81fr45972-SMS-Certificated-Airports-SNPRM

Vol. 81

Thursday,

No. 135

July 14, 2016

Part V

Department of Transportation

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS4

Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 139
Safety Management System for Certificated Airports; Proposed Rules

VerDate Sep<11>2014

19:19 Jul 13, 2016

Jkt 238001

PO 00000

Frm 00001

Fmt 4717

Sfmt 4717

E:\FR\FM\14JYP4.SGM

14JYP4

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
Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Supplemental notice of
proposed rulemaking (SNPRM).
AGENCY:

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.

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS4

SUMMARY:

VerDate Sep<11>2014

19:19 Jul 13, 2016

Jkt 238001

• 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

PO 00000

Frm 00002

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

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

E:\FR\FM\14JYP4.SGM

14JYP4

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

All
($)

Base case

Class I
($)

45873

• 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.

International
($)

L, M, S and
>100K ops
($)

Preferred
alternative: L,
M, S, >100K
ops, and
international
($)

Benefits ................................................................................
Costs ....................................................................................

$382,987,281
471,104,787

$368,096,671
341,021,606

$360,907,166
215,010,997

$356,128,301
163,760,850

$370,788,457
238,865,692

Net Benefits ..................................................................
PV Benefits (7%) .................................................................
PV Costs (7%) .....................................................................

¥88,117,506
233,282,770
307,842,595

27,075,065
224,210,033
223,584,687

145,896,169
219,830,291
141,796,001

192,367,451
216,919,352
108,819,973

131,922,764
225,850,869
157,496,312

PV Net Benefits (7%) ...................................................
PV Benefits (3%) .................................................................
PV Costs (3%) .....................................................................

¥74,559,825
307,499,272
389,440,320

625,346
295,542,114
282,304,199

78,034,290
289,769,378
178,432,284

108,099,379
285,932,407
136,340,226

68,354,557
297,704,052
198,211,977

PV Net Benefits (3%) ...................................................

¥74,559,825

625,346

78,034,290

108,099,379

68,354,557

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS4

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.

1 Additional information regarding the purpose of
the proposed SMS requirement can be found in the
‘‘Background’’ section of the NPRM (75 FR 62008).
2 The 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.
3 The 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/.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

19:19 Jul 13, 2016

Jkt 238001

PO 00000

Frm 00003

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

E:\FR\FM\14JYP4.SGM

14JYP4

45874

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

II. Background

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS4

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
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).
5 Safety Management System Pilot Studies
(Technical Report) is available at http://
www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FAA2010-0997-0074.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

19:19 Jul 13, 2016

Jkt 238001

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),

PO 00000

Frm 00004

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

• 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.
6 FAA Responses to Clarifying Questions (May 24,
2011), available at http://www.regulations.gov/
#!documentDetail;D=FAA-;2010-0997-0073.

E:\FR\FM\14JYP4.SGM

14JYP4

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

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

7 The number of certificated airports at the time
of SNPRM development.

8 Section V(B), Applicability contains detailed
analysis of these alternatives.

III. Discussion of Proposals in the
SNPRM
A. Differences Between the SNPRM and
the NPRM

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS4

1. Applicability

VerDate Sep<11>2014

19:19 Jul 13, 2016

Jkt 238001

PO 00000

Frm 00005

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

45875

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.

E:\FR\FM\14JYP4.SGM

14JYP4

45876

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

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.

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS4

3. Training
The NPRM proposed an SMS training
requirement for all employees and
9 The 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.
10 This 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).

VerDate Sep<11>2014

19:19 Jul 13, 2016

Jkt 238001

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
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.

PO 00000

11 As

Frm 00006

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

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

E:\FR\FM\14JYP4.SGM

14JYP4

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

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS4

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

VerDate Sep<11>2014

19:19 Jul 13, 2016

Jkt 238001

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

PO 00000

Frm 00007

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

45877

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

E:\FR\FM\14JYP4.SGM

14JYP4

45878

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

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.

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS4

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.
12 These

figures are current as of October 2012.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

19:19 Jul 13, 2016

Jkt 238001

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

PO 00000

Frm 00008

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

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

E:\FR\FM\14JYP4.SGM

14JYP4

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

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS4

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,

VerDate Sep<11>2014

19:19 Jul 13, 2016

Jkt 238001

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

PO 00000

Frm 00009

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

45879

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.

E:\FR\FM\14JYP4.SGM

14JYP4

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.

