Source: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2010/10/07/2010-25338/safety-management-system-for-certificated-airports
Timestamp: 2017-07-21 22:44:56
Document Index: 483880512

Matched Legal Cases: ['art 139', 'art 121', 'art 91', 'art 139', 'art 139', '§\u2009139', '§\u2009139', '§\u2009139', '§\u2009139', '§\u2009139', '§\u2009139', '§\u2009139', '§\u2009139', 'art 139', '§\u2009139', '§\u2009139', '§\u2009139', 'art 139', '§\u2009139', '§\u2009139', '§\u2009139', '§\u2009139', '§\u2009139', '§\u2009139', '§\u2009139', 'art.\n5', '§\u2009139', '§\u2009139', '§\u2009139', '§\u2009139', '§\u2009139', '§\u2009139', '§\u2009139', '§\u2009139', '§\u2009139', '§\u2009139', '§\u2009139', '§\u2009139']

:: Safety Management System for Certificated Airports
62008-62023
Enhanced Content - Submit Public Comment 142
https://www.federalregister.gov/d/2010-25338
The International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) defines SMS as a “systematic approach to managing safety, including the necessary organizational structures, accountabilities, policies, and Start Printed Page 62009procedures.” [1] In 2001, ICAO adopted a standard in Annex 14 that all member states establish SMS requirements for airport operators. The FAA supports conformity of U.S. aviation safety regulations with ICAO standards and recommended practices. The agency intends to meet the intent of the ICAO standard in a way that complements existing airport safety regulations in 14 CFR part 139. 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/​.
Pinnacle Airlines Flight 3701 was on a repositioning flight between Little Rock National Airport and Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport when both engines flamed out after a pilot-induced aerodynamic stall. The pilots were unable to regain control, and the aircraft crashed in a residential area south of Jefferson City, Missouri. The NTSB's investigation revealed “the accident was the result of poorly performing pilots who intentionally deviated from standard operating procedures and basic airmanship.” [2] The NTSB further stated “operators have the responsibility for a flight crew's cockpit discipline and adherence to standard operating procedures” and offered an SMS as a means to help air carriers ensure safety.[3] The NTSB formally recommended the FAA “require all 14 CFR part 121 operators establish Safety Management System programs.” [4] Three years after the Pinnacle Airlines accident, the NTSB investigated the in-flight fire, emergency descent, and crash of a Cessna 310R in Sanford, Florida, and issued another SMS recommendation. The NTSB determined the probable causes of the accident “were the actions and decisions by NASCAR's corporate aviation division's management and maintenance personnel to allow the accident airplane to be released for flight with a known and unresolved discrepancy, and the accident pilots' decision to operate the airplane with that known discrepancy.” [5] As in the Pinnacle Airlines accident, the NASCAR pilot and aviation organization failed to follow standard operating procedures (SOPs). The NTSB stated “an effective SMS program formalizes a company's SOPs and establishes methods for ensuring that those SOPs are followed.” [6] The NTSB recommended the FAA “develop a safety alert for operators encouraging all 14 CFR part 91 business operators to adopt SMS programs that include sound risk management practices.” [7] While the NTSB has not formally recommended the FAA require an SMS for certificated airports, the FAA has concluded those same organizational factors apply to all regulated sectors of the aviation industry. Airports operate in similar environments as air carriers and business flight operators where adherence to standard operating procedures, proactive identification, mitigation of hazards and risks, and effective communications are crucial to continued operational safety. Accordingly, certificated airports could realize similar SMS benefits as an aircraft operator. The FAA envisions an SMS would provide an airport with an added layer of safety to help reduce the number of near-misses, incidents, and accidents. An SMS also would ensure that all levels of airport management understand safety implications of airfield operations.
The FAA, on February 28, 2007, issued Advisory Circular (AC) 150/5200-37, Introduction to Safety Management Systems for Airport Operators. This AC provides an introduction to SMS and general guidelines for an airport SMS. While compliance with this AC is voluntary, numerous airports have used it in implementing their SMS.Start Printed Page 62010
The Airports Cooperative Research Program (ACRP) [8] approved two projects to prepare guidance on airport SMS. In September 2007, MITRE Corporation published the first report, SMS for Airports Volume 1: Overview. This report describes SMS benefits, ICAO requirements, and SMS application at U.S. airports. The second project, ACRP's SMS for Airports Volume 2: Guidebook, was completed in October 2009 and provides practical guidance on development and implementation of an airport SMS.
