRM also proposed that the 

FAA would approve the certificate 

holder’s SMS manual if it chose to 

develop a manual separate from the 

ACM. Similar to the SNPRM’s proposal 

to approve instead of accept the 

implementation plan, the FAA proposes 

to accept the SMS manual instead of 

approve it. Airports that participated in 

the SMS pilot studies found it necessary 

to update SMS manuals numerous times 

as they developed best practices through 

implementation. Therefore, by the FAA 

accepting the SMS manual, certificate 

holders would have greater flexibility 

adapting to lessons learned without 

resubmitting the SMS manual for 

approval. The SNPRM proposes that for 

a certificate holder choosing to maintain 

an SMS manual, the certificate holder 

would be required to submit any 

changes made to the SMS manual 

annually, consistent with its inspection 

schedule. This new proposed 

requirement would ensure that the 

FAA’s copy of the SMS manual is 

current and available for the inspector 

to review before the certificate holder’s 

annual inspection. 

The FAA would continue to approve 

the ACM and its updates. For a 

certificate holder using an SMS manual, 

the certificate holder would crossreference the SMS requirements in its 

FAA-approved ACM. Any changes to 

references in the ACM would require 

submittal to the FAA for approval. 

However, if the SMS manual changes do 

not affect the ACM cross-references, 

there would be no need to resubmit the 

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS4

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 135 / Thursday, July 14, 2016 / Proposed Rules 45881 

ACM pages for FAA-approval. If the 

certificate holder chooses to document 

the SMS within the ACM instead of a 

separate SMS manual, it would not have 

the flexibility afforded by the SMS 

manual. Changes would need to be 

submitted to the FAA for approval. 

Once the FAA accepts the certificate 

holder’s SMS manual and/or approves 

ACM updates detailing the certificate 

holder’s SMS, that document would be 

the primary means of complying with 

the SMS requirements under the 

proposed rule, not the implementation 

plan. The implementation plan serves as 

a tool to help the certificate holder 

develop and implement the various 

components and elements of SMS 

within the prescribed and/or approved 

deadlines. Once SMS is completely 

implemented, the implementation plan 

becomes obsolete. The FAA would not 

use the implementation plan as a 

compliance yardstick. 

Certificate holders would have the 

opportunity to submit amendments to 

implementation plans, with review and 

approval being the responsibility of the 

Regional Airports Division Offices. 

E. Non-Movement Area 

The FAA received numerous 

comments regarding the non-movement 

area which can be generally categorized 

as follows: Definition, applicability, and 

control. 

Based on findings from the pilot 

studies, the FAA proposed extending 

SMS requirements to the non-movement 

area of the airport. Since the term nonmovement area was not previously 

defined in part 139, the NPRM included 

a proposed definition that defined the 

non-movement area as the area, other 

than that described as the movement 

area, used for the loading, unloading, 

parking, and movement of aircraft on 

the airside of the airport (including 

without limitation ramps, apron areas, 

and on-airport fuel farms). 

Five certificate holders questioned the 

FAA’s proposed definition. One 

certificate holder stated that the 

proposed definition did not align with 

existing definitions and could lead to 

confusion. The certificate holder 

recommended the FAA align the 

definition with the current definition for 

air operations areas. Two certificate 

holders requested the FAA clarify in the 

final rule that the non-movement area 

does not include or apply to landside 

operations. 

Two certificate holders sought 

clarification on the areas identified in 

the definition and identified 

inconsistencies within the NPRM. Two 

other certificate holders requested the 

FAA exclude certain areas from the 

definition, including military and 

general aviation leaseholds and fuel 

farms. One of those certificate holders 

stated that joint-use airports already 

have safety systems in place to address 

safety issues and operational concerns, 

and lease provisions prohibit a 

certificate holder from imposing SMS 

within the military leasehold. Two 

certificate holders stated that fuel farms 

should not be included in a final rule 

because they are typically a contracted 

service and are already subject to 

regulation by DOT and local authorities. 

The FAA has concluded the proposed 

definition is consistent with existing 

guidance on distinguishing airport areas 

based on whether aircraft are subject to 

air traffic control. The FAA also 

determined the air operations area 

definition identified in 14 CFR 153.3 

should not replace the proposed nonmovement area definition since this 

term is associated with security-related 

issues, rather than operational safety 

issues. 

The FAA previously responded to 

issues regarding applicability to jointuse and general aviation areas, ramps, 

and bag-makeup areas in its Responses 

to Clarifying Questions. As many of 

these same issues were repeated in 

comments to the NPRM, a summary of 

those responses and their applicability 

to the SNPRM follows: 

• The proposed rule does not apply to 

military facilities at joint-use airports, 

but the certificate holder could invite 

the military to participate in SMS 

activities. 

• The proposed rule does not require 

airport tenants to have a separate SMS; 

it would be applicable to certificate 

holders of a part 139 AOC only. 

• The definition applies to the entire 

non-movement area regardless of lease 

arrangements. The proposed rule 

includes broad requirements intended 

to increase flexibility to implement an 

SMS for a certificate holder’s unique 

operating environment. 

• A certificate holder’s SMS would 

apply to any safety issues including 

employee safety, ground safety, vehicle 

safety, and passenger safety to the extent 

that they are related to aircraft 

operations. 

• The definition for non-movement 

area does not include the interior of 

hangars. 

Regarding general aviation areas of 

the airport, the proposed rule’s 

requirements would give flexibility to 

each certificate holder to scale the 

implementation to its unique operating 

environment. A certificate holder would 

need to ensure that individuals 

authorized to access the movement and 

non-movement areas are aware of, and 

have the opportunity to report hazards 

to, the certificate holder’s hazard 

reporting system. Many certificate 

holders may find it necessary to update 

airport rules and regulations, revise 

clauses in lease agreements, and 

renegotiate lease agreements where 

appropriate to have airport tenants 

participate in the airport’s SMS. 

Therefore, while not directly applicable 

to fixed-base operators (FBOs), a 

certificate holder may need to work 

with tenants such as FBOs to ensure the 

tenants’ employees authorized to access 

these areas are aware of the airport’s 

hazard reporting system. 

Similarly, if bag make-up areas are 

located outside the landside facilities in 

proximity to air carrier operations, the 

certificate holder would need to assure 

implementation of relevant portions of 

this proposed requirement, like 

awareness of the hazard reporting 

system, for individuals working in the 

external bag make-up area. 

As for on-airport fuel farms, 

§ 139.321(b)–(g) currently prescribe 

requirements applicable to fuel farms 

for things like inspections and training. 

Therefore, it would be a natural 

progression to implement relevant 

portions of SMS within the fuel farm 

environment. 

Over 25 commenters, including 

certificate holders and industry 

associations, disagreed with or 

questioned applying SMS to the nonmovement area. The certificate holders 

stated that applicability to these areas 

would be costly and require time to 

revise standard leases, rules, 

regulations, and minimum standards. 

Further, complex geometry, lease 

agreements, and operational agreements 

make managing the non-movement area 

airport-centric. Commenters contended 

the FAA does not have the time or 

experience to become familiar with each 

airport’s non-movement areas to judge 

compliance. One industry association 

believed that inclusion of the nonmovement area without regard to 

airport-specific considerations 

undermines the goals of scalability and 

flexibility. Another industry association 

and certificate holder believed that more 

study and guidance is needed before the 

FAA applies SMS to the non-movement 

area. These commenters further 

questioned applicability when a tenant 

or leaseholder is required to implement 

SMS under other FAA regulations. 

The FAA disagrees with the 

commenters’ issues regarding the 

applicability of SMS requirements to the 

non-movement area. The pilot studies 

found, based on reports from numerous 

participating airports, that it was 

difficult to apply SMS concepts to only 

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS4

45882 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 135 / Thursday, July 14, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

13Correction made to applicability date, see 80 

FR 1584 (January 13, 2015). 

the movement area because aircraft and 

airside personnel routinely flow 

between movement and non-movement 

areas. 

The FAA also identified a large 

number of safety accidents and 

incidents occurring in the nonmovement area. Analysis of these 

accidents and incidents indicates that 

safety in the non-movement area is a 

significant concern. The proactive 

approach to hazard identification and 

analysis of accidents, incidents, or other 

reported or collected data at each 

individual airport through an SMS 

would likely reduce these incidents. 

The FAA believes there are significant 

benefits of applying safety management 

principles to areas not previously 

regulated under part 139. 

While commenters expressed 

concerns regarding the complexity of 

operations within the non-movement 

areas and the FAA’s ‘‘inexperience’’ in 

these areas, the FAA does not propose 

specific technical requirements in the 

non-movement area. Instead, the FAA 

plans to learn from certificate holders as 

they implement and maintain SMS. 

Over time, the FAA expects certificate 

holders and inspectors to share lessons 

learned or best practices that will then 

be reported nationally. Similarly, the 

FAA expects certificate holders to 

consult with the FAA if they find trends 

or issues that require a systematic fix. 

The FAA is committed to an 

interoperable approach to SMS and 

plans to take numerous steps to avoid 

duplication and enhance cooperation 

and reporting between the SMS efforts. 

In addition to providing advisory 

circular guidance, the FAA has included 

similar language regarding 

interoperability and duplication of 

hazard reporting in the Safety 

Management Systems for Domestic, 

Flag, and Supplemental Operations 

Certificate Holders (Part 121 SMS) final 

rule [80 FR 1308 (January 8, 2015) 13]. 

The FAA disagrees with the 

commenters’ request for stronger 

language regarding landside operations. 

The statutory authority supporting part 

139 limits the agency’s purview to 

issuing certificates and minimum safety 

standards for airports receiving certain 

passenger carrying operations. The 

agency’s past and current standards 

apply minimum safety standards for 

those areas on an airport where 

passenger-carrying operations are 

conducted. Accidents or incidents 

within the terminal environment have 

minimal impact on the safety of 

passenger-carrying operations. 

Moreover, local and state safety codes 

and regulations would typically cover 

issues found within the landside 

environment. 

Several commenters, including three 

associations and nine certificate 

holders, argued that certificate holders 

lack sufficient authority and control to 

impose SMS requirements on airport 

tenants operating in the non-movement 

area. These commenters further noted 

difficulty due to the variety of lease 

agreements, clauses, and terms. One 

certificate holder contended that most 

airports, including itself, do not have 

personnel or expertise to oversee safety 

in the non-movement area. Another 

certificate holder recommended the 

final rule recognize the uniqueness of 

the non-movement area and provide 

latitude based on the activities that 

occur within the non-movement area, 

the level of control that the certificate 

holder has over those activities, and the 

extent to which access is within the 

tenant’s control. Alternatively, one 

certificate holder requested the FAA 

apply or impose the proposed SMS 

requirements on tenants or exclusive 

leaseholds and allow the certificate 

holders to delegate the proposed 

requirements for shared leaseholds. 

One association opined that, in the 

past, certificate holders have retained 

some oversight over tenant operations in 

the non-movement area, but that the 

NPRM pushed certificate holders to 

assume a primary role for safety. If that 

is the expectation, the association 

strongly disagreed with FAA’s vision for 

SMS in the non-movement area. 

Finally, a certificate holder with 

multiple part 139 airports contended 

that it would need to renegotiate over 

1,500 lease agreements, and that even 

with renegotiations, it still would not 

possess the authority needed to fully 

implement SMS in the non-movement 

area. 

The FAA disagrees with the 

comments that certificate holders lack 

control in the non-movement area of 

their airports. The FAA also disagrees 

with the request to directly apply these 

proposed airport SMS requirements on 

airport tenants. Part 139 applies only to 

certificated airports. While there may be 

instances where the certificate holders 

are not the same entity as the airport 

owner, airport owners who accept 

federal financial assistance (the vast 

majority of part 139 airports) must 

maintain sufficient rights and powers to 

operate the airport in accordance with 

grant assurances, which includes both 

movement and non-movement areas. 

F. Accountable Executive 

The NPRM proposed a requirement 

for the certificate holder to identify the 

accountable executive for the airport. 

Consistent with ICAO’s definition of 

accountable executive, the FAA’s 

proposed definition for accountable 

executive in the NPRM stated that an 

accountable executive means a single, 

identifiable person who, irrespective of 

other functions, has ultimate 

responsibility and accountability, on 

behalf of the certificate holder, for the 

implementation and maintenance of the 

certificate holder’s SMS. The 

accountable executive would also have 

to have full control of the human and 

financial resources required to 

implement and maintain the certificate 

holder’s SMS. The accountable 

executive would also have final 

authority over operations conducted 

under the certificate holder’s AOC and 

have final responsibility for all safety 

issues. 

The FAA acknowledged in the NPRM 

that it may be difficult for publiclyowned and operated airports in the U.S. 

to identify an accountable executive 

based on this definition and invited 

comments. 

Twelve commenters, including two 

associations, nine certificate holders, 

and one consultant, believed the 

proposed definition is impractical and 

needs revision. One association 

summarized the variety of comments 

certificate holders had, stating that the 

definition needs to reflect the realities of 

U.S. airports where an airport director 

has managerial responsibilities but does 

not have final authority over airport 

operations. The commenter noted that 

these airports usually have a governing 

body, such as a Board of Commissioners 

or City Council, which has ultimate 

responsibility for operational and 

financial decisions. Therefore, the 

highest approving authority may not be 

one individual, as required by the 

proposed definition. Further, this 

association requested any final rule 

definition reflect that, at the majority of 

U.S. airports, no single manager has 

unilateral authority to direct actions by 

tenants and other non-airport 

employees. 

Other alternative definitions proposed 

by the commenters included: 

• Mirroring the part 121 SMS 

definition; 

• Allowing certificate holders to 

designate an accountable organization 

structure instead of one executive; 

• Redefining the position to account 

for airport managers who do not have 

complete financial control; and 

• Allowing for designation of an SMS 

or Safety Manager because the airport 

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS4

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 135 / Thursday, July 14, 2016 / Proposed Rules 45883 

manager may not have the time or 

ability to fulfill the obligations of the 

accountable executive position. 

One certificate holder requested any 

final rule include a provision that the 

FAA does not intend to hold 

individuals, including the accountable 

executive, personally liable for safety 

infractions or violations of the SMS. 

The proposed definition eliminates 

differences between the part 121 and 

part 139 definitions. The concept of an 

accountable executive conforms to 

industry and international safety 

standards for SMS. The accountable 

executive’s role is to instill safety as a 

core organizational value and to ensure 

that SMS is properly implemented and 

maintained through the allocation of 

resources and tasks. By designating an 

accountable executive, responsibility for 

the certificate holder’s overall safety 

performance is placed at a high level 

within the organization. The individual 

should have the authority to ensure that 

the SMS is implemented and effective. 

Traditionally, safety programs were 

housed within one division of the 

certificate holder’s organization. Under 

a systems approach, the concepts of 

SMS need to permeate throughout the 

certificate holder’s organization to 

ensure that all offices, employees, and 

tenants with responsibilities in the 

movement and non-movement areas 

understand their role in SMS. 

