April 5, 2011 

To: Docket Operations M-30 

 U. S. Department of Transportation 

 1200 New Jersey Avenue S.E. 

 West Building – Ground Floor 

 Washington D.C. 20590 

Sent via: www.regulations.gov 

Subject: Clarifying Questions - 14 CFR Part 139 SMS for Certificated Airports 

(NPRM Docket Number FAA-2010-0997) 

The City of Austin, Department of Aviation respectfully submits the following 

questions to clarify the FAA intent in the above Notice of Proposed Rule Making case. 

Response to these questions would assist us in offering our comments prior to July 5, 

2011. 

Benefits (Cost/Benefit Clarification) 

The NPRM refers to the financial benefits associated with the implementation of a 

Safety Management System such as reduced insurance benefits but does not quantify 

the upside opportunity nor provide additional information on the downside cost. In the 

Federal Register, Volume 75, No. 194, dated October 7, 2010, page 62010 the 

document states that overtime the identification of previously unknown hazards and 

risks “should prevent accidents and incidents, thereby reducing the direct and indirect 

costs and risks of airport operations.” Can the FAA provide data that substantiates the 

claim? For example, what percent of an insurance premium has been saved by 

implementing the SMS program? On page 62018, SMS Document (Initial Burden) 

attempts to quantify the annual additional record-keeping burden that contributes to 

downside cost. However, the cost of Safety Risk Analysis directed at determining risk 

mitigation is not accounted for. What does the FAA estimate the cost of labor to 

accomplish Safety Risk Analysis? 

Regulation of the Non-Movement Area (Technical Clarification) 

On the following page of the NPRM, the FAA extends the scope of Part 139 to the nonMovement Areas. In another NPRM, the FAA addresses non-movement area training 

programs. Is it the FAA intent to continue to expand its regulatory authority into the 

non-movement area and setting other standards beyond the application of the SMS 

program? 

City of Austin 

Aviation Department 

Austin-Bergstrom International Airport

3600 Presidential Blvd., Ste. 411, Austin, Texas 78719 

512/530-7550 Fax: 512/530-7561 

airport.operations@ci.austin.tx.us 
On page 62011, in the paragraphs relating to Flexibility, “the FAA proposes that 

amending 139.203 to require the FAA approved ACM contain the policies and 

procedures for development, implementation, operation and maintenance of the 

certificate holder’s SMS.” In 14 CFR Part 139 paragraph 139.203 is a table of 

Required Airport Certification Manual Elements. The table calls out the requirements 

to maintain or to describe specific elements. It does not specifically talk to the specifics 

of procedures for development, implementation, operation and maintenance of those 

elements. If it is a requirement of SMS to incorporate an SMS within the next few 

months, why is it not appropriate to simply state as an element in the table the 

requirement to maintain a Safety Management System? (Either you have an SMS or 

you don’t.) 

On the same page, in the discussion of Minimum Elements of SMS, it is suggested that 

the SMS is “scalable to the size and complexity of the certificate holder.” It is clear 

that it is not the intent that an airport of smaller size or less complexity could leave out 

certain elements of the SMS. How then is the program scalable? Further, if the SMS is 

scalable, why can’t the program be phased in as opposed to implemented all at once 

(for example, implement for airport owner employees first and then expand to tenants 

and other non-movement area users)? 

Safety Policy (Legal Clarification) 

On page 62011, the NPRM requires the appointment of a accountable manager “who 

can influence safety-related decisions and has authority to approve operational 

decisions and has authority to approve operational decision and changes because an 

effective SMS requires high level management involvement in safety decisionmaking.” The NPRM goes on to propose an international standard for an accountable 

executive as “an individual with ultimate responsibility and accountability, full control 

of the human and financial resources required to maintain SMS, and final authority 

over operations and safety issues.” Can the FAA offer suggestions as to how this could 

be achieved at a publically owned airport whose budget and human resource policies 

are controlled by publically elected officials such as the mayor and council? 

On page 62012, the NPRM mandates that the SMS Policy Statement include “the 

encouragement for employees to report safety issues without fear of reprisal.” Does the 

FAA intend that the SMS be instituted to exempt employees from reprisal for conduct 

that was reckless or an intentional violation of a standard or regulation? Is it the intent 

of the FAA to hold the accountable executive of a publically owned and operated 

airport responsible for changing an employee accountability policy of the owner which 

may mandate certain penalties be assessed for a particular behavior or consequence 

thereof? 

