36414 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 140 / Thursday, July 23, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

fulfilled in order to make this 

determination: 

(1) The plant pest in question must be 

determined to be a quarantine pest; and 

(2) The taxon of plants for planting 

must be determined to be a potential 

host of that quarantine pest. 

(e) Removing a taxon from the list of 

taxa not authorized pending pest risk 

analysis. Any person may request that 

APHIS remove a taxon from the list of 

taxa whose importation is not 

authorized pending pest risk analysis. 

Persons who submit such a request are 

encouraged to provide as much 

information as possible regarding the 

taxon and any quarantine pests that may 

be associated with it. APHIS will 

conduct a pest risk analysis in response 

to such a request. The pest risk analysis 

will examine the risk associated with 

the importation of that taxon. 

(1) If the pest risk analysis supports a 

determination that importation of the 

taxon be prohibited or allowed subject 

to special restrictions, such as a systems 

approach, treatment, or postentry 

quarantine, APHIS will publish a 

proposed rule making the pest risk 

analysis available to the public and 

proposing to take the action 

recommended by the pest risk analysis. 

(2) If the pest risk analysis supports a 

determination that importation of the 

taxon be allowed subject to the general 

restrictions of this subpart, APHIS will 

publish a notice announcing our intent 

to remove the taxon from the NAPPRA 

list and making the pest risk analysis 

supporting the taxon’s removal available 

for public review. 

(i) APHIS will issue a notice after the 

close of the public comment period 

indicating that the importation of the 

taxon will be subject only to the general 

restrictions of this subpart if: 

(A) No comments were received on 

the pest risk analysis; 

(B) The comments on the pest risk 

analysis revealed that no changes to the 

pest risk analysis were necessary; or 

(C) Changes to the pest risk analysis 

were made in response to public 

comments, but the changes did not 

affect the overall conclusions of the 

analysis and the Administrator’s 

determination that the taxon poses a 

potential risk of introducing a 

quarantine pest into the United States. 

(ii) If information presented by 

commenters indicates that the pest risk 

analysis needs to be revised, APHIS will 

issue a notice after the close of the 

public comment period indicating that 

the importation of the taxon will 

continue to be listed as not authorized 

pending pest risk analysis while the 

information presented by commenters is 

analyzed and incorporated into the pest 

risk analysis. APHIS will subsequently 

publish a new notice announcing the 

availability of the revised pest risk 

analysis. 

§ 319.37–5 [Amended] 

7. In § 319.37–5, paragraph (i) 

introductory text is amended by 

removing the words ‘‘plant diseases’’ 

and adding the words ‘‘quarantine 

pests’’ in their place. 

§ 319.37–7 [Amended] 

8. Section 319.37–7 is amended as 

follows: 

a. In paragraph (c)(2)(iii), by removing 

the words ‘‘exotic pests’’ and adding the 

words ‘‘quarantine pests’’ in their place. 

b. In paragraph (c)(2)(iv), by removing 

the words ‘‘plant pests that are not 

known to exist in the United States’’ 

and adding the words ‘‘quarantine 

pests’’ in their place. 

c. In paragraph (d)(5), by removing the 

words ‘‘injurious plant disease, 

injurious insect pest, or other plant 

pest’’ and adding the words ‘‘quarantine 

pest’’ in their place. 

d. In paragraphs (f)(1) and (f)(2), by 

removing the words ‘‘plant pests’’ each 

time they occur and adding the words 

‘‘quarantine pests’’ in their place. 

e. In paragraphs (f)(1) and (f)(2), by 

removing the words ‘‘plant pest(s)’’ each 

time they occur and adding the words 

‘‘quarantine pest(s)’’ in their place. 