However, the FAA appreciates the 

diversity of certificate holder 

organizations and agrees that the ICAO 

definition of accountable executive 

could present compliance and 

operational challenges for many 

publicly-owned and operated airports 

within the U.S. Therefore, the FAA 

proposes the revised definition in 

§ 139.5 of this proposed rule. 

In practice, the FAA anticipates that 

most certificate holders would designate 

an airport manager or airport director as 

the accountable executive. 

Accountability cannot be delegated; 

therefore, a lower-level manager or 

supervisor could not serve as the 

accountable executive. 

The FAA does not intend to require 

the designation of additional positions 

to implement the daily operation of the 

SMS. Such designations should be left 

to the discretion of the certificate holder 

based on its unique operating 

environment and management structure. 

A certificate holder would have this 

flexibility in establishing its safety 

organizational structure as identified in 

proposed § 139.402(a). The safety 

organizational structure would identify 

the positions and offices within the 

certificate holder’s organization that 

have responsibility for or play a role in 

the safety of airport operations. This 

includes the ‘‘chain of command’’ and 

the means by which airport employees 

report safety concerns, hazards, and 

other safety-related information. 

G. Data Protection 

The NPRM included numerous 

proposed requirements for certificate 

holders to develop and maintain 

documentation for hazard reporting, 

identification, and assessment. While 

the FAA did not propose a requirement 

for certificate holders to provide those 

documents to the agency, the certificate 

holder would maintain the documents 

for historical and trend analysis as part 

of its continuous improvement efforts. 

Seventeen commenters, including 

certificate holders and associations, 

addressed issues of data protection 

posed by the proposed rule. Only one 

association, which represents trial 

attorneys, agreed with FAA’s approach 

to hazard reporting. This association 

cautioned the FAA from making any 

changes, claiming that restrictions on 

the disclosure of safety data flies in the 

face of safety and only serves to protect 

and immunize business entities from 

responsibility in the event of negligence 

or wrong doing. 

All other commenters believed that, 

without explicit data protections, 

persons not employed by the certificate 

holder would be reluctant to voluntarily 

share information or report hazards for 

fear of litigation or public perception if 

the data is released through state or 

local sunshine laws. Many commenters 

believed that, without protecting SMSrelated data, certificate holders would 

not be able to establish effective 

confidential reporting systems. 

Commenters made numerous 

recommendations including: 

• Make SMS data confidential. 

• Protect data in a similar manner 

that air carriers are able to protect safety 

data, such as a data collected under the 

Flight Operational Quality Assurance 

Program (FOQA) or the Aviation Safety 

Action Program (ASAP). 

• Protect SMS data using Security 

Sensitive Information (SSI) provisions. 

• Allow redaction of data. 

• Establish a national database to 

accept voluntary safety information 

from certificate holders and other 

stakeholders using protections under 49 

U.S.C. § 40123 and 14 CFR part 193. 

• Make SMS data exempt from 

disclosure under the Freedom of 

Information Act (FOIA) pursuant to 49 

U.S.C. § 40123 and part 193. 

One certificate holder disagreed with 

the FAA’s claim that certificate holders 

are in the best position to work with 

state and local legislators to provide 

additional protection from data 

disclosure. That certificate holder 

believed it is an unreasonable burden on 

airports to seek legislative exceptions to 

public records laws and will result in a 

patchwork of legal protection 

throughout the U.S. 

Another certificate holder sought 

clarification on how the FAA will 

evaluate the certificate holder’s program 

if there is no requirement to submit data 

to the FAA and, if the FAA does take 

or copy the certificate holder’s 

documents, how they will be protected 

from FOIA. 

Section 44735 of title 49 of the United 

States Code specifically contemplates 

the protection of SMS data that is 

voluntarily submitted, such as reports, 

data, or other information produced or 

collected for purposes of developing 

and implementing an SMS, from FOIA 

disclosure by the FAA. It is important 

to note, however, such protection could 

not be afforded to SMS information that 

is required to be submitted to the FAA, 

or is kept to satisfy compliance with 

other regulatory requirements. For these 

reasons, the FAA is not proposing data 

reporting requirements for safety-related 

data created under an SMS (such as 

hazard reports, safety risk management 

documentation, or safety assurance 

documentation). As such, consistent 

with the authority in section 44735, 

there should be no implications under 

FOIA for that safety-related data. The 

FAA, through its inspectors, could 

review a certificate holder’s 

documentation to ensure compliance 

with part 139, but the FAA generally 

would not take possession of those 

documents unless the inspector was 

investigating an issue of noncompliance. 

To further clarify the extent of 

protection that may be afforded under 

section 44735, the FAA notes that any 

record or other documentation that is 

required to show compliance with other 

regulatory requirements would not be 

protected. Any information protected 

under the statute is only protected from 

release by the FAA. If the information 

is submitted or released by the 

certificate holder to another government 

entity, the protections of the statute are 

not binding on these other entities. Nor 

are these documents necessarily 

protected from discovery in civil 

litigation, although the certificate holder 

would be free to ask the court for 

whatever protections would be 

appropriate under the rules of the 

relevant jurisdiction. 

The FAA acknowledges that most 

certificate holders are owned by a state, 

a subdivision of the state, or a local 

governmental body. These certificate 

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS4

45884 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 135 / Thursday, July 14, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

holders are best situated to understand 

and comply with their applicable State 

laws. The FAA is uncertain whether any 

FOIA exceptions would preclude 

disclosure requirements under 

applicable state law. Any redaction of 

SMS data potentially required to be 

disclosed would be subject to applicable 

state law requirements and not 

established by the FAA. 

The FAA also notes that data 

protection under SSI provisions is 

inapplicable and may be impermissible 

because those procedures are for 

information obtained or developed in 

the conduct of security activities as 

described in 49 CFR part 1520. 

The FAA cannot speculate on how a 

third party would report to or share 

information with a certificate holder’s 

SMS. This proposed rule does not 

require third parties to turn over SMS 

data to a certificate holder. However, the 

proposal would require a certificate 

holder to establish a confidential hazard 

reporting system and encourage hazard 

reporting by all persons accessing the 

movement and non-movement area. The 

FAA believes an SMS program could be 

structured in such a manner to realize 

safety benefits while limiting the public 

release of confidential third-party 

information. Use of third-party servers 

and de-identification of reporter 

information prior to receipt by the 

certificate holder could be solutions that 

would limit release, subject to 

applicable state law. 

The FAA believes that individual 

certificate holders are best situated to 

review and resolve hazard reports 

related to their unique operating 

environment. As discussed in the FAA’s 

Responses to Clarifying Questions, the 

FAA would use existing regulatory 

oversight processes to ensure that 

systemic or national compliance issues 

are reported when appropriate. FAA 

Order 5280.5C, Airport Certification 

Program Handbook, requires 

coordination with and oversight by the 

Airport Safety and Operations Division 

for airport certification inspection 

activities. In accordance with that order, 

inspection findings are recorded in 

national databases by inspectors and 

reviewed by the Airport Safety and 

Operations Division. Furthermore, 

enforcement activities by Regional 

Airports Division Offices are required to 

be coordinated with the Airport Safety 

and Operations Division. 

The FAA is exploring methods to 

create a national reporting database for 

voluntary reporting of SMS data. The 

agency requests comments from 

industry on the types of data or other 

information certificated airports could 

provide under a national reporting 

database. This data could be used for 

system-wide analysis, the development 

or amendment of standards, and riskbased approach to targeted inspections. 

H. Liability 

An SMS is a formalized approach to 

managing safety and includes the 

establishment of many proactive 

processes and analyses, and the creation 

of documentation that can be used for 

decision-making and trend analysis. The 

NPRM did not expressly discuss 

potential liability under this new 

proactive approach. 

Fourteen commenters, including ten 

certificate holders, two associations and 

one anonymous commenter, raised 

issues related to liability, noting that 

SMS-related processes and 

documentation will expose certificate 

holders to additional liability. Eight of 

those commenters went further to claim 

that there would be increased liability 

for airport management, especially for 

the accountable executive, under the 

proposed requirements. For example, 

one certificate holder contended 

compliance with the proposed SMS 

requirements could alter the airport’s 

liability under the standard of care laws, 

which vary from state to state. That 

certificate holder also feared that 

decisions, safety risk matrices, and other 

processes and documentation could 

become evidence in litigation or the 

subject of litigation. 

Other commenters, including three 

certificate holders and an association, 

questioned how a certificate holder’s 

SRM processes could be used against 

the airport if there is an incident on the 

airport and it is found that the 

certificate holder did not act consistent 

with its own safety risk assessment 

under its SMS. Furthermore, one 

association believed there would be 

increased liability for the certificate 

holder and the accountable executive if 

the standards are not high enough or if 

the standards are not met. 

Another association stated that 

acceptable level of ‘‘risk’’ as is 

established for SRM safety risk 

assessments, runs counter to U.S. tort 

principles and practice. The association 

further stated that, by identifying a 

hazard, an airport operator then has a 

duty to address that hazard promptly 

through mitigation measures. 

Furthermore, the commenter noted that 

although some airports that are owned 

by a state or municipal entity may be 

fully or partially protected from 

negligence claims through sovereign 

immunity, many, if not most, airports 

are subject to suit for negligence under 

applicable state law. Thus, once an 

airport is aware of a hazard, it is at risk 

for a negligence claim if injury or 

damage occurs as a result of that hazard. 

Several commenters, including three 

certificate holders, an air carrier, and an 

association asserted that certificate 

holders lack sufficient control in the 

non-movement area, and that an SMS 

could result in a certificate holder being 

held legally responsible for personal 

injury or property damage resulting 

from hazards identified through the 

airport’s SMS in areas not under its 

control. One association argued that 

airport leases or license agreements 

transfer a certain degree of control from 

the airport/landlord to the tenant/ 

licensee. While an airport may retain a 

certain degree of control, the tenant 

typically has a certain degree of 

autonomy to run its operations within 

the leased area as it sees fit, subject to 

legal requirements. There may be times 

where a certificate holder identifies 

hazards in the leased area that are not 

a violation of any enforceable obligation 

of the tenant. In these cases, the airport 

will have limited recourse. 

Commenters made a number of 

recommendations including: 

• Commit to join industry groups in 

seeking modifications to federal law; 

• Prohibit, by regulation, the 

testimony of FAA employees in 

litigation against certificate holders 

where standards of care is an issue; and 

• Provide explicit protection of the 

certificate holder. 

The FAA cannot speculate on 

potential litigation resulting from a 

potential accident at some point in the 

future, which would be fact-specific and 

subject to applicable law that varies 

throughout the U.S. However, the FAA 

does not intend for this proposed rule 

to create or modify state tort liability 

law or create a private right of action 

under federal or state law. The FAA 

does not agree with the assertion that 

SMS increases liability for an airport 

operator or its accountable executive. 

The availability of additional data and 

analysis for decision-making should 

support a certificate holder in potential 

litigation. Failure to take action on 

identified safety hazards, regardless of 

formal analysis under SMS, generally 

may increase litigation risk. 

Nevertheless, the FAA intends for SMS 

to assist certificate holders in 

uncovering and mitigating unsafe 

conditions or actions, thus decreasing a 

certificate holder’s litigation risk. A 

certificate holder could effectively use 

SMS to reduce liability by promptly 

investigating identified hazards and 

risks, conducting a thorough analysis of 

hazards, and keeping accurate records. 

Furthermore, the new proposed 

definition for accountable executive 

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS4

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 135 / Thursday, July 14, 2016 / Proposed Rules 45885 

14 During the NPRM comment period, the FAA 

published the ‘‘Safety Enhancements, Certification 

of Airports’’ NPRM proposing updates to part 139. 

After reviewing comments, the FAA issued a final 

rule (78 FR 3311, January 16, 2013). 

would clarify that the accountable 

executive would not be personally liable 

to the FAA, through either certificate 

action or civil penalty. Additionally, the 

FAA does not intend for the accountable 

executive to have personal liability to 

any third party; however, issues 

concerning such liability are controlled 

by state law, not the SMS regulations. 

Finally, the FAA notes that the extent 

to which SMS data may be discoverable 

in litigation is subject to the state or 

federal law governing the litigation. The 

FAA believes the certificate holder is in 

the best position to understand and 

comply with its state’s laws. 

I. Training 

In the NPRM, the FAA proposed 

requiring certificate holders to provide 

formal training to all employees and 

tenants with access to the movement 

and non-movement areas appropriately 

tailored to the individual’s role in the 

airport’s SMS. The FAA invited 

comment concerning the practical and 

economic implications of the proposal, 

or applying the requirement to all 

individuals with access to those areas. 

Ten commenters, including four 

certificate holders, three associations, 

one air carrier, one individual and one 

consultant, identified inconsistencies 

and various interpretations of the 

proposal. These commenters noted that 

terms like employee, tenant, and 

personnel were used ambiguously 

throughout the proposal. Three 

commenters requested the FAA 

coordinate the terms and definitions in 

the two rulemaking proposals for part 

139.14 An association and certificate 

holder requested that the FAA define 

these terms. 

Two certificate holders offered the 

following alternate interpretations of the 

proposal: 

(1) The certificate holder is required 

to train only its employees; 

(2) The certificate holder is required 

to train those personnel who are 

employed at the airport (regardless of 

the identity of the employer); or 

(3) The certificate holder is required 

to train all individuals with access to 

the movement and non-movement areas 

of the airfield. 

One certificate holder questioned 

whether the requirement applies to all 

individuals with access to the 

movement and non-movement areas or 

only those that have authority to drive 

in those areas. The certificate holder 

requested the FAA reconsider the 

timing of the training requirement, 

citing a 2-year cycle instead of annual 

training as being more consistent with 

airport security badging processes. 

Another certificate holder questioned 

who is responsible for training under 

the proposed rule and whether the 

certificate holder is responsible for 

training all airport tenants. 

An association recommended the 

FAA allow a certificate holder to assess 

who needs training on its airport, and 

whether training should be extended to 

all individuals accessing the movement 

and non-movement areas. The 

association believed this would allow 

certificate holders maximum scalability 

by tailoring their training program and 

costs to reflect their unique operating 

environment. 

Another association requested the 

FAA provide more detail on what topics 

should be included in the training 

program, and how a certificate holder 

would best implement the requirement. 

Certificate holders and one association 

expressed concerns about the lack of 

expertise of staff to implement such a 

training program, the magnitude of a 

program that reached all individuals 

with access to these areas (not just 

airport employees), and the workload 

associated with developing and 

providing training. To decrease 

workload, one certificate holder 

requested the FAA develop a basic SMS 

training course for certificate holders 

which could be augmented by an 

airport-specific course. 

Commenters also offered a number of 

recommendations for scope changes 

including: 

• Training personnel with regular, 

recurring access to the airport only; 

• Training employees with 

responsibilities outlined in the ACM 

only; 

• Training certificate holder 

employees only; or 

• Allowing train-the-trainer 

programs. 

