faa sms manual version 3.0

faa sms manual version 3.0

We’ve made big changes to make the eCFR easier to use. Be sure to leave feedback using the 'Help' button on the bottom right of each page!The Public Inspection page may alsoWhile every effort has been made to ensure thatUntil the ACFR grants it official status, the XMLCounts are subject to sampling, reprocessing and revision (up or down) throughout the day. Use the PDF linked in the document sidebar for the official electronic format. These can be usefulOnly official editions of theUse the PDF linked in the document sidebar for the official electronic format. 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. 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. 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. 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.http://www.mfcwestenkwartier.nl/beta/userfiles/environmental-management-system-policy-manual.xml

• faa sms manual version 3.0, faa sms manual version 3.0 download, faa sms manual version 3.0 user, faa sms manual version 3.0 2.0, faa sms manual version 3.0 manual.

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. 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. 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 aviation-related activities. 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 FAA supports conformity of U.S. aviation safety regulations with ICAO standards and recommended practices and believes the SNPRM meets the Start Printed Page 45873 intent of the ICAO standard in a way that complements existing airport safety regulations in part 139.http://www.restaurant-riegler.at/userfiles/environmental-management-training-manual.xml

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. 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: Other changes have also been made to ensure consistency among various FAA SMS initiatives and to reduce the implementation burden. The following table shows benefits and costs of the alternatives over 10 years. Given the range of mitigation actions possible, it is difficult to quantify potential benefits. 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. The FAA requests comment on this assumption, as well as data regarding costs and benefits associated with any mitigations implemented through voluntary SMS programs. Start Printed Page 45874 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. Additionally, the FAA permitted commenters to submit clarifying questions to the docket during the comment period.For example, the proposal permitted certificate holders to maintain a separate SMS manual in addition to the Airport Certification Manual (ACM), or maintain SMS documentation directly in the ACM. Options such as these would have permitted certificate holders that operate multiple airports maximum flexibility in the development of their SMS.

Similarly, the proposal included a requirement for certificate holders to establish a system for identifying safety hazards and a systematic process to analyze hazards and their associated risks. By not prescribing any one means for identifying hazards or analyzing risk, the proposal permitted certificate holders flexibility in developing scalable and adaptable processes under their SMS. Commenters included: 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. Start Printed Page 45875 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. 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: 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 airports that comprise this alternative account for over 98% of all passenger enplanements in the U.S. The FAA acknowledges that data submitted through FAA Form 5010-1 may be estimates for airports that do not have an air traffic control tower. While more definitive data may be available through the FAA's air traffic control tower counts, this information may not be readily available, may not be accessible to the public, and does not account for certificated airports that do not have an air traffic control tower. The FAA requests comments on what other methods may be available to accurately account for and determine the proposed rule's applicability based on annual operations, or whether the FAA should use a different baseline for determining applicability. The 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. 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.

Start Printed Page 45876 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. 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? 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 requests comments whether this proposed implementation timeframe is sufficient. Comments should be supported by specific data demonstrating a different implementation timeframe is necessary. 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 non-movement and movement areas of hazard identification and reporting, rather than training on all of the certificate holder's SMS initiatives. 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 requests comments on whether these estimates are accurate as an average across all airports affected by this proposal. The FAA acknowledges that there may be certificate holders included in the preferred applicability alternative who have smaller staffs than these numbers take into account. The FAA also requests comments on the job roles that would require this type of specific training. For 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. 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. 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.

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. 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. 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. 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 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.

The certificate holder's staff would regularly update the accountable executive on pertinent safety information such as the certificate holder's compliance with part 139 subpart D requirements, and its performance with regard to its safety objectives, safety critical information, the status of any ongoing mitigations established through safety risk management, and the status of implementing the SMS. 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. 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. If the certificate holder develops a separate SMS manual, it would cross-reference the SMS requirements in its FAA-approved ACM. In the NPRM, the FAA acknowledged the proposal extended the scope of part 139 by including the non-movement area but concluded that ensuring air transportation safety required that an SMS apply to any place that affects safety during aircraft operations. An association and a certificate holder noted that the application of SMS to the non-movement area is an unprecedented expansion of the FAA's regulatory scope. The FAA 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 non-movement 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 non-movement area support extending SMS to the non-movement area to ensure safety in air transportation. 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 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 Start Printed Page 45878 implementation at large, medium, and small hub airports, certificated airports with more than 100,000 total annual operations, and certificated international airports. 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. 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. 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).

https://www.freizeitbauwagen.de/images/bostitch-flooring-nailer-owners-manual.pdf