§ 319.37–8 [Amended] 

9. Section 319.37–8 is amended as 

follows: 

a. In paragraph (e)(2) introductory 

text, by removing the words ‘‘disease 

and pests’’ and adding the words 

‘‘quarantine pests’’ in their place. 

b. In paragraph (e)(2)(ii), by removing 

the words ‘‘plant pests and diseases’’ 

and adding the words ‘‘quarantine 

pests’’ in their place; and by removing 

the words ‘‘injurious plant diseases, 

injurious insect pests, and other plant 

pests’’ and adding the words 

‘‘quarantine pests’’ in their place. 

c. In paragraph (e)(2)(iv)(B), by adding 

the word ‘‘quarantine’’ before the word 

‘‘pests.’’ 

d. In paragraph (e)(2)(vii), by 

removing the words ‘‘plant pests’’ and 

adding the words ‘‘quarantine pests’’ in 

their place. 

e. In paragraph (e)(2)(viii), by 

removing the words ‘‘plant pests and 

diseases’’ and adding the words 

‘‘quarantine pests’’ in their place. 

f. In paragraph (e)(2)(xi)(B) 

introductory text, by removing the 

words ‘‘plant pests’’ and adding the 

words ‘‘quarantine pests’’ in their place. 

g. In paragraphs (f)(3)(i), (f)(3)(vii), 

(f)(3)(viii), and (f)(4), by removing the 

words ‘‘injurious plant diseases, 

injurious insect pests, and other plant 

pests’’ and adding the words 

‘‘quarantine pests’’ in their place. 

10. Section 319.37–12 is revised to 

read as follows: 

§ 319.37–12 Prohibited articles and 

articles whose importation is not 

authorized pending pest risk analysis 

accompanying restricted articles. 

A restricted article for importation 

into the United States may not be 

packed in the same container as an 

article whose importation into the 

United States is prohibited by this 

subpart or in the same container as an 

article whose importation is not 

authorized pending pest risk analysis 

under § 319.37–2a of this subpart. 

§ 319.37–13 [Amended] 

11. Section 319.37–13 is amended as 

follows: 

a. In paragraph (b), by removing the 

words ‘‘injurious plant disease, 

injurious insect pest, or other plant pest, 

new to or not theretofore known to be 

widely prevalent or distributed within 

and throughout the United States’’ and 

adding the words ‘‘quarantine pests’’ in 

their place; and by removing the words 

‘‘injurious plant diseases, injurious 

insect pests, or other plant pests’’ and 

adding the words ‘‘quarantine pests’’ in 

their place. 

b. In paragraph (c), by removing the 

words ‘‘pests and Federal noxious 

weeds’’ and adding the words 

‘‘quarantine pests’’ in their place. 

Done in Washington, DC, this 17th day of 

July 2009. 

Cindy Smith, 

Acting Deputy Under Secretary for Marketing 

and Regulatory Programs. 

[FR Doc. E9–17535 Filed 7–22–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–34–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Parts 21, 119, 121, 125, 135, 

141, 142, and 145 

[Docket No. FAA–2009–0671; Notice No. 09– 

06] 

RIN 2120–AJ15 

Safety Management System 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), Department of 

Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Advance notice of proposed 

rulemaking (ANPRM), request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: This ANPRM solicits public 

comments on a potential rulemaking 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 140 / Thursday, July 23, 2009 / Proposed Rules 36415 

requiring certain 14 CFR part 21, 119, 

121, 125, 135, 141, 142, and 145 

certificate holders, product 

manufacturers, applicants, and 

employers (hereafter ‘‘product/service 

providers’’) to develop a Safety 

Management System (SMS). SMS is a 

comprehensive, process-oriented 

approach to managing safety throughout 

an organization. An SMS includes an 

organization-wide safety policy, formal 

methods of identifying hazards, 

mitigating and continually assessing 

risk, and promotion of a safety culture. 

SMS stresses not only compliance with 

technical standards but increased 

emphasis on the organizational aspects 

and processes that ensure risk 

management and safety assurance. 

DATES: Send your comments on or 

before October 21, 2009. 

ADDRESSES: You may send comments 

identified by Docket Number FAA– 

2009–0671 using any of the following 

methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 

http://www.regulations.gov and follow 

the instructions for sending your 

comments electronically. 

• Mail: Send comments to Docket 

Operations, M–30, U.S Department of 

Transportation, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue, SE., West Building Ground 

Floor, Room W12–140, Washington, DC 

20590. 

• Fax: Fax comments to Docket 

Operations at (202) 493–2251. 

• Hand Delivery: 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. 