Associations representing air carriers 

and pilots expressed concern about the 

FAA’s proposed training requirements 

in the non-movement area, questioning 

how flightcrew members of airline 

tenants would be able to comply based 

on dynamic scheduling. One association 

recommended flight crew training 

remain an airline responsibility. 

Another association rejected the notion 

of training individuals with access to 

the non-movement area, claiming that 

existing training requirements are 

sufficient. 

One association recommended the 

FAA clarify timelines for training, 

suggesting that certificate holders begin 

training their managers and employees 

within 12 months of the FAA’s approval 

of the SMS manual. 

A consultant observed that training 

implies an increased level of liability, 

and that the FAA should instead require 

orientation. This orientation should 

focus on general safety training such as 

ramp markings, airport rules and 

regulations, hazard reporting, and 

accident and incident response and 

reporting. 

Finally, a certificate holder requested 

the FAA not mandate recurrent training. 

The NPRM proposed an SMS training 

requirement for all employees and 

tenants with access to the movement 

and non-movement areas of the airport. 

To maximize the potential for 

proactively identifying hazards, the 

intent was to ensure that individuals 

authorized access to the movement and 

non-movement area received training. 

This would create a broad training 

requirement, allowing certificate 

holders flexibility in how they trained 

persons with access to these areas. This 

flexibility included allowing train-thetrainer programs and training specific to 

the person’s role in the SMS. This 

flexibility would allow certificate 

holders to provide orientation to the 

majority of persons accessing the nonmovement and movement areas of 

hazard identification and reporting, 

rather than training on all of their SMS 

initiatives. 

Commenters appear to have 

interpreted the proposed training 

requirement to be cumbersome, time 

consuming, and excessively costly. In 

light of comments and lessons learned 

from the pilot studies, the proposal in 

this SNPRM offers a two-pronged 

approach to training: (i) Comprehensive 

SMS training specific to the individual’s 

role and responsibility in 

implementation and maintenance of the 

SMS and hazard awareness; and (ii) 

reporting awareness orientation for all 

other individuals with access to the 

movement and non-movement areas. 

The FAA expects each certificate 

holder to provide training appropriately 

tailored to the person’s role in the 

certificate holder’s SMS. Persons with 

responsibilities for implementation or 

oversight of the certificate holder’s SMS 

would be required to receive training 

specific to their roles and 

responsibilities. For example, those 

persons responsible for analyzing 

hazard reports to determine action 

should be properly trained in SRM and 

hazard assessment procedures. 

Individuals, including staff and/or 

managers, with responsibility for daily 

oversight of the SMS would be trained 

in all requirements of the SMS. Again, 

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS4

45886 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 135 / Thursday, July 14, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

15 Issued September 30, 2014 and available at 

http://www.faa.gov/airports/aip/aip_handbook/ 

the certificate holder could use trainthe-trainer formats where necessary. 

By clarifying this proposed 

requirement, the FAA anticipates the 

average pool of employees needing this 

training to be between 3 and 10 

employees or managers per airport. The 

supplemental initial regulatory 

evaluation uses these estimates in the 

cost analysis. The FAA requests 

comments on whether these estimates 

are accurate as an average across all 

airports affected by this proposal. The 

FAA acknowledges that there may be 

certificate holders included in the 

preferred applicability alternative who 

have smaller staffs than these numbers 

take into account. In those 

environments, additional staff may not 

be necessary but rather, existing staff 

could assume these duties and 

responsibilities within their existing job 

roles. Thus, the FAA also requests 

comments on the job roles that would 

require this type of specific training. 

For the remaining persons who have 

access to the movement and nonmovement areas, a certificate holder 

could use a variety of means to provide 

hazard awareness and reporting 

orientation. For example, a certificate 

holder could develop a brochure or 

white paper for inclusion in the 

employee’s indoctrination package, or 

add a reference to hazard identification 

and reporting to existing training 

programs, such as security or driver 

training. 

The certificate holder would bear the 

cost of publishing this awareness 

material and keeping it updated. For 

persons employed by tenants, the 

certificate holder would be responsible 

for providing the materials to the 

tenants for distribution. Tenants, such 

as air carriers, caterers, fueling agents, 

and FBOs, all would potentially receive 

this information if their employees 

access the movement or non-movement 

areas. However, the certificate holder 

could choose to provide this material or 

briefings during badging or security 

training. 

There should be minimal record 

keeping costs associated with this type 

of training/awareness orientation. The 

certificate holder would maintain 

training records for only those 

individuals receiving comprehensive 

SMS training. For hazard awareness and 

reporting orientation, the FAA 

anticipates the certificate holder would 

retain copies of materials provided and 

a distribution log detailing when the 

materials are provided to tenants. The 

certificate holder would not be required 

to maintain individual training records 

for hazard awareness and reporting 

orientation. 

The FAA does not intend for the 

proposed requirement to apply to 

persons escorted by a trained 

individual. As for an air carrier’s 

crewmember training, those individuals 

authorized to enter the movement and 

non-movement areas unescorted would 

receive training appropriate to their 

role; in this case, awareness of hazard 

identification and reporting procedures. 

The air carrier would then distribute the 

materials provided by the certificate 

holder. 

While the NPRM did not explicitly 

propose recurrent training, the FAA 

envisions the need for a certificate 

holder to provide individuals with 

updated information, all in support of a 

positive safety culture. This proposal 

includes a requirement for recurrent 

training every other year. It also would 

require the update of publications for 

the hazard awareness orientation 

requirement on the same schedule. 

This proposal also includes crossreferences between the new proposed 

training requirement in § 139.402(d) and 

existing training references in 

§ 139.303(e). It ensures consistent 

formatting with existing requirements in 

part 139. 

J. AIP Eligibility 

Sixteen certificate holders, two 

associations, and one consultant 

expressed concern that the proposal was 

not clear on how certificate holders 

should fund SMS development and 

implementation and whether federal 

financial assistance through the Airport 

Improvement Program (AIP) would be 

available for SMS-related items. If AIP 

funding is made available, commenters 

sought clarification on eligibility in 

general, and, specifically, regarding the 

purchase of software for hazard 

tracking, analysis, and reporting, as well 

as for SMS manual development. 

One certificate holder pointed out that 

if AIP funds are made available and 

Congress fails to provide additional 

funding to the program, airports would 

be forced to comply using the same 

funds that are used to make 

improvements to airport infrastructure. 

Four certificate holders requested the 

FAA delay a final rule until a dedicated 

funding source for initial and recurring 

costs related to SMS is found. 

The FAA acknowledges that the 

NPRM was silent about AIP funding for 

development and implementation of the 

SMS requirements. The question of AIP 

eligibility is not relevant to an 

estimation of the cost of the proposed 

rule. The question of who pays involves 

an economic transfer, not a societal cost. 

Compliance with part 139 is not 

dependent on AIP eligibility. However, 

the FAA understands the concerns 

expressed by the commenters. In August 

2013, the FAA issued Program Guidance 

Letter 13–06, Safety Management 

Systems (SMS), which addressed similar 

issues in more detail. This guidance was 

later canceled when its contents were 

moved to the updated FAA Order 

5100.38D, Airport Improvement 

Program (AIP) Handbook.15 The 

following provides a general overview 

of AIP funding of SMS efforts. However, 

as with any question involving AIP 

funding, the airport sponsor must work 

directly with the local FAA Airports 

District Office (or Regional Airports 

Division Office in regions that do not 

have District Offices) in connection with 

questions about eligibility, justification, 

and availability of funds for specific 

efforts. There are rules associated with 

the types of funds, projects, and airports 

that can receive AIP funding. With that 

said, the FAA has committed to making 

some SMS-related costs eligible for 

federal financial assistance under AIP. 

In general, the FAA has determined 

that reasonable costs incurred for 

development of an initial 

implementation plan and SMS manual 

are eligible for AIP planning grant 

funds. The portions of the SMS manual 

and implementation plan development 

that are within the control of the airport 

sponsor, through enforcement of the 

airport’s published Rules and 

Regulations, Minimum Standards, or 

other existing controls, can be funded 

with AIP. AIP funds can help establish 

safety protocols that affect users of the 

airport, but AIP funds cannot be used to 

help users of the airport manage their 

own operations. Revising an ACM to 

include SMS requirements in the ACM 

would not be eligible for AIP funds. 

SRM activities conducted under the 

certificate holder’s SMS are considered 

a part of the airport’s day-to-day 

activities. Because operational costs are 

not eligible under AIP, these ongoing 

activities and their incurred costs are 

not eligible. Recommendations from 

SRM activities, including mitigations to 

decrease risk, are not necessarily 

eligible because a recommendation may 

be wholly operational, or may involve 

work from ineligible entities (such as 

the FAA Air Traffic Organization or 

other FAA lines of business that have 

independent operational budgets). 

It is possible that a SRM 

recommendation may be an allowable 

cost of an AIP-eligible capital project or 

may be independently eligible as an AIP 

capital project. In these cases, the cost 

would be part of the eligibility priority 

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS4

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 135 / Thursday, July 14, 2016 / Proposed Rules 45887 

and justification requirements of the 

project type and airport size 

classification. For example, a certificate 

holder’s SRM process recommends 

relocating a taxiway to eliminate a 

runway crossing hazard. In that case, 

because taxiway projects are already 

eligible under AIP, the taxiway project 

recommended through SRM will follow 

the existing published eligibility 

requirements for taxiway projects. 

Federally-obligated airports are 

already required under AIP Grant 

Assurance 19, Operation and 

Maintenance, to operate at all times in 

a safe and serviceable condition and in 

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 

mitigating hazards. 

Therefore, although the FAA will 

continue to provide AIP funding for 

eligible capital improvements, it has 

always been (and remains) the 

certificate holder’s responsibility to 

mitigate risks regardless of whether 

federal funding is available. Eligible and 

justified improvements are generally 

physical improvements to the 

configuration of airfield geometry (e.g., 

physical layout of runways, taxiways, 

and appurtenant facilities), as well as 

associated signage, marking, and 

lighting. For AIP-eligible projects 

requiring hazard assessment led by the 

FAA, some of the associated costs for 

convening a panel may be included as 

allowable under an AIP grant. 

The FAA’s proposed requirements 

should not involve major expenditures 

in new systems, including hazard 

reporting systems. However, some 

airports that participated in the pilot 

studies used SMS software for 

development of the plan and SMS 

manual and/or for actual 

implementation of SMS. Therefore, the 

FAA will allow AIP funds to be used for 

the one-time (initial) acquisition of 

airport-owned software applications 

that are specifically designed to support 

airport SMS implementation. Other 

requirements and limitations may 

apply, which are outlined in the AIP 

Handbook. 

However, experience from the pilot 

studies has also shown that smaller, less 

complex airports should be readily able 

to manage the associated steps, 

processes, and data using existing offthe-shelf, end-user spreadsheet or 

database software. Regardless of the 

airport’s size and complexity, costs 

associated with staffing, training, or 

safety promotion are also not AIP 

eligible. 

As always, when an airport sponsor 

requests AIP funding, the FAA is 

required to review the existing 

conditions, the available alternatives, 

and the criteria by which the sponsor 

has concluded that a particular solution 

is the preferred course of action. That is 

why early coordination with the local 

FAA Airports District Office or Regional 

Airports Division Office is crucial. 

K. Interoperability 

The FAA is engaged in numerous 

efforts to require and incorporate SMS 

concepts into industry and its own 

operations. The practice and results of 

these efforts appear to be meeting in the 

airport environment. For example, 

besides this proposed rule, the FAA 

recently published a final rule for air 

carriers operating under part 121, which 

also requires hazard reporting and 

proactive hazard assessment. See 80 FR 

1306 (January, 8, 2015). Furthermore, 

the FAA’s own internal efforts to 

incorporate formalized hazard 

assessment into many of its operations 

and approvals will impact part 139 

certificate holders and part 121 air 

carriers. Recognizing the 

interoperability of these efforts would 

be important for the continued success 

of SMS, the FAA requested comment on 

the interaction between the proposed 

rule and potential future rulemakings. 

The majority of commenters raised 

issues regarding interoperability and 

how all of the various SMS efforts and 

requirements will work together, 

avoiding duplication and conflict. These 

issues can be grouped into three themes: 

1. Reporting of hazards, overlap of 

responsibility and duplication of efforts: 

Seven commenters, including five 

certificate holders, one association, and 

one air carrier, questioned which hazard 

reporting system should a person use to 

report an observed airport hazard when 

both an air carrier (or multiple carriers) 

and the certificate holder may have an 

interest. One commenter noted that air 

carriers also may be reluctant to share 

safety information with airports because 

of data protection issues. Additionally, 

reporting into two separate reporting 

systems and separate analyses would be 

a duplication of effort that is 

inconsistent with SMS philosophy. 

2. Hazard assessments for hazards 

shared by multiple regulated entities: 

Twenty commenters, including fifteen 

certificate holders, three associations, 

one air carrier, and one anonymous 

commenter, questioned which entity 

has responsibility for performing the 

hazard assessment on shared hazards 

and by which rules the assessment is 

performed. One commenter noted there 

may be divergent interests among the 

entities as to how to mitigate a 

particular hazard. For example, an 

airport may not want to bear a costly 

mitigation when another possible 

mitigation may be more acceptable to it. 

The airport and air carrier could 

perform individual assessments, but 

that result would duplicate efforts and 

be contrary to cooperation between the 

entities, both of which are inconsistent 

with SMS philosophy. Additionally, the 

airport and the air carrier may have 

different methodologies for assessing 

risk (such as different risk matrices). 

One commenter also raised the issue of 

which risk matrix would be used and 

how to resolve disputes over which 

matrix to use (e.g., different severity and 

likelihood categories and definitions). 

Another commenter further 

questioned how the FAA’s internal SMS 

efforts within the Air Traffic 

Organization, Office of Aviation Safety, 

and Office of Airports will interact with 

certificate holders. For example, one 

certificate holder believed that conflicts 

between the various efforts could be 

complex and unavoidable and stated 

that the FAA needs to address 

resolution including hierarchy and 

authority in the final rule. 

3. Differing definitions and standards: 

Two commenters, including one 

certificate holder and one anonymous 

commenter, expressed concern 

regarding differing definitions and 

standards throughout the various SMS 

efforts. One certificate holder believed 

the definitions should be consistent 

across the agency so that everyone 

speaks the same language. Examples of 

inconsistent definitions include the 

terms hazard, risk, risk control, and risk 

mitigation. One commenter raised 

concerns that because each entity has 

the flexibility to set its own severity and 

likelihood categories and definitions, it 

will be difficult to understand what 

these different definitions mean. 

With regard to reporting hazards and 

overlap of responsibility, the FAA has 

taken efforts to reduce conflict and 

duplication but acknowledges that some 

overlap may occur. Regardless of 

overlap, certificate holders would be 

expected to comply with the applicable 

SMS requirements. Certificate holders 

would address the hazards reported to 

them and also conduct SMS promotion 

activities to encourage reporting. 