Safety Risk Management (SRM) (Technical/Legal Clarification) 

SRM methodology requires a detailed process of hazard identification, analysis of 

hazards and mitigation process. It implies a high standard of rigor in the use of five

steps required by the FAA forcing the “certificate holder to use SRM processes to 

analyze risk associated with hazards discovered during daily operations and changes to 

operations”. Description of the system, hazard identification, analysis of risk 

associated with the hazard, assessing the risk association with the hazard and mitigation 

steps may not always be necessary and may require a lengthy process that prevents a 
more immediate hazard remediation. While a Safety Risk Assessment may be 

appropriate when dealing with most complex issues that involve several stakeholders, it 

may be inappropriate in addressing simple challenges. Is it the FAA’s intent to employ 

this process to address and document every hazard? The rigor necessary to comply 

with the required steps and their documentation will likely require a large amount of 

labor hours not readily available at most airports. Furthermore, is it the intent that the 

accountable executive be aware of and approve all efforts to address a hazard 

observation or report? The proscribed detailed process and mitigation approval may be 

contraindicative of the development of a culture that is focused on incorporating safety 

and acting quickly to remediate hazards. 

Safety Assurance (Technical Clarification/Legal Clarification) 

On page 62015, of the NPRM, the first sentence under Safety Assurance, states, “this 

proposal would require a certificate holder to ensure safety risk mitigations developed 

through the airport’s SRM process are adequate and the airport’s SMS is functioning 

effectively. The sentence strongly suggests that the FAA intends to go beyond just 

verifying whether a SMS is in place and effective. Does the FAA intend to develop 

specific criteria by which it would determine whether specific risk mitigations are 

adequate? 

On page 62016 of the NPRM in its discussion of Safety Assurance “the FAA proposes 

that airport develop a confidential hazard reporting system. ICAO’s SMS model 

envisions a non-punitve reporting system. Based on information obtained during the 

pilot studies, a U.S airport may be unable to prevent punishment of non-airport 

employees (for example, tenant employees). Therefore, the FAA has concluded that 

requiring a confidential hazard reporting system will protect the reporter’s identity and 

achieve the goal of protection.” While confidentiality of a hazard reporting system 

would certainly support a more open environment for reporting hazards, particularly for 

employees reporting on their own actions, overcoming current federal Freedom of 

Information and state and local Open Records Act requirements is difficult. The 

concept of confidential reporting is important not just for employees of the airport but 

for incorporating other tenant and airline employees choosing to disclose information 

within the SMS. Is it the expectation of the FAA that airports seek to exempt voluntary 

hazard reporting disclosures from these current legal provisions? Will the FAA seek to 

exempt such disclosure requirements from the Freedom of Information Act at the 

federal level? 

Safety Promotion (Technical Clarification) 

On page 62016 of the NPRM, the FAA proposes that SMS training requirement would 

apply to airport employees with access to the movement and non-movement areas. 

Airlines are currently in the process of adopting SMS as part of 14 CFR 121 change. 

How will the SMS 14 CFR Part 139 change interface with 14 CFR 121? 

Proposed Implementation Plan Requirements (Technical Clarification) 

On page 62017 of the NPRM, the FAA implementation schedule requires that a manual 

and implementation plan be developed within 6 to 9 months and the implementation of 

the SMS program be completed within 18 to 24 months. Beyond training, Safety 

Promotion and Safety Risk Management depend on the active involvement and 

expertise of stakeholders that regularly access the movement and non-movement areas. 
In order to encourage the participation of these users, it may be necessary to change 

leasing agreements to ensure that our airport, airline FBO and other employees 

participate not just by attending training and submitting hazard reports also but working 

on Safety Risk Assessments. Would the FAA consider implementing SMS for airport 

employees first and, once the system is running smoothly for a year, incorporating 

airport employees after the SMS for tenants and airlines at a later date? 

In addition, the actual implementation and operation of the SMS program requires 

additional operating money. Depending on an airport budget process, the funding of 

additional labor necessary may need to be made up to one year in advance. Would the 

FAA consider a phased implementation using current budgeted available labor hours 

until additional positions could be funded and filled? 

We look forward to the FAA’s response to the above questions and a productive 

exchange of thoughts prior to the final rule making and implementation. 

Sincerely, 

Patti Edwards 

Chief Operating Officer 

cc: Keri Spencer, Office of Airport Safety and Standards, FAA 

keri.spencer@faa.gov

 Robert Hawks, Office of the Chief Counsel, FAA 

rob.hawks@faa.gov

Nicole Nance, Office of Aviation Policy and Plans, FAA 

nicole.nance@faa.gov