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS4

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.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

19:19 Jul 13, 2016

Jkt 238001

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

PO 00000

Frm 00010

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

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

E:\FR\FM\14JYP4.SGM

14JYP4

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

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS4

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

VerDate Sep<11>2014

19:19 Jul 13, 2016

Jkt 238001

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

PO 00000

Frm 00011

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

45881

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

E:\FR\FM\14JYP4.SGM

14JYP4

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS4

45882

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

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.
13 Correction made to applicability date, see 80
FR 1584 (January 13, 2015).

VerDate Sep<11>2014

19:19 Jul 13, 2016

Jkt 238001

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.

PO 00000

Frm 00012

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

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

E:\FR\FM\14JYP4.SGM

14JYP4

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS4

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

VerDate Sep<11>2014

19:19 Jul 13, 2016

Jkt 238001

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

PO 00000

Frm 00013

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

45883

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

E:\FR\FM\14JYP4.SGM

14JYP4

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

VerDate Sep<11>2014

19:19 Jul 13, 2016

Jkt 238001

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

PO 00000

Frm 00014

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

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

E:\FR\FM\14JYP4.SGM

14JYP4

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

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS4

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
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).

VerDate Sep<11>2014

19:19 Jul 13, 2016

Jkt 238001

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

PO 00000

Frm 00015

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

45885

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,

E:\FR\FM\14JYP4.SGM

14JYP4

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS4

45886

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

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.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

19:19 Jul 13, 2016

Jkt 238001

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,

PO 00000

Frm 00016

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

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
15 Issued September 30, 2014 and available at
http://www.faa.gov/airports/aip/aip_handbook/

E:\FR\FM\14JYP4.SGM

14JYP4

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS4

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

VerDate Sep<11>2014

19:19 Jul 13, 2016

Jkt 238001

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

PO 00000

Frm 00017

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

45887

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

E:\FR\FM\14JYP4.SGM

14JYP4

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

VerDate Sep<11>2014

19:19 Jul 13, 2016

Jkt 238001

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

PO 00000

Frm 00018

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

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

E:\FR\FM\14JYP4.SGM

14JYP4

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS4

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

VerDate Sep<11>2014

19:19 Jul 13, 2016

Jkt 238001

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

PO 00000

Frm 00019

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

45889

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

E:\FR\FM\14JYP4.SGM

14JYP4

45890

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

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS4

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

VerDate Sep<11>2014

19:19 Jul 13, 2016

Jkt 238001

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,

PO 00000

Frm 00020

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

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

E:\FR\FM\14JYP4.SGM

14JYP4

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

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS4

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

VerDate Sep<11>2014

19:19 Jul 13, 2016

Jkt 238001

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

PO 00000

Frm 00021

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

45891

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.

E:\FR\FM\14JYP4.SGM

14JYP4

45892

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 135 / Thursday, July 14, 2016 / Proposed Rules
COMPARISON OF COSTS AND BENEFITS OVER 10 YEARS
[2014 Dollars]

All
($)

Base case

Class I
($)

International
($)

L, M, S and
>100K ops
($)

Preferred
alternative: L,
M, S, >100K
ops, and
international
($)

Benefits ................................................................................
Costs ....................................................................................

$382,987,281
471,104,787

$368,096,671
341,021,606

$360,907,166
215,010,997

$356,128,301
163,760,850

$370,788,457
238,865,692

Net Benefits ..................................................................

¥88,117,506

27,075,065

145,896,169

192,367,451

131,922,764

Benefits (7%) .................................................................
Costs (7%) .....................................................................
Net Benefits (7%) ...........................................................
Benefits (3%) .................................................................
Costs (3%) .....................................................................

233,282,770
307,842,595
¥74,559,825
307,499,272
389,440,320

224,210,033
223,584,687
625,346
295,542,114
282,304,199

219,830,291
141,796,001
78,034,290
289,769,378
178,432,284

216,919,352
108,819,973
108,099,379
285,932,407
136,340,226

225,850,869
157,496,312
68,354,557
297,704,052
198,211,977

PV Net Benefits (3%) ...................................................

¥74,559,825

625,346

78,034,290

108,099,379

68,354,557

PV
PV
PV
PV
PV

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.

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS4

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
17 Office 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.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

20:01 Jul 13, 2016

Jkt 238001

• 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 10year 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%).

Base case

PV
PV
PV
PV
PV

Preferred
alternative: L,
M, S, >100K
ops, and
international

Benefits (7%) ..................
Costs (7%) ......................
Net Benefits (7%) ...........
Benefits (3%) ..................
Costs (3%) ......................

225,850,869
157,496,312
68,354,557
297,704,052
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
v. Costs for the Preferred Alternative
not cost-beneficial.
• Certificated international airports—
Preferred
alternative: L, This alternative is cost-beneficial but
Base case
M, S, >100K
does not capture all certificated airports
ops, and
with complex operations.
international
• Large, Medium, Small hub airports
Benefits .................................
$370,788,457
and certificated airports with total
Costs .....................................
238,865,692
annual operations greater than
Net Benefits ......................
131,922,764 100,000—This alternative is costbeneficial but does not harmonize with
19 Id.
ICAO Annex 14.

