Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
6 The primary focus of the literature available on relationships between airports and their EM agencies was on background information, successes, and problems with such relationships. The search strategy shown in Figure 2 was followed. As already noted, this present study does not include airport mutual aid agreements, as they were the subject of ACRP Synthesis 45: Model Mutual Aid Agreements for Airports (Smith and Kenville 2013). Airport-to-airport mutual aid, which also has possible consequences for airport-EM agency relationships, is also not included in this literature review, as it was the subject of ACRP Report 73: Airport-to-Airport Mutual Aid Programs Guidebook (IEM et al. 2012). ROLES OF NATIONAL INCIDENT MANAGEMENT SYSTEM AND INCIDENT COMMAND SYSTEM Federal law requires all state and local entities, including air- ports, to adopt the National Incident Management System (NIMS) to receive federal preparedness assistance through grants, contracts, or other activities (White House 2003; FEMA 2008). NIMS provides a multi-agency system for coordinated and integrated preparedness, response, and recovery efforts. The Incident Command System (ICS), a major component of NIMS, provides a flexible and scalable system for multiple agencies and disciplines to manage emergencies and planned events. It is used by local, state, and federal agencies to pro- vide a multi-jurisdictional unified effort to manage aircraft inci- dents, natural disasters, industrial accidents, and pre-planned events such as a large protest or a major sporting event (Arif Alikhan, personal communication, Oct. 11, 2013). RELATIONSHIP TO AIRPORT EMERGENCY PLANS AND PLANNING Around 2005, all Part 139 airports (that is, all airports with scheduled service by commercial planes with 10 or more seats) began training efforts to integrate NIMS and ICS fully into their Airport Emergency Plans (AEPs), but NIMS compliance was not mandatory until the issuance of FAA Advisory Circu- lar 150/5200-31C in 2009. The advisory circular also strongly encouraged an inclusive approach to involving stakeholders, especially mutual aid partners, in the planning process. By July 2011, all such airports had rewritten their AEPs to comply with the advisory circular. However, many of the new AEPs have not yet been fully reconciled with local, regional, and state emergency plans developed and main- tained by local and state EM agencies. One of the goals of this present study is to examine the extent of efforts toward reconciling AEPs with the plans of supporting agencies. RELATIONSHIP TO LOCAL, REGIONAL, STATE, AND NATIONAL PLANS AND PLANNING The primary national guidance for EM planning is FEMAâs 2010 Comprehensive Preparedness Guide (CPG) 101. The guide focuses heavily on collaborative planning to prepare communities for natural and manmade disasters. Its meth- ods are directly transferrable to airports and to airport-EM relationships. Three papers by Smith (2010 a, c, 2012a) pro- vide the most complete survey existing of airport emergency planning in the context of local, regional, state, and national plans and planning. Smith (2012a) examined plans involving both local and statewide collaboration. As of 2012, only a handful of statesâArkansas (2010), Florida (2009), Louisiana (2008), and Washington State (2006, 2011) had any sort of integrated statewide disaster plan that coordinated EM, airports, and air operations. Perkins (2013) studied airport EM in the context of regional disaster response, recovery, and long-term economic recovery in the San Francisco Bay Area. ACRP Report 12: An Airport Guide for Regional Emergency Planning for CBRNE Events (Stambaugh et al. 2009) examined the history of regional and national planning for chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, and explosive incidents; and recommended improving collaborative planning efforts. Smith (2012a) concluded that the paucity of top-down ini- tiatives to facilitate coordinated planning between aviation and EM meant that bottom-up collaboration based on com- munity ties was more likely to drive effective collaboration. NATURE AND LEVEL OF COORDINATION AND COOPERATION The type and degree of cooperation achieved between air- ports and their EM partners vary widely. For example, Massport (Boston Logan) and more than 100 local, regional, state, and national agencies (Smith 2010a) have achieved a chapter two LITERATURE REVIEW
7 (Smith 2010b), to quarterly meetings. Monthly meetings appeared to be the most common, with weekly meetings the next most common; none of the airportâlocal agency groups met less frequently than quarterly. Thanks to public records and sunshine laws, most public boards are required to publish meeting announcements, agendas, and minutes. ENABLING LEGISLATION The main enabling legislation from the airport side is the body of federal aviation and airport legislation. For commer- cial airports, the statutes are implemented by federal regula- tions (14 CFR § 139), which in turn is explained by FAA Advisory Circular 150/5200-31C. The primary national legislation governing EM is the Staf- ford Act (Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, Public Law 93-288, as amended). Most other legislation that governs local EM agencies is state legisla- tion, which varies widely from state to state. About half of the states have a mutual aid system or pool that includes all public agencies, which would include airports in the U.S. (Smith and Kenville 2013). Most cities, counties, and other units of local government set policies and procedures by ordi- nance. Such policies and procedures can regulate the relations between airports and EM agencies when either or both fall very high level of coordination and cooperation. However, a different situation existed between Los Angeles International Airport and its partners prior to 2011 (Los Angeles Mayorâs Blue Ribbon Panel Report 2011). Many airports such as Los Angeles historically held the view that they had a unique mis- sion and type of regulation, and that these features prevented close collaboration, or even mutual understanding, with other local agencies. This viewpoint has gradually changed in recent years, with much of the change being driven by Advisory Cir- cular 150/5200-31C (Smith 2010b; Los Angeles Mayor 2011). An example of effective communication that promotes coordination and cooperation between an airport and its EM agency partners is the monthly PHX EP Bulletin that Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport shares with its partners and with other airports (PHX 2013). An example of this newsletter is reproduced as Appendix C. NATURE AND FREQUENCY OF JURISDICTIONAL MEETINGS HELD The literature search revealed many examples of minutes and agendas for airport boards, local EM boards, emergency oper- ations boards, and similar oversight or coordinative bodies. The frequency of meetings ranged from daily all-stakeholder briefings, like those as Boston Logan International Airport FIGURE 2 Literature map.