The first round of pilot studies included over 20 airports. The FAA later established a second round of pilot studies on SMS development at smaller airports with a Class II, III, or IV AOC.[9] All participating airports conducted a gap analysis or benchmark study examining differences between their FAA-approved Airport Certification Manual (ACM), part 139 requirements, and a typical airport SMS. Using these results, the participating airports then developed a separate SMS Manual and Implementation Plan using AC 150/5200-37 and the FAA Airport SMS Pilot Study Participant's Guide. While pilot study airports were not required to implement an SMS, many chose to do so. As a result of these pilot studies, participating airports and the FAA made some key findings.
The majority of pilot study airports indicated an existing organizational structure to manage safety (such as a standing safety committee), but there is rarely one person with overall responsibility and authority for operational safety. Several airports admitted to relatively inactive safety committees. Second, several airports indicated they have safety risk management programs or policies in place (e.g., part 139 self-inspection program), but most described their hazard identification processes as reactive rather than proactive. These airports concluded their existing programs could be improved to meet the intent of the SMS SRM. While § 139.327 requires an airport to identify hazards or discrepancies during its self inspection, this requirement does not realize the potential of safety management through identifying and recording all safety hazards, conducting risk assessments, and developing mitigation strategies.
(1) A new § 139.401 that would require all holders of an AOC to have an approved airport SMS;
(2) a new § 139.402 that would prescribe the components of an airport SMS; and
(3) a new § 139.403 that would prescribe the implementation requirements for an airport SMS.Start Printed Page 62011
The proposal also would add to § 139.5 the following definitions: Accountable executive; Airport safety management system; Hazard; Non-movement area; Risk; Risk analysis; Risk mitigation; Safety assurance; Safety policy; Safety promotion; and Safety risk management (SRM).
The FAA learned through the pilot studies there are circumstances when a certificate holder may want flexibility in maintaining SMS documentation. For example, some airport operators manage multiple airports (have multiple AOCs), and some may want to expand SMS beyond the FAA-regulated areas (such as for landside or terminal operations.) In allowing maximum flexibility, a certificate holder may maintain a separate SMS Manual in addition to the ACM or may maintain SMS documentation directly in the ACM. If a certificate holder develops a separate manual, it would cross-reference the SMS requirements in its FAA-approved ACM. Accordingly, the FAA proposes 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. The FAA also proposes to amend § 139.103 to require two copies of the SMS manual, or SMS portion of the ACM, accompany an AOC application.
In a new § 139.402, the FAA would require each airport SMS include the four SMS components: Safety Policy, SRM, Safety Assurance, and Safety Promotion. These components are equivalent to ICAO's SMS pillars. To support each of these components, the FAA proposes a certificate holder implement a number of elements. Together the components and elements provide the general framework for an organization-wide safety management approach to airport operations. To make these components and elements effective, a certificate holder would develop processes and procedures appropriate to the airport's operating environment. The FAA understands that a certificate holder could comply with these requirements through a variety of means. The FAA intends these proposed requirements to be scalable to the size and complexity of the certificate holder. The FAA invites comments on how the FAA could clarify or improve the scalability of this proposal.
This proposal would require an airport to identify an accountable executive. The FAA understands that airport operations and organizational structures vary widely. Accordingly, the FAA would not prescribe a particular job title. Nevertheless, the accountable executive must be a high-level manager who can influence safety-related decisions and has authority to approve operational decisions and changes because an effective SMS requires high-level management involvement in safety decisionmaking. Accordingly, the FAA proposes the international standard definition for an accountable executive (i.e., requiring the accountable executive to be an individual with ultimate responsibility and accountability, full control of the human and financial resources required to maintain the SMS, and final authority over operations and safety issues).[10] The FAA acknowledges it may be difficult for U.S. airports to identify an accountable executive meeting that international standard, but it believes an acceptable accountable executive would be the highest approving authority at the airport for operational decisions and changes. The FAA invites comments concerning the definition of accountable executive for certificated airports.
Additionally, we would require a certificate holder to identify its safety organizational structure and management responsibility and accountability for safety issues. The importance to identifying who in airport management is responsible for safety ensures resources are allocated to balance safety and service. For example, an airport would identify each manager accountable for safety and that manager's responsibilities under the airport SMS. Each airport employee should know who is the contact point for a particular safety issue. An airport would decide how managers' safety responsibilities and accountabilities are communicated. It could use an organizational chart or other means that identify lines of communication and decisionmaking. In some organizations, with multiple departments responsible Start Printed Page 62012for part 139 compliance, an airport may have multiple line managers responsible for the safety of different airport areas (e.g., an operations manager for airfield operational safety issues or a maintenance manager for maintenance safety issues). The safety organizational structure should allow every employee to understand how safety issues progress through the organization. This safety organizational structure also would ensure that senior management is aware of the daily activities of these departments and has an active role in airport safety.