PO 00000

Frm 00022

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

E:\FR\FM\14JYP4.SGM

14JYP4

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

45893

COMPARISON OF COSTS AND BENEFITS OVER 10 YEARS
[2014 Dollars]

All
($)

Base case

Class I
($)

International
($)

L, M, S and
>100K ops
($)

Preferred
alternative: L,
M, S, >100K
ops, and
international
($)

Benefits ................................................................................
Costs ....................................................................................

$382,987,281
471,104,787

$368,096,671
341,021,606

$360,907,166
215,010,997

$356,128,301
163,760,850

$370,788,457
238,865,692

Net Benefits ..................................................................
Benefits (7%) .................................................................
Costs (7%) .....................................................................
Net Benefits (7%) ...........................................................
Benefits (3%) .................................................................
Costs (3%) .....................................................................

¥88,117,506
233,282,770
307,842,595
¥74,559,825
307,499,272
389,440,320

27,075,065
224,210,033
223,584,687
625,346
295,542,114
282,304,199

145,896,169
219,830,291
141,796,001
78,034,290
289,769,378
178,432,284

192,367,451
216,919,352
108,819,973
108,099,379
285,932,407
136,340,226

131,922,764
225,850,869
157,496,312
68,354,557
297,704,052
198,211,977

PV Net Benefits (3%) ...................................................

¥74,559,825

625,346

78,034,290

108,099,379

68,354,557

PV
PV
PV
PV
PV

Mitigation Costs: Not quantified, estimates not included.
Given the range of mitigation actions possible, it is difficult to quantify potential benefits.

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS4

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

VerDate Sep<11>2014

19:19 Jul 13, 2016

Jkt 238001

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
20 Annualized using a capital recovery factor of
0.14238, over 10 years, using a 7 percent rate of
interest.
21 Revenue data from Compliance Activity
Tracking System (CATS) accessed on June 10, 2013
from http://cats.airports.faa.gov.

PO 00000

Frm 00023

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

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.

E:\FR\FM\14JYP4.SGM

14JYP4

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

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

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS4

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,

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

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.

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

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.

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

22 Accessed on June 10, 2013 at http://
cat.airports.faa.gov.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

19:19 Jul 13, 2016

Jkt 238001

PO 00000

Frm 00024

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

E:\FR\FM\14JYP4.SGM

14JYP4

EP14JY16.014

45894

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.

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

VerDate Sep<11>2014

19:19 Jul 13, 2016

Jkt 238001

PO 00000

Frm 00025

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

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).

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.

E:\FR\FM\14JYP4.SGM

14JYP4

EP14JY16.015

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS4

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

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

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS4

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,

VerDate Sep<11>2014

19:19 Jul 13, 2016

Jkt 238001

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

PO 00000

Frm 00026

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

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

E:\FR\FM\14JYP4.SGM

14JYP4

EP14JY16.016

45896

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

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS4

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

VerDate Sep<11>2014

19:19 Jul 13, 2016

Jkt 238001

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.

PO 00000

Frm 00027

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

45897

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.
23 For the purposes of this analysis, the FAA has
defined ‘‘large airports’’ as Large, Medium, and
Small hub airports.
24 For the purposes of this analysis, the FAA has
defined ‘‘small airports’’ as all certificated airports
that are not Large, Medium, or Small hubs.

E:\FR\FM\14JYP4.SGM

14JYP4

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

b. Initial Burden—FAA—Review
Manual and Implementation Plan

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS4

• Number of large airports: 138.
• Number of small airports: 130.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

19:19 Jul 13, 2016

Jkt 238001

• 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.

PO 00000

Frm 00028

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

• Estimated time needed to review an
SMS document per airport: 8 hours in
second year.
• Wage for inspector: $66.76 per
hour.

E:\FR\FM\14JYP4.SGM

14JYP4

EP14JY16.017

45898

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

i. SMS Manual Revisions
(§ 139.401(d)(2)(i))

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS4

• Number of airports: 268.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

19:19 Jul 13, 2016

Jkt 238001

• Estimated time needed to revise
SMS manual per airport: 12 hours per
year starting in third year.
• Wage for clerical: $19.41 per hour.

PO 00000

Frm 00029

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

E:\FR\FM\14JYP4.SGM

14JYP4

EP14JY16.018

c. Annual Burden—Certificate Holders

45899

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 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.

EP14JY16.020

• Number of airports: 268.