For example, an airline ramp worker 

identifies a safety issue in his work area 

on the ramp. The worker reports this 

issue to both the airport and airline’s 

hazard reporting system. In this 

scenario, both the airport and the airline 

have a responsibility for reviewing the 

reported safety issue. However, their 

responsibility for analyzing and 

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS4

45888 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 135 / Thursday, July 14, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

possibly mitigating the issue depends 

on who holds overarching responsibility 

for the issue and/or its mitigation. If it 

is something that only the airport can 

take action to prevent or mitigate, the 

airline would forward that information 

to the airport for action. Similarly, if 

only the airline could take action, the 

airport would forward the report to the 

airline. 

While the FAA cannot regulate 

relationships between certificate holders 

and other entities, the FAA can include 

best practices and lessons learned to 

help foster an environment conducive to 

sharing hazard information across 

industry groups. Although there may be 

two separate regulations addressing 

SMS, the FAA encourages air carriers 

and airports to communicate with one 

another when hazards are identified 

through their respective SMS 

procedures and processes that may be 

addressed by the air carrier or airport. 

For example, if an air carrier’s employee 

identifies a hazard on the movement 

area of the airport, the air carrier 

employee would likely report the 

hazard through the air carrier’s SMS 

employee reporting system. Once 

reported, the FAA recommends that the 

air carrier notify the airport of the 

identified hazard so the airport is aware 

of the issue and may analyze the risk 

accordingly. In addition, the air carrier 

may also opt to analyze the risk of the 

hazard and determine if it warrants any 

sort of mitigation through the revision 

or further development of the air 

carrier’s procedures. This type of 

communication would serve to ensure 

that hazards, whether unique to the air 

carrier, or more systemic to the airport, 

are being addressed effectively by all 

parties. 

The FAA expects that information 

sharing will increase over time as 

entities become more familiar with SMS 

and its benefits. Furthermore, the FAA 

is continually evaluating the 

implementation of SMS and is prepared 

to address issues as they arise. 

With regard to differing definitions 

and standards, the FAA harmonized 

definitions in the rules where possible. 

However, some definitions are different 

based on the different operating 

environments. Some definitions may 

evolve over time based on lessons 

learned. 

This proposal harmonizes with the 

part 121 SMS rule definition for hazard 

and risk. These definitions would be 

added to § 139.5. 

The definition for risk mitigation in 

this SNPRM does not harmonize with 

the part 121 risk control terminology. 

ICAO Annex 14 and the FAA Office of 

Airports’ internal SMS policy use the 

term mitigate when discussing the fifth 

step of hazard assessment under SRM. 

The FAA has concluded the term 

mitigate is straightforward and aligns 

with other guidance certificate holders 

have received related to FAA SMS 

initiatives. To change terminology here 

runs the risk of confusion. 

Relative to the separate standards for 

air carriers, the FAA notes that both 

SMS rules are structured in accordance 

with the ICAO SMS framework. 

However, the FAA recognizes that there 

are inherent differences in the operation 

of an airport and of an air carrier. Based 

on a review of these differences, the 

FAA determined that the rulemakings 

should proceed as separate projects. 

A certificate holder may want to 

consult with its tenants, including air 

carriers, as it develops its 

implementation plan and SMS manual 

and/or ACM update. While not required 

to coordinate or incorporate each other’s 

processes, the airport could benefit from 

the experiences of other entities that 

have already implemented SMS or other 

risk-based approaches. 

The FAA continues to explore options 

to enhance interoperability within the 

airport environment. Technology 

solutions used by both the air carriers 

and airports could promote information 

sharing, enhanced communications, and 

provide cost savings. The FAA is open 

to suggestions from commenters on the 

use of existing systems to enhance 

interoperability. 

L. FAA Oversight 

The NPRM included a lengthy 

discussion on the FAA’s role and 

oversight of certificate holders under the 

proposed SMS requirements. Emphasis 

was placed on the point that SMS is not 

a substitute for compliance with 

existing regulations or FAA oversight 

activities. The FAA provided examples 

of possible inspector activities to verify 

compliance with the requirements. 

Fourteen commenters, including 

associations, certificate holders, and one 

consultant, commented on the FAA’s 

oversight activities related to the 

proposal. Comments focused on three 

main areas: compliance and 

enforcement, inspections, and training. 

Three associations and two certificate 

holders expressed concern about how 

the FAA would enforce compliance 

with the new SMS requirements and 

requested the FAA include measures or 

tools that a certificate holder or the FAA 

would use to ensure compliance with 

SMS requirements. While 

acknowledging that the FAA stated 

inspectors would not second guess 

certificate holder decisions, but would 

assess compliance with SMS-approved 

processes and procedures, one 

certificate holder requested the FAA 

include this language in the regulatory 

text. The other certificate holder 

expressed concern regarding the 

potential for ‘‘double jeopardy,’’ 

whereby a violation of an airport’s SMS 

procedures as detailed in the SMS 

manual or ACM could also result in a 

violation of existing part 139 

requirements. An association wanted 

the FAA to define which FAA office has 

responsibility for compliance and 

oversight and suggested it be a 

headquarters function to ensure 

consistent enforcement. A consultant 

argued that any enforcement action is 

inconsistent with the SMS philosophy 

of a non-punitive approach to safety. 

An SNPRM is not a place to establish 

compliance and enforcement policies 

and procedures, which must be able to 

be adapted as conditions dictate. 

Nevertheless, the FAA believes it would 

be helpful to discuss some general 

expectations about inspections in an 

SMS environment. 

The FAA does not plan to initially 

alter its inspection methodology if an 

SMS rule is adopted. Inspectors would 

continue to review and conduct annual, 

surveillance, and special inspections of 

part 139 certificate holders to determine 

whether the certificate holder is 

complying with applicable statutory and 

regulatory requirements. The FAA 

agrees that adding SMS-related items to 

an inspection would add time. 

However, the FAA believes that SMS is 

a vital means to enhance safety into the 

future and is prepared to absorb those 

resource costs. 

In general, seven commenters wanted 

more clarification on how an inspector’s 

review of SMS documentation or 

processes would fit into the existing 

part 139 annual inspection. Three 

certificate holders questioned how 

inspectors would inspect for SMSrelated items in an already budget- and 

time-restricted inspection environment 

and what items will be of interest 

during the inspection (like hazards and 

mitigations identified during SRM 

analyses) or whether the certificate 

holder is complying with its 

implementation plan. One association 

requested the FAA incorporate 

additional reviews to assist certificate 

holders instead of waiting until an 

airport’s annual inspection. 

Again, the FAA does not plan to 

immediately change its inspection or 

oversight process as a result of this 

revised proposal. Regional Airports 

Division Offices would maintain 

responsibility for conducting 

inspections and the Airport Safety and 

Operations Division at FAA 

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS4

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 135 / Thursday, July 14, 2016 / Proposed Rules 45889 

Headquarters would maintain national 

program oversight. An inspector would 

evaluate whether a certificate holder is 

implementing SMS in accordance with 

its approved implementation plan. 

The FAA currently inspects using 

traditional surveillance methods which 

focus on determining regulatory 

compliance using direct inspections of a 

certificate holder’s personnel, facilities, 

and responses. This type of surveillance 

provides a snapshot of compliance. 

As stated earlier, SMS considers 

safety from a systematic perspective 

(e.g., assessments and process-oriented 

inspections rather than standard 

technical checklist-driven inspections). 

The FAA envisions that airport 

inspections would change to a systembased approach to harmonize with the 

certificate holder’s systematic approach 

under SMS; this would allow an 

inspector to focus on areas of greater 

risk. 

Unlike traditional checklist-driven 

inspections, a systems-based approach 

would verify the certificate holder has 

processes in place to proactively 

identify hazards, mitigate risk, and 

address non-compliance issues. The 

FAA would evaluate whether the 

certificate holder has effective SMS 

policies, processes, and procedures to 

identify, analyze, and mitigate safety 

hazards and risks. Corrective actions for 

certificate holders in the future would 

not be limited to fixing discrepancies 

found but also fixing the processes that 

should have proactively identified the 

discrepancy before the FAA inspection. 

The evolution to a systems-based 

approach would not happen overnight. 

The FAA envisions a gradual transition, 

but one that would not completely 

replace traditional oversight. The 

inspector would continue to verify 

compliance with existing part 139 

technical standards, and these items 

would continue to be included on the 

inspection checklist. Under SMS, the 

inspector would also be responsible for 

inspecting the certificate holder’s SMS 

policies, processes, and procedures. 

Typically, the inspector would start 

by reviewing the certificate holder’s 

Safety Assurance program since this 

component includes processes to verify 

the effectiveness of the certificate 

holder’s SMS. Using the required 

elements of a certificate holder’s Safety 

Assurance program, the inspector would 

review documents related to the 

certificate holder’s safety performance 

to verify it is meeting its safety 

objectives and complying with its SMS 

manual and/or ACM. Similarly, the 

inspector could review submissions to 

the airport’s hazard reporting system 

and verify that the certificate holder has 

analyzed the safety risk of hazards 

reported consistent with the issue 

reported. This level of assessment of the 

certificate holder’s hazard reporting 

system and processes could be simply a 

spot-check. 

The purpose of this review would not 

be to second guess the certificate 

holder’s actions, but rather to ensure the 

certificate holder is following its own 

processes as documented in the SMS 

manual and/or ACM. The FAA could 

also review any trend analysis 

conducted by the certificate holder in an 

effort to determine whether the 

certificate holder is actively detecting 

root causes of safety issues. The 

inspector’s review of this 

documentation is meant not only to find 

potential violations of standards but 

also to determine whether the certificate 

holder is taking appropriate action to 

evaluate the root cause of that noncompliance. 

The inspector would also sample the 

certificate holder’s SRM documentation. 

While not conducting this review to 

second-guess the certificate holder’s 

actions, the inspector would evaluate 

whether the certificate holder is 

following the processes and procedures 

identified in its SMS manual and/or 

ACM and whether the certificate holder 

has implemented the mitigations 

identified. If during the review, the 

inspector found that the certificate 

holder had used its SRM processes to 

circumvent existing requirements under 

part 139, the FAA could look more 

extensively into the certificate holder’s 

analysis because part 139 applies 

regardless of SRM processes. Avoiding 

part 139 requirements is not the purpose 

of the SRM program. 

The inspector would sample training 

and communication documentation as 

required by the certificate holder’s 

Safety Promotion program. The 

inspector would determine if the 

certificate holder is complying with its 

SMS manual and/or ACM with regards 

to its Safety Promotion program. 

To verify compliance with the 

certificate holder’s Safety Policy 

program, the inspector would verify that 

the certificate holder has a process in 

place to verify that the SMS manual 

and/or ACM is maintained and that 

information is kept up to date. If 

necessary, the inspector could validate 

information in these manuals to verify 

compliance. 

If an inspector found discrepancies, 

the inspector could determine the need 

to conduct a more in-depth assessment 

of the certificate holder’s processes and 

procedures for compliance. If the 

inspection uncovered a noncompliant 

condition that the certificate holder had 

previously identified and is in the 

process of analyzing that condition, the 

FAA could have ongoing involvement 

in the analysis to ensure the noncompliant condition is corrected and 

mitigations are put in place to prevent 

a reoccurrence. 

Prior to inspection, the inspector 

could review the airport’s inspection 

history to develop a risk profile specific 

to the airport. Using templates in FAA 

Order 5280.5, the inspector would 

develop an inspection checklist unique 

to the airport for that year’s inspection. 

The checklist would be based on 

existing part 139 technical 

requirements, past compliance history, 

national programmatic priorities, and 

any additional factors the inspector 

believes necessary. In each case, the 

inspector would tailor parts of the 

evaluation and checklist to the 

certificate holder’s unique SMS 

processes and operations. Moreover, the 

inspector could continue to review the 

ACM, SMS manual, or other records to 

verify compliance, as is done today. The 

FAA does not believe clarification of 

inspection items or processes is 

appropriate for rule text. 

In addition to developing templates 

for the inspection checklist, the FAA 

would also amend FAA Order 5280.5, 

Airport Certification Program 

Handbook, to provide guidance to 

inspectors on documenting their 

inspection findings. Inspectors would 

craft a detailed narrative of their 

inspection findings rather than short 

responses as are typical in traditional 

inspections. Inspectors would describe 

in detail what they did and what they 

found that constitutes non-compliance 

rather than listing the discrepancies and 

conditions. Detailed narratives would 

afford the FAA more specific data, 

information, and examples to use for 

programmatic and system-wide reviews 

and analyses. 

The FAA expects a certificate holder’s 

SMS to be implemented when it would 

submit its SMS manual and/or ACM 

update. During the inspection, the 

inspector would verify that the 

certificate holder is following its 

approved implementation plan, updated 

FAA-approved ACM, and SMS manual 

(where applicable). 

While not including SMS review in 

the annual inspection until a certificate 

holder’s compliance date, inspectors 

could still offer guidance and assistance 

to the certificate holder. In the past, 

regions have offered workshops to assist 

certificate holders with understanding, 

implementing, and reviewing new 

requirements or standards. The FAA 

would highly encourage certificate 

holders to discuss implementation with 

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS4

45890 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 135 / Thursday, July 14, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

their inspector and submit drafts of their 

implementation plan for review before 

the final deadline for submission. 

One association and five certificate 

holders commented on the FAA’s 

timeline for training its inspectors on 

the implementation and oversight of the 

rule and how FAA plans to 

continuously train inspectors after 

implementation. One certificate holder 

requested the FAA ensure consistency 

in developing, writing, reviewing, and 

approving airport SMS documents 

through training programs. One 

association asked for the opportunity to 

be briefed and comment on the 

inspector training program. 

Guidance and training would be 

provided to all regional inspectors on 

how to determine if a certificate holder’s 

processes and documentation meets the 

regulatory requirement for SMS. 

Furthermore, inspectors could always 

request additional information or policy 

guidance from the Airport Safety and 

Operations Division. If this proposed 

rule becomes effective, the FAA intends 

to include SMS in recurrent inspector 

training and would look for ways to be 

transparent and include industry input 

regarding training. 

M. Safety Risk Management (SRM) 

The NPRM included a requirement for 

certificate holders to establish a 

systematic process for analyzing hazards 

and their risks using a standard five-step 

process and standard documentation 

and record retention requirements. The 

NPRM clarified the use of the five-step 

process and provided examples for 

means of compliance. While the NPRM 

did not propose to require use of a 

predictive risk matrix for hazard 

assessment, it suggested its use through 

example. 

One commenter questioned whether a 

certificate holder could deviate from the 

FAA’s proposed five-step process. 

Ten commenters, including one 

association, seven certificate holders, 

one consultant, and one anonymous 

commenter, raised concerns regarding 

the predictive risk matrix. However, 

there was no consensus within these 

comments regarding the use of 

predictive risk matrices. Several 

certificate holders wanted the FAA to 

require a standard predictive risk 

matrix, while others believed certificate 

holders should have the flexibility to 

establish their own. 