For more information on the rulemaking 

process, see the SUPPLEMENTARY

INFORMATION section of this document. 

Privacy: We will post all comments 

we receive, without change, to http:// 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information you provide. 

Using the search function of our docket 

Web site, anyone can find and read the 

comments received into any of our 

dockets, including the name of the 

individual sending the comment (or 

signing the comment for an association, 

business, labor union, etc.). You may 

review DOT’s complete Privacy Act 

Statement in the Federal Register 

published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 

19477–78), or you may visit http:// 

DocketsInfo.dot.gov. 

Docket: To read background 

documents or comments received, go to 

http://www.regulations.gov at any time 

or 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. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Scott Van Buren, SMS Chief System 

Engineer, Office of Aviation Safety 

Analytical Services (ASA), Federal 

Aviation Administration, 800 

Independence Avenue, SW., 

Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 

494–8417; facsimile: (202) 267–3992; 

e-mail: scott.vanburen@faa.gov. For 

legal questions, contact Anne Bechdolt, 

Regulations Division, Office of the Chief 

Counsel, Federal Aviation 

Administration, 800 Independence 

Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591; 

telephone: (202) 267–7230; facsimile: 

(202) 267–7971; e-mail: 

anne.bechdolt@faa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Comments Invited 

The FAA invites interested persons to 

participate in this request for comments 

by submitting written comments, data, 

or views. We also invite comments 

relating to the economic, environmental, 

energy, or federalism impacts that might 

result if an SMS rule is established. The 

most helpful comments will reference a 

specific question in the notice, and 

provide detailed explanations of any 

recommendations, including supporting 

data when applicable. We ask that you 

send us 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 notice. 

Proprietary or Confidential Business 

Information 

Do not submit 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. 

When we are aware of proprietary 

information submitted with a comment, 

we will not place it in the docket. See 

14 CFR 11.35(b). We will keep 

proprietary information in a separate 

file to which the public does not have 

access, and 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. See 5 U.S.C. 552. We 

process such a request under the DOT 

procedures found in 49 CFR part 7. 

Availability of Rulemaking Documents 

You can get an electronic copy of the 

rulemaking documents using the 

Internet by: 

(1) Searching the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal at http:// 

www.regulations.gov; 

(2) Visiting the FAA’s Regulations and 

Policies Web page at http:// 

www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/; or 

(3) Accessing the Government 

Printing Office’s Web page at http:// 

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

You can also get a copy by sending a 

request to the Federal Aviation 

Administration, Office of Rulemaking, 

ARM–1, 800 Independence Avenue, 

SW., Washington, DC 20591, or by 

calling (202) 267–9680. Make sure to 

identify the docket number, notice 

number, or amendment number of this 

rulemaking. 

Purpose 

This ANPRM requests written 

comments in response to the questions 

presented. We also welcome any 

additional information that may be 

helpful in considering an SMS 

regulatory framework for providers of 

aviation products/services under 14 

CFR parts 21, 119, 121, 125, 135, 141, 

142, and 145. The FAA is not proposing 

any specific regulatory changes in this 

ANPRM. The FAA intends to establish 

an Aviation Rulemaking Committee 

(ARC) to assess comments resulting 

from this ANPRM and to provide 

recommendations for any SMS 

rulemaking effort. After review of all of 

the comments submitted in response to 

this ANPRM, and review of the ARC 

recommendations, the FAA may issue a 

notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) 

proposing specific regulations or 

regulatory amendments to create an 

SMS rule. Interested persons will have 

the opportunity to comment on 

proposed changes prior to the adoption 

of any final rule regarding SMS. 

What Is a Safety Management System? 

A Safety Management System (SMS) 

is a structured, risk-based approach to 

managing safety. The International Civil 

Aviation Organization (ICAO) has 

defined SMS as a ‘‘systematic approach 

to managing safety, including the 

necessary organizational structures, 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
36416 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 140 / Thursday, July 23, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

accountabilities, policies, and 

procedures.’’ See ICAO, Safety 

Management Manual, at 1.4.2, ICAO 

Doc. 9859–AN/460 (1st ed. 2006). An 

SMS provides a set of decision-making 

processes and procedures that a 

product/service provider would use to 

plan, organize, direct, and control its 

business activities in a manner that 

enhances safety and ensures compliance 

with regulatory standards. An SMS 

incorporates these procedures into 

normal, day-to-day business processes. 