Currently, § 139.203 requires certificated airports to have lines of succession of airport operator responsibility. These lines may provide a foundation for establishing the airport's accountable executive and delineation of responsibility for SMS functions.
A certificate holder could use hazard reports obtained through the airport's safety reporting system, which is detailed later in this discussion. The airport also would keep track of Start Printed Page 62013incidents and accidents occurring in the airport's movement and non-movement areas to identify potential operational hazards. Many airports already track incidents and accidents in the movement area.
A certificate holder would define its levels of likelihood and severity. ICAO and the FAA have developed sample definitions and levels of likelihood and severity for use in categorizing hazards.[11] An example is a five-point table for severity and likelihood. The categorization of severity includes definitions for catastrophic, hazardous, major, minor, or negligible. The categorization of likelihood includes definitions for frequent, occasional, remote, improbable, and extremely improbable. A certificate holder should develop tables commensurate with its operational needs and complexity. For example, a less complex airport with few operations may find it effective to have fewer levels of gradation. However, a larger airport with a variety of operations may require a five-point or larger table to be most effective. Based on these definitions, a likelihood and severity of occurrence is selected for each hazard.
When a hazard's likelihood and severity are plotted on the risk matrix, the certificate holder can see whether the hazard's safety risk is acceptable to Start Printed Page 62015the organization. Generally, as the likelihood and severity increase, the risk increases. Each certificate holder would determine its acceptable level of risk and other levels of risk when establishing its predictive risk matrix. For example, a hazard with an assessed likelihood of frequent and severity of catastrophic usually would be plotted in the high risk portion of the matrix. A hazard with an assessed likelihood of extremely improbable and assessed severity of minor usually would be plotted in the low risk portion of the matrix. These levels of risk would be based on the certificate holder's acceptable level of risk and may vary from airport to airport.
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 key outcome of safety Start Printed Page 62016assurance is continuous improvement of the airport's operational safety. The proposal would require the certificate holder to:
Safety performance monitoring and measurement is one way an organization can verify its SMS's effectiveness. ICAO also offers a variety of safety performance monitoring and measurement methods including hazard reports, safety studies, safety reviews, audits, safety surveys, and internal safety investigations.[12] While some certificate holders may not find added value in implementing or using all of these information sources, a certificate holder may benefit from using an internal audit or assessment to monitor performance. Documents created under the airport's SMS should be reviewed periodically to verify whether the airport's SMS processes and procedures are being followed, whether trends exist that have not been identified, and whether SRM mitigations are being implemented and are effective. The certificate holder would determine whether this review is completed by airport personnel or by a third party.
An airport could demonstrate its commitment to safety promotion in several ways. An airport could allocate sufficient resources for the initial and recurrent training of its staff. Likewise, an airport could communicate the results of risk analysis and mitigations for reported hazards. Any training records created as part of the certificate holder's safety promotion processes and procedures would be retained and available for inspection for 24 consecutive calendar months. This retention period is consistent with that for other training records under existing § 139.301. The FAA proposes that any other communications created as part of safety promotion would be retained for 12 consecutive calendar months.
As previously discussed, the FAA recognizes that certificate holders may have systems and processes in place that partially meet the proposed SMS requirements. The FAA believes these systems and processes can easily be Start Printed Page 62017incorporated into an SMS and does not intend duplicative burdens. The FAA requests comments on systems and processes currently in use that would not be compatible with the proposed requirements. The FAA also requests comments specifically identifying how the FAA could clarify or improve the incorporation of existing systems and processes into an SMS.
The FAA also proposes to remove paragraph (c) of § 139.101 because the implementation schedule for submitting a new Airport Certification Manual (ACM) under that section is no longer applicable.
The FAA is considering rulemaking that would establish SMS requirements for other segments of the aviation industry. The FAA requests comments on the interaction between this proposed rule and potential future rulemakings. The FAA also requests comments on which portions of this proposed rule should be adopted for any potential SMS requirements. Finally, the FAA requests comments on whether there are other issues or principles not Start Printed Page 62018included in this proposal that the FAA should consider in issuing a final rule.