Several commenters, including an 

association and certificate holders, 

shared the concern that the 

establishment and use of a predictive 

risk matrix increases liability. The 

association wanted the FAA to 

explicitly state that predictive risk 

matrices are unique to each certificate 

holder and should be treated as 

confidential. 

The NPRM proposed minimum 

requirements for SRM, including 

establishing a systematic process to 

analyze hazards and their associated 

risks through a standard five-step 

process. Those five steps include (1) 

describing the system; (2) identifying 

hazards; (3) analyzing the risk of 

identified hazards and/or proposed 

mitigations; (4) assessing the level of 

risk associated with identified hazards; 

and, (5) mitigating the risks of identified 

hazards, when appropriate. As stated in 

the NPRM, these five steps represent the 

minimum requirements for this element 

of SRM. A certificate holder is not 

precluded from developing additional 

steps to facilitate its identification, 

analysis, and mitigation of hazards and 

risk. However, the certificate holder 

would need to incorporate at least these 

five steps at a minimum in its SRM 

processes. 

The NPRM did not include a 

requirement to use a predictive risk 

matrix as part of the SRM process. The 

preamble suggested a risk matrix as an 

effective method to analyze and 

prioritize risk based on the likelihood 

and severity of a hazard’s consequence. 

Although the FAA believes that the use 

of a predictive risk matrix meets the rule 

requirements, this proposed rule does 

not require its use. Each certificate 

holder would have flexibility and 

scalability to perform hazard 

assessments in a manner suitable to its 

unique operating environment. 

Furthermore, as stated in FAA’s 

Responses to Clarifying Questions, to 

properly analyze the risk of identified 

hazards, a certificate holder would need 

to define its levels of likelihood, 

severity, and risk with which it is 

comfortable. The FAA intends to 

include examples of risk matrices in 

guidance materials. 

The FAA acknowledges that not 

requiring the use of a specific risk 

matrix and standard severity and 

likelihood definitions may result in 

various risk matrices being utilized by 

certificate holders. The FAA believes 

this issue is outweighed by the benefits 

associated with maximizing flexibility 

and scalability to address these issues as 

each certificate holder chooses. 

Regarding documentation and record 

keeping, a consultant requested the FAA 

develop a standardized template to 

document hazard assessment findings. 

One certificate holder requested the 

FAA revise its SRM-related records 

retention policy. That certificate holder 

contended any final rule should include 

24 months instead of 36 months, 

claiming that the lesser is consistent 

with existing record retention 

requirements under part 139. 

Again, the FAA acknowledges that 

not requiring the use of a standardized 

template for documenting SRM 

processes may result in varying SRM 

documents. The FAA believes this issue 

is outweighed by the benefits associated 

with maximizing flexibility and 

scalability to address this issue as each 

certificate holder chooses. However, the 

FAA intends to include a sample 

template for SRM documentation in 

guidance materials. 

While the FAA recognizes that most 

existing part 139 record retention 

requirements are between 12 and 24 

months, the FAA believes a longer 

retention is necessary for trend analysis 

to gain lessons learned, and for 

continual improvement under the 

certificate holder’s SMS. The FAA 

proposed in the NPRM a requirement 

for the certificate holder to establish a 

system for identifying safety hazards. 

After further consideration, the FAA 

believes the term hazard is confusing 

and does not adequately address the 

genesis of the requirement. Each 

certificate holder and individual 

operating on the airport could have 

vastly different definitions of what 

constitutes a hazard, and such 

differences could limit what is 

identified. Under this proposed 

requirement, the FAA expects the 

certificate holder to have a system that 

proactively identifies issues that could 

lead to unsafe conditions within the 

movement and non-movement areas of 

the airport. Therefore, the FAA is 

proposing in § 139.402(b)(1) to require a 

certificate holder to establish a system 

for identifying operational safety issues. 

N. Acceptable Level of Safety 

The NPRM proposed that a certificate 

holder would establish and maintain 

safety objectives and an acceptable level 

of safety under the certificate holder’s 

Safety Policy. However, the preamble 

did little to elaborate on the proposed 

requirement other than how to establish 

safety objectives. 

Five commenters, including one 

association, three certificate holders, 

and one consultant, questioned the 

proposed requirement to establish an 

acceptable level of safety. One 

certificate holder wanted more 

clarification on how the FAA would 

ensure consistency throughout the 

industry (e.g., to peg one airport against 

another) and questioned whether the 

different levels of acceptable risk would 

expose certificate holders to additional 

liability. Two certificate holders and 

one association wanted clarification of 

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS4

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 135 / Thursday, July 14, 2016 / Proposed Rules 45891 

16See Section V(J), AIP Eligibility, for further 

discussion. 

(or a definition of) acceptable levels of 

safety or how they are established, and 

on liability associated with defining an 

acceptable level of safety. 

The FAA agrees with the commenters. 

The FAA no longer proposes to require 

establishment of an acceptable level of 

safety. The recently published ICAO 

Annex 19 instead requires member 

states to establish a State Safety Program 

for the management of safety in the 

state, in order to achieve an acceptable 

level of safety performance in civil 

aviation. Therefore, this requirement is 

applicable to the U.S. and the FAA, not 

to a certificate holder. 

O. Safety Assurance 

One certificate holder requested the 

FAA require a ‘‘Comprehensive 

Information System,’’ an integrated 

information technology infrastructure, 

claiming that it serves as the foundation 

to support all of the SMS components 

and that without it, the SMS would be 

ineffective. 

Neither the NPRM nor the SNPRM 

include a proposal requiring software. 

The FAA’s proposal recognizes that 

certificate holders are in the best 

position to determine how they would 

meet the basic components and 

elements proposed. A certificate holder 

is not precluded from developing 

information management systems to 

support its SMS. The FAA would allow 

AIP funds to be used for the one-time 

(initial) acquisition of airport-owned 

software applications that are 

specifically designed to support airport 

SMS implementation. Other 

requirements may apply, which are 

outlined in the AIP Handbook.16

While not directly addressed through 

comments, the FAA proposes amending 

§ 139.402(c)(1) to clarify safety 

performance monitoring. This change 

will also better link safety performance 

monitoring under Safety Assurance back 

to the safety objectives required under 

Safety Policy and § 139.402(a)(6). The 

FAA also proposes amending 

§ 139.402(c)(3) to include compliance 

with part 139, subpart D requirements, 

in the regular report of safety 

information to the accountable 

executive. 

P. Applicability to Other Airports and 

Out of Scope Issues 

The proposal limited its applicability 

to holders of a part 139 AOC only. It 

appears, based on comments received, 

that some airport operators, owners, and 

associations confused the proposal with 

other SMS initiatives underway within 

the FAA and the FAA’s Office of 

Airports. In addition, the FAA received 

comments on how it is currently 

applying SMS concepts to its own 

operations and approvals. 

This proposed rule would not apply 

to airports that are not certificated under 

part 139. Further, comments received 

specific to the FAA’s internal SMS 

efforts, including its publication of FAA 

Order 5200.11, are out of scope and 

have been forwarded for consideration 

under those efforts. As stated earlier, 

certificated airports may be affected by 

both this proposed rule and the FAA’s 

internal SMS efforts, including 

proactive hazard assessment on 

approval actions before the agency. The 

FAA is developing these efforts to avoid 

duplication and enhance 

communication. 

V. Regulatory Notices and Analyses 

A. Regulatory Evaluation 

Changes to Federal regulations must 

undergo several economic analyses. 

First, Executive Order 12866 and 

Executive Order 13563 direct that each 

Federal agency shall propose or adopt a 

regulation only upon a reasoned 

determination that the benefits of the 

intended regulation justify its costs. 

Second, the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

of 1980 (Pub. L. 96–354) requires 

agencies to analyze the economic 

impact of regulatory changes on small 

entities. Third, the Trade Agreements 

Act (Pub. L. 96–39) prohibits agencies 

from setting standards that create 

unnecessary obstacles to the foreign 

commerce of the United States. In 

developing U.S. standards, this Trade 

Act requires agencies to consider 

international standards and, where 

appropriate, that they be the basis of 

U.S. standards. Fourth, the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 

104–4) requires agencies to prepare a 

written assessment of the costs, benefits, 

and other effects of proposed or final 

rules that include a Federal mandate 

likely to result in the expenditure by 

State, local, or tribal governments, in the 

aggregate, or by the private sector, of 

$100 million or more annually (adjusted 

for inflation with base year of 1995; 

current value is $155 million). This 

portion of the preamble summarizes the 

FAA’s analysis of the economic impacts 

of this proposed rule. We suggest 

readers seeking greater detail read the 

full regulatory evaluation, a copy of 

which we have placed in the docket for 

this rulemaking. 

In conducting these analyses, the FAA 

has determined that this proposed rule: 

(1) Has benefits that justify its costs, (2) 

is not an economically ‘‘significant 

regulatory action’’ as defined in section 

3(f) of Executive Order 12866, (3) is 

‘‘significant’’ as defined in DOT’s 

Regulatory Policies and Procedures; (4) 

would have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities; (5) would not create 

unnecessary obstacles to the foreign 

commerce of the United States; and (6) 

would not impose an unfunded 

mandate on state, local, or tribal 

governments, or on the private sector by 

exceeding the threshold identified 

above. These analyses are summarized 

below. 

i. Total Benefits and Costs of This Rule 

The FAA considered multiple 

alternatives for which part 139 

certificate holders would be required to 

implement an airport SMS. The FAA 

analyzed the following alternatives: 

• All part 139 airports; 

• Airport operators holding a Class I 

AOC; 

• Certificated international airports; 

• Large, Medium, and Small hub 

airports and certificated airports with 

more than 100,000 total annual 

operations; and 

• Large, Medium, and Small hub 

airports, certificated airports with more 

than 100,000 total annual operations, 

and certificated international airports. 

Although an airport may belong in 

more than one grouping, the analysis 

did not double count the benefits and 

costs for any airport. The goal of 

analyzing these alternatives is to 

maximize safety benefits in the least 

burdensome manner. While the FAA is 

proposing a preferred alternative, each 

alternative presents various trade-offs of 

interest to the public. 

The following table shows benefits 

and costs of the alternatives over 10 

years. 

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS4

45892 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 135 / Thursday, July 14, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

17Office of the Secretary of Transportation 

Memorandum, ‘‘Treatment of the Value of 

Preventing Fatalities and Injuries in Preparing 

Economic Analyses—Revised Departmental 

Guidance 2015,’’ May 2015. 

18 Id. 19 Id. 

COMPARISON OF COSTS AND BENEFITS OVER 10 YEARS

[2014 Dollars] 

Base case All 

($) 

Class I 

($) 

International 

($) 

L, M, S and 

>100K ops 

($) 

Preferred 

alternative: L, 

M, S, >100K 

ops, and 

international 

($) 

Benefits ................................................................................ $382,987,281 $368,096,671 $360,907,166 $356,128,301 $370,788,457 

Costs .................................................................................... 471,104,787 341,021,606 215,010,997 163,760,850 238,865,692 

Net Benefits .................................................................. ¥88,117,506 27,075,065 145,896,169 192,367,451 131,922,764 

PV Benefits (7%) ................................................................. 233,282,770 224,210,033 219,830,291 216,919,352 225,850,869 

PV Costs (7%) ..................................................................... 307,842,595 223,584,687 141,796,001 108,819,973 157,496,312 

PV Net Benefits (7%) ........................................................... ¥74,559,825 625,346 78,034,290 108,099,379 68,354,557 

PV Benefits (3%) ................................................................. 307,499,272 295,542,114 289,769,378 285,932,407 297,704,052 

PV Costs (3%) ..................................................................... 389,440,320 282,304,199 178,432,284 136,340,226 198,211,977 

PV Net Benefits (3%) ................................................... ¥74,559,825 625,346 78,034,290 108,099,379 68,354,557 

Mitigation Costs: Not quantified, estimates not included. 

Given the range of mitigation actions possible, it is difficult to quantify potential benefits. 

The estimated costs of this rule do not 

include the costs of mitigations that 

operators could incur as a result of 

conducting the risk analysis proposed in 

this rule. Given the range of mitigation 

actions possible, it is difficult to provide 

a quantitative estimate of both the costs 

and benefits of such mitigations. We 

anticipate that operators will only 

implement mitigations where benefits of 

doing so exceed the costs of the 

mitigations. In order for the estimated 

benefits to exceed the costs of the rule, 

the mitigation costs must be below 

$68.4 million over 10 years (discounted 

at 7%). The FAA requests comments on 

this assumption, as well as data 

regarding costs and benefits associated 

with any mitigations implemented 

through a voluntary SMS program. 

ii. Who is Potentially Affected by This 

Rule? 

Part 139 certificated airports 

iii. Assumptions 

• Discount rates—7% and 3% as 

required by the Office of Management 

and Budget. 

• Period of analysis—2016 through 

2025. 

• The rule would take effect in 2016. 

• The baseline value of a statistical 

life (VSL) for 2014 is $9.4 million.17

• VSL in future years were estimated 

to grow by 1.03 percent per year before 

discounting to present value. 

• The value of a serious injury is 

$987,000.18

• The value of a minor injury is 

$28,200.19

iv. Benefits for the Preferred Alternative 

The benefit estimates begin two years 

after implementation begins. The 

objective of SMS is to proactively 

manage safety, to identify potential 

hazards or risks, and to implement 

measures that mitigate those risks. The 

FAA envisions airports being able to use 

all of the components of SMS to 

enhance the airport’s ability to identify 

safety issues and spot trends before they 

result in a near-miss, incident, or 

accident. Airports have already seen 

immediate benefits from increased 

communication and reporting that are 

all fundamental components of SMS. 

These efforts are expected to prevent 

accidents and incidents. These benefits 

are a result of identifying safety issues, 

spotting trends, implementing necessary 

safety mitigations, and communicating 

findings before they result in a nearmiss, incident, or accident. Over the 10- 

year period of analysis, the potential 

benefits of the proposed rule for the 

preferred alternative would be $370.8 

million ($225.9 million or $297.7 

million in present value terms at 7% 

and 3%). 

v. Costs for the Preferred Alternative 

Base case 

Preferred 

alternative: L, 

M, S, >100K 

ops, and 

international 

Benefits ................................. $370,788,457 

Costs ..................................... 238,865,692 

Net Benefits ...................... 131,922,764 

Base case 

Preferred 

alternative: L, 

M, S, >100K 

ops, and 

international 

PV Benefits (7%) .................. 225,850,869 

PV Costs (7%) ...................... 157,496,312 

PV Net Benefits (7%) ........... 68,354,557 

PV Benefits (3%) .................. 297,704,052 

PV Costs (3%) ...................... 198,211,977 

PV Net Benefits (3%) .... 68,354,557 

Mitigation Costs: Not quantified, estimates 

not included. 

vi. Total Costs 

Excluding any mitigation costs, which 

have not been estimated, the total costs 

of the SNPRM equal the sum of SMS 

manual/implementation plan 

development, staffing, equipment/

material, training, update training 

records, and recording potential hazards 

over 10 years. The total cost of this rule 

for the preferred alternative is about 

$157.5 million in present value terms. 

vii. Alternatives Considered 

• All part 139 certificated airports— 

This alternative is not cost-beneficial. 