SMS requires a proactive approach to 

discovering and correcting problems 

before there are safety consequences. An 

SMS also includes processes that seek to 

identify potential organizational 

breakdowns and necessary process 

improvements allowing management to 

address a safety issue before a 

noncompliant or unsafe condition 

results. However, using an SMS is not 

a substitute for compliance with FAA 

regulations or FAA oversight activities. 

Rather, an SMS would ensure 

compliance with safety-related statutory 

and regulatory requirements. 

The FAA, in continuing to develop a 

comprehensive and integrated 

framework for safety management, is 

considering an SMS rule to provide 

product/service providers with a 

standardized set of requirements for an 

SMS. The FAA Aviation Safety 

Organization (AVS) describes an SMS as 

containing four key components: Safety 

Policy, Safety Risk Management (SRM), 

Safety Assurance (SA), and Safety 

Promotion. 

Safety Policy. Safety policy outlines 

the methods and processes the 

organization’s SMS will use to achieve 

the desired safety outcomes. The policy 

establishes senior management’s 

commitment on behalf of the 

organization to incorporate and 

continually improve safety in all aspects 

of its business. Senior management 

would develop measurable and 

attainable company-wide safety 

objectives, procedures, and processes. 

The safety policy establishes and 

promotes safety culture throughout all 

levels of an organization. 

Safety Risk Management (SRM). SRM 

processes are used to assess system 

design and verify that the system 

adequately controls risk. A formal SRM 

process describes a system, identifies 

hazards, analyzes those hazards to 

identify risk, and establishes controls to 

manage those risks. 

Safety Assurance (SA). SA processes 

are used to ensure risk controls 

developed under SRM achieve their 

intended objectives throughout the life 

cycle of a system. The SA process may 

reveal hazards not previously identified 

during the SRM process. The SA 

process may also allow the product/ 

service provider to identify or assess the 

need for new risk controls, as well as 

the need to eliminate or modify existing 

controls. These SA monitoring activities 

apply to an SMS whether the operations 

are accomplished internally or 

outsourced. The SA processes include: 

information acquisition, analysis, 

system assessment, and development of 

preventive/corrective action for 

nonconformance. 

Safety Promotion. Safety promotion 

requires creating an environment where 

safety objectives can be achieved. Safety 

promotion encourages a positive safety 

culture. A positive safety culture is 

characterized by an adequate knowledge 

base, competency, implementation 

tools, effective communications, 

ongoing training, and information 

sharing. Senior management must 

provide the leadership to promote and 

ensure a positive safety culture 

throughout an organization. A positive 

safety culture is the product of 

individual and group values, attitudes, 

and behavior, all committed to the 

organization’s safety programs. 

In addition to the four components 

described above, another important 

element of a product/service provider’s 

SMS is the ability of the SMS to 

interface with other product/service 

providers, as well as the regulator. Such 

interfacing allows product/service 

providers to address issues of mutual 

concern and allows the regulator to 

evaluate the performance of the 

product/service provider’s SMS. 

International Civil Aviation 

Organization (ICAO) and Safety 

Management Systems 

In March 2006, ICAO amended Annex 

6—which addresses requirements for 

the operation of aircraft, commercial air 

transport operators, and helicopter 

operators—requiring member states to 

mandate that their Annex 6 operators 

establish an SMS. The March 2006 

amendments require member states to 

initiate compliance by January 1, 2009. 

On December 7, 2007, ICAO proposed 

incorporating Annex 6 SMS 

requirements into Annex 1 (medical 

licensing) and Annex 8, (airworthiness 

of aircraft), specifically aircraft and 

aircraft component manufacturers, as 

well as maintenance facilities. These 

proposals, if adopted, would extend the 

compliance date for Annex 6 

amendments that were adopted in 

March 2006 to November 19, 2009, and 

require all member states to initiate 

compliance with the Annex 1 and 

Annex 8 amendments by November 18, 

2010. Additional information regarding 

these amendments, as well as ICAO’s 

guidance on establishing an SMS 

framework, may be found at http:// 

www.icao.int/anb/safetymanagement/. 