Proposed part 139 sectionDescriptionInitial burden hoursAnnual burden hours139.203Airport Safety Management Documentation and Implementation Plan784,552139.301Records: to include the hazard reporting system, the records database, training records, promotional material21,847
This notice of proposed rulemaking would require certificated airports to establish a safety management system (SMS). An SMS is a formalized Start Printed Page 62019approach to managing safety, which includes an organization-wide safety policy, formal methods of identifying potential hazards, formal methods for analyzing and mitigating potential hazards, and an organization-wide emphasis on promoting a safety culture. An SMS for airports is comprised of four key components: Safety Policy, Safety Risk Management (SRM), Safety Assurance, and Safety Promotion. These components would help airports effectively integrate the formal risk control procedures into normal operational practices thus improving safety at airports throughout the United States air transportation system that host air carrier operations.
Therefore, the FAA certifies this proposed rule, if promulgated, would not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The FAA solicits comments regarding this determination. Specifically, the FAA requests comments on whether the proposed rule creates any specific compliance costs unique to small entities. Please provide detailed economic analysis to support any cost claims. The FAA also invites comments regarding other small entity concerns with respect to the proposed rule. 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 Start Printed Page 62020the 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 will have only a domestic impact and therefore would not create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States.
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 Start Printed Page 62021document. 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.
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701-44702, 44709, 44719.
2. Amend § 139.5 by adding the definitions of Accountable executive, Airport Safety Management System (SMS), Hazard, Non-movement area, Risk, Risk analysis, Risk mitigation, Safety assurance, Safety policy, Safety promotion, and Safety risk management in alphabetical order to read as follows:
§ 139.5 Definitions.
§ 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 § 139.103(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.
Required Airport Certification Manual ElementsManual elementsAirport certificate classClass IClass IIClass IIIClass IV * * * * * * *29. Policies and procedures for the development, implementation, operation, and maintenance of the Airport's Safety Management System, as required under subpart E of this partXXXX * * * * * * *
6. Amend § 139.301 by revising paragraph (b)(1) and adding new paragraphs (b)(9) and (b)(10) to read as follows:
§ 139.301 Records.
(1) Personnel training. Twenty-four consecutive calendar months for personnel training records, as required under §§ 139.303, 139.327, and 139.402.
(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).
§ 139.401 General requirements.
(c) Each required certificate holder must describe its compliance with the requirements identified in § 139.402 either:
§ 139.402 Components of Airport Safety Management System.
(iii) Status of ongoing mitigations required under the Airport's Safety Risk Start Printed Page 62023Management processes as described under paragraph (b)(2)(v) of this section; and
(iii) Provides feedback to reporters using the airport's hazard reporting system required under § paragraph (c)(2) of this section; and
§ 139.403 Airport Safety Management System implementation.
(2) A schedule for implementing SMS components and elements prescribed in § 139.402.
See ICAO, Safety Management Manual, at 6.5.3 ICAO Doc. 9859-AN/474 (2nd ed. 2009).
NTSB Accident Report AAR-07/01, “Crash of Pinnacle Airlines Flight 3701 Bombardier CL-600-2B19, N8396A, Jefferson City, Missouri, October 14, 2004,” at 53 (Jan. 9, 2007) .
Id. at 75 ; see also NTSB Safety Recommendation Letter (Jan. 23, 2007) (NTSB Recommendation A-07-10).
NTSB Accident Report AAR-09/01, “In-flight Fire, Emergency Descent and Crash in a Residential Area Cessna 310R, N501N, Sanford, Florida, July 10, 2007,” at iv (Jan. 28, 2009).
Id. at 25; see also NTSB Safety Recommendation Letter (Feb. 18, 2009) (NTSB Recommendation A-09-16).
The Transportation Research Board (TRB) manages ACRP.
For definitions of classes of AOCs, see 14 CFR 139.5.
See ICAO, Safety Management Manual, at 8.4.5 & 8.4.6 ICAO Doc. 9859-AN/474 (2nd ed. 2009).
See ICAO, Safety Management Manual, at 6.5.3 ICAO Doc. 9859-AN/474 (2nd ed. 2009); see also FAA Advisory Circular 150/5200-37, Introduction to Safety Management System for Airport Operators (Feb. 28, 2007).
See ICAO, Safety Management Manual, at 9.6.4 ICAO Doc. 9859-AN/474 (2nd ed. 2009).