• Class I airports—This alternative is 

not cost-beneficial. 

• Certificated international airports— 

This alternative is cost-beneficial but 

does not capture all certificated airports 

with complex operations. 

• Large, Medium, Small hub airports 

and certificated airports with total 

annual operations greater than 

100,000—This alternative is costbeneficial but does not harmonize with 

ICAO Annex 14. 

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS4

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 135 / Thursday, July 14, 2016 / Proposed Rules 45893 

20Annualized using a capital recovery factor of 

0.14238, over 10 years, using a 7 percent rate of 

interest. 21Revenue data from Compliance Activity 

Tracking System (CATS) accessed on June 10, 2013 

from http://cats.airports.faa.gov. 

COMPARISON OF COSTS AND BENEFITS OVER 10 YEARS

[2014 Dollars] 

Base case All 

($) 

Class I 

($) 

International 

($) 

L, M, S and 

>100K ops 

($) 

Preferred 

alternative: L, 

M, S, >100K 

ops, and 

international 

($) 

Benefits ................................................................................ $382,987,281 $368,096,671 $360,907,166 $356,128,301 $370,788,457 

Costs .................................................................................... 471,104,787 341,021,606 215,010,997 163,760,850 238,865,692 

Net Benefits .................................................................. ¥88,117,506 27,075,065 145,896,169 192,367,451 131,922,764 

PV Benefits (7%) ................................................................. 233,282,770 224,210,033 219,830,291 216,919,352 225,850,869 

PV Costs (7%) ..................................................................... 307,842,595 223,584,687 141,796,001 108,819,973 157,496,312 

PV Net Benefits (7%) ........................................................... ¥74,559,825 625,346 78,034,290 108,099,379 68,354,557 

PV Benefits (3%) ................................................................. 307,499,272 295,542,114 289,769,378 285,932,407 297,704,052 

PV Costs (3%) ..................................................................... 389,440,320 282,304,199 178,432,284 136,340,226 198,211,977 

PV Net Benefits (3%) ................................................... ¥74,559,825 625,346 78,034,290 108,099,379 68,354,557 

Mitigation Costs: Not quantified, estimates not included. 

Given the range of mitigation actions possible, it is difficult to quantify potential benefits. 

B. Regulatory Flexibility Determination 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 

(RFA) establishes ‘‘as a principle of 

regulatory issuance that agencies shall 

endeavor, consistent with the objective 

of the rule and of applicable statutes, to 

fit regulatory and informational 

requirements to the scale of the 

business, organizations, and 

governmental jurisdictions subject to 

regulation.’’ To achieve that principle, 

the RFA requires agencies to solicit and 

consider flexible regulatory proposals 

and to explain the rationale for their 

actions. The RFA covers a wide range of 

small entities, including small 

businesses, not-for-profit organizations, 

and small governmental jurisdictions. 

Agencies must perform a review to 

determine whether a proposed or final 

rule will have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. If the agency determines that it 

will, the agency must prepare a 

regulatory flexibility analysis as 

described in the Act. 

The FAA identified at least 28 part 

139 airports that meet the Small 

Business Administration definition of a 

small entity (which includes small 

governmental jurisdictions such as 

governments of cities, counties, towns, 

townships, villages, school districts, or 

special districts with populations of less 

than 50,000) out of the 268 part 139 

airports considered in the preferred 

alternative. The FAA considers this a 

substantial number of small entities. 

Of the 28 small entities, 25 are 

classified as small airports whereas the 

remaining 3 are large airports. In the 

regulatory evaluation, we estimated the 

costs over 10 years for all part 139 

airports (we did not disaggregate costs 

by small airports and large airports). For 

this analysis, the FAA estimated the 

separate costs over 10 years for small 

airports and for large airports by taking 

an average across each of the two 

groups. Based on these 10-year cost 

estimates, the FAA projects the annual 

peak cost for small airports and for large 

airports at about $101 thousand; the 

FAA estimates the annualized costs over 

ten years at about $77 thousand and $81 

thousand for small airports and large 

airports, respectively.20 Because the 

relationship between the annual peak 

cost and the annualized cost for both 

airport groups suggests a moderately 

uniform cash flow stream, the FAA used 

the annualized cost to estimate the 

economic impact significance on small 

entities. 

The FAA found the individual 

revenue for 22 airports out of the 28 

small entities. The 2011 revenue ranges 

from about $97 thousand to $14.9 

million.21 Using the preceding 

information, the FAA estimates that 

their ratio of annualized costs to annual 

revenues is higher than 2 percent for 12 

small airports. Therefore, the FAA 

performed a regulatory flexibility 

analysis for these 12 small entities. 

Under section 603(b) of the RFA (as 

amended), each regulatory flexibility 

analysis is required to address the 

following points: (1) Reasons the agency 

considered the proposed rule, (2) the 

objectives and legal basis for the 

proposed rule, (3) a description of and 

an estimate of the number of small 

entities affected by the proposed rule (4) 

the reporting, recordkeeping, and other 

compliance requirements of the 

proposed rule, and (5) all Federal rules 

that may duplicate, overlap, or conflict 

with the proposed rule. 

i. Reasons the FAA Considered the 

Proposed Rule 

The FAA remains committed to 

continuously improving safety in air 

transportation. The FAA believes that 

an SMS can address potential safety 

gaps that are not completely eliminated 

through existing FAA regulations and 

technical operating standards. The 

certificate holder best understands its 

own operating environment and, 

therefore, is in the best position to 

address safety issues through improved 

management practices. 

Both the NTSB and ICAO support 

SMS as a means to prevent future 

accidents and improve safety. The 

NTSB has cited organizational factors 

contributing to aviation accidents and 

has recommended SMS for several 

sectors of the aviation industry, 

including aircraft operators. The FAA 

has concluded those same 

organizational factors and benefits of 

SMS apply across the aviation industry, 

including airports. In 2001, ICAO 

adopted a standard in Annex 14 that all 

member states establish SMS 

requirements for airport operators 

hosting international operations. During 

the 2007 Universal Safety Audit 

Program evaluation of the U.S. 

implementation of ICAO standards and 

recommended practices, ICAO cited the 

FAA for failing to conform to the SMS 

standard and recommended practice in 

Annex 14. The FAA supports 

conformity of U.S. aviation safety 

regulations with ICAO standards and 

recommended practices. 

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS4

45894 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 135 / Thursday, July 14, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

22Accessed on June 10, 2013 at http://

cat.airports.faa.gov. 

Moreover, in November 2007, the U.S. 

Government Accountability Office 

recommended the FAA develop a 

strategic plan to reduce accidents 

involving workers, passengers, and 

aircraft on airport ramps. The 

applicability of SMS to the nonmovement area, including airport 

ramps, would help airports proactively 

identify and mitigate hazards; thereby, 

reducing the likelihood of future 

accidents and incidents. 

ii. The Objectives and Legal Basis for 

the Proposed Rule 

The FAA’s authority to issue rules 

regarding aviation safety is found in 

Title 49 of the United States Code. 

Subtitle I, section 106 describes the 

authority of the FAA Administrator. 

Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, 

describes in more detail the scope of the 

agency’s authority. 

The FAA is proposing this rulemaking 

under the authority described in 

Subtitle VII, part A, subpart III, section 

44706, ‘‘Airport operating certificates.’’ 

Under that section, Congress charges the 

FAA with issuing AOCs that contain 

terms that the Administrator finds 

necessary to ensure safety in air 

transportation. This proposed rule is 

within the scope of that authority 

because it requires certain certificated 

airports to develop and maintain an 

SMS. The development and 

implementation of an SMS ensures 

safety in air transportation by assisting 

these airports in proactively identifying 

and mitigating safety hazards. 

iii. Description of the Number of Small 

Entities Affected by the Proposed Rule 

The FAA identified at least 28 part 

139 airports that meet the SBA 

definition of a small entity. Their 2011 

revenue 22 ranges from about $97 

thousand to $14.9 million. Using the 

preceding information, the FAA 

estimates that their ratio of annualized 

costs to annual revenues is higher than 

2 percent for 12 small airports. 

iv. The Reporting, Recordkeeping, and 

Other Compliance Requirements of the 

Proposed Rule 

As required by the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 

3507(d)), the FAA will submit a copy of 

these sections to the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) for its 

review. The following costs apply to the 

Paperwork Reduction Act. 

v. All Federal Rules That may 

Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With the 

Proposed Rule 

There may be some overlap between 

the proposed rule and existing 

Occupational Safety and Health 

Administration (OSHA) requirements, 

specifically record keeping and 

reporting requirements. However, the 

purpose and focus of this proposal is 

different. OSHA requirements focus on 

employee and workplace safety whereas 

proactive hazard mitigation and analysis 

under SMS focuses on safety in the 

movement and non-movement areas 

related to aircraft operations. Further, 

the FAA believes this proposed rule 

may have secondary benefits of 

improving employee safety. 

vi. Other Considerations 

a. Affordability Analysis 

For the purpose of this analysis, the 

degree to which small entities can afford 

the cost of the rule is predicated on the 

availability of financial resources. Costs 

can be paid from existing assets such as 

cash, by borrowing, or through the 

provision of additional equity capital. 

Commercial service airports that have 

accepted federal financial assistance 

under the AIP are required to report 

their financial information to the FAA. 

The FAA defines commercial service as 

airports with 2,500 or more 

enplanements in the preceding calendar 

year (see 49 U.S.C. 47102). Therefore, if 

a part 139 airport’s enplanements fall 

below 2,500, its financial data would 

not be captured in the FAA’s 


mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS4EP14JY16.014</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 135 / Thursday, July 14, 2016 / Proposed Rules 45895 

Compliance Activity Tracking System 

(CATS) database. 

One means of assessing affordability 

is by determining the ability of each 

small entity to meet its short-term 

obligations by looking at net income, 

working capital, and financial strength 

ratios. However, the FAA was unable to 

find this type of financial information 

for the affected entities and used an 

alternative way of analyzing 

affordability. The approach used by the 

FAA was to compare annual revenue 

(reported in the CATS database) with 

the annualized compliance costs. The 

ratio of annualized costs to annual 

revenues ranges from 0.54% to 79.6%. 

Thus, the FAA expects that some of 

these small entities may have difficulty 

affording this rule. 

The costs used by the FAA are 

averages. Therefore, it is reasonable to 

expect that an airport could have less 

annualized costs than those depicted in 

this analysis. The proposed rule 

establishes broad requirements, 

affording maximum scalability and 

flexibility for airports to comply. 

Therefore, smaller airports have a 

variety of ways to comply with the 

broad requirements proposed under 

SMS. For example, to establish a 

confidential hazard reporting system, a 

smaller airport could simply establish 

drop-boxes around the airport and a 

schedule to check the boxes for 

submissions. Feedback could be given 

through memos posted in high traffic 

areas around the airport or near the 

drop-boxes. 

The FAA intends to provide various 

templates in advisory circular guidance 

that smaller airports could use to 

establish their programs. The FAA 

anticipates offering a sample ACM 

update, SMS Manual, and templates for 

conducting SRM and reporting forms. A 

smaller airport would be able to easily 

modify these templates as necessary. 

Smaller airports could also request 

federal financial assistance through AIP 

for costs incurred for development of 

the SMS Manual and implementation 

plan. The FAA also anticipates that 

certain costs associated with 

implementation of the SRM and Safety 

Assurance components may be AIP 

eligible. 

It should be noted that multiple 

smaller airports in the pilot studies 

found ways to successfully develop and 

implement SMS within the constraints 

of their operations and budget. While 

these airports received AIP funding to 

conduct the studies, many established 

scalable programs that they are able to 

maintain without federal financial 

assistance. 

Lastly, the proposed implementation 

plan requirements would allow small 

airports maximum flexibility in 

establishing their airport SMS. The 

certificate holder can phase 

implementation, either by SMS 

component or by movement versus nonmovement area. Smaller airports would 

be able to spread the implementation 

costs over a longer period of time, 

thereby lessening the impact of this 

proposal. 

b. Alternatives 

The FAA considered the economic 

impacts on airports across multiple 

alternatives for which part 139 

certificate holders would be required to 

implement an airport SMS: 

• All Part 139 airports; 

• Airport operators holding a Class I 

AOC; 

• Certificated international airports; 

• Large, medium, and small hub 

airports and certificated airports with 

more than 100,000 total annual 

operations; and 

• Large, Medium, and Small hub 

airports, certificated airports with more 

than 100,000 total annual operations, 

and certificated international airports. 

While the FAA is proposing the last 

alternative as its preferred alternative, 

each alternative presents various tradeoffs of interest to the small entities (see 

the following table). 

As the table shows alternative 4 is the 

least burdensome for small entities. 

However, the FAA did not consider this 

to be an acceptable alternative because 

in addition to reducing the impact of the 

rule on small entities there were other 

competing goals including: 

1. Choosing an alternative that 

provides high airport coverage; and 

2. Harmonizing the alternative with 

the intent of international SMS 

standards. Alternative 5 in the table was 

the best alternative for meeting all such 

goals. 

vii. Conclusion 

This rule will have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. The FAA 

identified 12 small entities for which 

the rule will have a significant 

economic impact. 


mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS4EP14JY16.015</GPH>
45896 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 135 / Thursday, July 14, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

C. International Trade Impact 

Assessment 

The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 

(Pub. L. 96–39), as amended by the 

Uruguay Round Agreements Act (Pub. 

L. 103–465), prohibits Federal agencies 

from establishing standards or engaging 

in related activities that create 

unnecessary obstacles to the foreign 

commerce of the United States. 

Pursuant to these Acts, the 

establishment of standards is not 

considered an unnecessary obstacle to 

the foreign commerce of the United 

States, so long as the standard has a 

legitimate domestic objective, such the 

protection of safety, and does not 

operate in a manner that excludes 

imports that meet this objective. The 

statute also requires consideration of 

international standards and, where 

appropriate, that they be the basis for 

U.S. standards. The FAA has assessed 

the potential effect of this proposed rule 

and determined that it has legitimate 

domestic objectives and uses ICAO 

international standards as its basis and, 

therefore, is in compliance with the 

Trade Agreements Act. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Assessment 

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4) 

requires each Federal agency to prepare 

a written statement assessing the effects 

of any Federal mandate in a proposed or 

final agency rule that may result in an 

expenditure of $100 million or more (in 

1995 dollars) in any one year by State, 

local, and tribal governments, in the 

aggregate, or by the private sector; such 

a mandate is deemed to be a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action.’’ The FAA currently 

uses an inflation-adjusted value of $155 

million in lieu of $100 million. 

This SNPRM would require certificate 

holders to implement an SMS to 

proactively identify, analyze, and 

mitigate safety issues in the movement 

and non-movement areas. It is not a 

significant regulatory action under the 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 

1995. Estimated costs do not exceed 

$155 million in any year of the 10-year 

analysis. Accordingly, the FAA has 

determined that this action does not 

have a substantial direct effect on the 

States. Moreover, this proposal would 

have low costs of compliance compared 

with the resources available to airports. 

