• Description of the NAS change and affected hardware; software; and/or operational NAS equipment, operations, and/or procedures, and • Justification for the determination that there are no hazards or any expected changes to the current risk associated with the implementation of the NAS change. 8.2  Mission Support Programs  8.3  Peer Review Process  as to why the change is not subject to additional SRM assessments. The SRM document must  also include a:  When an acquisition has an effect on the safety of the NAS, the PO must conduct and  document the SRM process throughout the lifecycle of the product or service in accordance with  Air Traffic Organization (ATO) Safety Management System (SMS) policy. In the AMS, Safety  and Technical Training (AJI) is designated as the responsible office for determining whether an  acquisition affects the safety of the NAS. If AJI has determined that there is no effect on the  safety of the NAS (i.e., a Mission Support program), then the ATO Chief Safety Engineer  provides documented notification to the Joint Resources Council (JRC) Executive Secretariat  accordingly. Program representatives should contact the Safety Engineering Team, AJI-314,  Manager to initiate discussions if they believe the program is exempt from SMS requirements. If  it is determined that SRM is required for a Mission Support program, then the PO must conduct  the program in accordance with appropriate requirements in the  ATO SMS Manual / Safety Risk  Management Guidance for System Acquisitions (SRMGSA). A peer review of SRM documentation determines whether it meets SMS policy guidelines and  FAA safety objectives. A peer review provides an independent assessment of the documented  analysis/assessment by multiple people with varying knowledge and experience. This helps  ensure that the analysis/assessment is technically accurate and makes operational sense  (i.e., the safety hazards, causes, effects, and mitigations are appropriate).  Acquisition-related SRM documentation requiring ATO Chief Safety Engineer approval  (i.e., PSPs, OSAs, CSAs, PHAs, and SSARs) must undergo an AJI-led peer review before being  submitted (SRM documents without hazards normally do not undergo the full peer review  process). The PO must submit the SRM documentation to the AJI-314 Team Manager, who  assigns an AJI Safety Case Lead (SCL) to coordinate the peer review process. The AJI SCL  must first review the SRM documentation to determine whether it meets all applicable SRM  requirements and guidelines contained in the SMS Manual and the SRMGSA. (If the AJI SCL is  the one to submit the SRM documentation for peer review, then this step may have already  occurred.) If the AJI SCL determines that the SRM documentation is not ready for a peer review,  then he/she returns it to the originator with recommendations for resolution.  The AJI SCL distributes the SRM documentation for peer review and comments according to  the guidelines contained in the SRMGSA and internal AJI operating procedures. After  comments are received and collated, the AJI SCL works with the PO to generate written  responses to the original commenters. The AJI SCL then determines acceptance from the  original commenters, recording any discrepancies associated with partial acceptance or  non-concurrence. (Acceptance can be determined by a combination of email, phone  conversations, and meetings. Meetings are preferred when comments and/or responses are  complex.) The AJI SCL will then provide a final compilation of all comments and their  dispositions to all reviewers. The PO is responsible for updating the SRM documentation in  accordance with the adjudicated comments.  8_SRMGSA_202007  Originally published July 2020  Uncontrolled copy when downloaded  45