• Wage for SMS manager/
coordinator: $66.28 per hour.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

19:19 Jul 13, 2016

Jkt 238001

PO 00000

Frm 00030

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

E:\FR\FM\14JYP4.SGM

14JYP4

EP14JY16.019

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS4

iii. Recording Potential Hazards
(§ 139.402(b)(1))

• Estimated time needed to create
SMS promotional material per airport:
25.76 hours every other year starting in
third year.

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS4

• Number of airports: 268.

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.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

19:19 Jul 13, 2016

Jkt 238001

• 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.

• 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.

PO 00000

Frm 00031

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

E:\FR\FM\14JYP4.SGM

14JYP4

EP14JY16.022

iv. Hazard Awareness and Reporting
Orientation Materials (§ 139.402(d)(1))

45901

EP14JY16.021

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

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

vi. Update SMS Training Records
(§ 139.402(d)(4))

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS4

• Number of large airports: 138.
• Number of small airports: 130.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

19:19 Jul 13, 2016

Jkt 238001

• Estimated time needed to update
training records per airport: 5 Minutes
per record every other year starting in
second year.

PO 00000

Frm 00032

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

• Average number of employees per
large airport: 10.
• Average number of employees per
small airport: 3.
• Wage for clerical: $19.41 per hour.

E:\FR\FM\14JYP4.SGM

14JYP4

EP14JY16.023

45902

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

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS4

• Number of airports: 268.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

19:19 Jul 13, 2016

Jkt 238001

• Estimated number of hazards
documented per airport: 52 per year
starting in third year.

PO 00000

Frm 00033

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

• Estimated time needed to document
SRM per airport: 0.5 hours per year
starting in third year.
• Wage for clerical: $19.41 per hour.

E:\FR\FM\14JYP4.SGM

14JYP4

EP14JY16.024

vii. Documenting Safety Risk
Management (§ 139.402(b)(3))

45903

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.

d. Annual Burden—FAA
i. Review of SMS Manual Revisions

• 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.

EP14JY16.026

• Estimated number of reports per
airport: 2 per year starting in third year.
• Wage for operational research
analyst: $46.62 per hour.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

19:19 Jul 13, 2016

Jkt 238001

PO 00000

Frm 00034

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

E:\FR\FM\14JYP4.SGM

14JYP4

EP14JY16.025

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS4

• Number of airports: 268.

• Estimated time needed to report
safety information per report per airport:
1 hour per year starting in third year.

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

45905

e. Summary of All Burden Hours and
Costs—Certificate Holders

EP14JY16.029
EP14JY16.028

VerDate Sep<11>2014

19:19 Jul 13, 2016

Jkt 238001

PO 00000

Frm 00035

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4725

E:\FR\FM\14JYP4.SGM

14JYP4

EP14JY16.027

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS4

f. Summary of All Burden Hours and
Costs—FAA

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

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS4

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

VerDate Sep<11>2014

19:19 Jul 13, 2016

Jkt 238001

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

PO 00000

Frm 00036

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

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

■

E:\FR\FM\14JYP4.SGM

14JYP4

45907

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

*

Contents of Airport Certification

*
*
(b)* * *

*

*

REQUIRED AIRPORT CERTIFICATION MANUAL ELEMENTS
Airport certificate class
Manual elements
Class I
*
*
*
*
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. ..........................................................................................
*

*

*

6. Amend § 139.301 by revising
paragraph (b)(1) and adding paragraphs
(b)(9) and (b)(10) to read as follows:

■

§ 139.301

Records.

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS4

*

*
*
*
*
(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

VerDate Sep<11>2014

19:19 Jul 13, 2016

Jkt 238001

*

*

*

*
*
*
*
(e) * * *
(5) § 139.337, Wildlife hazard
management;

PO 00000

Frm 00037

Fmt 4701

X

*

Personnel.

Sfmt 4702

Class III
*

X

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

Class II

Class IV
*

X
*

X
*

(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.

E:\FR\FM\14JYP4.SGM

14JYP4

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.

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS4

§ 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.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

19:19 Jul 13, 2016

Jkt 238001

(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:

PO 00000

Frm 00038

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

(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.

E:\FR\FM\14JYP4.SGM

14JYP4

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 135 / Thursday, July 14, 2016 / Proposed Rules
(6) Maintain records of
communications required under this
section for 12 consecutive calendar
months.
§ 139.403 Airport Safety Management
System implementation.

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS4

(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:

VerDate Sep<11>2014

19:19 Jul 13, 2016

Jkt 238001

(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).

PO 00000

Frm 00039

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 9990

45909

(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

E:\FR\FM\14JYP4.SGM

14JYP4