The United States has endorsed the 

December 7, 2007, ICAO proposal to 

require product/service providers under 

Annex 1, 6, and 8 to develop an SMS. 

Such a requirement would be consistent 

with recent National Transportation 

Safety Board (NTSB) recommendations 

that the FAA requires all part 121 

operators to establish SMS programs. 

See NTSB Recommendation A–07–10 

(January 23, 2007). 

FAA Policy and Guidance Materials 

In an effort to develop SMS policy 

and guidance material, the FAA 

reviewed ICAO requirements and 

surveyed SMS programs and 

development efforts around the world. 

The FAA followed SMS developments 

in Canada, New Zealand, Australia, and 

Britain for program details, best 

practices, and lessons learned. We also 

examined third-party systems 

developed by user organizations 

including the International Air 

Transport Association (IATA), the 

Medallion Foundation, and the 

International Business Aviation Council 

(IBAC). 

As a result, the FAA has developed 

policy and guidance material for 

establishing an SMS framework within 

the FAA, as well as recommendations 

for industry product/service providers 

in developing their own SMSs. 

Advisory Circular (AC) 120–92, 

Introduction to Safety Management 

Systems for Air Operators, issued June 

22, 2006, provides a voluntary 

framework by which air operators may 

establish an SMS. Some 14 CFR part 91, 

121, and 135 operators and some part 

145 maintenance organizations have 

used this AC for voluntary SMS 

development. 

The AC provides background and 

introductory material on SMS processes 

and interfaces with the certificate 

holder’s SMS and the FAA oversight 

system. Compliance with the AC is 

voluntary because there are not, at 

present, any SMS regulatory 

requirements in the United States. In 

addition, in May 2008, the FAA’s 

Aviation Safety organization issued 

Order VS 8000.367, Aviation Safety 

(AVS) Safety Management System 

Requirements, prescribing what criteria 

AVS services and offices must follow in 

implementing an SMS within AVS. 

Appendix B of this order provides 

specific guidance for product/service 

provider SMS development. The FAA 

encourages the public to read these 

documents to help build an 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 140 / Thursday, July 23, 2009 / Proposed Rules 36417 

understanding of SMS principles before 

responding to the questions below. 

Copies of these documents have been 

placed in the docket for this notice. 

Request for Information 

The FAA seeks input from the public 

on the following questions. In your 

comments please refer to the number of 

the specific question(s) you are 

responding to. Please do not hesitate to 

provide additional information 

regarding SMS not addressed by these 

questions if you believe it would be 

helpful in understanding the 

implications of imposing an SMS 

regulatory requirement. We do not 

expect that every commenter will be 

able to answer every question. Please 

respond to those questions you feel able 

to answer, or that address your 

particular issue. 

1. Please tell us about your 

organization, including what products/ 

services are provided, what FAA 

certificates you hold, approximate 

number of employees, and your 

approximate annual gross revenue. 

2. Has your organization implemented 

an SMS or components of an SMS based 

on any of the guidance materials below? 

Please describe your implementation 

experience. 

a. FAA Order VS8000.367, AVSSMS 

Requirements, Appendix B. 

b. AC–120–92, Introduction to Safety 

Management Systems for Air Operators. 

c. FAA-sponsored regulatory or 

voluntary programs (e.g., Continuing 

Analysis and Surveillance Systems 

(CASS), Internal Evaluation Programs 

(IEP), Aviation Safety Action Programs 

(ASAP), etc.). 

d. Foreign civil aviation authorities’ 

SMS development material (e.g., 

Transport Canada, Civil Aviation 

Authority of Singapore (CAAS), 

Australia Civil Aviation Safety 

Authority (CASA), U.K. Civil Aviation 

Authority (CAA)—please specify). 