8 under the jurisdiction. For an example of such policies and procedures, see the Los Angeles Mayorâs Blue Ribbon Panel Report (2011, p. 87). SECURITY ISSUES Since airports are high-security areas, all airport-EM agency interactions at the airport must satisfy the security requirements of the airport security program and the Transportation Secu- rity Administration (TSA) (49 CFR §1542). ACRP Report 73, (IEM et al. 2012) documented various methods used by airports to satisfy airport security requirements when outside agency personnel must enter the airportâs secure areas. ACRP Report 65: Guidebook for Airport Irregular Operations (IROPS) Con- tingency Planning (Nash et al. 2012), provides TSA-compliant procedures for dealing with access and security during irregu- lar operations. ACRP Report 65 also contains checklists for air- ports and their partners. PEER REVIEWS OF PLANS, PROGRAMS, AND PROCEDURES There are opportunities among airports and among EM agen- cies to review each otherâs EM plans, programs, and proce- dures. This could take the form of a peer review; or it could involve a self-review of an airportâs or agencyâs own emer- gency procedures in light of an actual incident at another air- port (Arif Alikhan, personal communication, Oct. 11, 2013). FUNDING IMPLICATIONS Most of the measures supporting airport-EM agency rela- tionships are inexpensive compared to the other types of operating and capital costs of both types of organiza- tions (Los Angeles Mayor 2011). The main funding aspect that applies to these relationships is revenue diversion. The FAAâs revenue diversion policy (FAA 1999) clearly restricts the use of airport revenues to activities directly sup- porting the aviation mission of the airport. The policy allows the âexpenditure of airport funds for support of community activities . . . if such expenditures are directly and substan- tially related to the operation of the airportâ (FAA 1999, p. 7718). Interpretation and enforcement of this policy is left up to the FAA regional offices. ACRP Legal Research Digest 2: Theory and Law of Airport Revenue Diversion, examines the full range of issues with revenue diversion, not just those with EM (Dempsey 2008). The literature review uncovered no instance in which the FAAâs interpretation interfered with collaborative work between an airport and an EM partner, even in cases where airport equipment and personnel were employed away from the airport for non-aviation purposes. This issue was also exam- ined in ACRP Report 73: Airport-to-Airport Mutual Aid Pro- gram Guidebook (IEM et al. 2012). IMPLICATIONS FOR EQUIPMENT Concerns regarding equipment related to airport-EM agency relationships fall into two categories. Both categories are created by regulations incumbent on the airport. The first concern is the Aircraft Rescue and Fire Fighting (ARFF) Index of the airport, and the absolute requirement that the index be met if the airport is to be open for operations. An airportâs index depends on the largest size of commercial air- liner regularly scheduled at that airport. For each of the five levels of index, a specific level of manpower and equipment must be present on the airport and capable of reaching the farthest point on any runway within three minutes. IEM et al. (2012) examined the restriction that this requirement puts on an airport that might otherwise wish to dispatch specialized equipment or personnel off-airport for a non-aviation inci- dent in support of a local EM agency partner. The second concern is revenue diversion, as discussed in the preceding section. TRAINING, DRILLING, AND EXERCISING The primary training requirement related to airport-EM col- laboration is the combination of NIMS and ICS training. There is no national standard for EM training. The main determinant of drill and exercise schedules involv- ing airports are the requirements of 14 CFR §139 for an airport to remain certified for commercial passenger operations. The minimum requirement is that airports conduct annual reviews of their AEP and a tabletop exercise with a full-scale functional exercise (ârecertification or triennial exerciseâ) once every three years. The triennial exercise now almost always includes a mass casualty component. BARRIERS No sources were uncovered that dealt with barriers to airport- EM agency collaboration or relationships. Literature was found that discussed barriers in other industries such as educa- tion (USDE n.d.) and hospitals (Center for Studying Health System Change 2012). In those cases, the primary barrier to collaboration was the pressure of normal operations, which excluded or diminished attention to preparation for rare events such as disasters. BENEFITS Smith et al. (2007, 2008a, b) looked at the potential benefits to airports in terms of operational sustainability or resiliency from concerted collaboration with EM partners. Smith (2012a) docu- mented the benefits of close working relationships between GA airports and their communities. Babun and Smith (2013a, b, c) examined the benefits of close collaboration between airports,
9 of 30 major airports worldwide. Dunaway and Shaw (2010) investigated the influence of collaborative partnerships on private sector preparedness and continuity planning, but did not define or measure benefits. METRICS USED FOR AIRPORTâEMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY RELATIONSHIPS No literature proposing or documenting quantitative metrics for the effectiveness of airport-EM agency relationships was found. EM agencies, other agencies, and airlines; and cataloged the benefits based on a pilot study at Las Americas International Airport in Santo Domingo. Tanger and Clayton (n.d.) examined the benefits to air- ports from achieving resilience through collaboration with all their stakeholders including EM agency partners. The major advantages of collaboration are clearly defined roles and responsibilities; coordinated management of passenger wel- fare; and effective allocation of operational equipment and resources. Their study was based on consultative assessments