The provisions of this proposal are 

under existing statutory authority to 

regulate airports for aviation safety. The 

proposal would not alter the 

relationship between certificate holders 

and the FAA as established by law. 

Accordingly, there is no change in 

either the relationship between the 

Federal Government and the States, or 

on the distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government. 

The FAA mailed a copy of the NPRM 

to each State government specifically 

inviting comment on federalism issues. 

The FAA received responses from two 

attorneys general, both indicating no 

comment. The FAA will mail a copy of 

the SNPRM to each state government 

specifically inviting comment on 

federalism implications. 

E. Paperwork Reduction Act 

The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

(44 U.S.C. 3507(d)) requires that the 

FAA consider the impact of paperwork 

and other information collection 

burdens imposed on the public. 

According to the 1995 amendments to 

the Paperwork Reduction Act (5 CFR 

1320.8(b)(2)(vi)), an agency may not 

collect or sponsor the collection of 

information, nor may it impose an 

information collection requirement 

unless it displays a currently valid 

Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) control number. 

This action contains additional 

proposed amendments to the existing 

information collection requirements 

previously approved under OMB 

Control Number 2120–0675. As required 

by the Paperwork Reduction Act, the 

FAA has submitted these additional 

proposed information collection 

amendments to OMB for its review. 

The NPRM contained estimates of the 

burden associated with the additional 

collection requirements proposed in 

that document. The FAA did not receive 

any comments specifically on these 

estimates. However, the FAA received 

comments on other areas in the initial 

regulatory evaluation that affect these 

estimates. These comments are 

discussed in the supplemental 

regulatory evaluation. In addition, these 


mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS4EP14JY16.016</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 135 / Thursday, July 14, 2016 / Proposed Rules 45897 

23For the purposes of this analysis, the FAA has 

defined ‘‘large airports’’ as Large, Medium, and 

Small hub airports. 

24For the purposes of this analysis, the FAA has 

defined ‘‘small airports’’ as all certificated airports 

that are not Large, Medium, or Small hubs. 

estimates have been adjusted in 

response to comments and due to 

changes in the proposed SMS 

requirements from the NPRM to this 

SNPRM (e.g., applicability of the rule). 

Title: Safety Management System for 

Certificated Airports. 

Summary: The FAA proposes a rule to 

require certain certificate holders to 

establish an SMS for the entire airfield 

environment (including movement and 

non-movement areas) to improve safety 

at airports hosting air carrier operations. 

An SMS is a formalized approach to 

managing safety by developing an 

organization-wide safety policy, 

developing formal methods for 

identifying hazards, analyzing and 

mitigating risk, developing methods for 

ensuring continuous safety 

improvement, and creating 

organization-wide safety promotion 

strategies. 

The proposal would require a 

certificate holder to submit an 

Implementation Plan within 12 months 

of the issuance of the final rule. The 

intent of the Implementation Plan is for 

a certificate holder to identify its plan 

for implementing SMS within the 

applicable areas, and map its schedule 

for implementing requirements. 

In addition, a certificate holder would 

describe its means for complying with 

the proposed requirements by either 

developing an SMS Manual and 

updating its Airport Certification 

Manual (ACM) with cross-references, or 

documenting the SMS requirements 

directly in the ACM. 

Finally, a certificate holder would be 

required to maintain records related to 

formalized hazard identification and 

analysis under Safety Risk Management, 

training records under Safety 

Promotion, and other Safety Promotion 

materials (also referred to as safety 

communications). 

Use: While the implementation plan’s 

main purpose is to guide a certificate 

holder’s implementation, the plan also 

provides the basis for the FAA’s 

oversight during the development and 

implementation phases. The FAA’s 

review and approval of the 

implementation plan ensures that a 

certificate holder is given feedback early 

and before it may make significant 

capital improvements as part of its SMS 

development and implementation. 

The ACM update and/or the SMS 

Manual establishes the foundation for 

an SMS. Like the implementation plan, 

the FAA would approve the ACM 

update. However, the FAA would 

accept the certificate holder’s SMS 

Manual. Collection and analysis of 

safety data is an essential part of an 

SMS. Types of data to be collected, 

retention procedures, analysis 

processes, and organizational structures 

for review and evaluation would all be 

documented in either the ACM or the 

SMS Manual, with cross-references in 

the ACM. These records would be used 

by a certificate holder in the operation 

of its SMS and to facilitate continuous 

improvement through evaluation and 

monitoring. While the proposal does not 

require a certificate holder to submit 

these records to the FAA, it would be 

required to make these records available 

upon request. 

Respondents: Application of these 

proposed requirements is limited to a 

certificated airport (i) classified as a 

Small, Medium, or Large hub airport in 

the NPIAS; (ii) identified as an 

international airport, or (iii) identified 

as having more than 100,000 total 

annual operations. 

Frequency: The requirement to 

develop an implementation plan would 

be a one-time, initial occurrence. The 

requirement to create an SMS manual 

and/or update the ACM would be an 

initial occurrence. Updates to the SMS 

manual would occur on an as needed, 

ongoing basis, with annual submissions 

to the FAA. Other records would be 

created on an as needed, ongoing basis. 

Burden Estimate: 

a. Initial Burden—Certificate Holders— 

Draft Manual and Implementation Plan 

(§§ 139.401(d) and 139.403(a)) 

• Number of large airports 23: 138. 

• Number of small airports 24: 130. 

• Estimated time needed to create an 

SMS document and implementation 

plan per large airport: 508 hours per 

year for first two years. 

• Estimated time needed to create an 

SMS document and implementation 

plan per small airport: 334 hours per 

year for first two years. 

• Wage for SMS manager/

coordinator: $66.28 per hour. 

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS4

45898 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 135 / Thursday, July 14, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

b. Initial Burden—FAA—Review 

Manual and Implementation Plan 

• Number of large airports: 138. 

• Number of small airports: 130. 

• Estimated time needed to review an 

implementation plan per large airports: 

16 hours in first year. 

• Estimated time needed to review an 

implementation plan per small airport: 

4 hours in first year. 

• Estimated time needed to review an 

SMS document per airport: 8 hours in 

second year. 

• Wage for inspector: $66.76 per 

hour. 


mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS4EP14JY16.017</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 135 / Thursday, July 14, 2016 / Proposed Rules 45899 

c. Annual Burden—Certificate Holders 

i. SMS Manual Revisions 

(§ 139.401(d)(2)(i)) 

• Number of airports: 268. 

• Estimated time needed to revise 

SMS manual per airport: 12 hours per 

year starting in third year. 

• Wage for clerical: $19.41 per hour. 


mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS4EP14JY16.018</GPH>
45900 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 135 / Thursday, July 14, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

ii. Promotional Material 

(§ 139.402(d)(5)) 

• Number of airports: 268. 

• Estimated time needed to create 

SMS promotional material per airport: 

25.76 hours every other year starting in 

third year. 

• Wage for SMS manager/

coordinator: $66.28 per hour. 

iii. Recording Potential Hazards 

(§ 139.402(b)(1)) 

• Number of airports: 268. 

• Estimated time needed to record 

potential hazard per airport: 15 minutes 

per year starting in third year. 

• Estimated potential hazards per 

airport: 52 per year starting in third 

year. 

• Wage for clerical: $19.41 per hour. 


mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS4EP14JY16.019</GPH> EP14JY16.020</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 135 / Thursday, July 14, 2016 / Proposed Rules 45901 

iv. Hazard Awareness and Reporting 

Orientation Materials (§ 139.402(d)(1)) 

• Number of airports: 268. 

• Estimated time needed to develop 

hazard awareness orientation per 

airport: 8 hours in second year. 

• Estimated time needed to update 

orientation per airport: 2 hours every 

other year starting in fourth year. 

• Wage for SMS manager/

coordinator: $66.28 per hour. 

v. Update Distribution Log for Hazard 

Awareness and Reporting Orientation 

Materials (§ 139.402(d)(2)) 

• Number of large airports: 138. 

• Number of small airports: 130. 

• Average number of tenants per large 

airport: 50. 

• Average number of tenants per 

small airport: 10. 

• Estimated time needed to update 

distribution log per large airport: 0.25 

hours every other year starting in 

second year. 

• Estimated time needed to update 

distribution log per small airport: 0.08 

hours every other year starting in 

second year. 

• Wage for clerical: $19.41 per hour. 


mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS4EP14JY16.021</GPH> EP14JY16.022</GPH>
45902 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 135 / Thursday, July 14, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

vi. Update SMS Training Records 

(§ 139.402(d)(4)) 

• Number of large airports: 138. 

• Number of small airports: 130. 

• Estimated time needed to update 

training records per airport: 5 Minutes 

per record every other year starting in 

second year. 

• Average number of employees per 

large airport: 10. 

• Average number of employees per 

small airport: 3. 

• Wage for clerical: $19.41 per hour. 


mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS4EP14JY16.023</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 135 / Thursday, July 14, 2016 / Proposed Rules 45903 

vii. Documenting Safety Risk 

Management (§ 139.402(b)(3)) 

• Number of airports: 268. 

• Estimated number of hazards 

documented per airport: 52 per year 

starting in third year. 

• Estimated time needed to document 

SRM per airport: 0.5 hours per year 

starting in third year. 

• Wage for clerical: $19.41 per hour. 


mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS4EP14JY16.024</GPH>
45904 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 135 / Thursday, July 14, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

viii. Reporting Safety Information Under 

Safety Assurance (§ 139.402(c)(3)) 

• Number of airports: 268. 

• Estimated time needed to report 

safety information per report per airport: 

1 hour per year starting in third year. 

• Estimated number of reports per 

airport: 2 per year starting in third year. 

• Wage for operational research 

analyst: $46.62 per hour. 

d. Annual Burden—FAA 

i. Review of SMS Manual Revisions 

• Number of airports: 268. 

• Estimated time needed to review an 

SMS manual revision per airport: 1.25 

hours per year starting in third year. 

• Wage for inspector: $66.76 per 

hour. 


mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS4EP14JY16.025</GPH> EP14JY16.026</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 135 / Thursday, July 14, 2016 / Proposed Rules 45905 

e. Summary of All Burden Hours and 

Costs—Certificate Holders 

f. Summary of All Burden Hours and 

Costs—FAA 


mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS4EP14JY16.027</GPH> EP14JY16.028</GPH> EP14JY16.029</GPH>
45906 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 135 / Thursday, July 14, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

F. International Compatibility and 

Cooperation 

In keeping with U.S. obligations 

under the Convention on International 

Civil Aviation, it is FAA policy to 

conform to International Civil Aviation 

Organization (ICAO) Standards and 

Recommended Practices to the 

maximum extent practicable. The FAA 

has reviewed the corresponding ICAO 

Standards and Recommended Practices 

and believes its proposal corresponds 

with the intent of ICAO Annexes 14 and 

19 standards. 

G. Environmental Analysis 

FAA Order 1050.1E defines the FAA 

actions that are categorically excluded 

from preparation of an environmental 

assessment or environmental impact 

statement under the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) in the 

absence of extraordinary circumstances. 

The FAA has determined this proposed 

rulemaking action qualifies for the 

categorical exclusion identified in 

Chapter 3, paragraph 312d and involves 

no extraordinary circumstances. 

VI. Executive Order Determinations 

A. Executive Order 13132, Federalism 

The FAA has analyzed the proposal 

under the principles and criteria of 

Executive Order 13132, Federalism. 

Most airports subject to this proposal 

are owned, operated, or regulated by a 

local government body (such as a city or 

council government), which, in turn, is 

incorporated by or as part of a state. 

Some airports are operated directly by a 

state. The FAA does not believe this 

proposed rule has a significant adverse 

effect on Federalism. The FAA will mail 

a copy of the SNPRM to each state 

government specifically inviting 

comment on Federalism implications. 

B. Executive Order 13211, Regulations 

That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

The FAA analyzed this SNPRM under 

Executive Order 13211, Actions 

Concerning Regulations that 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use (May 18, 2001). The 

agency has determined that it is not a 

‘‘significant energy action’’ under the 

executive order, and it is not likely to 

have a significant adverse effect on the 

supply, distribution, or use of energy. 

VII. How To Obtain Additional 

Information 

A. Comments Invited 

The FAA invites interested persons to 

participate in this rulemaking by 

submitting written comments, data, or 

views. We also invite comments relating 

to the economic, environmental, energy, 

or federalism impacts that might result 

from adopting the proposals in this 

document. The most helpful comments 

reference a specific portion of the 

proposal, explain the reason for any 

recommended change, and include 

supporting data. To ensure the docket 

does not contain duplicate comments, 

please send only one copy of written 

comments, or if you are filing comments 

electronically, please submit your 

comments only one time. 

We will file in the docket all 

comments we receive, as well as a 

report summarizing each substantive 

public contact with FAA personnel 

concerning this proposed rulemaking. 

Before acting on this proposal, we will 

consider all comments we receive on or 

before the closing date for comments. 

We will consider comments filed after 

the comment period has closed if it is 

possible to do so without incurring 

expense or delay. We may change this 

proposal in light of the comments we 

receive. 

Proprietary or Confidential Business 

Information 

Do not file in the docket information 

that you consider to be proprietary or 

confidential business information. Send 

or deliver this information directly to 

the person identified in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section of this 

document. You must mark the 

information that you consider 

proprietary or confidential. If you send 

the information on a disk or CD–ROM, 

mark the outside of the disk or CD–ROM 

and also identify electronically within 

the disk or CD–ROM the specific 

information that is proprietary or 

confidential. 

Under 14 CFR 11.35(b), when we are 

aware of proprietary information filed 

with a comment, we do not place it in 

the docket. We hold it in a separate file 

to which the public does not have 

access, and we place a note in the 

docket that we have received it. If we 

receive a request to examine or copy 

this information, we treat it as any other 

request under the Freedom of 

Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552). We 

process such a request under the DOT 

procedures found in 49 CFR part 7. 

B. Availability of Rulemaking 

Documents 

An electronic copy of a rulemaking 

document may be obtained by using the 

Internet— 

1. Search the Federal eRulemaking 

Portal (http://www.regulations.gov); 

2. Visit the FAA’s Regulations and 

Policies Web page at http://

www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/ or 

3. Access the Government Printing 

Office’s Web page at http://

www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/index.html. 

Copies may also be obtained by 

sending a request (identified by notice, 

amendment, or docket number of this 

rulemaking) to the Federal Aviation 

Administration, Office of Rulemaking, 

ARM–1, 800 Independence Avenue 

SW., Washington, DC 20591, or by 

calling (202) 267–9680. 

C. Comments Submitted to the Docket 

Comments received may be viewed by 

going to http://www.regulations.gov and 

following the online instructions to 

search the docket number for this 

action. Anyone is able to search the 

electronic form of all comments 

received into any of the FAA’s dockets 

by the name of the individual 

submitting the comment (or signing the 

comment, if submitted on behalf of an 

association, business, labor union, etc.). 