3. Please comment on the sufficiency 

of the following SMS guidance material, 

and what, if any, additional information 

you would need to implement an SMS. 

a. FAA Order 8000.367, AVSSMS 

Requirements, Appendix B. 

b. AC–120–92, Introduction to Safety 

Management Systems for Air Operators. 

c. Foreign civil aviation authorities’ 

SMS development material. 

d. Third party material (e.g., IATA 

Operational Safety Audit (IOSA), 

International Standard for Business 

Aircraft Operations (IS–BAO), Regional 

Air Cargo Carriers Association 

(RACCA), Air Cargo Safety Foundation 

(ACSF)). 

e. Other (please specify). 

4. Do you currently have a quality 

management system (QMS) that meets 

some accepted standard (e.g., ISO–9000, 

Six-Sigma, Baldridge)? How would you 

envision your existing system operating 

in an SMS framework? 

5. If you have voluntarily developed, 

or are in the process of developing an 

SMS, what impact has SMS had on your 

organization in terms of enhanced safety 

and compliance with existing CFRs? 

6. Which types of product/service 

providers should be required to have an 

SMS and which, if any, should not? 

Please explain the reasoning for your 

opinion. 

7. If you have implemented an SMS 

and conducted cost and benefits 

analyses, please describe your findings. 

8. What are your main concerns and 

recommendations in making the 

transition to an SMS regarding the 

following? 

a. Documentation requirements (e.g., 

developing or updating manuals, 

policies, procedures, standard operating 

procedures). 

b. Recordkeeping requirements (e.g., 

hazard identification data, risk 

assessment data, corrective actions). 

c. Collection, sharing, and 

management of safety information (e.g., 

protection of and access to personally 

identifiable information, proprietary 

information). 

9. What are the initial and recurrent 

costs of establishing and maintaining 

SMS processes (e.g., internal auditing 

and evaluation, data collection, 

employee training, computer software, 

personnel hiring and training)? 

10. What impact has SMS had on your 

organization in terms of the resources 

necessary to implement and maintain 

the system? 

11. What new knowledge, skills, and 

abilities would your organization need, 

if any, to operate successfully within an 

SMS? 

12. Please give us your thoughts about 

the current processes for procuring and 

using voluntarily submitted safety data 

through FAA programs such as Aviation 

Safety Action Program (ASAP) and how 

these programs would fit within an SMS 

framework. 

13. What areas of the current 

regulations do you believe already 

incorporate SMS principles (e.g., 

continuing analysis and surveillance 

system (CASS) under 14 CFR 121.373; 

quality or inspection system 

requirements under 14 CFR 21.143 and 

21.303)? How would you suggest the 

FAA avoid any duplicative 

requirements in any SMS rulemaking 

effort? 

14. What concerns and 

recommendations do you have about 

setting objective standards for the 

evaluation of SMS processes (e.g., 

evaluating SMS effectiveness, defining 

scope of hazards, establishing 

acceptable levels of risk)? 

15. What are practical ways a small 

business could apply the elements of an 

SMS? 

16. What are your concerns and 

recommendations regarding the FAA 

making the transition to requiring SMS 

of product/service providers (e.g., 

schedule for implementation, FAA 

acceptance and approval procedures, 

oversight)? 

17. Please provide any additional 

information you think is pertinent. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on July 20, 

2009. 

John Hickey, 

Deputy Associate Administrator for Aviation 

Safety. 

[FR Doc. E9–17553 Filed 7–22–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2009–0655; Directorate 

Identifier 2008–NM–192–AD] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; Boeing 

Model 747–200F, 747–200C, 747–400, 

747–400D, and 747–400F Series 

Airplanes 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), Department of 

Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM). 

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to 

supersede an existing airworthiness 

directive (AD) that applies to all Boeing 

Model 747–200F, 747–200C, 747–400, 

747–400D, and 747–400F series 

airplanes. The existing AD currently 

requires repetitive inspections for 

cracking of certain fuselage internal 

structure (i.e., Sections 42 and 46 

fuselage frames, upper deck floor beams, 

electronic bay access door cutout, nose 

wheel well, and main entry doors and 

door cutouts), and repair if necessary. 

This proposed AD would require 

additional repetitive inspections for 

cracking of certain fuselage structure 

(i.e., Section 41 fuselage frames where 

they connect to upper deck floor beams, 

and section 41 fuselage frames between 

stringer (S–8 and S–12), and related 

investigative/corrective actions if 

necessary. This proposed AD would 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1