D. Small Business Regulatory 

Enforcement Fairness Act 

The Small Business Regulatory 

Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 

1996 requires FAA to comply with 

small entity requests for information or 

advice about compliance with statutes 

and regulations within its jurisdiction. 

A small entity with questions regarding 

this document, may contact its local 

FAA official, or the person listed under 

the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT

heading at the beginning of the 

preamble. To find out more about 

SBREFA on the Internet, visit http://

www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/

rulemaking/sbre_act/. 

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 139 

Air carriers, Airports, Aviation safety, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

The Proposed Amendment 

In consideration of the foregoing, the 

Federal Aviation Administration 

proposes to amend Chapter I of Title 14, 

Code of Federal Regulations as follows: 

PART 139—CERTIFICATION OF 

AIRPORTS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 139 

is revised to read as follows: 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40113, 

44701–44702, 44709, 44719. 

■ 2. Amend § 139.5 by adding in 

alphabetical order the definitions of the 

terms ‘‘Accountable executive’’, 

‘‘Airport Safety Management System 

(SMS)’’, ‘‘Hazard’’, ‘‘Non-movement 

area’’, ‘‘Risk’’, ‘‘Risk analysis’’, ‘‘Risk 

mitigation’’, ‘‘Safety assurance’’, ‘‘Safety 

policy’’, ‘‘Safety promotion’’, and 

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS4

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 135 / Thursday, July 14, 2016 / Proposed Rules 45907 

‘‘Safety risk management’’ to read as 

follows: 

§ 139.5 Definitions. 

* * * * * 

Accountable executive means an 

individual designated by the certificate 

holder to act on its behalf for the 

implementation and maintenance of the 

Airport Safety Management System. The 

Accountable Executive has control of 

the certificate holder’s human and 

financial resources for operations 

conducted under the Airport’s 

Operating Certificate. The Accountable 

Executive has ultimate responsibility to 

the FAA, on behalf of the certificate 

holder, for the safety performance of 

operations conducted under the 

certificate holder’s Airport Operating 

Certificate. 

* * * * * 

Airport Safety Management System 

(SMS) means an integrated collection of 

processes and procedures that ensures a 

formalized and proactive approach to 

system safety through risk management. 

* * * * * 

Hazard means a condition that could 

foreseeably cause or contribute to an 

aircraft accident as defined in 49 CFR 

830.2. 

* * * * * 

Non-movement area means the area, 

other than that described as the 

movement area, used for the loading, 

unloading, parking, and movement of 

aircraft on the airside of the airport 

(including ramps, apron areas, and onairport fuel farms). 

* * * * * 

Risk means the composite of 

predicted severity and likelihood of the 

potential effect of a hazard. 

Risk analysis means the process 

whereby a hazard is characterized for its 

likelihood and the severity of its effect 

or harm. Risk analysis can be either a 

quantitative or qualitative analysis; 

however, the inability to quantify or the 

lack of historical data on a particular 

hazard does not preclude the need for 

analysis. 

Risk mitigation means any action 

taken to reduce the risk of a hazard’s 

effect. 

* * * * * 

Safety assurance means the process 

management functions that evaluate the 

continued effectiveness of implemented 

risk mitigation strategies; support the 

identification of new hazards; and 

function to systematically provide 

confidence that an organization meets or 

exceeds its safety objectives through 

continuous improvement. 

Safety policy means the statement and 

documentation adopted by a certificate 

holder defining its commitment to 

safety and overall safety vision. 

Safety promotion means the 

combination of safety culture, training, 

and communication activities that 

support the implementation and 

operation of an SMS. 

Safety risk management means a 

formal process within an SMS 

composed of describing the system, 

identifying the hazards, and analyzing, 

assessing, and mitigating the risk. 

* * * * * 

§ 139.101 [Amended] 

■ 3. Amend § 139.101 by removing 

paragraph (c). 

■ 4. Amend § 139.103 by revising 

paragraph (b) to read as follows: 

§ 139.103 Application for certificate. 

* * * * * 

(b) Submit with the application, two 

copies of an Airport Certification 

Manual, Safety Management System 

Implementation Plan (as required by 

§ 139.403(b)), and Safety Management 

System Manual (where applicable) 

prepared in accordance with subparts C 

and E of this part. 

■ 5. Amend § 139.203 by redesignating 

paragraph (b)(29) as (b)(30) and adding 

a new paragraph (b)(29) to read as 

follows: 

§ 139.203 Contents of Airport Certification 

Manual. 

* * * * * 

(b)* * * 

REQUIRED AIRPORT CERTIFICATION MANUAL ELEMENTS

Manual elements 

Airport certificate class 

Class I Class II Class III Class IV 

*******

29. Policies and procedures for the development of, implementation of, maintenance 

of, and adherence to the Airport’s Safety Management System, as required under 

subpart E of this part. Section 139.401(a) prescribes which certificate holders are 

subject to this requirement. .......................................................................................... X X X X 

*******

■ 6. Amend § 139.301 by revising 

paragraph (b)(1) and adding paragraphs 

(b)(9) and (b)(10) to read as follows: 

§ 139.301 Records. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(1) Personnel training. Twenty-four 

consecutive calendar months for 

personnel training records and 

orientation materials, as required under 

§§ 139.303, 139.327, and 139.402(d). 

* * * * * 

(9) Safety risk management 

documentation. Thirty-six consecutive 

calendar months or twelve consecutive 

calendar months, as required under 

§ 139.402(b). 

(10) Safety communications. Twelve 

consecutive calendar months for safety 

communications, as required under 

§ 139.402(d). 

* * * * * 

■ 7. Amend § 139.303 by revising 

paragraphs (e)(5) and (e)(6) and by 

adding paragraph (e)(7) to read as 

follows: 

§ 139.303 Personnel. 

* * * * * 

(e) * * * 

(5) § 139.337, Wildlife hazard 

management; 

(6) § 139.339, Airport condition 

reporting; and 

(7) § 139.402, Components of airport 

safety management system. 

* * * * * 

■ 8. Add subpart E to part 139 to read 

as follows: 

Subpart E—Airport Safety Management 

System 

Sec. 

139.401 General requirements. 

139.402 Components of Airport Safety 

Management System. 

139.403 Airport Safety Management 

System implementation. 

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS4

45908 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 135 / Thursday, July 14, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

Subpart E—Airport Safety 

Management System 

§ 139.401 General requirements. 

(a) Each certificate holder or applicant 

for an Airport Operating Certificate 

meeting at least one of the following 

criteria must develop, implement, 

maintain and adhere to an Airport 

Safety Management System: 

(1) Is classified as a Large, Medium, 

or Small hub in the National Plan of 

Integrated Airport Systems; 

(2) Is classified as a port of entry 

(under 19 CFR 101.3), designated 

international airport (under 19 CFR 

122.13), landing rights airport (under 19 

CFR 122.14), or user fee airport (under 

19 CFR 122.15); or 

(3) Has more than 100,000 total 

annual operations. 

(b) The scope of an Airport Safety 

Management System must encompass 

aircraft operation in the movement area, 

aircraft operation in the non-movement 

area, and other airport operations 

addressed in this part. 

(c) The Airport Safety Management 

System may correspond in size, nature, 

and complexity to the operations, 

activities, hazards, and risks associated 

with the certificate holder’s operations. 

(d) Each certificate holder required to 

develop, implement, maintain, and 

adhere to an Airport Safety Management 

System under this subpart must 

describe its compliance with the 

requirements identified in § 139.402 

either: 

(1) Within a separate section of the 

certificate holder’s Airport Certification 

Manual titled Airport Safety 

Management System; or 

(2) Within a separate Airport Safety 

Management System Manual. If the 

certificate holder chooses to use a 

separate Airport Safety Management 

System Manual, the Airport 

Certification Manual must incorporate 

by reference the Airport Safety 

Management System Manual. 

(e) On an annual basis, the certificate 

holder shall provide the FAA copies of 

any changes to the Airport Safety 

Management Manual. 

§ 139.402 Components of Airport Safety 

Management System. 

An Airport Safety Management 

System must include: 

(a) Safety Policy. A Safety Policy that, 

at a minimum: 

(1) Identifies the accountable 

executive. 

(2) Establishes and maintains a safety 

policy statement signed by the 

accountable executive. 

(3) Ensures the safety policy statement 

is available to all employees and 

tenants. 

(4) Identifies and communicates the 

safety organizational structure. 

(5) Describes management 

responsibility and accountability for 

safety issues. 

(6) Establishes and maintains safety 

objectives. 

(7) Defines methods, processes, and 

organizational structure necessary to 

meet safety objectives. 

(b) Safety Risk Management. Safety 

Risk Management processes and 

procedures for identifying hazards and 

their associated risks within airport 

operations and for changes to those 

operations covered by this part that, at 

a minimum: 

(1) Establish a system for identifying 

operational safety issues. 

(2) Establish a systematic process to 

analyze hazards and their associated 

risks by: 

(i) Describing the system; 

(ii) Identifying hazards; 

(iii) Analyzing the risk of identified 

hazards and/or proposed mitigations; 

(iv) Assessing the level of risk 

associated with identified hazards; and 

(v) Mitigating the risks of identified 

hazards, when appropriate. 

(3) Establish and maintain records 

that document the certificate holder’s 

Safety Risk Management processes. 

(i) The records shall provide a means 

for airport management’s acceptance of 

assessed risks and mitigations. 

(ii) Records associated with the 

certificate holder’s Safety Risk 

Management processes must be retained 

for the longer of: 

(A) Thirty-six consecutive calendar 

months after the risk analysis of 

identified hazards under paragraph 

(b)(2)(iv) of this section has been 

completed; or 

(B) Twelve consecutive calendar 

months after mitigations required under 

paragraph (b)(2)(v) of this section have 

been implemented. 

(c) Safety Assurance. Safety 

Assurance processes and procedures to 

ensure mitigations developed through 

the certificate holder’s Safety Risk 

Management processes and procedures 

are adequate, and the Airport’s Safety 

Management System is functioning 

effectively. Those processes and 

procedures must, at a minimum: 

(1) Provide a means for monitoring 

safety performance including a means 

for ensuring that safety objectives 

identified under paragraph (a)(6) of this 

section are being met. 

(2) Establish and maintain a hazard 

reporting system that provides a means 

for reporter confidentiality. 

(3) Report pertinent safety 

information and data on a regular basis 

to the accountable executive. Reportable 

data includes: 

(i) Compliance with the requirements 

under subpart D of this part; 

(ii) Performance of safety objectives 

established under paragraph (a)(6) of 

this section; 

(iii) Safety critical information 

distributed in accordance with 

paragraph (d)(5)(ii) of this section; 

(iv) Status of ongoing mitigations 

required under the Airport’s Safety Risk 

Management processes as described 

under paragraph (b)(2)(v) of this section; 

and 

(v) Status of a certificate holder’s 

schedule for implementing the Airport 

Safety Management System as described 

under paragraph (b)(2) of this section. 

(d) Safety Promotion. Safety 

Promotion processes and procedures to 

foster an airport operating environment 

that encourages safety. Those processes 

and procedures must, at a minimum: 

(1) Provide all persons authorized to 

access the airport areas regulated under 

this part with a hazard awareness 

orientation, which includes hazard 

identification and hazard reporting. 

These orientation materials must be 

readily available and be updated at least 

every 24 calendar months. 

(2) Maintain a record of all hazard 

awareness orientation materials made 

available under paragraph (d)(1) of this 

section including any revisions and 

means of distribution. Such records 

must be retained for 24 consecutive 

months after the materials are made 

available. 

(3) Provide safety training on those 

requirements of SMS and its 

implementation to each employee with 

responsibilities under the certificate 

holder’s SMS that is appropriate to the 

individual’s role. This training must be 

completed at least every 24 months. 

(4) Maintain a record of all training by 

each individual under paragraph (d)(3) 

of this section that includes, at a 

minimum, a description and date of 

training received. Such records must be 

retained for 24 consecutive calendar 

months after completion of training. 

(5) Develop and maintain formal 

means for communicating important 

safety information that, at a minimum: 

(i) Ensures all persons authorized to 

access the airport areas regulated under 

this part are aware of the SMS and their 

safety roles and responsibilities; 

(ii) Conveys critical safety 

information; 

(iii) Provides feedback to individuals 

using the airport’s hazard reporting 

system required under paragraph (c)(2) 

of this section; and 

(iv) Disseminates safety lessons 

learned to relevant airport employees or 

other stakeholders. 

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS4

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 135 / Thursday, July 14, 2016 / Proposed Rules 45909 

(6) Maintain records of 

communications required under this 

section for 12 consecutive calendar 

months. 

§ 139.403 Airport Safety Management 

System implementation. 

(a) Each certificate holder required to 

develop, implement, maintain, and 

adhere to an Airport Safety Management 

System under this subpart must submit 

an implementation plan to the FAA for 

approval on or before [DATE 12 

MONTHS AFTER EFFECTIVE DATE OF 

THE FINAL RULE]. 

(b) An implementation plan must 

provide: 

(1) A detailed proposal on how the 

certificate holder will meet the 

requirements prescribed in this subpart. 

(2) A schedule for implementing SMS 

components and elements prescribed in 

§ 139.402. The schedule must include 

timelines for the following 

requirements: 

(i) Developing the safety policy 

statement as prescribed in 

§ 139.402(a)(2) and when it will be 

made available to all employees and 

tenants as prescribed in § 139.402(a)(3); 

(ii) Identifying and communicating 

the safety organizational structure as 

prescribed in § 139.402(a)(4); 

(iii) Establishing a system for 

identifying operational safety issues as 

prescribed in § 139.402(b)(1); 

(iv) Establishing a hazard reporting 

system as prescribed in § 139.402(c)(2); 

(v) Developing, providing, and 

maintaining hazard awareness 

orientation materials as prescribed in 

§ 139.402(d)(1); 

(vi) Providing SMS specific training to 

employees with responsibilities under 

the certificate holder’s SMS as 

prescribed in § 139.402(d)(3); and 

(vii) Developing, implementing, and 

maintaining formal means for 

communicating important safety 

information as prescribed in 

§ 139.402(d)(5). 

(3) A description of any existing 

programs, policies, or procedures that 

the certificate holder intends to use to 

meet the requirements of this subpart. 

(c) Each certificate holder required to 

develop, implement, maintain, and 

adhere to an Airport Safety Management 

System under this subpart must submit 

its amended Airport Certification 

Manual and Airport Safety Management 

System Manual, if applicable, to the 

FAA in accordance with its 

implementation plan but not later than 

[DATE 24 MONTHS AFTER EFFECTIVE 

DATE OF THE FINAL RULE]. 

Issued in Washington, DC, under the 

authority provided by 49 U.S.C. 106(f) and 

44706, on July 8, 2016. 

Michael J. O’Donnell, 

Director, Office of Airport Safety and 

Standards. 

[FR Doc. 2016–16596 Filed 7–12–16; 11:15 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS4