[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 27 (Tuesday, February 10, 2004)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 6380-6436]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-2255]



[[Page 6379]]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Part II





Department of Transportation





-----------------------------------------------------------------------



Federal Aviation Administration



-----------------------------------------------------------------------



14 CFR Parts 121 and 139



Certification of Airports; Final Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 27 / Tuesday, February 10, 2004 / 
Rules and Regulations  

[[Page 6380]]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Parts 121 and 139

[Docket No. FAA-2000-7479; Amendment Nos. 121-304, 135-94]
RIN 2120-AG96


Certification of Airports

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This rule revises the airport certification regulation and 
establishes certification requirements for airports serving scheduled 
air carrier operations in aircraft designed for more than 9 passenger 
seats but less than 31 passenger seats. In addition, this rule amends a 
section of an air carrier operation regulation to conform with changes 
to airport certification requirements. This rule is necessary to ensure 
safety in air transportation at all certificated airports.

DATES: Effective June 9, 2004.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Linda Bruce, Airport Safety and 
Operations Division (AAS-300), Office of Airport Safety and Standards, 
Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., 
Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-8553; or e-mail: 
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Availability of Rulemaking Documents

    You can get an electronic copy using the Internet by:
    (1) Searching the Department of Transportation's electronic Docket 
Management System (DMS) web page (http://dms.dot.gov/search);
    (2) Visiting the Office of Rulemaking's Web page at http://www.faa.gov/avr/arm/index.cfm; or
    (3) Accessing the Government Printing Office's Web page at http://www.access.gpo.gov/su_docs/aces/aces140.html.
    You can also get a copy by submitting a request to the Federal 
Aviation Administration, Office of Rulemaking, ARM-1, 800 Independence 
Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591, or by calling (202) 267-9680. Make 
sure to identify the amendment number or docket number of this 
rulemaking.
    Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments 
received into any of our 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.). You may review DOT's 
complete Privacy Act statement in the Federal Register published on 
April 11, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 70; Pages 19477-78) or you may visit 
http://dms.dot.gov.

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. If you are a small entity and you have a question 
regarding this document, you may contact its local FAA official, or the 
person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. You can find out 
more about SBREFA on the Internet at http://www.faa.gov/avr/arm/sbrefa.htm, or by e-mailing us at [email protected].

Background

Regulatory History

    Since 1970, the FAA Administrator has had the statutory authority 
under title 49, United States Code (U.S.C.) 44706 to issue Airport 
Operating Certificates (AOCs) to airports serving certain air carriers 
and to establish minimum safety standards for the operation of those 
airports. The FAA uses this authority to issue requirements for the 
certification and operation of certain land airports through part 139 
of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR part 139).
    This statutory authority was limited to those land airports serving 
passenger operations of an air carrier that are conducted with an 
aircraft designed for at least 31-passenger seats. In response to 
recommendations made by the General Accounting Office (GAO) in 1987 and 
the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) in 1994, the Secretary 
of Transportation sought authority from Congress to broaden the FAA's 
authority to certificate airports, and the FAA's authority was 
broadened when Congress passed the Federal Aviation Reauthorization Act 
of 1996 (Public Law 104-264), amending 49 U.S.C. 44706. This amendment 
granted the FAA the authority to certificate airports serving scheduled 
air carrier operations conducted in aircraft with more than 9 passenger 
seats but less than 31 passenger seats, except in the State of Alaska. 
There was no change to the FAA's existing authority to regulate 
airports serving air carrier operations using aircraft with more than 
30 seats.
    In April 2000, Congress further mandated, in the Wendell H. Ford 
Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the 21st Century (Air-21; Public 
Law 106-181), that the FAA issue a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) 
within 60 days and a Final Rule 1 year after the close of the NPRM 
comment period implementing 49 U.S.C. 44706(a)(2), relating to the 
issuance of AOCs for small scheduled passenger air carrier operations.
    The FAA implemented its new authority on airport certification by 
publishing an NPRM on June 21, 2000 (65 FR 38636). This NPRM proposed 
to revise the current airport certification requirements in 14 CFR part 
139 and to establish certification requirements for airports serving 
scheduled air carrier operations in aircraft with more than 9 passenger 
seats but less than 31 passenger seats. The NPRM also proposed a 
conforming amendment to 14 CFR part 121. The public comment period was 
originally scheduled to close on September 9, 2000, but was extended to 
November 3, 2000, in response to several requests made by airport 
operators and the State of Maine.
    In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to revise certain outdated safety 
requirements and require certification of airports not currently 
certificated that serve scheduled air carrier operations conducted in 
aircraft with more than 9 passenger seats but less than 31 passenger 
seats. The proposal also clarified existing requirements, incorporated 
existing industry practices, and responded to an outstanding petition 
for rulemaking and certain NTSB recommendations.
    Further, the FAA proposed to revise the existing airport 
certification process to incorporate all airports covered by the 
statute, including those serving scheduled, smaller air carrier 
aircraft. Under this changed certification process, airports would be 
reclassified into four new classes, based on the type of air carrier 
operations served. Class I, II, and IV airports would be those that 
currently hold AOCs and Class III would be those airports being newly 
certificated.
    Airports serving all types of scheduled operations of air carrier 
aircraft designed for at least 31 passenger seats (large air carrier 
aircraft), and any other type of air carrier operations, would be known 
as Class I airports. These airports currently hold an AOC.
    Airports that currently hold a Limited Airport Operating 
Certificate would be known as either Class II or IV airports. The FAA 
proposed that Class II airports would be those that serve scheduled 
operations of small air carrier aircraft (aircraft designed for more 
than 9

[[Page 6381]]

passenger seats but less than 31 passenger seats) and unscheduled 
operations of large air carrier aircraft. Class IV airports would be 
those that serve only unscheduled operations of large air carrier 
aircraft.
    As proposed, Class III airports would be those airports that serve 
only scheduled operations of small air carrier aircraft and, as noted 
above, would be required for the first time to be certificated under 
part 139. As specified in the authorizing statute, proposed airport 
certification requirements would not be applicable to airports located 
in the State of Alaska that only serve scheduled operations of small 
air carrier aircraft.
    Similar to how the FAA currently certificates airports, the 
proposal required airport operators choosing to be certificated under 
part 139 to document their procedures for complying with part 139, as 
well as with the safety and operational requirements. To accommodate 
variations in airport layout, operations, air carrier service, and to 
address other local considerations, the FAA proposed that compliance 
procedures for the more burdensome requirements be tailored for each 
airport operator.

Industry Participation

    Through the Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee (ARAC), the FAA 
sought industry input on regulatory and nonregulatory issues on the 
certification of airports serving smaller air carrier operations. The 
FAA asked the ARAC to consider alternatives to minimize the operational 
burden on smaller airports, including options for aircraft rescue and 
firefighting (ARFF) services. The FAA also suggested that the ARAC 
conduct a survey of affected airports to gauge the impact of any 
proposed requirement.
    In 1995, the ARAC appointed the Commuter Airport Certification 
Working Group to complete these tasks. This working group comprised 
representatives from industry trade and union associations, including 
Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA), Aircraft Owners and Pilots 
Association (AOPA), American Association of Airport Executives (AAAE), 
National Air Transportation Association (NATA), National Association of 
State Aviation Officials (NASAO), and Regional Airline Association 
(RAA). The FAA and Landrum and Brown, an airport planning and 
engineering consulting firm, also provided technical support.
    However, after the passage of the Federal Aviation Reauthorization 
Act of 1996, the FAA decided to consider exercising its new authority 
to regulate airports and asked the ARAC to immediately provide the FAA 
a report on certifying airports serving small air carrier aircraft that 
included draft regulatory language.
    While the working group agreed on many issues, two members (ALPA 
and NATA) disagreed with several of the group's recommendations on 
regulatory requirements, including marking and lighting, ARFF, and the 
handling of hazardous substances and materials. Subsequently, in 
February 1997, both the majority and minority views of the working 
group, and those of individual workgroup members, were presented to the 
FAA.
    As noted in the NPRM, the FAA considered these positions in this 
rulemaking. However, the decisions in this document are the FAA's.

Discussion of Comments

    The FAA received 929 comments on the NPRM, of which 858 are similar 
letters from individuals and organizations addressing concerns about 
Centennial Airport in Greenwood, CO (see discussion on public charters 
below). The remaining 72 commenters addressed part 139 and part 121 
issues. These commenters included--
     Air carriers: Eagle Canyon Airlines d.b.a. 
Scenic Airlines, Era Aviation, and Champlain Enterprises d.b.a. U.S. 
Airways Express.
     Airport operators, including state and local 
governments: Augusta State Airport (ME), Boone County Airport (AR), 
Chautauqua County Airports Commission (NY), Cheyenne Airport (WY), City 
of Alamogordo (NM), City of Phoenix (AZ), City of Show Low (AZ), City 
and County of Twin Falls (ID), City of Yankton (SD), Clark County 
Department of Aviation (NV), Clinton County Airport (NY), County of 
Hill (MT), Dallas/Fort Worth Int'l Airport (TX), Dane County Regional 
Airport (WI), Dawson Community Airport (MT), Fort Lauderdale--Hollywood 
Int'l Airport (FL), Hancock County'Bar Harbor Airport (ME), Havre City-
-County Airport (MT), Garfield County (UT), Grant County Commissioners 
(NM), Jamestown Airport Authority (ND), Kingman Airport Authority (AZ), 
Lebanon Municipal Airport (NH), Manchester Airport (NH), Mercer County 
Airport (WV), Metropolitan Airports Commission (MN), Miles City Airport 
Commission (MT), Ocala Regional Airport (FL), Port Authority of New 
York and New Jersey, Rutland Region Transportation Council (VT), 
Sidney--Richland Airport (MT), Spencer Municipal Airport (IA), State of 
Alaska, State of Hawaii, State of Iowa, State of Michigan, State of 
Montana, State of Maine, State of New York, State of Vermont, State of 
West Virginia, Williamson County Regional Airport (IL), and Yuma County 
Airport Authority (AZ).
     Representatives of employees: Air Line Pilots 
Association, The Aircraft Rescue and Fire Fighting Working Group, 
International Association of Fire Chiefs, Coalition of Airline Pilots 
Association, International Association of Fire Fighters, and 
International Brotherhood of Teamsters.
     Associations: Aircraft Owners and Pilot 
Association, Airports Council International-North America, American 
Association of Airport Executives, National Air Transportation 
Association, National Association of State Aviation Officials, National 
Business Aviation Association, National Fire Protection Association, 
Northeast Chapter of American Association of Airport Executives, 
Regional Airline Association, and the Wyoming Airport Operators 
Association.
     The National Transportation Safety Board.
     U.S. Department of Agriculture.
     U.S. Department of Defense.
     Individuals.
    Except for issues about public charters, commenters support the new 
structure of the regulations. However, commenters were evenly divided 
on their support or opposition to the proposed requirements for 
airports serving smaller air carrier operations. As anticipated, 
airport operators express concerns over the increased burden and cost 
impacts of the proposed rule. They are particularly concerned about the 
costs to comply with proposed ARFF requirements. Conversely, the 
firefighter and pilot labor organizations believe the proposal did not 
go far enough.
    Most operators of certificated airports did not comment on the 
proposal. Of the 656 currently certificated airports (both civilian and 
military airports), only 18 airport operators sent comments. Most of 
these airport operators recommended changes to the proposal. Of the 37 
proposed Class III airports (airports that are to be newly 
certificated), 14 airport operators sent comments. Although all of 
these airport operators recommend changes to the proposal, only one 
supports certifying proposed Class III airports.
    The final rule is adopted, as modified and detailed below. In 
adopting the final rule, the FAA has tried to strike a balance and has 
made changes to the final rule in response to the comments. Comments 
specific to a section are discussed below in the section-by-section 
analysis, following the discussion of Public Charters and General 
Comments.

[[Page 6382]]

General Comments

Public Charters

    Comment: The FAA received 858 similar letters from individuals and 
organizations addressing concerns about Centennial Airport in Greenwood 
(near Denver), CO. These commenters state the NPRM does not consider 
legislation amending 49 U.S.C. 41104 (Air-21; Public Law 106-181). The 
legislation, in part, forbids air carriers, including indirect air 
carriers, from providing regularly scheduled charter air transportation 
to or from uncertificated airports with aircraft designed for more than 
9 passenger seats (49 U.S.C. 41104(b)). The apparent interest of these 
commenters, though not stated specifically in the form letter, but made 
clear by other comments, is to ban regularly scheduled charter 
operations from serving Centennial Airport, which is not now 
certificated under part 139.
    FAA Response: The comments received address an issue that is beyond 
the scope of this rulemaking and a matter not regulated by the FAA. 
Originally, Congress included an amendment to Public Charter Operations 
(49 U.S.C. 41104) in the Air-21 legislation. However, Section 41104(b) 
is directed to the air carriers' economic authority, which is regulated 
and administered by the Office of the Secretary within the Department 
of Transportation (DOT). In response to the concerns raised by these 
commenters and others, Congress passed further legislation, the Airport 
Security Improvement Act of 2000 (Public Law 106-528, 11/22/2000), in 
which technical amendments were made to this section. The DOT has 
determined that no implementing regulations are required as this is a 
stand-alone statutory requirement that became effective December 22, 
2000.
    However, to ensure that air carriers--who are governed by 14 CFR 
121.590, Use of Certificated Land Airports in the United States--are 
aware of the statutory requirements of 49 U.S.C. 41104(b), the FAA has 
added an advisory note explaining those provisions in the flush 
paragraph following the amendatory language of 14 CFR 121.590 and 14 
CFR 139.5. For further questions on public charter operations conducted 
under 14 CFR part 380, contact DOT, Office of Aviation Analysis, at 
(202) 366-5903.

General Comments on Part 139

    As noted in the above section, many of the comments received from 
airport operators express concern regarding the cost to comply with 
proposed ARFF requirements, particularly at proposed Class III 
airports. While specific comments on ARFF requirements are addressed in 
the section-by-section discussion below, the FAA has made several 
changes in the final rule that affect ARFF cost concerns and warrant a 
general discussion on the matter.
    To standardize ARFF at certificated airports, the FAA proposed that 
all certificated airports serving both scheduled and unscheduled 
operations be required to comply with all ARFF requirements. However, 
the FAA agrees that requiring all airports to comply with all ARFF 
requirements may pose a substantial cost for airports that do not 
currently provide minimum ARFF coverage or do so only to cover an 
occasional unscheduled air carrier flight. This would include both 
currently certificated airports and airports that would be newly 
certificated (Class III airports).
    The FAA is directed by the authorizing statute (Title 49, U.S.C. 
44706) to issue requirements for the certification and operation of 
airports. The statute requires the FAA to establish minimum safety 
standards for certificated airports that provide for the operation and 
maintenance of adequate safety equipment, including firefighting and 
rescue equipment. The authorizing statute also allows the FAA to exempt 
certain airport operators from all or some of ARFF requirements 
(certificated airports that have less than one-quarter of one percent 
of the total number of annual passenger boardings) and allows the FAA 
to adopt regulatory alternatives for commuter airports (Class III 
airports) that are ``least costly, most cost-effective or the least 
burdensome'' but provide comparable safety at all certificated 
airports.
    The FAA has revised part 139 to better exercise its statutory 
authority to provide appropriate exemptions from some or all prescribed 
ARFF requirements and allow for alternative means of compliance for 
certain airports (Class III airports). While the FAA believes that a 
single set of airport certification standards promote the consistent 
application of safety measures, the use of statutory exemptions and 
alternative compliance measures that are monitored closely by the FAA 
will ensure that ARFF requirements are appropriate for the airport size 
and type of air carrier operations.
    As adopted, this rule requires all certificated airports to provide 
some level of ARFF service. Where appropriate, the FAA will provide 
limited exemptions on a case-by-case basis for airports with infrequent 
or smaller air carrier operations from some or all prescribed ARFF 
requirements. In addition, the alternative ARFF compliance measures 
have been established for Class III airports. This is intended to 
provide Class III airports relief. The FAA recognizes that it would be 
too burdensome to require these airports to provide the same level of 
ARFF services required of airports serving large air carrier 
operations.
    The FAA also received the following general comments on the 
proposal:
    Comment: A commenter, a Class I airport operator, states that its 
facility is already fully compliant with the proposal and would 
therefore not be affected by the NPRM.
    FAA Response: As mentioned in the NPRM preamble's ``General 
Discussion of the Proposal'' section, many airport operators will need 
to do little to comply with revised part 139 requirements. However, 
some airport operators will be required to revise their certification 
manuals to comply with the adopted changes to existing requirements. 
Other operators may be required to implement certain safety measures on 
a more frequent basis if they serve small air carrier operations that 
do not occur concurrently with large air carrier aircraft operations.
    Comment: Two commenters support the proposal. One commenter, the 
National Transportation Safety Board, states that the promulgation of 
the proposal will ``enhance the level of safety at airports served by 
commuter airlines.'' The other commenter states that the inclusion of 
airports serving smaller air carrier operation in part 139 is a 
``viable means to increase air travel safety.''
    FAA Response: The FAA believes this rule will enhance safety in air 
transportation.
    Comment: Five commenters oppose the adoption of certification 
requirements for airports serving scheduled operations of small air 
carrier aircraft. They state that such requirements are unnecessary as 
these airports have a good safety record and their implementation would 
be prohibitively expensive. One of these commenters states that the 
current part 139 is enough to ensure safety in air transportation.
    FAA Response: The FAA disagrees that the proposed changes to part 
139 are unnecessary. The FAA has determined that the changes to part 
139 are necessary to ensure safety in air transportation at all covered 
airports. This was not based on the fact that some airports have a poor 
safety record (no category of airport has a poor safety record); rather 
the changes are intended to provide, to the extent possible, safety

[[Page 6383]]

in air transportation at all airports covered by the statute and part 
139.
    The FAA believes that airports serving small air carrier operations 
will not have difficulty complying with most part 139 requirements. 
While airport operators that choose to be certificated under part 139 
will be required to prepare a tailored Airport Certification Manual 
(ACM) detailing how they will comply with part 139 safety and 
operational requirements, these airport operators will be allowed 
flexibility in complying with the requirements, including ARFF 
requirements. In tailoring an ACM, the FAA will consider with each 
airport operator variations in airport layout and air carrier 
operations served.
    In addition, the FAA will assist an airport operator in obtaining 
Federal funds to be used to comply with part 139 requirements. If 
compliance with part 139 is still too burdensome, particularly where 
the local community resources are limited, the airport operator may 
petition the FAA for an exemption, as specified under the authorizing 
statute. The FAA also has established alternative compliance measures 
in the final rule for Class III airports (see the section-by-section 
analysis of Sec. 139.111, Exemptions and Sec. 139.315, Aircraft rescue 
and firefighting: Index determination).
    Comment: Two commenters state that Title V, Section 518, of the 
Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the 21st Century 
(Air-21; Public Law 106-181), titled ``Small Airport Certification,'' 
appears to have resulted in this NPRM. However, other provisions of the 
act appear to undermine the policy on air service to rural areas and 
the Essential Air Service (EAS) program because rural communities lack 
sufficient resources to comply with the provisions of the proposed 
rule.
    FAA Response: The FAA disagrees. Section 518 directs the FAA to 
issue an NPRM to implement the section of the authorizing statute (49 
U.S.C. 44706(a)(2)) allowing the FAA to certificate certain airports 
serving small air carrier operations. Section 518 does not specify 
safety requirements and standards that the FAA must propose for the 
certification of these airports and does not conflict with those 
sections of Air-21 that set aside Federal funds for air service to 
rural communities. In fact, Air-21 requires Airport Improvement Program 
(AIP) funds to be set aside for costs related to the certification of 
airports serving small air carrier operations. As of the date of the 
publication of this final rule, the FAA is required to set aside $15 
million of AIP funds for such costs each year for 4 fiscal years 
following the effective date of this rule (see Section 128 of Air 21).
    In meeting the requirements of Section 518, the FAA chose to 
certificate these airport operators in a manner similar to that used 
for currently certificated airports. However, the FAA recognizes that 
in some instances the cost to comply with certain certification 
requirements may be substantial for these smaller airports. The FAA 
will work with airport operators to establish compliance appropriate 
for the size of airport and types of operations served to ensure that 
they are the least costly and burdensome, but still provide safety in 
air transportation.
    Comment: Six commenters, including operators of airports that are 
likely to be Class III airports, state that existing airport revenue 
and operating income cannot cover the initial and recurring costs 
associated with part 139. These commenters request the FAA provide a 
permanent source of funding to help airport operators in complying with 
the new requirements or exempt these airport operators from the more 
costly requirements, such as ARFF.
    Several of these commenters state that federally mandated safety 
requirements should be fully funded. In the absence of such funding, 
these commenters believe airport operators should be granted exemptions 
if they can demonstrate an unreasonable cost, burden, or that the 
requirements are impractical. One of these commenters also suggests 
that AIP funds set aside for small airports be used by small airports 
to cover costs associated with the proposal.
    FAA Response: The FAA partly agrees. In some instances, the cost to 
comply with certain part 139 requirements could be too burdensome for 
airport operators serving small air carrier operations. In such cases, 
the FAA will work with the airport operator in developing and tailoring 
an ACM to achieve safety in air transportation at that airport. 
Further, the FAA will assist the airport operator in obtaining Federal 
funds, as appropriate. In addition, the FAA has the statutory authority 
to grant exemptions from part 139 requirements, including ARFF 
requirements, that would be too costly, burdensome, or impractical and 
has established alternative compliance measures for Class III airports 
(see the section-by-section analysis of Sec. 139.111, Exemptions and 
Sec. 139.315, Aircraft rescue and firefighting: Index determination).
    Most airports that would be newly certificated under this rule 
(Class III airports) have accepted Federal funds and are required by 
grant assurances to comply with the FAA standards. As noted in the 
proposal (65 FR 38664), all airports that are likely to be Class III 
airports have received Federal funds for capital developments, safety 
equipment, and in certain circumstances, airport maintenance. Between 
1982 and 2002, operators of proposed Class III airports received $207 
million in Federal funds.
    With this infusion of Federal funds, most proposed Class III 
airports already comply with many part 139 requirements. The standards 
used to comply with grant assurances are the standards used to comply 
with part 139. For those compliance items not eligible for Federal 
funding, the FAA will work with the airport operator or consider 
granting exemptions, as described earlier.
    The FAA does not have the authority to provide a permanent source 
of funding. This authority remains a matter for Congress.
    Although legislative changes that may affect AIP and EAS funding 
have been proposed by Congress as of the date of this publication, 
Congress has already directed the FAA in Air-21, as discussed above, to 
set aside $15 million of AIP funds each year for 4 fiscal years 
following the effective date of this rule to help airport operators 
meet the requirements of this rule (49 U.S.C. 47116(e)). Congress also 
has increased EAS funding, which may be used to offset the costs 
incurred by small air carriers as the result of this rulemaking. 
Otherwise, the FAA has limited discretion in distributing Federal funds 
to airport operators under the authorizing statute. Without 
legislation, the FAA is unable to provide the permanent funding 
suggested by the commenters.
    Comment: A commenter, an operator of an airport likely to be a 
Class I airport under the rule, states that initial costs to comply 
with the proposed rule will be eligible for AIP funds. However, the 
commenter further notes that the long-term costs of compliance, such as 
maintenance and labor, will be the airport operator's responsibility 
and may burden the local community. This commenter notes that the 
certification of proposed Class III airports could be costly, but it 
will enhance the safety of aviation and airports in the Federal 
transportation system.
    FAA Response: The FAA agrees.
    Comment: Many of the commenters that oppose the proposal state that 
it will have a negative economic impact on air carrier service at 
smaller airports.

[[Page 6384]]

These commenters believe the implementation of the proposal will result 
in the loss of air carrier service because the cost to comply is to too 
high to be absorbed by the local community and the airport's tenant air 
carriers. This is particularly true of air carriers that receive 
subsidies through the Department of Transportation's EAS program.
    Some of these commenters provided economic and operational cost 
data to support their positions.
    FAA Response: The FAA recognizes that the regulations may have an 
adverse economic effect on some airports. As previously stated, the FAA 
will assist the airport operator in developing ACM's that meet the 
intent of the rule and consider unique and local airport issues, 
including economic issues.
    Congress authorized the FAA to certificate certain airports. The 
authorizing statute focuses on safety in air transportation, not 
economics. However, the authorizing statute does direct the FAA to 
prepare a report on the economic impact of this final rule on air 
carrier service. The FAA considered the economic and operational cost 
data provided by the commenters in preparing the regulatory evaluation 
and the Report to Congress required by the authorizing statute. Both 
documents are available in the regulatory docket.
    Comment: A commenter expresses concerns over the economic impact 
that the proposal, if adopted, will have on general aviation. In 
particular, the commenter expresses concern that added airport 
certification costs will be passed onto general aviation users, most of 
whom do not want or need the extra services.
    The commenter suggests that through ``flexibility, creative means, 
and by facilitating compliance,'' the FAA should retain a critical role 
in lessening the adverse economic impact the proposal will impose on 
certain airports. The commenter believes this can be achieved if the 
FAA is flexible in carrying out its authority to certificate airports 
and issues further policy and guidance specifying compliance 
alternatives to help airport operators comply with part 139 in a cost-
effective manner.
    This commenter also states that several part 139 compliance issues 
are a cause of contention for general aviation and that additional 
rulemakings and policy must be developed before a final rule is 
published. In particular, the commenter requests compliance guidance 
for ARFF equipment, wildlife hazard management, and fueling 
requirements, as well as guidance on the exemption process, including 
alternatives specified in the authorizing statute.
    FAA Response: The FAA disagrees. Although all airport users share 
the benefits of part 139 compliance, the cost of part 139 compliance is 
typically passed onto air carriers and their passengers.
    While part 139 is for the benefit of certain air carrier operators, 
the cost to comply with part 139 ultimately results in the maintenance 
and improvement of the airport that benefits all airport users. General 
aviation aircraft also use, at most airports, areas used by air carrier 
aircraft, such as runways, taxiways, and ramps. Such areas are usually 
better maintained and equipped than similar areas at airports serving 
only general aviation aircraft. General aviation aircraft operators 
also benefit from emergency response services, daily safety 
inspections, and airport condition reporting provided at airports 
certificated under part 139. The FAA believes general aviation aircraft 
operators will benefit from the part 139 requirements.
    Airport operators that receive Federal funds are prohibited under 
grant assurances from using revenue generated by the airport for non-
airport purposes. In addition, they may not divert such revenue to non-
airport accounts, such as the general fund of the local government that 
owns the airport. However, the use of airport revenues generated from 
general aviation users to comply with part 139 requirements, such as 
ARFF response provided by off-airport sources, would not be a violation 
of the airport's grant assurances.
    The FAA agrees that in some instances additional compliance 
guidance may be useful, particularly for airport operators seeking 
certification for the first time. However, the FAA believes additional 
rulemakings are not necessary because there is already a process in 
place for providing airport operators compliance guidance that includes 
advisory circulars (ACs) and CertAlerts.
    Comment: A commenter, a proposed Class I airport operator, supports 
the proposed rule, with the exception of ARFF requirements. The 
commenter believes the cost of providing ARFF coverage is considerable 
and would result in termination of air carrier service should airport 
operators pass ARFF costs on to tenant air carriers. The commenter 
recommends that requirements for proposed Class III airports only focus 
on accident prevention, including more emphasis on aircraft operating 
and communication procedures at nontowered airports. The commenter 
suggests that an additional airport classification be created for 
nontowered airports that serve scheduled air carrier operations and 
requires enhanced aircraft operating and communication procedures, 
including the use of the Common Air Traffic Advisory (CTAF) frequency.
    FAA Response: The FAA agrees in part. Both the existing and 
proposed part 139 requirements place a greater emphasis on accident 
prevention than accident mitigation. As stated in the proposal at 65 FR 
38664, most part 139 requirements are intended to reduce the 
possibility of an accident by providing a safe and standardized 
operating environment. While requiring airport operators serving small 
air carrier operations to comply only with accident prevention measures 
would be the least costly regulatory approach, the FAA believes that 
some level of accident mitigation, including ARFF, still is necessary 
to enhance safety in air transportation at all covered airports.
    The FAA agrees that the cost of complying with certain part 139 
ARFF requirements would be too burdensome for some airport operators 
serving small air carrier operations. In such instances, the FAA will 
use its statutory authority to consider exemptions from part 139 
requirements, including ARFF requirements, that would be too costly, 
burdensome, or impractical and has established alternative compliance 
measures for Class III airports (see the section-by-section analysis of 
Sec. 139.111, Exemptions and Sec. 139.315, Aircraft rescue and 
firefighting: Index determination).
    The FAA partly disagrees with the recommendation to change part 139 
to require additional aircraft operation and communication procedures 
at nontowered airports. Such air traffic control and flight 
communication procedures go beyond the scope of part 139 and the 
proposal. However, the FAA has made changes to part 139 to require 
personnel at non-towered airports (or during periods when an air 
traffic control tower is closed) to monitor CTAF when in movement areas 
and safety areas (see section-by-section analysis of Sec. 139.319, 
Aircraft rescue and firefighting: Operational requirements.
    Comment: A commenter notes that the proposal states that AIP funds 
are available for capital costs associated with the implementation of 
the proposed rule. The commenter states that such funds are limited, 
and many operating and maintenance costs are not AIP eligible. The 
commenter believes that additional operating and

[[Page 6385]]

maintenance costs associated with the proposal will be burdensome to 
smaller airports and will result in these airports being poorly 
operated.
    FAA Response: The FAA partly agrees. The commenter is correct in 
asserting that AIP funds are limited. As discussed in the proposal at 
65 FR 38664, most operating and maintenance costs associated with part 
139 are not eligible for Federal funds.
    AIP funds may be used to purchase safety equipment needed to comply 
with part 139 requirements only under two situations. First, the 
equipment is required under regulation, or second, the FAA has 
determined that this equipment will contribute significantly to the 
safety or security of persons or property at an airport (see the 
section-by-section analysis of Sec. 139.109, Duration of certificate).
    In some instances, administrative costs associated with preparing 
and documenting operating procedures required under part 139 may be AIP 
eligible if such efforts result in a capital improvement project. For 
example, the cost to develop a wildlife hazard management plan may be 
eligible if the plan requires the installation of a fence or habitat 
modification. In addition, some maintenance costs associated with 
pavement and lighting are AIP-eligible for airports that serve less 
than 10,000 annual enplanements.
    The FAA disagrees that the cost associated with the implementation 
of this rule will lead to ``poorly operated'' airports. Instead, the 
FAA believes that the implementation of the proposal will ensure the 
consistent application of safety measures. The FAA will work with 
airport operators to tailor part 139 requirements to individual 
airports and will exercise its statutory authority to consider 
exemptions from part 139 requirements, if appropriate. The exemption 
process is discussed in detail under the section-by-section analysis of 
Sec. 139.111.
    Comment: A commenter recommends that the FAA study the benefit of 
building and staffing an air traffic control tower at proposed Class 
III airports. The commenter believes this would be a more proactive 
response to safety concerns than implementing the proposal.
    FAA Response: The FAA disagrees. Installation of air traffic 
control towers will not address many accident prevention measures. The 
potential for aircraft collisions with ground obstructions (such as 
wildlife, construction, and maintenance equipment) and certain airspace 
obstructions can be reduced if an airport operator complies with part 
139 safety requirements. Further, compliance will reduce many of the 
uncertainties and miscommunications that can cause accidents by 
ensuring airport facilities (i.e., pavement, lighting, markings, and 
signs) are available, consistent from airport to airport, and properly 
maintained.
    Comment: Several commenters recommended that the FAA adopt the ARAC 
majority report rather than implement the proposal.
    FAA Response: The FAA agrees in part. As stated in the proposal at 
65 FR 38638, the FAA did consider the ARAC majority report, including 
recommended rule language, as discussed in the proposal's Section-by-
Section Analysis that follows. In many instances, the FAA used the 
majority's recommended rule language and supporting data. However, the 
FAA did not adopt the entire majority report for several reasons. 
First, the majority report opposed regulating airports serving 
scheduled operations of small air carrier aircraft and in many 
instances, recommended regulatory language that would not ensure safety 
at all covered airports. Second, the majority report recommended rule 
language that was intended for a separate rulemaking for small air 
carrier airports rather than changing existing part 139 requirements. 
However, this did not take into account airports with mixed air carrier 
operations. Third, the FAA determined that the majority report based 
many of its recommendations on incorrect assumptions about existing 
part 139 requirements and incorrect cost data.
    Comment: A commenter recommends an alternative approach to 
regulating airports serving small air carriers if the FAA chooses not 
to adopt the ARAC majority position. This alternative would only 
require these airport operators to coordinate an emergency response 
plan with local government agencies and to acquire emergency response 
equipment with AIP funds. Emergency equipment purchased with AIP funds 
would be based with the appropriate emergency response personnel.
    FAA Response: The FAA partly disagrees. The FAA believes that both 
risk reduction measures and accident mitigation measures, including an 
emergency response plan, are necessary to ensure safety in air 
transportation at airports covered by the statute.
    The actual location and use of emergency equipment purchased with 
AIP funds and airport revenue is restricted by law. The FAA provides 
Federal funding for emergency equipment for airport use only. Title 49, 
U.S.C. 47133, and the FAA Policy and Procedures Concerning the Use of 
Airport Revenue (64 FR 7696) restrict the use of airport revenue to 
airport purposes. Consequently, equipment acquired with airport revenue 
must be used primarily for airport purposes.

Section-by-Section Analysis

Section 121.590 Use of Certificated Land Airports in the United States

    Proposal: The existing language of Sec. 121.590 was modified to 
conform to the proposed changes made to part 139. The existing 
requirements for air carriers operating aircraft designed for at least 
31 passenger seats were not changed.
    Added to this section was the proposed requirement for air carriers 
who conduct scheduled passenger-carrying operations with airplanes 
designed for more than 9 passenger seats but less than 31 passenger 
seats to operate at part 139 airports in the United States, except in 
the state of Alaska. Also added to this section was the proposed 
requirement restricting air carrier passenger-carrying operations to 
those airports with the appropriate part 139 airport classification 
(Classes I-IV).
    In addition, the FAA proposed to require that air carriers and 
commercial operators who conduct passenger-carrying operations with 
airplanes designed for at least 31 passenger seats or who conduct 
scheduled passenger-carrying operations with airplanes designed for 
more than 9 passenger seats but less than 31 passenger seats to conduct 
those operations at airports operated by the U.S. Government only if 
those airports meet the equivalent requirements of part 139.
    Finally, provisions excepting certain air carriers from operating 
into part 139 certificated airports were added to conform to proposed 
changes to part 139.
    Comment: A commenter questions why the proposal appears to require 
supplemental operations in Alaska, using airplanes with more than 9 
passenger seats but less than 31 passenger seats to follow the same 
requirements for operating into a part 139 certificated airport that 
apply to domestic or flag operations using the same type airplanes.
    The commenter notes that 14 CFR 119.3 requires that operators who 
conduct on-demand operations under part 135, and who also use the same 
type airplanes in their domestic or flag operations under part 121, 
must instead operate these airplanes under the supplemental operations 
rules of part 121.

[[Page 6386]]

    If the FAA intended supplemental operations in Alaska, using 
airplanes with more than 9 and less than 31 passenger seats, to be 
conducted at airports certificated under part 139, it would unduly 
burden air carriers and airport operators, as well as the flying 
public. The commenter, therefore, recommends that paragraph (c) of the 
proposed section be changed to include supplemental operations.
    FAA Response: The FAA agrees. The unintended consequence of the 
proposal has been corrected in this final rule. The final rule makes it 
clear in the reorganization of the requirements of the section and the 
definitions in new paragraph (f) that supplemental operations conducted 
with airplanes designed for fewer than 31 passenger seats (as 
determined by the type certificate issued by a competent civil aviation 
authority) are not required to be operated at a part 139 airport in the 
United States.
    Comment: A commenter recommends adding a provision to this section 
that would prohibit the operation of all-cargo aircraft at or over 
60,000 pounds maximum weight at airports that do not have adequate ARFF 
capability in place at the time of operations.
    FAA Response: The FAA finds that the commenter's recommended 
revision to this section cannot be adopted because it is outside the 
scope of the proposal.
    Section as Adopted: This section is adopted with changes. The FAA 
is revising proposed Sec. 121.590 based on comments received on Sec. 
121.590 and comments received on proposed Sec. 139.101, General 
requirements, on the compliance times needed for the development, 
submittal, and approval of ACM's, including revisions thereto, as well 
as a revision of the statutory provisions of 49 U.S.C. 44706 and 
41104(b), by--
    (1) Changing the title to add ``in the United States'';
    (2) Reorganizing the provisions in paragraphs (a), (b), and (c) and 
restating those provisions in new paragraphs (b) through (e);
    (3) Revising paragraph (a) to--
    (i) Add the exemption provisions of 49 U.S.C. 44706(c) that allow 
the FAA to exempt certain airport operators from part 139 ARFF 
requirements,
    (ii) Clarify that no air carrier, and no pilot used by an air 
carrier, may operate at a part 139 airport unless that airport is 
classified under part 139 to serve the type of airplane to be operated 
and the type of operation to be conducted, and
    (iii) Add compliance dates after which operations at part 139 
airports will be prohibited if those airport operators have not 
obtained a new or revised AOC. For Class I airports, the date is 12 
months after the effective date of the rule. For Class II, III, and IV 
airports, the date is 18 months after the effective date of the rule;
    (4) Adding new paragraph (f) to define terms used in this section;
    (5) Clarifying that air carriers who conduct certain operations are 
not required to conduct those operations at part 139 airports through 
the use of the terms ``all cargo operation,'' ``domestic operation,'' 
``flag operation,'' and ``supplemental operation'' defined in Sec. 
119.3, Certification: Air carriers and commercial operators, of this 
subchapter; and through the use of the terms ``domestic type 
operation,'' ``flag type operation,'' and ``supplemental type 
operation'' defined in new paragraph (f) of this section; and
    (6) Adding an advisory note describing the new economic statutory 
provisions pertaining to the use of part 139 airports for regularly 
scheduled charter air transportation flights, in the flush paragraph 
following new paragraph (h).

Subpart A--General

Section 139.1 Applicability

    Proposal: The language of this section, which prescribes rules for 
the certification and operation of airports serving certain air carrier 
operations, was expanded, clarified, and reorganized into proposed new 
paragraphs (a) and (b).
    Proposed paragraph (a) incorporated a new group of airports that 
would require an AOC before serving certain air carrier operations. 
Further, the FAA proposed to move language currently found in Sec. 
139.101(a)--which specifies that part 139 is applicable to land 
airports in the United States, the District of Columbia, or any U.S. 
territory or possession--to proposed paragraph Sec. 139.1(a).
    Proposed paragraph (b) listed the types of airports that would be 
exempt from part 139, including U.S. Government-operated airports, 
certain Alaskan airports, and heliports.
    Comment: Several commenters are unclear as to why Alaskan airports 
serving scheduled operations of small air carrier aircraft have a 
statutory exemption from part 139. Still others ask for the same 
exclusion for such airports in their States, noting that their States 
have financial and operational hardships similar to those of the State 
of Alaska. These commenters request that their States be added to 
proposed paragraph (b), which specifies airports in the State of Alaska 
do not need an AOC if they serve air carrier operations that use 
aircraft designed for more than 9 passenger seats but less than 31 
passenger seats.
    FAA Response: The FAA disagrees. Congress created the statutory 
exemption for Alaskan airports (49 U.S.C. 44706(a)(2)). In addition, to 
ensure the consistent application of safety and operational standards 
at airports serving air carrier operations, the FAA has decided to 
issue AOCs to all other airports, as permitted under the authorizing 
statute.
    An airport operator can petition for relief from part 139 
requirements by requesting an exemption under Sec. 139.111. The FAA 
will consider granting this relief if the airport operator can 
substantiate that compliance with part 139 would cause financial and 
operational hardships. The airport operator may also decide to decline 
certain air carrier operations rather than comply with part 139.
    Comment: A commenter requests that the language in proposed 
paragraph (b) excluding certain airports in the State of Alaska be 
repeated in paragraph (a). Otherwise, the commenter states, Alaskan 
airports serving a mixture of air carrier operations would also be 
required to comply with part 139 standards during times when they only 
serve small air carrier operations.
    FAA Response: The FAA concurs and has revised proposed paragraph 
(b) (new paragraph (c)) to clarify that part 139 is not applicable to 
Alaskan airports during periods of time when no large air carrier 
operations are being served.
    Comment: A number of commenters recommend that part 139 be extended 
to cover air cargo operations. They state that air cargo aircraft might 
carry hazardous freight that would justify ARFF capabilities. One 
commenter even suggests that this section be amended to specify that 
ARFF requirements be applicable to land airports that serve any cargo 
operation by aircraft with a maximum weight of 60,000 pounds or more.
    FAA Response: The FAA disagrees. In 49 U.S.C. 44706(a), Congress 
limits the FAA's authority to grant AOCs to those airports serving 
certain passenger air carrier operations. Congress would have to amend 
this authority before the FAA could issue AOCs based on air cargo 
operations.
    Although the FAA does not issue AOCs to cover air cargo operations, 
such operations already benefit from part 139 safety measures. At 
approximately 343 certificated airports, required part 139 safety 
measures are typically applied continuously as air carrier schedules 
vary so much that it is more convenient

[[Page 6387]]

and economical to comply with part 139 requirements at all times.
    Comment: In response to the FAA's request for information on the 
certification of heliports, a commenter recommends using the National 
Fire Protection Association (NFPA) standards for heliports (NFPA 418, 
Standards for Heliports) in conjunction with AC 150/5390-2, Heliport 
Design. Another commenter suggests the FAA consult with other 
government offices to determine if passengers using heliports deserve 
the same safety standards as passengers flying into an airport 
certificated under part 139.
    FAA Response: While in general agreement with these comments, the 
FAA has determined it is not in the public interest to certificate 
heliports at this time. Heliports typically are used by general 
aviation operators and serve very few air carrier operations (currently 
only one heliport is voluntarily certificated under part 139 although 
it does not serve air carrier operations conducted in helicopters with 
more than 30 seats). Further, there are very few helicopters that can 
seat more than nine passengers, and even fewer still are used for 
scheduled passenger operations. Since Congress has not given the FAA 
the authority to certificate facilities serving general aviation 
operations and the vast majority of operations served by heliports are 
by general aviation operators, certificating the few heliports that 
serve air carrier operations would not significantly enhance safety.
    However, the FAA will continue to monitor the situation and 
encourage heliport operators to follow AC 150/5390-2 and NFPA 418 since 
the provisions of part 139 are designed for airports serving fixed-wing 
aircraft and often do not transfer to heliports. In addition, those 
heliport operators that have accepted Federal funds may be obligated to 
comply with AC 150/5390-2 under their grant assurances.
    Comment: Three commenters express opposition to the FAA's finding 
that airports operated by the U.S. Government, including the Department 
of Defense (DOD), are not subject to part 139. These commenters believe 
that DOD standards for their airports differ significantly from part 
139 and that such facilities are not maintained in a manner adequate 
for air carriers. At a minimum, these commenters recommend that the 
revised regulation should include definitions of ``joint-use airport'' 
and ``shared-use airport'' and clarify that the civilian operations of 
such airports would come under the purview of part 139.
    FAA Response: The FAA partly disagrees. Congress did not give the 
FAA the statutory authority to regulate airports operated by U.S. 
Government agencies. However, a new paragraph (b) has been added to 
this section to clarify that part 139 requirements apply to the 
civilian portions of a shared-use or joint-use airport that elects to 
obtain a part 139 certificate. Consequently, proposed paragraph (b) has 
been redesignated as new paragraph (c). Further, the terms ``joint-use 
airport'' and ``shared-use airport'' have been defined (see discussion 
comments for Sec. 139.5, Definitions, below).
    Comment: A commenter disagrees with the use of the phrase 
``aircraft designed for seating capacity'' in place of the phrase 
``aircraft seating capacity.'' This commenter argues that there are 
circumstances where aircraft may have been designed with a seating 
capacity greater than the operator is using without being required to 
amend the aircraft type certificate. The commenter also notes that the 
proposal is inconsistent with existing air carrier regulations (parts 
119, 121, and 135) because these regulations typically base operational 
and equipment requirements on aircraft seating capacity.
    FAA Response: The FAA disagrees with this comment. The statutory 
authority for 14 CFR parts 119, 121, and 135 differs from the 
authorizing statute for airport certification. The authorizing statute 
for airport certification specifies ``design'' rather than ``seating 
capacity.'' However, the change to ``design'' from ``seating capacity'' 
was not done consistently throughout the proposal. This has been 
corrected.
    Comment: Another commenter notes that references to the number of 
passenger seats specified in the authorizing statute differ from the 
proposal's preamble and the rule language. Specifically, the discussion 
of Class III airports refers to airports serving aircraft with 10 to 30 
seats rather than ``more than 9 passenger seats but less than 31 
passenger seats'' as specified in the statute.
    FAA Response: While both descriptions of the number of required 
passenger seats are correct and have the same meaning, further 
references to aircraft seats will use the statutory language.
    Comment: A commenter requests that the San Francisco International 
Airport be required to implement a nighttime curfew of aircraft 
operations between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. The commenter lives under a 
flight path used by aircraft operators using this airport.
    FAA Response: The FAA does not concur with this request. The 
mitigation of aircraft noise is beyond the scope of this rulemaking and 
the FAA's authority to certificate airports. Establishing a nighttime 
noise curfew is a complex process that is initiated by the airport 
operator under 14 CFR part 161, Notice and Approval of Airport Noise 
and Access Restrictions.
    Section adopted: This section is adopted with changes. An editorial 
change was made to paragraphs (a) and (b) so that the language of these 
paragraphs better conforms to the statutory language.
    For the reasons discussed above, a new paragraph was added and 
changes were made to proposed paragraph (b). A new paragraph (b) was 
added to clarify the applicability of part 139 at airports where 
civilian and military aircraft operations commingle. Consequently, 
proposed paragraph (b) was redesignated as new paragraph (c), and a new 
element was added to clarify that part 139 is not applicable to Alaskan 
airports during periods of time when no large air carrier operations 
are being served. With the addition of new paragraph (c)(4), proposed 
paragraph (b)(4) regarding heliports is now redesignated paragraph 
(c)(5).

Section 139.3 Delegation of Authority

    Proposal: This proposed new section sets forth the FAA's delegation 
authority for FAA employees to act on behalf of the FAA Administrator 
in the oversight of the certification of airports. As proposed, the 
Administrator's delegation authority would not change, and the FAA's 
Associate Administrator for Airports would be authorized to act for the 
Administrator. Existing Sec. 139.3, Definitions, was moved to proposed 
Sec. 139.5, Definitions.
    Comment: Nine commenters oppose the provision of this section that 
sets forth the duties that the Administrator delegates to the FAA 
regional offices, specifically the authority to amend an ACM. These 
commenters interpret this provision to mean that the FAA has the 
exclusive authority to amend an ACM and recommend that proposed Sec. 
139.3(b)(3) be revised to read, ``Approve ACM's and any amendments 
thereto required under this part.''
    FAA Response: While the FAA does have the exclusive authority to 
approve amendments to an ACM, this new section was not intended to 
preempt procedures under proposed Sec. 139.205, Amendment of airport 
certification manual, that permit either the certificate holder or the 
FAA to propose an amendment to an ACM. To avoid confusion, and possible 
conflicts with

[[Page 6388]]

exemption procedures of Sec. 139.111, proposed paragraph (b) has been 
deleted. However, this change does not affect the FAA Administrator's 
delegation to FAA employees in the oversight of the certification of 
airports.
    Section as Adopted: This section is adopted with changes for the 
reason discussed above. Paragraph (b) has been deleted and paragraph 
(a) combined with the section's first sentence to form a single 
paragraph.
    In addition, the reference to 49 U.S.C. 44706 has been deleted from 
this section. Only the authority to deny and issue an AOC is found in 
49 U.S.C. 44706. The Administrator's authority to revoke an AOC is 
found in 49 U.S.C. 44709. Rather than cite several sections of the 
authorizing statute, which may change as the statute is periodically 
revised, this section has been revised to refer generally to the 
Administrator's authority.

Section 139.5 Definitions

    Proposal: This redesignated section establishes terms, and their 
definitions, used in part 139. Revisions proposed to this section 
reflect proposed changes made throughout the rule. As such, several 
existing definitions were modified or deleted and new definitions were 
proposed.
    Comment: Five commenters note that the definition of ``small air 
carrier aircraft'' poses a dilemma. These commenters state that the 
degree of compliance with part 139 is based on the number of passenger 
seats--except for ARFF requirements, which are based on the length of 
aircraft. Since there are many air carrier aircraft that are less than 
90 feet in length (ARFF Index A) with greater than 30 passenger seats, 
the commenters reason that the use of aircraft seats versus aircraft 
length would restrict a Class III airport from serving aircraft that 
require an ARFF Index greater than Index A. They believe it is 
unreasonable to deny an airport from serving the scheduled operations 
of any air carrier in the ARFF Index if the airport operator has 
adequate ARFF capability.
    To reconcile, these commenters recommend that the definition of 
``small air carrier aircraft'' be changed to ``aircraft less than 90 
feet in length'' and the definition of ``large air carrier aircraft'' 
be changed to ``aircraft 90 feet in length or longer.'' In addition, 
they suggest that all references to seating capacity in the regulation 
be deleted.
    FAA Response: The FAA disagrees. Seating capacity of an air carrier 
aircraft serving an airport is the criterion used to determine if an 
AOC is required. This is specified by statute and will not be removed 
from part 139. In addition, seating capacity of air carrier aircraft is 
used to classify certificated airports and to determine the specific 
part 139 requirements for each type of airport classification. This 
should not be confused with ARFF Index requirements that use the length 
of an air carrier aircraft to determine the type of ARFF equipment and 
quantity of extinguishing agents that must be used.
    The FAA acknowledges that an airport operator could be serving 
small air carrier aircraft (more than 9 passenger seats but less than 
31 passenger seats) that are longer than 90 feet. In such cases, the 
airport operator would have to meet the ARFF Index appropriate to the 
size of aircraft served, regardless of the number of passenger seats. 
For example, an airport classified as a Class III airport could be 
required to meet Index B if it serves scheduled air carrier operations 
conducted in an air carrier aircraft that has 19 seats and is 110 feet 
in length. Further, part 139 does not limit the airport operator from 
providing more ARFF coverage than required; e.g., the air carrier 
aircraft served requires Index A but the airport operator can provide 
Index C coverage. However, the airport operator must always provide, at 
a minimum, the ARFF Index specified in the ACM.
    Comment: Two commenters state that the definition of ``air 
carrier'' contained in 14 CFR part 1 is not compatible with part 139. 
These commenters note that part 1 defines an air carrier as a person 
who is engaged in air transportation, yet part 139 standards are 
specific to passenger-carrying operations in aircraft with a certain 
number of seats. They are concerned that the use of the part 1 
definition could require an airport serving any type of passenger, 
mail, or cargo operations to come under the purview of part 139. One 
commenter even suggests that the part 1 definition would require an 
airport serving a Cessna 172 engaged in air transportation to be 
certificated under part 139.
    FAA Response: The FAA disagrees. The definition of air carrier in 
part 1 is used within the context of part 139. Section 139.1 prescribes 
rules for the certification and operation of airports serving scheduled 
and unscheduled air carrier operations conducted in aircraft with a 
certain number of seats. Section 139.5 further defines what is a 
scheduled operation and an unscheduled operation. Since the regulation 
is read as a whole, only air carrier operations meeting both the 
definition of part 1 and the criteria defined in part 139 would require 
an airport operator to be certificated under part 139. Thus, air 
transportation conducted in the aircraft referenced by one commenter, a 
Cessna 172, would not require an airport operator to have an AOC as it 
neither meets the part 139 criteria for seating capacity nor covered 
air carrier operations.
    Comment: A commenter notes that the definition of ``movement area'' 
does not reference air traffic control (ATC). This individual states 
that in the Pilot/Controller Glossary of the FAA's Aeronautical 
Information Manual (AIM), the definition of movement area states, ``At 
those airports with a tower, specific approval for entry onto the 
movement area must be obtained from ATC.'' The commenter recommends 
that this language be added to the definition of movement area to be 
consistent with the definition contained in the AIM, as well as the 
description of the non-movement area boundary markings in AC 150/5340-
1, Standards for Airport Markings.
    FAA Response: The FAA disagrees. The part 139 definition of 
``movement area'' is intended to describe only the physical boundaries 
in which certain part 139 requirements are applicable. Part 139 does 
not address air traffic control procedures. Not all part 139 airports 
have air traffic control towers, and at those part 139 airports with 
towers, there already exists processes for communicating air traffic 
control procedures to pilots and other airport users, such as contained 
in the AIM.
    Comment: Several commenters request that the terms ``joint-use 
airport'' and ``shared-use airport'' be defined because of 
applicability requirements at airports where civilian and military 
aircraft operations commingle. (See discussion comments for Sec. 139.1, 
Applicability.)
    FAA Response: The FAA agrees. This section is revised to include 
the definitions of joint-use airport and shared-use airport. ``Joint-
use airports'' are defined as airports owned by the United States, 
which lease a portion of these facilities to the local government for 
civilian air carrier operations. ``Shared-use airports'' are defined as 
co-located U.S. and local government airports at which portions of the 
movement areas, such as runways, taxiways, and ramps, are shared. These 
definitions were discussed in the proposal's preamble on 65 FR 38642.
    Section as Adopted: This section is adopted with changes. For the 
reasons discussed above, the terms ``joint-use airport'' and ``shared-
use airport'' have been added.
    Several definitions have been modified for clarity. As there are 
many places in the regulation where the term ``air carrier aircraft'' 
is used without

[[Page 6389]]

reference to the number of passenger seats, the terms ``small air 
carrier aircraft'' and ``large air carrier aircraft'' are now defined 
under the single term ``air carrier aircraft.'' In addition, the 
definition of ``safety area'' has been modified to clarify that the 
safety area may also be used by aircraft landing short of a runway and 
to correspond to the definition of runway and taxiway safety areas 
contained in AC 150/5300-13, Airport Design. Also, the definition of 
``Index'' has been reordered for clarity, and the definition of 
``heliport'' has been moved as it was not listed in the correct 
alphabetical order.
    Further, modifications have been made to the definitions of 
``scheduled operation'' and ``unscheduled operation.'' The term 
``commercial operator'' has been deleted from both definitions as 
adopted changes to Sec. 121.590 regarding air carrier operations into 
airports operated by the U.S. Government make this phrase unnecessary. 
Also, the definition of ``unscheduled operation'' has been reordered 
for clarity and the term ``feral'' has been added to the definition of 
``wildlife'' to make clear that the FAA considers animals that have 
escaped from domestication and become wild a potential hazard to 
aircraft.
    In addition, an advisory note has been added to the end of the 
section to alert airport operators that air carriers conducting certain 
public charter operations have additional statutory requirements to 
operate to and from an airport certificated under part 139, as 
specified under 49 U.S.C. 41104(b). For further questions regarding 
public charter operations, contact DOT, Office of Aviation Analysis, at 
(202) 366-5903.

Section 139.7 Methods and Procedures for Compliance

    Proposal: This relocated and retitled section specifies that a 
certificate holder must comply with the requirements of part 139 in a 
manner acceptable to the Administrator. Revisions to this section 
clarify that the Administrator considers the methods and procedures 
contained in FAA ACs to be an acceptable manner in which to comply with 
the requirements of part 139, but not the only way to comply.
    Comment: One commenter asks if the change to this section meant 
that no other standards and procedures other than those contained in 
ACs would be acceptable to the Administrator. To clarify, the commenter 
suggests that the previous statement ``or other standards and 
procedures approved by the Administrator'' be reinserted.
    FAA Response: The FAA disagrees. The deletion of the statement ``or 
other standards and procedures approved by the Administrator'' was done 
to simplify this section, and its absence should not be interpreted to 
mean that only methods and procedures contained in ACs are acceptable. 
As stated on 65 FR 38643 of the NPRM, certificate holders may comply 
with part 139 requirements by means other than those specified in the 
ACs. However, any alternative must be authorized by the FAA and must 
provide an equivalent level of safety.
    Comment: An airport operator also requests that the FAA reinsert 
references to specific ACs throughout the regulation. This commenter 
believes that it is generally accepted that when referencing a document 
within a regulation, the referenced document becomes part of the 
regulation by virtue of its reference therein.
    FAA Response: This assumption is not correct. References to ACs in 
part 139 are intended only to alert the certificate holder of the 
availability of a preapproved method for complying with the regulation. 
Their use is not mandatory, but the Administrator must approve any 
alternative means of compliance. Further, listing specific AC numbers 
throughout the regulation has proven impractical. ACs are revised 
periodically, and referring to them generically ensures the regulation 
remains current.
    Most ACs used to comply with part 139 are available, free of 
charge, on the FAA Web site at http://www.faa.gov/arp/. Proposed 
changes to these ACs also are posted on this Web site, and comments on 
such proposals are encouraged.
    Section as Adopted: This section is adopted as proposed.

Subpart B--Certification

Section 139.101 General Requirements

    Proposal: This section required each airport operator to adopt, and 
comply with, an ACM. The section title was shortened, current 
paragraphs (a) and (b) were combined into a new paragraph (a), and new 
paragraphs (b) and (c) were proposed. Compliance dates for submitting 
an ACM were established, language no longer applicable was deleted, and 
revisions were made to correspond to the new certification process.
    Comment: A commenter recommends that the language of Sec. 
139.101(c) be changed from ``approved and implemented'' to ``submitted 
to the FAA for approval.''
    FAA Response: The FAA agrees. Approval and implementation dates 
will vary depending on when the airport operator submits an ACM for 
approval and when the FAA approves the document. As such, proposed 
paragraph (c) is revised to require only the submittal of an ACM for 
FAA approval.
    Comment: Seven commenters request additional time to submit an ACM. 
In particular, these commenters express concern that Class III airports 
would need more time than proposed since these airports would be 
developing a manual for the first time, rather than amending an 
existing document. They request that Class III airports be allowed 18 
months to develop and submit their ACM's. Additionally, one commenter 
requests that the FAA allow Class I airports 6 months (180 days), and 
another suggests 24 months (2 years) for all airport classes.
    FAA Response: The FAA agrees that additional compliance time may be 
needed for all airport classes and has modified paragraph (c). Class I 
airports will be allowed an additional 3 months, for a total of 6 
months, to submit their revised ACM's. Class II and III airports will 
be allowed an additional 4 months, for a total of 12 months. Class IV 
airports also will be allowed an additional 6 months, for a total of 12 
months.
    In addition to this extended time period for compliance, all 
airport classes will have an additional 120 days to comply with the 
rule as implementation dates are based on the rule's effective date. As 
specified by the authorizing statute, this rule becomes effective 120 
days after its submission to Congress. The FAA intends to submit the 
rule to Congress on the same day it is published in the Federal 
Register.
    Comment: Three commenters are concerned that their limited airport 
staff would not have time to develop an ACM and a consultant would have 
to be hired. One of these commenters estimates that it would cost 
$10,000 to have a manual professionally developed.
    FAA Response: The FAA is not requiring an airport operator to use a 
consultant to develop an ACM. The airport operator has the discretion 
to develop its ACM in any manner it deems best. If an airport operator 
decides to develop its own manual, FAA resources are available to 
simplify this process. This includes the FAA airport certification and 
safety inspectors who are available via telephone or e-mail and 
guidance materials pertaining to ACM's, particularly AC 120/139.201-1, 
Airport Certification Manual (ACM) and Airport Certification 
Specifications (ACS), which will be updated and reissued to correspond 
to the issuance of this rule.

[[Page 6390]]

    Section as Adopted: This section is adopted with changes for the 
reasons discussed above. The language in proposed paragraph (c) is 
changed from ``approved and implemented'' to ``submitted to the FAA for 
approval.'' In addition, the time that certificate holders have to 
submit their manuals is extended. Class I airports have 6 months from 
the effective date to submit their manuals. All other airport classes 
have 12 months.
    Several modifications also have been made to paragraph (c). The 
term ``airports'' has been replaced with ``persons'' to clarify that a 
person, not an airport, is the holder of an AOC. Additionally, 
references to other sections have been deleted. These references 
implied that there are alternative compliance dates for certain 
sections of an ACM. This is incorrect.

Section 139.103 Application for Certificate

    Proposal: This section revised requirements to apply for an AOC. In 
addition, application requirements found elsewhere in the regulation 
were added, and terms that were no longer applicable were deleted.
    Comment: Several commenters request clarification on whether they 
can continue to serve air carrier operations during the time between 
the issuance of this rule and the FAA approval of their ACM.
    FAA Response: During this transition period, an airport operator 
that currently holds an AOC will be permitted to serve air carrier 
operations, as specified in its existing ACM or airport certification 
specifications. Similarly, an airport operator that will be a 
certificate holder for the first time and already is serving air 
carrier operations on the date this rule becomes effective can continue 
to serve such operations until the FAA approves its ACM.
    Section as Adopted: This section is adopted as proposed.

Section 139.105 Inspection Authority

    Proposal: This section incorporated existing inspection authority 
provisions found in existing Sec. 139.105, Inspection authority, and 
Sec. 139.301, Inspection authority. Specifically, it stated that the 
Administrator may make inspections and tests to determine compliance 
with airport certification regulations. Revisions also were made to 
update language referencing statutory authority and to delete terms 
that were no longer applicable.
    Comments: No comments were received on this section.
    Section as Adopted: This section is adopted as proposed.

Section 139.107 Issuance of Certificate

    Proposal: This section revised standards that must be met before 
the FAA could issue a certificate, including requirements for an ACM. A 
new provision was added that requires applicants to provide written 
documentation that air carrier service would begin on a specific date. 
In addition, terms that were no longer applicable were deleted, and the 
standard ``public interest'' was revised to read ``safety in air 
transportation'' to reflect revisions to the authorizing statute.
    Comments: No comments were received on this section.
    Section as Adopted: This section is adopted with an editorial 
clarification. The term ``certificate holder'' in paragraph (a) has 
been changed to ``applicant'' to clarify that this section applies to 
an applicant for a certificate, not a current certificate holder.

Section 139.109 Duration of Certificate

    Proposal: This section revised existing language into new paragraph 
(a) and proposed a new paragraph (b) that modify existing standards for 
the suspension or revocation of an AOC by stipulating that the 
Administrator may revoke an AOC if air carrier operations have not 
occurred for 24 consecutive months. This section also included language 
notifying the certificate holder that it can appeal an order revoking 
its certificate.
    Comment: Four commenters oppose the language stipulating that the 
Administrator may revoke an AOC. These commenters are particularly 
concerned with the new provision that specifies that the duration of a 
certificate is tied to air carrier service. They question why an 
airport operator should lose its operating certificate when not serving 
air carrier operations if it continues to meet the requirements of part 
139. These commenters note that an AOC helps market an airport to air 
carriers and protects the airport against budget cutbacks imposed by 
the local governing body. One of these commenters suggests that an 
``inactive'' category be established to allow an airport to go without 
air carrier service for five years before its certificate is revoked.
    FAA Response: While the FAA understands that an AOC helps market an 
airport to air carriers and protects the airport against budget 
cutbacks imposed by the local governing body, the FAA issues AOCs under 
part 139 to ensure safety in air transportation, not to encourage air 
carrier service or for budgetary reasons. However, in response to 
comments, the FAA has reconsidered its approach to inspecting an 
airport certificate holder at an airport that is no longer currently 
serving air carrier operations.
    Accordingly, the FAA has deleted proposed paragraph (b) and will 
work with airports not serving air carrier service on a case-by-case 
basis to determine the need for inspections. The FAA also will consider 
developing an ``inactive'' category for such airports in its inspection 
policies, but will not change the rule at this time.
    Comment: One commenter is concerned about the impact the revocation 
of a part 139 AOC would have on an airport operator's Federal funding.
    FAA Response: Federal funding provided to airport operators through 
the Airport Improvement Program (AIP) is not dependent on a part 139 
AOC. AIP funds are available to all airports that are identified in the 
FAA's National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems (NPIAS).
    The NPIAS identifies U.S. airports that are important to national 
transportation and, therefore, eligible to receive grants under the 
AIP. To be included in the NPIAS, an airport must meet certain 
criteria. Such criteria do not require an airport to be certificated 
under part 139. Most of the 3,344 airports identified in the NPIAS are 
not certificated under part 139. A copy of the NPIAS is available on 
the FAA's Web site at http://www.faa.gov/arp.
    Certain airports identified in the NPIAS receive an annual 
apportionment of AIP funds based on the number of passengers enplaned. 
These funds are known as entitlement funds and distributed to airports 
based solely on passenger activity levels, not part 139 certification. 
Funding and certification are unrelated, although the loss of air 
carrier service may result in an airport operator losing both its AIP 
funds and AOC.
    Additionally, an airport's certification status does not affect its 
priority in receiving AIP funds. The FAA prioritizes the distribution 
of AIP funds based on the type of project to be funded, not an 
airport's certification status.
    In some instances, the loss of a part 139 AOC may affect certain 
AIP funding for safety equipment: AIP funds may be provided for safety 
equipment purchases needed to comply with part 139 requirements. As of 
the date of the publication of this final rule, safety equipment is 
only eligible for AIP funding under two situations. The

[[Page 6391]]

equipment is required under regulation or the FAA has determined that 
this equipment will contribute significantly to the safety or security 
of persons or property at an airport (49 U.S.C. 47102(3)(B)(ii), as 
amended).
    Comment: The FAA received one comment from an airport operator on 
the cost of surrendering a certificate and then later regaining it 
versus maintaining a certificate uninterrupted. At some point, this 
airport operator surrendered its AOC and then, in 1991, applied for 
another certificate. The cost to do this was $125,000, excluding 
administrative expenses. This commenter notes that the concept of an 
airport simply maintaining its facility to part 139 standards is faulty 
as the discretion given FAA inspectors allows for varying 
interpretations as to what is required. Thus, an airport operator may 
be found not in compliance although it has tried to remain so while not 
certificated.
    FAA Response: The FAA agrees that the methods and procedures for 
complying with certain part 139 requirements may change during the time 
when an airport's certificate is surrendered and then reinstated. Thus, 
an airport operator that continued to comply with its certification 
manual during this timeframe may not meet part 139 requirements when 
reapplying for an AOC. In such instances, there may be a one-time cost 
to become certificated again that the airport operator might otherwise 
have absorbed over a longer period if it had remained certificated.
    To avoid such situations, an airport operator should request that 
the local FAA Airports Regional Office continue to provide it with 
airport information notices, including changes to the airport 
certification program. The FAA regional offices maintain a contact list 
of airport operators (often a combination of part 139 certificate 
holders and noncertificate holders, recipients of AIP funds, and those 
serving only general aviation operations), State aviation agencies, and 
other interested parties. This list is used to distribute information 
about airport safety and standards, the part 139 airport certification 
program, and upcoming training events and to request comments on 
proposed changes to regulations and standards. Many regions also 
distribute informational newsletters, sponsor training events, and 
maintain Internet sites that provide airport operators up-to-date 
information on airport certification issues. As resources permit, the 
FAA regional offices may conduct occasional safety inspections of 
noncertificated airports and make recommendations based on current part 
139 standards.
    If an airport operator uses these resources to keep informed of 
changes to the part 139 airport certification program, the cost should 
be the same to comply voluntarily with part 139 as it would be to 
maintain an uninterrupted AOC.
    In addition, the FAA disagrees with the commenter's assertion that 
FAA airport certification and safety inspectors are allowed to make 
varying interpretations of part 139. This is not the FAA policy. An 
airport operator should contact the local FAA Regional Airports 
Division Manager if an FAA inspector's interpretation of the regulation 
seems incorrect or if it seems that the airport operator is being held 
to a different standard than other certificate holders.
    Section as Adopted: This section is adopted with changes. For the 
reasons discussed above, proposed paragraph (b) has been deleted.

Section 139.111 Exemptions

    Proposal: This section detailed the procedures for a certificate 
holder to petition for an exemption from the requirements of part 139, 
including ARFF requirements. Changes were proposed that would require a 
petition for relief from ARFF requirements to include additional 
information, as specified in proposed Sec. 139.321, ARFF: Exemptions. 
In addition, changes were proposed to update references to 14 CFR part 
11.
    Comment: Four commenters state that the alternative emergency 
response services specified in proposed Sec. 139.321 are as stringent 
as the ARFF requirements that a petitioner would be seeking relief 
from. These commenters request that the FAA provide total relief from 
an ARFF requirement if an airport operator can show that the 
requirement is unreasonably costly, burdensome, or impractical, as 
specified in the authorizing statute.
    FAA Response: The FAA agrees. Proposed Sec. 139.321 has been 
deleted in its entirety in the final rule, and all requirements for 
petitions for relief from all or some ARFF requirements are now 
contained in Sec. 139.111(b). As discussed in the General Comments 
section above, a new paragraph (e) has been added to Sec. 139.315 to 
provide an alternative means of compliance with ARFF requirements for 
Class III airports.
    Based on comments received, several operators of Class II and III 
airports may be petitioning the FAA for relief from all ARFF 
requirements due to cost considerations. However, most of these airport 
operators did not provide the FAA sufficient supporting cost or 
operational data to justify their position that compliance with ARFF 
requirements would be too costly. To ensure petitioners adequately 
justify that ARFF requirements are unreasonably costly, burdensome, or 
impractical, paragraph (b) has been modified to detail the type of 
financial information the FAA would need when considering a request for 
exemption.
    The new paragraph added to Sec. 139.315 provides an alternative 
means of compliance for Class III airports that would allow the 
certificate holder to either comply with Index A ARFF requirements or 
comply with alternate ARFF requirements that provide a comparable level 
of safety (see discussion comments for Sec. 139.315, Aircraft rescue 
and firefighting: Index determination). These alternate ARFF 
requirements must be approved by the FAA and include provisions for 
prearranged emergency response services and that emergency responders 
are familiar with air carrier schedules, airport layout, and airfield 
communications. Such services may be those identified in the airport 
emergency plan required under Sec. 139.325, Airport emergency plan. 
There are no timed response, equipment, or personnel requirements as 
were proposed in the now deleted Sec. 139.321, ARFF: Exemptions.
    Comment: A commenter states that criteria the FAA uses to determine 
if an airport operator can petition for relief from ARFF requirements 
is outdated and ineffective. The commenter believes that allowing 
airports with ``less than one-quarter of 1 percent of the total 
passengers enplaned at all air carrier airports'' to petition the FAA 
for relief from ARFF requirements is too liberal. The commenter notes 
that one-quarter of 1 percent of the total U.S. passenger enplanements 
has grown from 478,372 enplanements in 1972 to 1,588,505 enplanements 
in 1999.
    Instead, the commenter suggests that the FAA base ARFF exemptions 
on the 1982 amendment of the Airport and Airway Improvement Act's 
definition of ``primary airports.'' The commenter states that this law 
defined a primary airport as a commercial service airport that is 
determined by the Secretary of Transportation to have .01 percent or 
more of the total number of passengers enplaned annually at all 
commercial service airports. Under this revised criterion, the 
commenter argues that only airports with 63,540 enplanements or less 
could petition for relief from ARFF requirements.
    FAA Response: The FAA disagrees. The authorizing statute specifies 
that

[[Page 6392]]

the FAA may consider exempting from ARFF requirements an airport that 
enplanes annually less than one-quarter of 1 percent of the total 
number of passengers enplaned at all air carrier airports. Congress 
would have to amend this authority before the FAA could limit ARFF 
exemptions to only those airports categorized as primary airports.
    In addition, the commenter's revised criterion is based on an 
incorrect definition. The commenter suggests using the definition of 
``primary airport'' found in the 1982 amendment of the Airport and 
Airway Improvement Act. In 1994, Congress amended and recodified the 
Airport and Airway Improvement Act. Under the current statute, a 
primary airport is defined as a commercial service airport the 
Secretary of Transportation determines to have more than 10,000 
passenger boardings each year (49 U.S.C. 47102 (11)).
    Comment: Two commenters request guidance on the circumstances under 
which the FAA would grant an exemption to part 139 requirements. 
Without this guidance, the commenters believe it would be difficult for 
airport operators to determine whether serving scheduled air carrier 
operations could be justified in light of the incremental cost of part 
139 certification. One of these commenters recommends that the FAA 
develop criteria for approving exemptions that would improve safety and 
also allow small airports with small budgets to focus their resources 
on accident prevention rather than accident mitigation.
    FAA Response: The FAA partially agrees. The FAA has the authority 
to approve an exemption request from any part 139 requirements and will 
consider any petition for exemption from these requirements that is 
submitted in the manner outlined in the final rule, as adopted. 
However, varying airport operations, sizes, and local circumstances 
make it difficult to generalize what exemptions would be granted and it 
would be difficult to provide in this final rule.
    As stated in the proposal (65 FR 38664), the FAA considered 
requiring airport operators that serve small air carrier operations to 
comply only with accident prevention measures, or risk reduction 
requirements, and not accident mitigation requirements (such as ARFF 
and emergency planning). While this approach to regulating these 
airports would promote a minimum level of safety through consistent 
compliance with risk reduction requirements, experience has shown that 
not all airport owners and operators would place enough emphasis on 
preparing for emergency response without some FAA oversight.
    Since accident mitigation costs could have a significant economic 
effect on airports serving small air carrier aircraft, the FAA has 
added language to clarify how an airport operator can apply for an 
exemption from all or some ARFF requirements that would be too costly, 
burdensome, or impractical. Language also has been added to allow 
alternative compliance measures for Class III airports (see the 
section-by-section analysis of Sec. 139.111, Exemptions and Sec. 
139.315, Aircraft rescue and firefighting: Index determination).
    Comment: A commenter states that the FAA should not use its 
authority to grant exemptions as a means of remedying funding shortages 
at smaller certificated airports. Instead, the commenter recommends 
that the FAA develop a new funding mechanism.
    FAA Response: The FAA disagrees. Instead of alternative funding 
sources, the FAA can use its exemption authority in instances where 
compliance with part 139 would be unduly burdensome. The authorizing 
statute requires the FAA to consider regulatory alternatives for 
airports serving small air carrier operations that are the ``least 
costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome'' and will provide 
``comparable safety'' at all certificated airports. As noted earlier, 
the authorizing statute also provides exemption authority from ARFF 
requirements for certain airports. The FAA will use its general 
exemption authority under 49 U.S.C. 44701 and its specific authority to 
grant limited exemptions from ARFF requirements under 49 U.S.C. 44706 
to require safety measures at all airports serving small air carrier 
aircraft consistent with the requirements of 49 U.S.C. 44706.
    After publication of the proposal, Congress did direct the FAA to 
set aside a portion of existing AIP funds to assist airport operators 
in meeting the terms of this rule (49 U.S.C. 47116(e)). As of the date 
of the publication of this final rule, the FAA is required to set aside 
$15 million of AIP funds per year for 4 fiscal years following the 
effective date of this rule. Beyond that, the FAA has limited options 
for developing new funding mechanisms. The FAA executes statutes for 
the distribution of Federal funds to airport operators, as directed by 
Congress. Congress would have to appropriate any additional Federal 
funds.
    Section as Adopted: This section is adopted with changes. For the 
reasons discussed above, proposed Sec. 139.321 is deleted in its 
entirety, and all references to Sec. 139.321 in Sec. 139.111 have been 
deleted. All requirements for petitions for relief from ARFF 
requirements are now contained in Sec. 139.111, and this paragraph has 
been modified to require the petitioner to provide the FAA additional 
information.

Section 139.113 Deviations

    Proposal: This section permits the certificate holder to deviate 
from requirements of Subpart D--Operations of the regulation during 
emergency conditions. A revision was proposed to allow the certificate 
holder more flexibility during emergencies requiring a deviation from 
some part 139 requirements, including the flexibility to notify the FAA 
of deviations by telephone, or other means of electronic 
communications, rather than requiring an automatic written 
notification. In addition, the term ``Airport Certification Manual'' 
was added to clarify that the certificate holder may, when responding 
to an emergency, deviate from both its certification manual and any 
requirements of subpart D.
    Comments: No comments were received on this section.
    Section as Adopted: This section is adopted as proposed.

Subpart C--Airport Certification Manual

Section 139.201 General Requirements

    Proposal: This section was retitled and specified that each airport 
operator shall adopt, and comply with, an ACM in accordance with part 
139. It further specified that the Administrator may authorize an 
airport operator to serve air carrier operations not otherwise 
permitted under the regulation.
    This section consolidated existing requirements from Sec.Sec. 
139.201, 139.203, 139.207, 139.209, 139.211, and 139.215 into a single 
section. Requirements that an airport subject to this part may not be 
operated without an operating certificate, or in violation of its 
certificate, were combined, as were the requirements for preparing and 
maintaining a manual. In addition, language no longer applicable was 
deleted, revisions were made to correspond to the new certification 
process, and implementation dates were established.
    Comment: Four commenters request that the reference to ACs in 
paragraph (d) be limited to those in the 150 series that pertain to 
airports.
    FAA Response: The FAA disagrees. The AC pertaining to the 
development of an ACM is not in the 150 series. Rather, it is in the 
120 series (AC 120/139.201-1, Airport Certification Manual (ACM) and 
Airport Certification

[[Page 6393]]

Specifications (ACS)). Further, referencing specific AC series has 
proven impractical. ACs are revised periodically, and referring to them 
generically ensures the regulation remains current.
    Section as Adopted: This section is adopted with administrative 
changes. Minor grammatical edits have been made to paragraph (b)(3).

Section 139.203 Contents of Airport Certification Manual

    Proposal: Under the proposal, existing standards of Sec. 139.203 
for maintaining an ACM were incorporated into proposed Sec. 139.201, 
General requirements, as previously discussed. The contents of existing 
Sec. 139.205, Contents of airport certification manual, and Sec. 
139.213, Contents of airport certification specifications, were revised 
and became the new proposed Sec. 139.203. This section required all 
certificate holders to have an ACM and to include in their 
certification manual a description of procedures and equipment used to 
comply with the requirements of part 139, particularly subpart D. New 
manual contents were required for each airport class to correspond to 
the new classifications of certificated airports and changes to subpart 
D.
    Class I airport certificate holders were required to include in 
their manual all elements that are currently required and several new 
elements. Airport operators currently holding a Limited Airport 
Operating Certificate were required to convert their existing airport 
certification specifications into an AOC and include several new 
elements. These airports were classified as either Class II or Class IV 
airports. Class II airport operators were required to include more 
elements in their manual than were operators of Class IV airports. In 
addition, airports that would be newly certificated under the proposal 
(Class III airports) were required for the first time to develop an 
ACM.
    Comment: A commenter disagrees that airports serving small air 
carrier aircraft would be permitted some flexibility in complying with 
requirements that the commenter believes are more burdensome. This 
commenter argues that Sec. 139.203 makes no distinction between Class 
I, II, and III airports as all three airport classifications must have 
the same certification manual contents. Likewise, the commenter states 
that nowhere in the proposed regulation are Class III airports allowed 
to comply with requirements differently than Class I and II airports.
    FAA Response: The FAA disagrees. While Sec. 139.203 does require 
Class III airports to comply with the same subpart D sections as Class 
I and II airports, several of these sections have different 
requirements for Class III airports. For example, Class III airports 
would not have to conduct an emergency disaster drill every 3 years 
(Sec. 139.325(h)) and would not be required to have internally 
illuminated signs, except for holding position and Instrument Landing 
System (ILS) critical area signs (Sec. 139.311(b)(3)).
    Comment: Two commenters object to the FAA proposing that Class IV 
airport operators need not include in their manuals procedures for 
complying with certain subpart D requirements. To encourage 
standardization, one of these commenters recommends that all 
certificated holders be required to include in their ACM procedures for 
complying with all subpart D requirements. The other commenter suggests 
that Class IV airport operators at least be required to address their 
manual procedures for complying with proposed Sec. 139.313, Snow and 
ice control; Sec. 139.323, Traffic and wind direction indicators; Sec. 
139.331, Obstructions; Sec. 139.335, Public protection; and Sec. 
139.337, Wildlife hazard management.
    FAA Response: The FAA partly agrees and has revised this section as 
discussed below. However, commenters may have misunderstood what is 
required for a Class IV ACM. This may be the result of errors contained 
in the proposal. The proposal incorrectly identified Class IV ACM 
requirements and contradicted statements in the preamble. These errors 
are in the chart on page 38648 that compares current and proposed part 
139 requirements and in the chart contained in proposed Sec. 139.203, 
Contents of airport certification manual, paragraph (b) on page 38674. 
A correction was issued on August 15, 2001 (66 FR 42807).
    As noted in the correction, Class IV airport operators would 
continue to address in their ACM procedures for complying with several 
subpart D requirements, including any proposed revisions to such 
requirements. The existing requirements are for personnel, paved and 
unpaved surfaces, safety areas, marking, lighting, signs, and airport 
conditions reporting. Additional manual elements were proposed that 
include procedures for complying with subpart D requirements for ARFF, 
the storage and handling of hazardous materials, wind and traffic 
indicators, and self-inspections. Such changes are adopted as proposed.
    The proposal did not require Class IV airport operators to include 
in their manuals procedures for avoiding power interruption or failure, 
snow and ice control, control of ground vehicles, marking and lighting 
obstructions, protection of NAVAIDS, public protection, wildlife hazard 
management, and marking and lighting construction and unserviceable 
areas.
    However, based on comments received, the FAA reviewed manual 
content requirements for Class IV airport operators. The FAA agrees 
with commenters that it is necessary for safety and standardization 
purposes to require Class IV airport operators to include in their 
manual procedures for the removal, marking, or lighting of 
obstructions, as specified in subpart D. To ensure all certificate 
holders monitor the status of obstructions, and take appropriate action 
when necessary, proposed Sec. 139.203(b)(26) has been revised to 
require all part 139 certificate holders remove, mark, or light 
obstructions within their control.
    For example, an object, such as a tree or tower, may penetrate 
certain airspace and affect aircraft operations. To determine the 
impact on airspace of such objects, the FAA conducts an aeronautical 
study and makes recommendations that may require the owner to remove, 
mark, or light any object deemed an obstruction. If this is not 
possible, visual and instrument approaches to runways near the 
obstruction may be changed to help ensure aircraft stay clear of the 
object. This ongoing process involves both certificated and non-
certificated airports, and most airports certificated under part 139 
have already removed, marked, or lighted any obstruction to FAA 
standards.
    Comment: A commenter questions whether differences between similar 
elements of the table contained in Sec. 139.203 are intentional. 
Specifically, this commenter notes that Sec. 139.203(b)(18) differs 
slightly from Sec. 139.203(b)(19). Both element (18) and (19) address 
storing and handling hazardous materials but element (19) does not 
reference a subpart D section as does element (18). This is also the 
case for elements (20) and (21), which address traffic and wind 
direction indicators, and elements (23) and (24), which address self-
inspections.
    FAA Response: These differences were not intentional. Rather, 
language from a previous version of part 139 was inadvertently left in 
Sec. 139.203(b). As discussed previously, a correction was issued on 
August 15, 2001 (66 FR 42807).

[[Page 6394]]

    Comment: A commenter, an operator of a Class I airport, agrees with 
the proposed requirement to include in the ACM a description of 
personnel training and equipment and a system for maintaining records. 
However, this commenter notes such additional requirements would have 
an economic impact. No cost data is provided to support the commenter's 
position.
    FAA Response: The FAA agrees that there will be costs associated 
with new personnel and recordkeeping requirements. While many Class I 
airports already comply with these requirements and need only to 
document their existing procedures, other airport operators, 
particularly those newly certificated under the revised rule, may have 
additional labor and training costs. Due to variances between airports, 
such costs will differ from airport to airport, even among airports 
within the same classification.
    Several other airport operators provided the FAA with cost and 
operational data regarding compliance with new personnel and 
recordkeeping requirements (see section-by-section analysis of Sec. 
139.301, Records, and Sec. 139.303, Personnel). The FAA has evaluated 
this data and made adjustments to associated cost estimates, as 
appropriate (Chapter V of the Regulatory Evaluation).
    Comment: A commenter opposes the requirement that Class III 
airports include in their ACM's a description of how they will meet 
ARFF requirements of subpart D. The commenter is concerned that this 
requirement will make air carrier service cost prohibitive, 
particularly for airport operators in New York State.
    FAA Response: The FAA agrees that, in some instances, the cost to 
comply with ARFF requirements may be too costly for Class III airport 
operators, even if such costs are passed onto airport users. As 
discussed in the section-by-section analysis of Sec. 139.111, new 
procedures have been established for certain airport operators to 
petition the FAA for relief from ARFF requirements that are 
unreasonably costly, burdensome, or impractical. In addition, the FAA 
has established alternative compliance measures for Class III airports 
(see the section-by-section analysis of Sec. 139.111, Exemptions and 
Sec. 139.315, Aircraft rescue and firefighting: Index determination).
    However, the FAA does not agree that Sec. 139.203 should be changed 
to exclude Class III airports from complying with ARFF requirements 
specified in subpart D. To standardize ARFF at certificated airports, 
all certificated airports serving both scheduled and unscheduled 
operations are required to comply with these ARFF requirements, subject 
to the exemption discussed above. Accordingly, no changes have been 
made to proposed Sec. 139.203(b)(16), and all operators of certificated 
airports are required to include procedures in their ACM's for 
complying with ARFF requirements appropriate to the air carrier 
aircraft and operations served.
    Comment: One commenter notes that the table in Sec. 139.203 
indicates that Class IV airports do not have to comply with certain 
sections of subpart D, contradicting language in these subpart D 
sections. Specifically, the commenter is concerned that the language 
``each certificate holder shall'' in specified subpart D sections means 
that every certificate holder must comply even if Sec. 139.203 states 
otherwise.
    FAA Response: The FAA disagrees. Section 139.203 is tied to subpart 
D as it establishes what subpart D requirements a certificate holder is 
required to address in its ACM. If Sec. 139.203 does not require 
compliance with a subpart D section, then the certificate holder is not 
obligated to comply with that section.
    Comment: A commenter notes that the reference to Sec. 139.319(l) in 
proposed Sec. 139.203(b)(6) is incorrect. The reference should be to 
Sec. 139.319(k).
    FAA Response: The FAA agrees. Section 139.203(b)(6) was changed in 
the correction issued on August 15, 2001 (66 FR 42807).
    Section as Adopted: This section is adopted with changes. Section 
numbers referenced throughout Sec. 139.203 have been changed to reflect 
the correction issued on August 15, 2001 (66 FR 42807), and the 
renumbering of some subpart D sections.
    For reasons discussed above, Sec. 139.203(b)(23) has been revised 
to require Class IV airport operators to include procedures in their 
certification manuals for removal, marking, or lighting of 
obstructions.
    In addition, a minor editorial change was made to paragraph (a), as 
well as changes to paragraph (b)(13), to clarify that a certificate 
holder's runway markings and holding position markings must be 
indicated in the runway and taxiway identification plan. Further, the 
reference to proposed Sec. 139.321 in paragraph (b)(17) was changed to 
Sec. 139.111, paragraphs (b)(22) and (28) were updated to reflect the 
title change to the referenced subpart D sections, and paragraph 
(b)(26) was changed to clarify that all wildlife hazard management 
procedures are to be included in the ACM, not just the wildlife hazard 
management plan.

Section 139.205 Amendment of Airport Certification Manual

    Proposal: Under the proposal, the contents of existing Sec. 
139.205, Contents of airport certification manual, were moved and 
consolidated into proposed Sec. 139.203, Contents of airport 
certification manual. In existing Sec. 139.217, Amendment to airport 
certification manual or airport certification specifications, 
procedures and requirements for amending the ACM were redesignated as 
proposed Sec. 139.205 and retitled. This section revised existing 
amendment procedures and requirements to reflect changes made to the 
certification process and deleted language that was no longer 
applicable. In addition, this section delegated to the Associate 
Administrator for Airports the authority to act on a petition for the 
Administrator. The section also established a deadline for the FAA to 
dispose of an amendment.
    Comment: A commenter states that the FAA should not have the 
unilateral authority to amend an ACM. This commenter argues that there 
are sufficient safeguards within part 139 authorizing the FAA 
Administrator to revoke or suspend an AOC.
    FAA Response: The FAA disagrees. The commenter is confusing the 
process to amend an ACM with the process to revoke an AOC. Revocation 
of an AOC is the result of an enforcement action due to noncompliance 
with part 139 requirements. The process to amend an ACM would not be 
used in this instance.
    For various reasons, the FAA or the certificate holder may need to 
amend the ACM to ensure that the manual accurately reflects how the 
certificate holder is complying with part 139, to implement new 
standards, or to address an emergency situation. Such an amendment 
typically addresses a few sections of the rule, and the certificate 
holder's overall compliance is unaffected.
    Either the FAA or a certificate holder can propose an amendment to 
the ACM, as specified under proposed Sec. 139.205. However, the FAA has 
the exclusive authority to approve amendments to an ACM. This is 
currently the case and would not change with this rulemaking. In fact, 
this rule makes very few changes to the amendment process, except to 
clarify that the FAA will respond within a time certain as to the 
disposition of an amendment it has initiated. The certificate holder 
still may petition that the Associate Administrator for Airports, under 
Sec. 139.205(d), reconsider an amendment initiated by the FAA.

[[Page 6395]]

The Associate Administrator for Airports stays the effective date of 
the amendment, pending a decision.
    Section as Adopted: This section is adopted with an administrative 
change. Language in paragraph (b) has been changed to clarify that the 
amendment process requires the certificate holder to file an 
application for an amendment in writing and submit it to the FAA 
Regional Airports Division Manager.

Subpart D--Operations

Section 139.301 Records

    Proposal: Under the proposal, the contents of existing Sec. 139.301 
dealing with inspection authority was moved and consolidated with Sec. 
139.105, Inspection authority, and this new section on records was 
proposed. This new section required all certificate holders to 
maintain, and make available to FAA inspectors, records to show 
compliance with part 139. Existing recordkeeping requirements found 
throughout part 139 were combined with new recordkeeping requirements. 
This section also required a certificate holder that serves less than 
10,000 annual air carrier operations to make and maintain records of 
each scheduled or unscheduled operation of large air carrier aircraft 
and scheduled operations of small air carrier aircraft that occurred 
during the previous 2 years.
    Comment: Three commenters oppose the new requirement for a 
certificate holder that serves less than 10,000 annual air carrier 
operations to make and maintain records of certain air carrier 
operations. One of these commenters was unclear on the need to keep 
such records and suggests that air carriers be required to provide this 
data instead. Another commenter suggests that FAA air traffic control 
towers collect the data. All agree that it would be difficult for 
airport operators to comply with this requirement.
    FAA Response: Due to changes made to proposed Sec. 139.105, 
Duration of certificate, the FAA has deleted the requirement for 
certain certificate holders to make and maintain records of air carrier 
operations. Instead, the FAA will request air carrier operations data 
on a case-by-case basis from those operators of airports at which the 
FAA is considering discontinuing inspections or requesting the operator 
surrender its AOC (see section-by-section analysis of Sec. 139.105, 
Inspection authority).
    Comment: One commenter states that the new recordkeeping 
requirements will create additional costs for airport operators if the 
training required under proposed Sec. 139.303, Personnel, is more than 
``on-the-job'' training.
    FAA Response: The FAA agrees but does not envision the training 
required to be more than ``on-the-job'' training. This training is 
discussed in more detail in the following section, Sec. 139.303, 
Personnel.
    Section as Adopted: For the reason discussed above, this section is 
adopted with changes. Proposed paragraph (b) has been replaced with a 
new paragraph that identifies recordkeeping requirements found 
throughout part 139 and the length of time these records must be 
maintained. Consequently, references to other sections in paragraph (c) 
have been deleted.

Section 139.303 Personnel

    Proposal: This section expanded on the existing requirement for all 
certificate holders to have available sufficient qualified personnel 
necessary to comply with the requirements of part 139. Changes were 
made to clarify the certificate holder's responsibilities to train and 
equip personnel performing duties required under the proposed part 139. 
Requirements also were proposed to ensure a certificate holder provides 
its personnel the necessary resources to properly perform these duties. 
Further, new training and recordkeeping requirements were proposed.
    Comment: A commenter states that it supports the ``requirement for 
initial and recurrent training of personnel, and complementary training 
records.''
    FAA Response: The FAA agrees.
    Comment: Five commenters state that the revised section is unclear 
as to who should be trained and what the training curriculum should 
address. They recommend that the section be revised to clearly define 
what personnel must be trained, what topics the training should cover, 
and what the training records should include. One of these commenters 
suggests that the section be revised so that it only applies to 
personnel responsible for part 139 compliance and not general 
administrative personnel.
    FAA Response: The FAA agrees. Proposed paragraphs (c) and (d) have 
been revised and new paragraphs (e) and (f) added. These revisions 
clarify who must be trained, how frequently this training must be 
provided, what subject areas training must cover, and what training 
records must be kept.
    In proposing new training requirements, it was not the FAA's intent 
to extend this requirement to administrative personnel. While such 
personnel may assist in the maintenance of an ACM or records to show 
compliance, they typically do not access movement areas or perform 
duties that directly affect the safety of air carrier operations, such 
as repairing runway lights or conducting inspections of movement areas. 
As such, new paragraph (c) is limited to personnel that access movement 
areas and safety areas to perform duties necessary to comply with the 
ACM and part 139.
    As requested, new paragraph (c) also specifies subject areas that 
required training must cover. These subject areas include airport 
familiarization, procedures for accessing and operating in movement 
areas and safety areas, airfield communications, duties specified in 
the ACM and part 139, and any additional training required under part 
139, such as training required for ARFF and emergency medical 
personnel.
    New paragraph (c) does not specify how training must be conducted. 
This is intentional to allow the certificate holder some flexibility in 
complying with training requirements in a manner best suited for local 
circumstances. Thus, training could consist of on-the-job training, 
formal classroom lectures, industry training meetings, or some 
combination thereof.
    While this section does not require the certificate holder to test 
personnel to determine comprehension of the required subject areas, the 
FAA recommends that the certificate holder establish some sort of 
testing procedures to determine the effectiveness of training. During 
inspections, FAA inspectors may test covered personnel to determine if 
training has been completed and the effectiveness of this training.
    Paragraph (c) still requires the certificate holder to ensure 
covered personnel are trained before the initial performance of part 
139 duties. However, this applies only to personnel assigned to part 
139 duties after the effective date of this rule. This requirement is 
not retroactive for personnel that currently perform part 139 duties, 
and paragraph (d) has been revised to clarify that initial training 
records need only be maintained for training given after the effective 
date of the rule.
    This paragraph also requires personnel performing part 139 duties 
to receive recurrent training in the specified curriculum at least once 
every 12 consecutive calendar months. This requirement is applicable to 
all covered personnel but is not retroactive. Beginning 1 year after 
the effective date of this rule, the certificate holder must ensure 
that all covered personnel receive recurrent training.
    Such recurrent training need not be accomplished at one time and 
could be staggered throughout the year. As long

[[Page 6396]]

as the five required subject areas are covered, recurrent training 
could be as involved as initial training or an informal discussion 
between a supervisor and employee.
    Comment: Four commenters oppose the revision of existing personnel 
requirements, claiming they are unnecessary and overly burdensome. One 
of these commenters notes that FAA annual inspections ensure that 
airport operators have sufficient and qualified personnel. Thus there 
is no need for new recordkeeping and recurrent training requirements. 
Two other commenters state there is no benefit to conducting or 
documenting recurrent training for duties that are done frequently, if 
not daily.
    The remaining commenter states that its two employees already know 
their duties; thus training would be unnecessary and would require the 
commenter to hire an administrative clerk, at $26,557 a year, to 
comply.
    FAA Response: The FAA disagrees with the commenters that revisions 
to this section will be burdensome and will require the certificate 
holder to hire additional personnel. Most certificate holders already 
comply with this section and need only to document existing training 
procedures.
    As discussed above, the FAA has made several changes to this 
section to clarify training requirements. In particular, the changes 
made to paragraph (d) to clarify that training requirements are not 
retroactive address the commenters' concerns about the cost to train 
existing employees. Rather, within a year of the effective date of this 
rule, these employees would need to receive annual recurrent training 
that covers the five specified subject areas. As noted above, the FAA 
allows the certificate holder some flexibility in conducting and 
scheduling this training so that the certificate holder can comply with 
the requirements of this section in a manner best suited to its 
operations and budget needs.
    The FAA also does not agree that documenting the training would 
require the certificate holder to hire additional personnel. The 
training documents required under this section can be as simple or 
complex as the certificate holder desires. This section only requires 
training records to contain a description and date of training received 
for each covered employee.
    For instance, a handwritten or typed letter containing this 
information for each covered employee that the certificate holder 
certifies is accurate meets the requirements of this section. In 
complying with similar training records for ARFF personnel, some 
certificate holders have developed a generic form to minimize the time 
it takes to record ARFF and emergency medical training. A copy of this 
form is made for each covered employee, and then specific information 
about the individual is filled in as training occurs. Each subject area 
that must be covered is listed on this form, next to which is a space 
to fill in the training date and the signature of the training 
instructor. This form is kept in a training notebook and is provided to 
the FAA inspector during periodic inspections to show compliance with 
part 139 training requirements. This low-cost approach to a 
recordkeeping system is an acceptable means of complying with 
recordkeeping requirements of this section.
    Additionally, the FAA disagrees with the commenter that annual FAA 
inspections ensure compliance with part 139 without the need for 
onerous recordkeeping and recurrent training program. This commenter 
argues that if an airport is found in compliance with part 139, then it 
is providing sufficient and qualified personnel.
    While full compliance with part 139 during a FAA inspection is 
certainly a good indicator that the certificate holder is complying 
with personnel requirements, such inspections typically occur once a 
year. Part 139 personnel requirements ensure that the airport operator 
provides qualified and sufficient number of personnel to comply with 
part 139 at all times, not just during FAA inspections. Such 
requirements also ensure a more consistent approach to training. This 
is particularly important for personnel that may not perform their 
duties on a regular basis, such as ARFF and emergency medical 
personnel.
    Even personnel that perform their duties on a daily basis can 
benefit from recurrent training. Such employees may become complacent 
in their duties and recurrent training will help ensure that they 
continue to perform their duties, correctly and safely. Recurrent 
training also provides the opportunity for employees to discuss any 
changes to part 139 and any revisions to standards or the ACM.
    Comment: Two commenters request that this section clearly state 
what the FAA considers to be ``sufficient and qualified personnel.''
    FAA Response: The FAA agrees. Based on comments received, these 
requirements have been clarified and restated.
    This section, as adopted, requires the certificate holder to ensure 
such personnel are trained in the subject areas specified in paragraph 
(c) and to document this training as required under paragraph (d). The 
FAA will consider a certificate holder to have qualified personnel if 
the certificate holder has complied with these requirements. As 
previously stated, to determine if the certificate holder has qualified 
personnel to comply with its ACM and part 139, FAA inspectors may test 
covered personnel.
    The FAA intentionally did not define the term ``sufficient.'' It 
would be impractical to define the number of personnel each certificate 
holder would need to comply with part 139 due to the variations between 
airport size and layout, type of operations served, and the local 
governing body. If a certificate holder is found to be in noncompliance 
with part 139 and its ACM, the FAA will review the number and 
qualification of employees used to comply with part 139. This review 
may result in the FAA requiring the certificate holder to provide 
additional personnel.
    Comment: Two commenters state that the FAA has underestimated the 
time a certificate holder will need to set up a recordkeeping system 
for training records. They note that FAA's recordkeeping estimates for 
certificate holders to comply with this section--4,848 hours for 
initial recordkeeping hours and 13,909 hours annual recordkeeping--
equates to 8 hours per airport to set up a recordkeeping system. They 
claim this is not enough time for any size airport, particularly large 
airports with staff numbering in the hundreds, and recommend the FAA 
conduct further analysis to develop a more reasonable time estimate. No 
cost or operational data is provided to support these comments, nor did 
commenters provide an alternate time estimate.
    FAA Response: The FAA disagrees. This time estimate was based on 
the assumption that current certificate holders have an established 
system for maintaining training records for ground vehicle operations, 
as required under existing Sec. 139.329 Ground vehicles. Since the 
training requirements of this section apply to the same individuals 
that must be trained under existing Sec. 139.329, the FAA estimates 
that these airport operators would need only 8 hours to update this 
system to incorporate new training records required under this section.
    Some of these airport operators have automated their recordkeeping 
systems, which create and store required records electronically. These 
systems may take longer than 8 hours to update, but this section does 
not require such automation. As noted above, a paper form that is 
reproduced and completed

[[Page 6397]]

for each covered employee is sufficient, and recordkeeping time 
estimates are based on such a system.
    Recordkeeping time estimates for newly certificated airports also 
were determined to be eight hours. Since a simple paper system is 
acceptable for complying with the recordkeeping requirements of this 
section and these airport operators have small staffs, the FAA 
determined operators of such airports would need no more than a day to 
establish such a system.
    The time needed to update recordkeeping systems may be further 
reduced by changes made to paragraph (c) that limit training to 
personnel that enter movement areas. This change may reduce the number 
of records that need to be maintained.
    Section as Adopted: This section is adopted with changes. As 
discussed above, modifications have been made to paragraph (c). This 
paragraph now stipulates that training required under this section is 
limited to personnel that enter movement areas to perform duties. 
Additionally, new language has been added to specify the five subject 
areas that required training must include and to require recurrent 
training every 12 months.
    Several modifications were made to paragraph (d) to clarify 
requirements for training records. Now, only records of training given 
after the effective date of the rule need to be maintained, and such 
records must be kept for 24 consecutive calendar months.
    In addition, two new paragraphs have been added. New paragraph (e) 
identifies other new and proposed part 139 training requirements. New 
paragraph (f) clarifies that a certificate holder can use individuals 
other than its own employees to comply with part 139.
    Language from proposed Sec. 139.323(d) that specified the 
conditions that a certificate holder must meet in order to use an 
independent organization or designee to conduct fuel fire safety 
inspections was moved to new Sec. 139.303(f) and revised so it is 
applicable to all sections. A certificate holder that chooses to use a 
third party to comply with a part 139 requirement is still required to 
ensure that the third party's duties and responsibilities are included 
in the ACM and records are maintained to show that the third party is 
in compliance with part 139 and the ACM. This would include any 
training required under part 139. The certificate holder using a third 
party is still fully responsible for meeting part 139 requirements.

Section 139.305 Paved Areas

    Proposal: This section contained existing requirements for 
maintaining paved areas used by air carrier aircraft. All certificate 
holders were required to maintain paved areas, including loading 
aprons, parking areas, taxiways, and runways, in a manner that 
adequately supports air carrier aircraft operations.
    The FAA proposed few changes to these requirements. The terms 
``full strength'' and ``shoulder'' were deleted from paragraph (a)(1) 
to eliminate confusion as to which areas to apply the 3-inch abutting 
surface limitation. Also, language stating specific series numbers 
within the AC system was changed to a general reference to the AC 
system.
    Comment: One commenter recommends the FAA expedite the rulemaking 
for continuous friction measuring equipment. Specifically, the 
commenter suggests that the FAA publish a supplemental notice of 
proposed rulemaking so requirements for friction measurements could be 
included in this final rule.
    FAA Response: The FAA disagrees. As noted in the proposal (65 FR 
38641), this rulemaking intentionally does not address runway friction 
measurement (both winter and maintenance) as the ARAC is already 
considering this matter. Issuing a supplemental rulemaking would 
unnecessarily delay this rulemaking.
    Section as Adopted: This section is adopted with one clarification. 
A sentence has been added to paragraph (a)(3) clarifying that a 
pavement crack and surface variation must be immediately repaired if it 
produces loose aggregate or other contaminants.

Section 139.307 Unpaved Areas

    Proposal: This section contained existing requirements for 
maintaining unpaved areas used by air carrier aircraft. All certificate 
holders were required to maintain unpaved areas, including loading 
aprons, parking areas, taxiways, and runways, in a manner that 
adequately supports air carrier aircraft operations.
    Comment: No comments were received.
    Section as Adopted: This section is adopted as proposed.

Section 139.309 Safety Areas

    Proposal: This section contained existing requirements for the 
establishment and maintenance of a safety area for each runway and 
taxiway available for air carrier use. Except for minor changes to 
paragraphs (a) and (c), these requirements remained the same and were 
applicable to all part 139 airports.
    Paragraph (a) was revised to require that certificate holders 
ensure runway safety areas are maintained in accordance with the 
standards of this section, unless otherwise approved in the ACM. 
Further, paragraph (c) was revised to make a general reference to the 
availability of the AC system.
    Comment: A commenter recommends eliminating the clauses in 
paragraph (a) that ``grandfathers'' nonstandard safety areas and 
imposes a deadline for all part 139 certificated airports to have at 
least a 1,000-foot safety area at the end of each air carrier runway. 
The commenter also suggests that if land is not available to achieve 
the 1,000-foot safety area at the end of the runway, the FAA should 
require part 139 certificate holders to use alternate methods, such as 
arresting materials or declared distances, to achieve a similar level 
of safety.
    FAA Response: The FAA disagrees. As noted in the proposal (65 FR 
38650), compliance dates listed in paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) are part 
of a ``grandfather'' clause to allow existing safety areas that were 
adopted when part 139 was amended in 1987 (52 FR 44276, November 18, 
1987.) Before 1987, many airport operators invested resources to 
develop safety areas before standards were established. Further, 
physical limitations of airports resulted in establishment of some 
safety areas that did not meet the standard.
    In developing the proposal, the FAA did consider removing these 
grandfathering clauses but determined the most efficient means to 
ensure all safety areas at part 139 certificated airports meet current 
standards is to continue to do so through AIP-funded runway/taxiway 
renovation projects. Airport operators that accept AIP funds for runway 
or taxiway renovations are obligated under grant assurances to ensure 
that such renovations meet current standards, including those for 
runway safety areas. Since 1988, many safety areas at part 139 airports 
have been brought up to current standards through this process. Due to 
the advanced age of the remaining runways and taxiways, similar 
renovation or replacement should occur in the next few years, and 
associated safety areas also should be brought up to current standards 
if necessary. Where terrain does not permit a standard safety area, the 
FAA will require alternative methods of compliance, such as those 
recommended by the commenter, to be developed on a case-by-case basis.
    Section as Adopted: The section is adopted as proposed, except for 
some minor administrative language changes for clarity.

[[Page 6398]]

Section 139.311 Marking, Signs, and Lighting

    Proposal: This section contained existing requirements for runway 
and taxiway markings, signs, and lighting. This section was retitled, 
and several clarifications were made to correspond to changes made to 
the certification process (proposed Sec. 139.203, Contents of airport 
certification manual) and to separate marking, signs, and lighting 
requirements into three distinct paragraphs.
    A change was made to existing marking requirements to clarify 
standards for taxiway edge markings. In addition, the word ``runway'' 
was deleted from the term ``runway holding position markings'' in this 
paragraph to permit special aircraft operations that require holding 
position markings other than those located prior to the runway.
    Sign requirements were relocated to a new paragraph (b) and revised 
to require Class I, II, and IV airports operators to internally 
illuminate all required signs. Class III airports were required to 
internally illuminate only holding position and instrument landing 
system (ILS) critical area signs. In addition, language was added to 
provide for those instances where an airport has a runway without edge 
or in-pavement lighting and thereby does not have a power source to 
internally illuminate signs.
    References to 14 CFR part 77 concerning obstructions were deleted, 
language pertaining to lowest minimums authorized for a runway was 
modified, and new language was added to require the certificate holder 
to comply with this section in a manner satisfactory to the FAA. In 
addition, expired implementation dates were deleted and a new 
compliance date was proposed for Class III airports.
    Comment: One commenter expresses support for revised language that 
may provide relief for airport operators that have runways without a 
power source and are unable to internally illuminate required signs. 
This commenter commends the FAA's pledge in the proposal (65 FR 38650) 
to work with such airport operators to develop alternative signs until 
funding is available to install a power source. The commenter states 
this approach is practicable and should accommodate a variety of 
equally safe solutions, such as retroreflective signs.
    FAA Response: The FAA agrees.
    Comment: Two commenters state the requirement to illuminate all 
mandatory signs will have a financial impact on airport operators, 
particularly on operators of small airports. One of these commenters 
suggests that operators of small airports be allowed to use 
retroreflective signs. The other commenter, an operator of a large 
Class I airport, notes that this requirement would have a financial 
impact but does not provide financial or operational data.
    FAA Response: The FAA agrees that there will be costs associated 
with the requirement to internally illuminate all required signs and 
has addressed these costs in the regulatory evaluation. Nonetheless, 
several factors will help mitigate such costs, particularly for 
operators of small airports.
    Operators of Class III airports will be required to internally 
illuminate only mandatory holding position signs, thereby reducing the 
number of signs these small airport operators must illuminate. Further, 
these airport operators can apply for Federal funds to purchase and 
install these signs. While there is no guarantee that Federal funds 
will be available and airport operators must still provide matching 
funds, most current part 139 certificate holders installed their 
current sign systems using Federal funds. The FAA anticipates this will 
be the same for operators of airports who will be newly certificated 
under this rule.
    Also, as discussed above, the FAA has committed to work with 
airport operators to develop alternative means of compliance, including 
the use of retroreflective signs, until funding is available to 
purchase and install required signs. In addition, Class III airports 
have an additional 3 years after the effective date of this final rule 
to comply with sign requirements. As noted in the proposal (65 FR 
38651), this additional compliance time will allow time to develop a 
sign plan, order and take delivery of signs, and install signs.
    Operators of small airports that will be classified as either Class 
I, II, or IV airports should already comply with the requirements of 
this section. For the past 10 years, the FAA has been funding the 
installation of internally illuminated sign systems at part 139 
airports that comply with the requirements of this section. Any changes 
that need to be made to these systems as the result of this rule 
likewise will be eligible for Federal funding.
    Comment: In response to a request for comments, one commenter 
states its opposition to the use of retroreflective signs at Class III 
airports because of concerns that retroreflective signs might not be 
visible to all air carrier pilots. This commenter, the Air Line Pilots 
Association (ALPA), raised this issue as a member of the ARAC, and its 
objection to retroreflective signs was discussed in the proposal (65 FR 
38650).
    In particular, ALPA is concerned that retroreflective signs may not 
be visible to all air carrier pilots because of differences in aircraft 
configurations and the location of taxi lights. The association states 
that the basis for this position is ``the collective experience'' of 
its 58,000 airline pilot members and requests that the FAA provide any 
information it has to the contrary. ALPA also recommends the FAA 
conduct tests of retroreflective signs at the FAA's Technical Center in 
Atlantic City, NJ.
    FAA Response: The FAA disagrees. Other than ALPA's comment, the FAA 
did not receive any other comment that would support the claim that 
retroreflective signs are not visible to pilots of certain air carrier 
aircraft, as requested in the proposal (65 FR 38650). Nor did ALPA 
provide data collected from its membership that identifies the aircraft 
type from which pilots have experienced problems seeing retroreflective 
signs or the airports at which these signs are located.
    The FAA has determined that retroreflective signs provide a 
reasonable means for airport operators to install a sign that can be 
seen in most low-visibility conditions when an internally illuminated 
sign is impractical or cost prohibitive. Other than ALPA's claim that 
retroreflective signs are problematic, the FAA has received no other 
report of problems with these signs from the industry or from aircraft 
operators. Accordingly, the FAA will allow Class III airports to use 
retroreflective signs to identify taxiing routes.
    Comment: In response to the FAA's request for comments on whether 
the installation of unlighted retroreflective signs would provide an 
adequate sign system for Class III airports, a Class III airport 
operator provided its opinion on retroreflective markers used at its 
facility to mark the runway edge. This commenter states that such 
retroreflective markers ``do not provide adequate lighting for aircraft 
on approach to landing.'' The commenter notes that such markers are 
only effective for taxiing aircraft and cannot be seen from the air. 
This commenter concludes that retroreflective markers are dangerous and 
unsafe during low-visibility weather conditions and that only lighted 
runways with lighted signs can assure maximum runway usage and improve 
safety.
    FAA Response: While the FAA was not seeking comments on the use of 
retroreflective markers on runway edges, the FAA disagrees with 
commenter's conclusion that use of

[[Page 6399]]

retroreflective markers creates an unsafe condition. During certain 
visual conditions and aircraft operations, retroreflective markers are 
an acceptable means to mark the edge of pavements.
    Further, the commenter incorrectly assumes that retroreflective 
markers are intended to be seen from the air. Retroreflective markers 
are intended only to provide visual guidance to a pilot operating an 
aircraft on the ground. Lighting that provides visual decent guidance 
information to pilots during an approach to the runway is the only 
airport lighting intended to been seen in the air. This lighting, known 
as approach lighting, is never retroreflective.
    The FAA determines the type of runway lighting, including approach 
lights, to be used based on runway takeoff and landing minimums. Runway 
takeoff and landing minimums are the horizontal and vertical visual 
distances the pilot must be able to see during poor meteorological 
conditions in order to use the runway. The FAA considers many factors 
in determining takeoff and landing minimums, such as runway length and 
obstructions near the runway, and these minimums will vary from runway 
to runway.
    While Sec. 139.311 does require the certificate holder to provide 
and maintain runway lighting, the standard is determined independently 
of the part 139 airport certification process. This is because the FAA 
authorizes runway takeoff and landing minimums for all types of 
runways, including many located at airports that are not certificated 
under part 139. In some instances, the FAA may authorize minimums that 
would permit a part 139 certificate holder to use retroreflective 
markers to denote the runway edge.
    The FAA agrees with the commenter that lighted runways and signs 
improve safety, but it will not require part 139 certificate holders to 
install runway lighting and markings other than those necessary for the 
authorized takeoff and landing minimums.
    Comment: One commenter, ALPA, recommends the FAA expedite the 
rulemaking for distance remaining signs (signs that are installed every 
1,000 feet along the runway to advise pilots how much of the runway 
remains). Specifically, ALPA suggests that the FAA publish a 
supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking so requirements for distance 
remaining signs could be included in this final rule.
    FAA Response: The FAA disagrees. As noted in the proposal (65 FR 
38641), this rulemaking intentionally does not address distance 
remaining signs. This matter was referred to the ARAC. At its meeting 
on June 21, 2001, the ARAC accepted the working group's majority report 
on distance remaining signs. The majority report recommended that no 
regulation change was needed to require distance remaining signs as the 
vast majority of airport operators have already installed such signs on 
their air carrier runways. In addition, ARAC considered ALPA's minority 
position that the FAA should publish a notice of proposed rulemaking 
requiring distance remaining signs. Both the majority and minority 
opinions are included in the recommendation forwarded to the FAA.
    Comment: A commenter recommends that the final rule require 
certificate holders to install precision approach path indicators 
(PAPI) at the end of each air carrier runway. A PAPI is a system of 
lights normally installed on the left side of the runway providing 
visual descent guidance information to pilots during an approach to the 
runway. The commenter believes this is necessary, as PAPIs are 
important visual aids that help ensure pilots make stabilized 
approaches.
    FAA Response: The FAA disagrees that the final rule should include 
a requirement for PAPIs. Requiring the installation of PAPIs goes 
beyond the scope of the proposal and would require a supplemental 
notice of proposed rulemaking. Further, the use of a PAPI is determined 
by the type of instrument approach that the FAA has authorized for the 
runway and may not be appropriate for all runways at part 139 airports.
    Section as Adopted: This section is adopted with minor changes. A 
clarification was made to Sec. 139.311(a)(3). The word ``taxiway'' has 
been inserted in front of the words ``edge markings'' to clarify that 
the edge markings required under paragraph (a)(3) are taxiway edge 
markings. Runway edge markings are already addressed in paragraph 
(a)(1). Additionally, paragraph (c)(4) was edited for clarity.

Section 139.313 Snow and Ice Control

    Proposal: This section contained existing requirements to develop 
and implement snow and ice control plans. These requirements applied to 
those Class I, II, and III airports located in an area where snow and 
icing conditions regularly occur.
    No changes were proposed to the existing requirements that snow and 
ice plans include procedures for removal and control of snow and ice 
accumulations, and that notification be provided to air carriers when 
movement areas are unusable due to snow and ice. Minor changes were 
made to paragraph (a). The term ``regularly'' was deleted and new 
language added to clarify that the FAA will determine which airports 
require snow and ice control plans. In addition, the standard for 
positioning snow off movement areas was modified by deleting the term 
``full strength.'' References to airport condition reporting 
requirements also were updated to correspond to new section numbering, 
and references to specific ACs were replaced with a generic reference.
    Comment: A commenter states that by omitting the term ``regularly'' 
in paragraph (a) and replacing it with the language ``as determined by 
the Administrator,'' the requirement for a snow and ice control plan 
would be subject to interpretation absent any specific guidelines.
    FAA Response: The FAA disagrees. The term ``regularly'' is not 
currently defined and is subject to interpretation. The new language 
allows greater flexibility for the certificate holder and the FAA. As 
the plan will be specific to each airport, there should be no ambiguity 
as to what each airport is requested to do.
    Section as Adopted: This section is adopted with changes. An 
editorial change was made to proposed paragraph (b)(5) to update a 
section designation number and another was made to proposed paragraph 
(b)(6) to delete the redundant language ``procedures for snow and ice 
control.''

Section 139.315 Aircraft Rescue and Firefighting: Index Determination

    Proposal: This section contained existing criteria for determining 
the certificate holder's level of ARFF coverage, or Index. The levels 
of ARFF coverage are divided into five categories, or Indexes, that are 
used in other sections to prescribe minimum ARFF services and equipment 
appropriate to the size of aircraft served. This did not change in the 
proposal.
    While Index criteria remained the same, a change was made to 
paragraph (c) to clarify which Index is required when the largest 
aircraft serving a certificated airport has less than the minimum 
number of daily aircraft departures. In addition, language was added to 
emphasize that in all circumstances, the minimum ARFF Index will be 
Index A.
    Comment: Many of the comments received on this section express 
concerns that the proposal did not update ARFF standards. Some of these 
commenters suggest a complete revision of ARFF standards, while others 
recommend changes for specific

[[Page 6400]]

standards, including the criteria used for determining Index.
    FAA Response: The FAA agrees that some part 139 ARFF standards may 
need revisions. However, the proposal did not include any major 
revision of ARFF standards. The FAA has asked ARAC to review this 
matter. The ARAC has created an ARFF Working Group to review part 139 
ARFF standards and to propose new regulatory language, as appropriate. 
Comments on this proposal that address specific ARFF standards will be 
forwarded to this ARFF Working Group for consideration. Otherwise, 
these comments will not be addressed as they are beyond the scope of 
the NPRM.
    Comment: A commenter supports the FAA's decision to expand part 139 
requirements to small commuter airports, noting that without part 139 
certification, there is no incentive for these airports ``to meet the 
minimal lifesaving measures in part 139.'' The commenter also states 
that it supports the upcoming ARAC review of part 139 ARFF standards, 
particularly standards for response times, staffing, and extinguishing 
agent amounts.
    FAA Response: The FAA agrees.
    Comment: A Class I airport operator states that all certificate 
holders should be required to meet at least Index A requirements, 
subject to limited exemptions. The commenter states that airport 
operators should work with local firefighting agencies to determine the 
most economical and efficient means of complying with ARFF requirements 
and include the resulting agreement in the airport's emergency plan. 
The commenter also notes that employees of smaller airports should be 
cross-trained in ARFF duties to minimize the financial impact.
    FAA Response: The FAA agrees. All certificated airports serving 
both scheduled and unscheduled operations are required to comply with 
at least Index A ARFF requirements, subject to the limited exemption 
discussed in the analysis of Sec. 139.111. In addition, alternative 
compliance measures have been established for Class III airports (see 
the section-by-section analysis of Sec. 139.315, Aircraft rescue and 
firefighting: Index determination).
    Comment: Nine commenters oppose the requirement that all 
certificated airports comply with at least minimum Index A 
requirements. These commenters, Class II and III airport operators and 
sponsors, state that complying with the requirements of proposed Sec. 
139.315, ARFF: Index determination, Sec. 139.317, ARFF: Equipment and 
agents, and Sec. 139.319, ARFF: Operational requirements, would pose a 
financial burden and detrimentally affect air carrier service at their 
airports. Some of these commenters provide cost and operational data to 
support their position. Many state that without Federal funds to cover 
ARFF costs, they would consider not serving air carrier operations 
covered by part 139, while others request an exemption from ARFF 
requirements should the FAA decide to adopt the proposal.
    Additionally, commenters state that airport sponsors will not be 
able to provide funds needed to comply with ARFF requirements, 
particularly if required to hire additional personnel. A few of these 
commenters also note that local laws limit the use of local funds for 
Federal mandates or restrict the collection of taxes. Several 
commenters also question the accuracy of the FAA's cost estimates.
    FAA Response: The FAA agrees that in some instances the costs to 
comply with even minimum ARFF requirements may be prohibitive at 
certain airports. As discussed earlier, the FAA will consider requests 
for relief from ARFF requirements under 49 U.S.C. 44706 in such 
instances where compliance with such requirements would be unreasonably 
costly, burdensome, or impractical and alternative compliance measures 
have been established for Class III airports (see the section-by-
section analysis of Sec. 139.315, Aircraft rescue and firefighting: 
Index determination).
    The operational and cost data provided by these commenters is 
addressed in the regulatory evaluation. In reviewing this data, the FAA 
noticed that several commenters assumed that either they would have to 
provide certain ARFF services not required or comply with ARFF 
requirements in a manner that far exceeds what was proposed. These 
issues are addressed separately under the appropriate section.
    The implementation of this rule will require the FAA to either 
issue new certificates or reissue existing certificates. During this 
certification process, the FAA will work with airport operators to 
determine the appropriate level of ARFF. Depending on the commenter's 
existing emergency services and airport operations, there may be 
several compliance options available that could be tailored to the 
airport to significantly reduce costs. For example, existing airport 
personnel could be crossed-trained to perform ARFF duties, and Federal 
funds may be available to purchase ARFF equipment. In the event that 
additional ARFF equipment and personnel are needed, the FAA will assist 
the airport operator in applying for Federal funds and provide guidance 
on acquiring ARFF equipment, training events, and the availability of 
regional resources. This may include a local network of ARFF and other 
firefighting personnel that provide guidance, training, and other 
support to smaller airports.
    Some commenters also request Federal funds to cover ARFF costs. As 
discussed previously, safety equipment (including ARFF equipment) that 
is required under part 139 is eligible for AIP funds. However, as of 
the date of the publication of this final rule, the AIP authorizing 
statute does not allow Federal funds to be used for ARFF labor and 
training costs.
    Comment: Four commenters express concerns that the proposal did not 
address ARFF coverage for cargo aircraft operations. One of these 
commenters also states that ARFF requirements should apply to ``wide-
body aircraft'' operations as well.
    FAA Response: The FAA partly disagrees. As discussed in section-by-
section analysis of Sec. 139.1, 49 U.S.C. 44706(a) limits the FAA's 
authority to grant AOCs to those airports serving certain passenger air 
carrier operations. Congress would have to amend this statutory 
authority before the FAA could issue AOCs based solely on air cargo 
operations and then, subsequently, require ARFF coverage during such 
operations.
    However, the FAA already has the authority to certificate airports 
serving aircraft described as ``wide-body charters'' (unscheduled air 
carrier operations in aircraft with more than 30 seats). In the 
proposal, certificate holders serving both scheduled and unscheduled 
operations were required to provide ARFF coverage appropriate to the 
size of aircraft served. This requirement has been adopted without 
change.
    Comment: Two commenters recommend that smaller airports be allowed 
to use alternative methods to provide ARFF coverage. One commenter 
suggests the FAA use the majority ARAC working group recommendation to 
allow airports with a low frequency of air service to coordinate an 
emergency plan with reasonable response times with the local fire 
department. The other commenter recommends the FAA reach an agreement 
with the U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) to provide ARFF training or 
expand the number of federally funded regional ARFF training centers. 
This commenter also recommends that the FAA permit ARFF services to be 
performed by a tenant air carrier, fixed

[[Page 6401]]

base operator (FBO), or a private company. Additionally, both 
commenters suggest that smaller airports be allowed to house ARFF 
equipment at a local fire station and train firefighters at that 
station in ARFF procedures.
    FAA Response: The FAA agrees in part. As adopted, the final rule 
allows Class III airports to either comply with Index A ARFF 
requirements or use alternative means to comply with ARFF requirements 
that provide a comparable level of safety, as approved by the 
Administrator. Such alternate means must be included in the FAA-
approved ACM and, at a minimum, address four specific operational 
items, including type of equipment to be provided and airport 
familiarization training for emergency service providers. Alternative 
rescue and emergency services may be those used to comply with airport 
emergency plan requirements under Sec. 139.325, Airport emergency plan.
    Commenters' recommendations to use non-airport personnel to perform 
ARFF duties are already acceptable under existing FAA policy. Part 139 
does not require a certificate holder to use only professional 
firefighters. The certificate holder has the discretion to use whomever 
it deems appropriate to meet ARFF personnel requirements so long as 
such individuals are trained in the subject areas specified in Sec. 
139.319. These personnel could include personnel from a local fire 
station, an airport tenant, a private company, or DOD facilities 
adjoining the airport. This did not change in the proposal.
    The proposal did not limit a certificate holder's ability to make 
arrangements with the local fire station to store equipment and provide 
all or part of required ARFF coverage. The FAA allows ARFF equipment to 
be housed at the local fire station as long as the equipment purchased 
with Federal funds is used in compliance with grant assurances and such 
an arrangement allows the certificate holder to comply with part 139 
vehicle readiness and response time requirements. This also is the case 
for firefighters based at the local fire station if they are trained 
and equipped in accordance with Sec. 139.319. Many certificated 
airports already have made such arrangements with their local fire 
departments, and the FAA encourages an airport operator that is 
proposing an alternate means of compliance under Sec. 139.315(e) or 
petitioning for relief from ARFF requirements under Sec. 139.111 to 
consider such arrangements in its petition.
    The FAA also makes use of DOD staff and resources wherever 
possible, particularly at joint-use and shared-use airports, and 
routinely coordinates with DOD on ARFF research projects. Further, the 
FAA encourages certificate holders to use federally funded regional 
ARFF training facilities. However, the FAA does not foresee funding the 
construction of more of these training facilities, as existing 
facilities are not being used to their full capacity.
    Comment: One commenter recommends that certificate holders use 
military surplus ARFF vehicles to help offset ARFF costs.
    FAA Response: The FAA agrees. For many years, airport operators 
have been acquiring Federal surplus equipment through the surplus 
property programs of the U.S. General Services Administration and the 
DOD.
    Section as Adopted: The section is adopted with changes. As 
discussed above, a new paragraph (e) has been added to allow 
certificate holders of a Class III Airport Operating Certificate to 
alternate means to comply with ARFF requirements. The new paragraph 
specifies that such alternate means must be included in the FAA-
approved ACM and address four specific operational items, including 
type of rescue and firefighting equipment to be provided.

Section 139.317 Aircraft Rescue and Firefighting: Equipment and Agents

    Proposal: This section contained existing standards for ARFF 
equipment and fire-extinguishing agents. Several modifications were 
made to these standards. The term ``clean agent'' was added to describe 
a new category of fire extinguishing agents that replace halon 1211. 
The phrase ``unless otherwise authorized by the Administrator'' was 
added to provide relief to airports waiting for Federal funds to 
purchase adequate equipment or to address other local circumstances 
that may require temporary use of alternative equipment or 
extinguishing agents.
    In addition, standards for extinguishing agent substitutions were 
removed, leaving only the requirement that the FAA must authorize the 
use of alternate extinguishing agents. Likewise, language was deleted 
that provided relief to certain airport certificate holders whose ARFF 
vehicles were unable to comply with the standards required when the 
regulation was amended in 1987.
    All certificate holders were required to comply with this section. 
A 2-year compliance date was proposed for those airport operators 
required for the first time to comply with Sec. 139.317 (proposed Class 
II, III, and IV airports).
    Comment: Many of the comments on this section recommend changes to 
specific standards, including the number of required ARFF vehicles, 
equipment carried on these vehicles, and the type and quantity of 
extinguishing agent.
    FAA Response: As discussed above, the NPRM did not propose any 
major revision of ARFF standards, and the ARAC has since accepted the 
task to review part 139 ARFF standards. Comments received that address 
specific ARFF standards in this section will be forwarded to the ARAC 
for consideration. Otherwise, these comments will not be addressed as 
they are beyond the scope of the NPRM.
    Comment: The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) comments 
that it issued Safety Recommendation A97-107 following an aircraft 
accident in Quincy, IL, on November 19, 1996 (see 65 FR 38652 for a 
summary of this accident). This safety recommendation asked the FAA 
``to develop ways to fund airports that are served by scheduled 
passenger operations on aircraft having 10 or more passenger seats and 
require these airports to ensure that ARFF units with trained personnel 
are available during commuter flight operations and are capable of 
timely response.'' The NTSB further states that this proposal is an 
acceptable approach to addressing this safety recommendation and that 
it supports the proposed revisions that require airport operators to 
provide ARFF coverage during scheduled operations of air carrier 
aircraft with 10 or more seats. The NTSB also affirms its position that 
commuter airline passengers are entitled to one level of safety.
    FAA Response: The FAA agrees. However, comments received from 
operators of small airports indicate that they are unable to comply 
with part 139 in the same manner as large airports. The limited number 
of annual enplanements received by these facilities makes it difficult 
for them to collect enough revenue to allow them to comply with full 
Index A ARFF requirements. This is particularly the case at airports 
with fewer than 10,000 annual enplanements.
    As discussed earlier, the FAA plans to use its exemption authority 
in instances where compliance with part 139 would be unduly burdensome, 
costly, or impractical. Additionally, the FAA will use its specific 
authority to grant limited exemptions from ARFF requirements under 49 
U.S.C. 44706 to require safety measures at all airports serving small 
air carrier aircraft. Any airport operator that petitions for relief 
from ARFF

[[Page 6402]]

requirements must provide certain evidence that such requirements are 
unreasonably costly, burdensome, or impractical.
    Regarding alternative funding sources, Congress recently directed 
the FAA to set aside a portion of existing AIP funds to assist airport 
operators in complying with the requirements of this rule (see 49 
U.S.C. 47116(e)). Beyond that, the FAA has very limited options for 
developing new funding mechanisms, and Congress would have to 
appropriate any additional Federal funds.
    Comment: Three commenters state that the quantity of water required 
to be carried for foam production by Index E vehicles under Sec. 
139.317(e)(2) was the same as the quantity of water required for Index 
D vehicles under Sec. 139.317(d)(2). They note the current regulation 
requires more water for Index E vehicles than Index D and asked if this 
change was a typographical error.
    FAA Response: The proposed change to Sec. 139.317(e)(2) was an 
error. No change was intended, and this paragraph has been corrected. 
The total quantity of water for foam production still must be 6,000 
gallons for Index E vehicles.
    Comment: A commenter recommends eliminating the ``grandfather'' 
provisions for ARFF vehicles and to establish a date certain by which 
all ARFF vehicles used by certificate holders must meet the 
requirements of this section.
    FAA Response: The FAA agrees and had intended to delete paragraph 
(f) in the proposal. A correction was issued on August 21, 2000 (65 FR 
50669).
    Proposed paragraph (g)(3) also contains a ``grandfather'' provision 
for ARFF vehicles. This paragraph has been deleted to be consistent 
with the removal of paragraph (f). Consequently, as of the effective 
date of this rule, most certificate holders are required to use ARFF 
vehicles that comply with the requirements of this section. Class II, 
III, and IV airport operators will have additional time to comply.
    Comment: Four commenters recommend an extension of the deadline, 
ranging from an additional 1 to 3 years, for Class II, III, and IV 
airport operators to comply with this section. These commenters all 
state that airport operators need more time to acquire funding, and 
several noted that local government budget processes would not allow 
these airport operators to secure the necessary funds within the 
proposed 2-year deadline.
    FAA Response: The FAA agrees that additional compliance time is 
warranted and has amended paragraph (k) to allow Class II, III, and IV 
airport operators an additional year to comply. These airport operators 
now have 3 years from the effective date of this rule to comply with 
this section or request an exemption under Sec. 139.111. The FAA has 
determined that 3 years is a reasonable period for most airport 
operators to apply for and receive Federal funds and acquire local 
funds. On a case-by-case basis, the FAA may consider granting 
additional time to those airport operators experiencing budgetary or 
procurement problems.
    Comment: A commenter notes that the proposal states that the FAA 
will consider a time extension for airport operators unable to meet 
compliance dates proposed in Sec.Sec. 139.317(l) and 139.319(m) but 
does not provide criteria by which it would evaluate such requests. 
This commenter states that, in contrast, proposed Sec. 139.321 
establishes criteria that airports must satisfy before the FAA would 
consider an exemption from some or all of ARFF equipment, extinguishing 
agent, and operational requirements. The commenter requests that the 
FAA make ``clear in the final rule that it will not grant any 
extensions of time to the compliance dates, except in extraordinary 
circumstances that satisfy strict criteria that the FAA sets forth in 
the final rule.''
    FAA Response: The FAA partly agrees. Statements made in the 
proposal regarding time extensions for airport operators unable to meet 
ARFF compliance dates (65 FR 38653 and 65 FR 38654) should have stated 
that the FAA would consider granting time extensions to those airport 
operators that petitioned for such relief as required under Sec. 
139.111. The FAA will consider granting exemptions based on criteria 
established in this section.
    As discussed earlier, most of the ``strict criteria'' of proposed 
Sec. 139.321 that the commenter referenced has been deleted from the 
rule. All requirements for petitions for relief from ARFF requirements, 
including compliance deadlines, are now contained in Sec. 139.111.
    The FAA may consider granting time extensions for compliance in 
situations other than extraordinary circumstances. For example, a 
certificate holder may petition for relief if it cannot comply with 
certain compliance dates because the ARFF vehicle manufacturer has 
delayed the delivery of a required vehicle for reasons beyond the 
control of the airport operator. Because every petition will be 
different due to varying airport size, operations, and organization, 
the FAA will consider each request for a time extension on its merits.
    Section as Adopted: This section is adopted with changes. As noted 
in the August 21, 2000, correction (65 FR 50669), the deletion of 
proposed paragraph (f) resulted in the re-designation of Sec. 
139.317(g) through (l) as paragraphs (f) through (k).
    For the reasons discussed above, the quantity of required water in 
paragraph (e)(2) has been corrected to read 6,000 gallons, and 
paragraph (f)(3) has been deleted. Paragraph (k) also has been modified 
to allow Class II, III, and IV airport operators an additional year to 
comply with the requirements of this section.
    In addition, paragraph (j) has been changed. The phrase ``in the 
150 series'' has been deleted and the word ``standards'' replaced by 
the word ``methods.'' As discussed in the proposal (65 FR 38643), 
similar changes were made throughout the rule to language referencing 
advisory circulars and should have been made to this paragraph as well.

Section 139.319 Aircraft Rescue and Firefighting: Operational 
Requirements

    Proposal: This section contained existing standards for the 
training of ARFF personnel; ARFF vehicle marking, lighting, and 
readiness; and emergency access roads. This section also established 
criteria for a certificate holder for adjusting ARFF coverage to 
correspond to changes in air carrier operations.
    Changes were proposed to clarify training requirements for rescue 
and firefighting personnel and emergency medical personnel, including 
requirements for training records. In addition, all references to 
specific series numbers within the AC system were deleted, and changes 
were made to reflect changes in terminology used to describe fire-
extinguishing agents. Several changes also were proposed to require the 
certificate holder to equip ARFF vehicles with guidance material for 
responding to hazardous materials/dangerous goods incidents.
    It was proposed that all certificate holders be required to comply 
with this section. A 2-year compliance date was proposed for those 
airports required to comply with this section for the first time 
(proposed Class II, III, and IV airports).
    Comment: Many of the comments received on this section recommend 
changes to specific standards, including training requirements for ARFF 
and medical personnel, response times, and vehicle readiness. Some of 
these commenters also recommend that these standards be reconciled with 
other

[[Page 6403]]

Federal and industry firefighting standards.
    FAA Response: As discussed previously, the NPRM did not propose any 
major revisions of ARFF standards and the ARAC has since accepted the 
task to review part 139 ARFF standards. Comments received that address 
specific ARFF standards in this section will be forwarded to the ARAC 
for consideration. Otherwise, these comments will not be addressed as 
they are beyond the scope of the NPRM.
    Comment: Two commenters state that cross training of airport 
personnel could reduce the cost of complying with ARFF requirements. 
One of these commenters notes that if an airport operator has 
management and maintenance personnel, the actual number of staff 
required for ARFF would be low. This commenter reasons that the FAA's 
willingness to be flexible with airport operators currently required to 
comply with Index A requirements, particularly with staffing issues, 
overcomes the argument made by other commenters that ARFF requirements 
are too onerous. The commenter also states that small airport operators 
would not be that much more burdened if they must comply with existing 
requirements for ARFF response capability during air carrier operations 
for a defined period before and after air carrier aircraft operations. 
Noting that current airport staff or the local fire department could be 
used to meet ARFF response requirements, this commenter believes that 
the annual cost for initial compliance with ARFF equipment and training 
could be less than $20,000, excluding the staffing costs, and half this 
amount annually thereafter.
    FAA Response: The FAA agrees in part. This section does not require 
an airport operator to use only professional firefighters or limit the 
duties of personnel used to comply with this section. This section only 
requires certificate holders to use personnel to perform rescue and 
firefighting duties that have been trained in the subject areas 
specified in paragraph (i). Accordingly, the certificate holder could 
choose to train and use existing employees for ARFF duties, but each 
airport situation is unique. The FAA cannot make a general conclusion 
about the burdens imposed on any airport operator without more 
information.
    Comment: Several commenters state that if they are required to 
comply with part 139 ARFF requirements, local laws would require them 
to hire professional firefighters.
    FAA Response: The FAA agrees that local laws and ordinances may 
require the airport operator, in order to comply with part 139 
requirements, to go beyond what the FAA requires. If local laws make 
compliance with part 139 requirements unreasonably costly, burdensome, 
or impractical, the certificate holder can petition the FAA for relief, 
as specified under Sec. 139.111. In addition, holders of Class III 
Airport Operating Certificate may propose under Sec. 139.315(e) an 
alternative means of compliance with ARFF requirements that may better 
address local laws and ordinances.
    Comment: Several commenters note that the FAA and the U.S. 
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) have different 
standards for the number of personnel required for ARFF. Specifically, 
commenters questioned the applicability of the ``two-in/two-out'' 
policy contained in the Respiratory Protection Standard (29 CFR 
1910.134) to aircraft firefighting scenarios. This standard requires 
that firefighters engaged in fighting interior structural fires work in 
a buddy system that requires at least two workers in the structure and 
at least two workers outside in case a rescue of the firefighters is 
needed. Commenters state that this standard would require them to hire 
additional personnel.
    FAA Response: The FAA disagrees. The OSHA Respiratory Protection 
Standard does not require certificate holders to hire more ARFF 
personnel than normally would be required to comply with part 139. In a 
legal memorandum developed jointly by the FAA and the OSHA (dated July 
7, 1999) and placed in the docket, it was determined that the 
respiratory standard is applicable only to personnel fighting a fire 
within a structure and not an outside aircraft fire. As the primary 
purpose of ARFF personnel is to suppress the external aircraft fire and 
establish an escape route for the aircraft crew and passengers, the 
``two-in/two-out'' rule does not apply to ARFF.
    Comment: A commenter states that neither the FAA nor an airport 
operator has the authority to require a private company to provide ARFF 
services without compensation.
    FAA Response: The commenter misunderstood the provision that allows 
an airport operator to use non-airport personnel to comply with the 
part 139, including ARFF requirements. The FAA gives an airport 
operator the discretion to use personnel other than its own employees 
to comply with part 139 requirements. Accordingly, an airport operator 
may decide that the best approach to complying with ARFF requirements 
is to arrange for such a service through a tenant or a contractor. This 
approach is not required under part 139, but it is an acceptable means 
of compliance as long as the tenant or contractor complies with the 
part 139 requirements. If compensation is required for such services, 
it is a matter for the airport operator to negotiate with the tenant or 
contractor.
    Comment: Three commenters state that the requirement to have on-
airport ARFF that must respond within a specified time period will be 
an unreasonable financial burden on a small town and would adversely 
affect the air carrier service into such communities. Depending on the 
location of the aircraft emergency, one commenter notes that off-
airport emergency personnel might be in a better position to respond, 
especially if the incident is located off the airport.
    FAA Response: The FAA disagrees. The requirement of paragraph (a) 
specifies that the certificate holder shall provide ARFF services on 
the airport during air carrier operations. This does not require the 
airport operator to ensure such services are on the airport at all 
times. Depending on the frequency of air carrier services, an airport 
operator may, and many do, arrange for ARFF services with the off-
airport fire station. This type of arrangement is acceptable so long as 
off-airport ARFF services are on the airport 15 minutes prior to and 15 
minutes after air carrier operations.
    As noted in the proposal at 65 FR 38663, certain airport operators 
that have arranged for the local fire department to occasionally come 
to their facilities to cover infrequent large air carrier aircraft 
operations will have to arrange for additional ARFF coverage for small 
air carrier aircraft operations. Since small air carrier aircraft 
operations tend to be more frequent at such airports, ARFF services may 
be needed more often than the local fire department can provide.
    If the certificate holder and the FAA cannot develop a reasonable 
alternative means of compliance, the certificate holder may ask the FAA 
to grant an exemption under Sec. 139.111 or in the case of a Class III 
airport, propose an alternative means of compliance with ARFF 
requirements under Sec. 139.315(e) that may eliminate the need for off-
airport emergency to comply with a timed response.
    Comment: A commenter states that part 139 airports should be 
required to have annual ARFF training at one of the regional training 
facilities funded by the FAA that use propane fire simulators. The 
commenter does not support airport operators using fossil fuel fires 
for such training because of the environmental impact and lack of 
repeatable training

[[Page 6404]]

scenarios needed to develop firefighting skills. The commenter also 
states that the cost of ARFF training for airports with less than 
500,000 annual enplanements should be AIP eligible.
    FAA Response: The FAA disagrees. Regional ARFF training centers are 
only one option available for complying with the fire training 
requirements of Sec. 139.319(i)(3). Airport operators may have other 
alternatives to comply with this requirement that are less costly or 
more convenient.
    Regarding the funding of ARFF training costs, Congress would have 
to amend the AIP authorizing statute before AIP funds may be used for 
ARFF training. As of the date of the publication of this final rule, 
ARFF equipment is AIP-eligible only if such equipment is required under 
part 139 or if the FAA has determined that it will contribute 
significantly to the safety or security of persons or property at an 
airport.
    Comment: A commenter states that the amount of time to comply with 
the requirements of this section should be extended to allow airport 
operators to secure funds, hire personnel, purchase equipment, and 
build facilities.
    FAA Response: The FAA agrees additional compliance time is 
warranted and has amended paragraph (m) to allow Class II, III, and IV 
airport operators an additional year to comply. These airport operators 
now have 3 years from the effective date of this rule to comply with 
this section or request an exemption under Sec. 139.111(b). On a case-
by-case basis, the FAA may consider granting additional time to those 
airport operators that petition under Sec. 139.111(a) for additional 
time.
    Comment: A Class III airport operator states that the cost of 
reconstructing the emergency access road required under Sec. 139.319(k) 
would be unreasonable. This commenter explains that one section of the 
existing emergency access road surrounding the airfield is impassable 
for many months of the year due to washouts and drifted snow. The 
commenter states the cost of reconstructing the road so it can be 
maintained and plowed during winter months is estimated at $500,000.
    FAA Response: The FAA agrees that it is possible the commenter may 
have to renovate its emergency access road to comply with the 
requirements of this section. If the FAA determines such renovation is 
necessary for the purposes of part 139, 90 percent of the cost would be 
eligible for AIP funds. Should AIP funds not be readily available, or 
the airport operator does not have matching funds, the certificate 
holder could ask for an exemption under Sec. 139.111. In addition, the 
FAA has added language to Sec. 139.315 that allows the holder of a 
Class III Airport Operating Certificate to comply with ARFF 
requirements by alternative means that may not require the commenter to 
maintain an emergency access road (see discussion under Sec. 
139.315(e), Aircraft Rescue and Firefighting: Index determination).
    Comment: A commenter states that proposed training for emergency 
medical personnel is excessive. This commenter points out that such 
personnel in its State are only required to receive 40 hours of 
training every 3 years. The commenter questions the purpose of 
requiring more training than what is required by the local organization 
that regulates emergency medical personnel. The commenter requests that 
the recurrent training requirement be the same as required by the local 
organization.
    FAA Response: The FAA agrees. The requirement for annual recurrent 
training for emergency medical personnel has been deleted from 
paragraph (i)(4). Language requiring such personnel to be trained and 
remain current in basic emergency medical services will remain the 
same. This will ensure emergency medical personnel receive recurrent 
training but at the same frequency required by the local regulating 
organization.
    Comment: A Class I airport operator states that while it supports 
the continuous training of ARFF personnel, the proposal's statement 
regarding continuous training will affect how firefighters are trained 
at other certificated airports. This commenter explains that the 
current regulation could be interpreted to mean that an airport 
operator could comply with Sec. 139.319(i) by training ARFF personnel 
only once a year. However, the proposal states that the FAA would not 
expect ARFF personnel to comply with training requirements with only a 
once-a-year training course. The commenter notes that it has a 
continuous training program for its ARFF personnel, but if continuous 
training is mandated, other airport operators may need more personnel 
and equipment.
    FAA Response: The FAA disagrees. Continuous training is not 
required under Sec. 139.319(i). The statement in the proposal (65 FR 
38653) was intended only to encourage ongoing training. As long as ARFF 
personnel are trained on the subject areas specified under paragraph 
(i), the certificate holder has the discretion to provide this training 
in a manner that best suits its needs.
    The FAA disagrees that in all instances continuous ARFF training 
will require additional personnel and equipment. Many airport operators 
find this approach provides better training results and is more cost 
effective. These airport operators use their existing airport 
personnel, or a combination of airport personnel and those of the local 
fire department, to conduct training sessions throughout the year. This 
minimizes travel costs often associated with one-time training courses, 
and since training sessions are shorter, it reduces the time personnel 
are unavailable for ARFF duties.
    Comment: A commenter requests clarification on the relationship 
between the response requirements of Sec. 139.319(h) and those proposed 
in Sec. 139.321, ARFF: Exemptions. Referring to prearranged 
firefighting and basic emergency medical response required as a 
condition for an exemption under proposed Sec. 139.321, this commenter 
questions how the FAA will inspect for the response requirements of 
paragraph (h) if the airport operator was granted an exemption from 
ARFF requirements under proposed Sec. 139.321.
    FAA Response: The FAA agrees. The requirements for requesting an 
ARFF exemption have been moved to Sec. 139.111 and modifications made 
to the conditions under which the FAA will consider granting an 
exemption (see section-by-section analysis of Sec. 139.111).
    The FAA will not require a certificate holder to comply with a part 
139 requirement if the airport operator has been granted an exemption 
from that requirement. In granting an exemption from ARFF requirements, 
the FAA requires the certificate holder to provide certain data. The 
exemption, plus any conditions, would be included in the ACM. During an 
inspection, the FAA will verify that the circumstances that required 
the exemption are still applicable and that the certificate holder is 
complying with any conditions required by the exemption.
    Comment: A commenter states that many of the small communities that 
operate Class III airports rely on volunteer firefighters and the 
proposed requirements would require these communities to recall 
volunteers, or to supplement regular full-time airport employees, 
several times a day to cover air carrier flights. The commenter 
believes this would be ``a significant burden with questionable 
benefit'' for such airports. As an alternative, the commenter suggests 
modifying required ARFF response times for Class III airport operators 
to allow all required ARFF vehicles at such airports to utilize the 
secondary response time specified in paragraph (h)(2)(ii) as their 
primary response time.

[[Page 6405]]

    FAA Response: The FAA disagrees. The ARFF performance times that 
the commenter refers to require at least one mandatory ARFF vehicle to 
respond to the midpoint of the farthest air carrier runway within 3 
minutes of an alarm and within 4 minutes of an alarm for all other 
required vehicles. This secondary time is what the commenter suggests 
should be the standard for all responding ARFF vehicles at Class III 
airports.
    The FAA believes that the requirement for at least one ARFF vehicle 
to respond within 3 minutes of an alarm will not be burdensome for 
Class III airport operators. These airports typically have simple 
pavement configurations that allow ARFF vehicles to reach the midpoint 
of the farthest runway within the required time from their standby 
positions. It is from this standby position that ARFF performance times 
are measured. Instead, Class III airport operators are more likely to 
have difficulty arranging for ARFF coverage to be available at a 
standby location 15 minutes before and after all covered air carrier 
operations.
    As discussed previously, an airport operator that is unable to 
comply with any ARFF requirement, including vehicle readiness or 
performance times, may petition for an exemption from such requirements 
under Sec. 139.111.
    Comment: A commenter states that paragraph (i) that prescribes 
requirements for ARFF personnel contains vague language. This commenter 
recommends removing or clarifying this paragraph.
    FAA Response: The FAA disagrees. The language of paragraph (i) 
ensures that ARFF personnel are trained in certain subjects and allows 
some flexibility to address the diversity of airports certificated 
under part 139. Training ARFF personnel at airports required to comply 
with Index E ARFF requirements may be more complex than training ARFF 
personnel at an airport that complies with Index A requirements. In 
addition, this flexibility allows the airport operator to incorporate 
training required by the state or local municipality.
    However, the FAA will forward the commenter's concerns on ARFF 
training requirements to the ARAC. As discussed earlier, the ARAC has 
accepted the task to review part 139 ARFF standards.
    Section as Adopted: This section is adopted with changes. For 
reasons discussed above, the requirement for annual recurrent training 
for emergency medical personnel has been deleted from proposed Sec. 
139.319(i)(4), and paragraph (m) has been modified to allow Class II, 
III, and IV airport operators an additional year to comply with the 
requirements of this section.
    Several additional modifications were made to this section. A new 
requirement for a vehicle communication method has been added to 
paragraph (e) that requires personnel to have contact with the common 
traffic advisory frequency when an air traffic control tower is not in 
operation or when there is no tower. This change is consistent with 
other radio communication requirements contained in part 139. Minor 
changes also were made to paragraphs (e)(1) and (4) for clarity, and 
the redundant phrase ``if it is located on the airport'' was deleted 
from paragraph (e)(2).
    Additionally, the reference to proposed Sec. 139.341, Airport 
condition reporting, in paragraph (g)(3) has been revised to correspond 
to revisions made to the section numbering throughout subpart D.
    Modifications also were made to training requirements contained in 
paragraph (i). Language has been added to paragraph (i)(2)(i) to 
clarify that airport familiarization training shall cover airport 
signs, marking, and lighting. Paragraph (i)(3) was revised to clarify 
that training involving an actual fire must be completed prior to 
initial performance of ARFF duties, and paragraph (i)(4) was changed to 
allow an individual other than the required ARFF personnel to provide 
basic emergency medical services.
    Finally, a new sentence has been added to paragraph (j) noting that 
the certificate holder may contact the FAA's Regional Airports Division 
Manager about obtaining a copy of the ``North American Emergency 
Response Guidebook.'' The FAA anticipates that this guidebook will be 
available in both hardcopy and electronic form.

New Section 139.321 Handling and Storing of Hazardous Substances and 
Materials (Proposed Sec. 139.323)

    Proposal: In the proposal, Sec. 139.321, ARFF: Exemptions, 
contained procedures for requesting an exemption from ARFF 
requirements. As discussed earlier, proposed Sec. 139.321 has been 
withdrawn and all requirements for petitions of exemption are now 
contained in Sec. 139.111. Consequently, all following sections have 
been redesignated, and comments received on these sections are 
discussed under the new section numbers.
    New Sec. 139.321 (proposed Sec. 139.323) contained existing 
requirements for certain airport operators to establish and implement 
procedures for the safe storage and handling of aviation fuel and, when 
the airport operator is acting as a cargo agent, of hazardous materials 
regulated under 49 CFR part 171. This section also required the 
certificate holder to conduct quarterly inspections of certain fueling 
agents. Generally, the proposal did not change these requirements, and 
all classes of airports were required to comply.
    Several minor changes were proposed. The term ``grounded'' was 
deleted from paragraph (b)(1), eliminating the need for fueling agents 
to connect aircraft to a static wire during fueling operations. 
Paragraph (b)(6) was modified to delete an implementation date that has 
already passed. In its place, a new requirement was proposed requiring 
operators of proposed Class III airports to complete specified training 
within 1 year.
    Existing requirements in paragraph (e) also were modified to 
include requirements for recurrency training for fueling agent 
supervisors and employees, and paragraph (h) was deleted to clarify 
that the requirements of Sec. 139.321 are applicable to air carrier 
fuel storage areas located on the airport. Subsequently, existing 
paragraph (i) became new paragraph (h). In addition, the reference to a 
specific AC series number in existing paragraph (i) (new paragraph (h)) 
was revised.
    Comment: A commenter states its support for the deletion of the 
grounding requirement. This commenter, the National Fire Protection 
Association (NFPA), notes this change was the result of changes made 10 
years ago to NFPA 407, Standard for Aircraft Fuel Serving. The NFPA 
recommends the FAA require compliance with NFPA consensus standards 
through periodic rulemakings to avoid similar delays and provide state-
of-the-art safety for the traveling public.
    FAA Response: The FAA partly agrees. The FAA will continue to 
review the NFPA standards for possible use as national standards under 
part 139. However, the FAA cannot commit to the adoption of a 
particular NFPA (or other) standard in advance of that review. Not all 
local governments use the NFPA standards, and the FAA will continue to 
review each NFPA standard for suitability for Federal use.
    Comment: A commenter disagrees with the FAA's characterization of 
the ARAC working group's majority opinion regarding compliance with 
this section.
    FAA Response: The FAA disagrees that it has mischaracterized the 
ARAC majority opinion. The majority of the ARAC Commuter Airport 
Certification Working Group recommended that airports serving small air 
carrier aircraft not be required to comply with this section (see ARAC 
Commuter Airport Certification Working Group Final

[[Page 6406]]

Report, page IV-3). As noted in the proposal (65 FR 38655), the ARAC 
majority recommended that the FAA only require smaller facilities to 
meet local fire codes pertaining to storage and handling of hazardous 
substances and materials.
    Comment: A commenter recommends deleting requirements for an 
airport operator to oversee fueling operations, unless the airport 
operator is the fueling agent. Fueling operations at this commenter's 
airport are provided by the FBO and the commenter states that the 
airport staff are not trained in the operation and maintenance of 
fueling facilities or in aircraft fueling operations. This commenter 
also notes that the proposal contained no justification for airport 
operators to inspect fueling operations, and the cost to comply 
outweighs the benefit.
    FAA Response: The FAA disagrees. Airport operators certificated 
under part 139 already comply with the requirements of this section and 
have not reported it to be burdensome or costly. As discussed in the 
proposal (65 FR 38655), the requirements of this section are common 
safety measures and were developed as a result of a cooperative effort 
between the FAA, airport operators, and FBO's, and have been 
successfully used for many years by airport operators and aircraft 
fuelers nationwide.
    It is not necessary for airport personnel who conduct inspections 
of tenant fueling operations to be trained in fueling operations or 
maintenance. Such personnel need only to be familiar with the airport 
operator's standards for fuel fire safety. Such standards tend to be 
common housekeeping practices that airport personnel should already be 
familiar with as they are required by local fire codes and are often 
required by liability insurance carriers. For example, such standards 
could require fuel storage areas to be kept clean of litter, 
vegetation, and other combustibles and fire extinguishers to be fully 
charged.
    Comment: A commenter states that additional training costs will be 
incurred for FBO personnel if the FBO's existing training does not 
comply with proposed training requirements.
    FAA Response: The FAA agrees that a few airport operators may have 
to reimburse their tenants for training costs. The responsibility for 
such training costs will depend on the lease agreement between the 
airport operator and the FBO. Such agreements typically contain 
provisions that the FBO will ensure its employees are trained.
    Most FBOs already use training programs that are approved by the 
FAA. The FAA has evaluated available fuel safety training courses and 
publishes a list of approved courses. The FAA periodically evaluates 
these training courses to ensure they continue to meet certain teaching 
and testing criteria and, on request, will evaluate new training 
courses. Currently, 12 fuel safety training courses are acceptable to 
the FAA, including several courses sponsored by airport operators.
    Comment: A commenter states that the industry should assist the FAA 
in developing guidance for recurrent training for fueling personnel to 
ensure such training does not become an unnecessary burden on fueling 
operations.
    FAA Response: As noted in the proposal (65 FR 38655), fuel fire 
safety standards were developed as a result of a cooperative effort 
between the FAA, airport operators, and FBOs. If advisory material is 
needed during the implementation of new training requirements of this 
section, the FAA anticipates developing such materials in much the same 
manner.
    However, the FAA does not anticipate that compliance with recurrent 
training requirements will be so complex as to require advisory 
materials. As required under paragraph (b), recurrent training need 
only cover the same subject areas as initial training. This would 
include any changes to fuel fire safety standards and procedures that 
have occurred since the individual's initial training.
    Comment: A commenter requests the FAA change the requirement for 
recurrent training for employees who handle fueling operations to every 
24 consecutive calendar months rather the 12-month requirement 
proposed. This commenter states that there is no justification for a 
more restrictive requirement than that imposed on the fueling 
supervisor and would be more consistent with other FAA requirements for 
private pilots and mechanics.
    FAA Response: The FAA agrees and has amended paragraph (e)(2) to 
require recurrent training every 24 months rather than every 12 months.
    Comment: A commenter recommends that the FAA amend the last 
sentence of paragraph (e)(1) to include the phrase ``or enrolled in an 
authorized aviation fuel training course that will be completed within 
90 days.'' The commenter states that the proposed supervisor training 
requirement would not allow for loss of a trained supervisor due to 
normal attrition. The commenter reasons this modification would allow 
fueling operations to continue uninterrupted until a new supervisor 
could be trained.
    FAA Response: The FAA agrees and has amended paragraph (e) as 
suggested.
    Comment: Two commenters state their support of changes made to this 
section, particularly changes to enhance safety of air carrier fuel 
storage areas. However, both commenters note that the FAA does not hold 
air carriers accountable for the safety of their fuel storage areas and 
recommend that the FAA require air carriers to inspect and maintain 
these areas.
    FAA Response: The FAA agrees that air carrier fuel storage areas 
should be safe. Under this revised section, the FAA holds the airport 
certificate holder responsible through its relationship with its tenant 
air carriers, for protecting against fire and explosion in air carrier 
fuel storage facilities.
    Rather than have separate fuel storage requirements for air 
carriers and airport operators, the FAA has determined that existing 
part 139 fuel storage safety and inspection standards can be applied at 
all such storage facilities located at part 139 airports. This approach 
will ensure that all fuel storage facilities at part 139 airports are 
inspected in the same manner and held to the same standards.
    Comment: A commenter recommends that the FAA should consider 
compliance with local fire codes and NFPA standards by fuel service 
providers as an alternate method of compliance. This commenter also 
recommends that the FAA should consider the role of the local fire 
marshal in performing inspections.
    FAA Response: The FAA agrees. The FAA already allows for these 
methods of compliance. Under paragraph (b), the airport operator is 
required to incorporate the local fire code in its standards for 
protecting against fuel fires. If local fire codes do not address the 
subject areas specified in paragraph (b), the airport operator will 
have to develop additional procedures. The airport operator may develop 
procedures unique to its facility or adopt industry standards, such as 
NFPA standards.
    In addition, the airport operator has the discretion to use either 
its own personnel to conduct inspections or an independent organization 
or person, such as the fire marshal. At some part 139 airports, the 
local fire department is actively involved in aircraft fuel fire safety 
and has arranged for ARFF personnel to conduct fuel fire safety 
inspections and to provide fire safety training for fueling and airport 
personnel.
    Section as Adopted: This section has been adopted with changes. As 
discussed earlier, proposed Sec. 139.321 has been deleted and the 
proposed

[[Page 6407]]

Sec. 139.323 has been redesignated as Sec. 139.321. In addition, 
paragraphs (e)(1) and (2) have been modified to allow additional time 
for training of fueling personnel. Fueling agent supervisors now have 
90 days to complete initial training, and fueling personnel need only 
to complete recurrent training every 24 months rather than every 12 
months.
    To clarify that the requirements of this section pertain to 
aircraft fueling operations, the words ``lubricants'' and ``oxygen'' 
have been deleted from paragraph (b). In addition, a requirement for 
using an independent organization to perform inspections has been moved 
to Sec. 139.303, Personnel, and a new sentence was added to paragraph 
(f). This new sentence clarifies how long the certificate holder is 
required to maintain fueling agents' training records.

New Section 139.323 Traffic and Wind Direction Indicators (Proposed 
Sec. 139.325)

    Proposal: This section prescribed conditions that require a 
certificate holder to provide a wind cone, a traffic pattern indicator, 
and the standards for these devices. While changes were proposed to 
these standards, a certificate holder was still required to provide 
traffic and wind indicators (such as windsocks) at specific locations 
on the airport and for certain night and uncontrolled traffic 
operations. Operators of all proposed airport classes were required to 
comply with this proposed section.
    References to Class B airspace were deleted and replaced by 
language requiring all certificate holders to install supplemental wind 
cones adjacent to runway ends where the primary wind cone is not 
visible to a pilot on final approach or during takeoff. In addition, 
standards for segmented circles and supplemental wind cones were 
revised, as well as standards for traffic indicators at airports 
without a control tower. Changes also were proposed to clarify that 
airport operators must comply with the requirements of this section in 
a manner satisfactory to the FAA and that ACs contain methods of 
compliance that are acceptable to the Administrator. Finally, the 
section number was changed to new Sec. 139.325 from proposed Sec. 
139.323.
    Comment: Several commenters support the changes to this section. 
One of these commenters fully supports the proposal for supplemental 
wind cones to be installed at runway ends at all certificated airports, 
rather than just at airports located within Class B airspace.
    FAA Response: The FAA agrees.
    Comment: Two commenters note a discrepancy between this section's 
criteria that determine if a certificate holder must light a wind 
direction indicator and the requirements of proposed Sec. 139.311, 
Marking, signs, and lighting, for a lighting system. These commenters 
state that proposed Sec. 139.311 requires a lighting system for air 
carriers during times when the airport is open at night while proposed 
Sec. 139.325, Traffic and wind direction indicators, requires the 
lighting of wind direction indicators during hours of darkness.
    FAA Response: The FAA agrees. The term ``night'' will be used in 
both sections, as defined in 14 CFR part 1. Section 139.323(a) has been 
amended to specify that if the airport is open for air carrier 
operations at night, rather than during hours of darkness, then wind 
direction indicators must be lighted.
    Section as Adopted: This section is adopted with changes, and the 
section number was changed back to Sec. 139.323. For the reason 
discussed above, the phrase ``during hours of darkness'' has been 
replaced by the term ``night.'' In addition, the first sentence of this 
paragraph has been reordered, and the phrase ``available for air 
carrier use'' has been included to clarify that the requirements of 
this paragraph are applicable only to runways used by air carriers. The 
term ``maintain'' also has been added to the first sentence of this 
section to ensure consistency with the wording of paragraph (c).
    Further, paragraph (b) has been modified. The last sentence of this 
paragraph was proposed in an effort to align part 139 requirements with 
the existing FAA guidance provided to pilots on visual indicators at 
airports without control towers. However, this change would have 
inadvertently required some airport operators to move their primary 
windsock if it was not located at the end of a runway. This was not 
intended. To correct this error, the last sentence of paragraph (b) has 
been deleted and the phrase ``around a wind cone'' has been added to 
the first sentence. This addition will ensure the required landing 
strip and traffic pattern indicator will be located around a wind cone, 
wherever that wind cone may be located.
    A change also has been made to paragraph (c). The term 
``standards'' has been replaced by the term ``procedures.'' This change 
corresponds to changes made throughout the regulation to adjust 
language referring to ACs.

New Section 139.325 Airport Emergency Plan (Proposed Sec. 139.327)

    Proposal: This section contained existing standards for the 
development, implementation, and testing of an airport emergency plan. 
Requirements for Class I airport operators remained relatively 
unchanged. New requirements were proposed for Class II, III, and IV 
airport operators that would be required for the first time to develop 
and test an airport emergency plan.
    Changes were made to update emergency response requirements to 
include large fuel fires and hazardous materials incidents and to 
ensure that all response measures accommodate the largest air carrier 
aircraft serving an airport. In addition, an alternative for an 
emergency alarm system was proposed, and clarifications were made to 
requirements pertaining to water rescue situations and coordination 
with the air traffic control tower.
    Testing requirements for Class I airport operators remained the 
same. New testing requirements were proposed for Class II, III, and IV 
airport operators that did not require a triennial emergency exercise.
    A new requirement was also proposed to allow Class II, III, and IV 
airport operators 1 year from the effective date of the rule to submit 
their emergency plans to the FAA for approval. Additionally, the 
section number was changed to new Sec. 139.325 from proposed Sec. 
139.327, and references to advisory circulars were revised.
    On July 17, 2001, the FAA published a final rule revising 14 CFR 
part 107, Airport Security (66 FR 37274). This final rule became 
effective November 14, 2001. The part 107 final rule contained a minor 
revision to current Sec. 139.325, Airport emergency plan.
    The part 107 final rule added a new paragraph (h) to Sec. 139.325 
and the existing paragraph (h) was redesignated as paragraph (i). This 
revision ensures that emergency response procedures to hijack and 
sabotage incidents contained in the airport emergency plan are 
consistent with the approved airport security program required under 
part 107. Comments on this revision were addressed in the part 107 
final rule (66 FR 37308). [Note: Part 107 has been transferred to 
Transportation Security Administration (TSA) regulations under 49 CFR 
1500 et seq.]
    Comment: Five commenters support changes made to this section, 
particularly revisions requiring a response to large fuel fires and 
hazardous materials incidents.
    FAA Response: The FAA agrees.
    Comment: An airport association comments that the flexibility 
offered in

[[Page 6408]]

this section allows smaller airports the opportunity to develop and 
maintain an airport emergency plan that will be appropriate to the type 
of air carrier operations served.
    FAA Response: The FAA agrees.
    Comment: A commenter states it is reasonable to require Class II, 
III, and IV airport operators to conduct only annual tabletop reviews 
of their airport emergency plans. This commenter notes that ``many 
small airports with limited funding appreciate recognition by the FAA 
and Air Transport Association that the cost of conducting triennial a 
full-scale exercise can be unduly burdensome.''
    FAA Response: While the FAA agrees with the commenter's statement 
regarding annual tabletop reviews, it does not agree that triennial 
full-scale exercises are unduly burdensome for all small airport 
operators.
    Comment: Four commenters request that all certificate holders be 
required to hold triennial full-scale emergency exercises. One of these 
commenters, the American Association of Airport Executives, states that 
``an emergency plan exercise every 36-months is a reasonable 
expectation in the testing of an airport emergency plan.'' Another 
commenter suggests that the FAA require Class II, III, and IV airports 
to conduct full-scale emergency exercises every 5 years and tabletop 
reviews every 2 years. This commenter states that annual reviews alone 
cannot satisfy emergency coordination and response.
    FAA Response: The FAA agrees that triennial full-scale emergency 
exercises are beneficial, but disagrees that all certificate holders 
should be required to hold such exercises. The cost of such exercises 
for smaller airports, and the local community that participate in these 
exercises, must be considered in evaluating the benefit.
    Comment: A Class I airport operator recommends that certificate 
holders should be required to include in their water rescue plans 
provisions for rescue vehicles that have a combined capacity for 
handling the maximum number of passengers on the largest aircraft 
serving the airport.
    FAA Response: The FAA agrees. Paragraph (a)(3) was proposed to 
ensure that all emergency procedures, including water rescue, are 
appropriate to the largest air carrier aircraft the airport operator 
could be reasonably expected to serve. However, this paragraph will be 
revised to use ARFF Index as the criteria for determining emergency 
response capability rather than the largest aircraft that could be 
served. This change will ensure that emergency planning and response 
requirements are consistent throughout part 139.
    Comment: One commenter states support for the ARAC Commuter Airport 
Certification Working Group recommendation that Class II, III, and IV 
airport operators include in their annual tabletop review discussions 
of staging areas and perimeter security that will be used during 
emergency situations and to conduct an airfield tour.
    FAA Response: The FAA agrees that staging areas and perimeter 
security should be discussed during an annual tabletop review. In most 
instances, airport operators must designate a staging area and arrange 
for perimeter security in order to comply with the requirements to 
paragraph (c). Accordingly, these issues are reviewed during both the 
annual review and, as appropriate, the triennial full-scale emergency 
exercise.
    Similarly, a field tour may be accomplished, although not 
specifically required, during an annual review. Paragraph (g)(4) 
requires the certificate holder to review its emergency plan with all 
involved parties to ensure they know their responsibilities under the 
plan. A field tour may be one means of compliance used by the 
certificate holder to ensure that certain parties who would be required 
in an emergency to drive on the airport or respond to a predesignated 
staging area understand their responsibilities.
    Comment: Two commenters, both Class III airport operators, state 
that it may be difficult to comply with the requirements of this 
section. One of these commenters explains that the local community has 
an emergency preparedness plan, but the plan is not airport specific. 
If the requirements of this section and AC 150/5200-31, Airport 
Emergency Plan, require more than a modest update, this commenter 
estimates it would cost $3,000 to $5,000 to rewrite the plan. The other 
commenter states that without outside help or additional airport staff, 
the airport emergency plan required under this section and AC 150/5200-
31 would be difficult to develop, maintain, and exercise.
    FAA Response: The FAA partly agrees. Revising a local emergency 
preparedness plan may take some time, particularly to coordinate mutual 
aid agreements with local emergency and medical services. Likewise, 
staff time will be required to annually review the plan. How much time 
will, of course, vary from airport to airport and will depend on the 
availability of local emergency services. Such considerations were 
evaluated in the proposal's cost evaluation (see the Regulatory 
Evaluation). This evaluation also assumed that all Class II, III, and 
IV airport operators would have no existing emergency plan from which 
to develop their own emergency plan.
    Building upon an existing emergency preparedness plan will 
considerably reduce the time it takes to create an airport emergency 
plan. Further, such a revised plan does not need to conform to AC 150/
5200-31. This AC merely provides guidance on the development of an 
airport emergency plan using Federal Emergency Management 
Administration's guidelines for emergency preparedness. Neither is 
mandatory. As long as such a revised community plan meets the 
requirements of this section, the airport operator may develop its plan 
in any manner that it chooses.
    Additionally, the FAA is not requiring an airport operator to use a 
consultant to develop its airport emergency plan. If an airport 
operator decides to develop its own emergency plan, FAA resources are 
available to simplify this process. The FAA airport certification and 
safety inspectors are available via telephone or e-mail to provide 
guidance on the development and testing of an airport emergency plan, 
and they have samples of approved plans. For many years, these 
inspectors have assisted Class I airport operators in the development 
and testing of their emergency plans and have often served as 
evaluators during triennial full-scale emergency exercises. In 
addition, many states and local municipalities have emergency 
coordinators that may be able to assist airport operators develop their 
plans.
    Section as Adopted: This section is adopted with changes. As 
discussed above, Sec. 139.325(a)(3) has been modified. The phrase 
``that the airport reasonably can be expected to serve'' has been 
changed to ``in the Index required under Sec. 139.315.'' In addition, 
the time allowed for compliance in paragraph (j) has been extended from 
12 months to 24 months. The section number also has been changed to new 
Sec. 139.325 from proposed Sec. 139.327, and several administrative 
edits have been made throughout the section.
    As discussed earlier, a new paragraph has been added to incorporate 
an amendment made to part 139 in the final rule revising 14 CFR part 
107, Airport Security (66 FR 37274). This new paragraph is designated 
as paragraph (i) and references in the amendment to paragraph (b) that 
refer to hijack and sabotage incidents have been updated to reflect the 
changes made to paragraph (b). Subsequent proposed paragraphs (i) and 
(j) have been redesignated as new paragraphs (j) and

[[Page 6409]]

(k). In addition, references to 14 CFR part 107 have been revised to 
reflect changes made to FAA security regulations and the creation of 
the Transportation Security Administration.

New Section 139.327 Self-inspection Program (Proposed Sec. 139.329)

    Proposal: This section contained existing requirements for 
certificate holders to conduct daily inspections of the movement area 
to ensure the airport remains in compliance with part 139. Changes were 
made to how the certificate holder notifies air carriers of field 
conditions and document inspections. In addition, training requirements 
for individuals conducting airport inspections were revised, and 
language was added to permit airport inspections to be conducted by 
individuals other than employees of the airport operator. The section 
number also was redesignated from Sec. 139.327 to Sec. 139.329, and 
language that was no longer applicable was deleted.
    All proposed airport classes were required to comply with this 
revised section. Class I, II, and IV airport operators were required to 
update existing self-inspection programs, and operators of proposed 
Class III airports were required to develop and implement a self-
inspection program.
    Comment: Two commenters support training requirements for personnel 
conducting self-inspections.
    FAA Response: The FAA agrees.
    Comment: Two commenters support changes that will allow an airport 
operator to designate a third party to conduct inspections. One of 
these commenters notes that neither this section nor proposed Sec. 
139.303, Personnel, provides guidance on using a third party.
    FAA Response: The FAA agrees. Since the certificate holder can use 
a third party to comply with most part 139 requirements, a new 
paragraph has been added to Sec. 139.303 that details the requirements 
a certificate holder must meet in order to use a third party (see 
section-by-section analysis of Sec. 139.303). This new paragraph 
contains a requirement, found in existing Sec. 139.321, Handling and 
storage of hazardous substances and materials, paragraph (d), that 
specifies that the certificate holder can use an independent 
organization to conduct inspections of tenant fueling facilities. This 
paragraph has been moved to Sec. 139.303 and has been modified so that 
it now applies to any part 139 requirement. Consequently, the term 
``designee'' has been deleted from Sec. 139.327(a).
    This new paragraph in Sec. 139.303 still requires that the FAA 
approve any such arrangement. In addition, the certificate holder is 
required to ensure that the third party's duties and responsibilities 
are included in the ACM and that records are maintained to document the 
third party's compliance with part 139 and the ACM, including training 
activities.
    Comment: A commenter states that paragraph (b)(3) detailing 
training subject areas is too vague and requires clarification. 
Specifically, the commenter is unclear if this paragraph requires 
additional training for airport operations staff and recommends 
additional clarification of recurrent training standards.
    FAA Response: The FAA agrees that some training required under this 
section is redundant to training required under Sec. 139.303. This 
overlap is intentional so that all requirements for conducting self-
inspections are contained in one section. Training completed to comply 
with Sec. 139.303 can be used to meet this section's training 
requirements.
    In addition, the FAA agrees that changes are needed to clarify the 
frequency of training. Modifications have been made to paragraph (b) to 
clarify that personnel must receive both initial and recurrent training 
in the specified subject areas and that recurrent training is required 
every 12 months.
    Comment: A commenter notes that the recurrent training required for 
personnel conducting self-inspections is redundant for duties that its 
operations staff completes on a daily basis.
    FAA Response: The FAA disagrees. As discussed in section-by-section 
analysis of Sec. 139.303, the FAA believes personnel that perform their 
duties on a daily basis can benefit from recurrent training. Recurrent 
training helps ensure that all employees continue to perform their 
duties correctly and safely.
    Comment: A commenter opposes new requirements for formalized 
training and recordkeeping, stating that these requirements are 
unnecessary and burdensome. This commenter states that the regulation 
already requires the certificate holder to ensure it remains compliant 
with the part 139 and the ACM. The commenter believes this requirement 
alone will ensure self-inspections are done correctly. In addition, 
this commenter believes that annual FAA inspections ensure compliance 
without the need for burdensome recordkeeping and recurrent training 
programs.
    FAA Response: The FAA disagrees with the commenter that new self-
inspection training and recordkeeping requirements will be burdensome 
and unnecessary. The FAA believes most certificate holders already 
comply with this section and need only document existing training 
procedures.
    Also, similar to Sec. 139.303, training required under this section 
does not have to be ``formalized.'' Paragraph (b)(3) does not specify 
how training must be conducted. This is intended to allow the 
certificate holder some flexibility in complying with training 
requirements in a manner best suited for local circumstances. As long 
as training covers the subject areas specified in paragraph (b), it 
could consist of on-the-job training, formal classroom lectures, an 
industry training conference, or some combination thereof.
    Section as Adopted: This section is adopted with changes. The 
section number has been changed back to Sec. 139.327, and for the 
reasons discussed above, the term ``designee'' has been deleted from 
paragraph (a), and paragraph (b) has been modified to clarify that 
personnel must receive both initial training and annual recurrent 
training.
    Several other changes were made throughout the section. Paragraph 
(b)(2) has been edited for clarity. Paragraph (b)(3)(iv) has been 
revised to reflect changes made to the title of Sec. 139.329, and 
paragraphs (b)(3)(i) and (vi) have been combined. In addition, language 
deleted in the proposal was replaced in paragraph (b)(3). This language 
specifies that only qualified personnel can perform inspections and was 
unintentionally deleted.
    Changes were made to paragraph (c). New language was added that 
requires the certificate holder to maintain records for 24 months of 
training required under paragraph (b)(3). While this requirement was 
not discussed in the proposal, other similar recordkeeping requirements 
were, and this addition to paragraph (c) mirrors these requirements and 
is a logical outgrowth of what was proposed. Further, the FAA has 
determined that records of self-inspections should be retained in the 
same manner as airport condition reports, as required under Sec. 
139.339. Therefore, the time airport operators must maintain self-
inspection records has increased from 6 months to 12 months. Although 
not proposed, this change will ensure the recordkeeping requirements in 
the two sections are consistent.
    In addition, the text ``make available for inspection by the 
Administrator on request'' has been deleted from paragraph (c). This 
requirement is redundant to the new recordkeeping

[[Page 6410]]

requirements of Sec. 139.301 that specify the certificate holder shall 
furnish, upon request by the FAA, all records required to be maintained 
under this part.

New Section 139.329 Pedestrians and Ground Vehicles (Proposed Sec. 
139.331)

    Proposal: This section contained requirements for the certificate 
holder to limit access to movement areas to those ground vehicles 
necessary for airport operations. This section also required the 
certificate holder to ensure that employees, tenants, or contractors 
who operate ground vehicles in the movement area are familiar with 
established ground vehicle operating procedures.
    The requirements of this section remained relatively the same. Only 
minor modifications were proposed to clarify that the requirements of 
this section are implemented in a manner satisfactory to the FAA. All 
certificated airports serving scheduled air carrier operations 
(proposed Class I, II, and III airports) were required to comply with 
this section. The section number was changed from Sec. 139.329 to 
proposed Sec. 139.331.
    Comment: A commenter supports the implementation of this section at 
smaller airports with the FAA's acknowledgement that existing Sec. 
139.329, Ground vehicles, paragraph (c) is only applicable at airports 
where an air traffic control tower is operational.
    FAA Response: The FAA agrees that existing Sec. 139.329(c) is 
applicable only at airports where an air traffic control tower is 
operational. This criteria is stated in the first sentence of paragraph 
(c) and did not change in the proposal.
    However, the commenter's statement seems to imply that there is 
confusion regarding the requirements for two-way radio communications 
at airports without control towers or during times when the control 
tower in not operational. To clarify that in either instance 
prearranged signs or signals can be used in lieu of two-way radio 
communications, the first sentence of paragraph (d) has been modified 
to include the phrase ``or there is no air traffic control.'' The 
phrase ``two-way radio communications'' also has been added to this 
paragraph to clarify that operators of such airports have the choice of 
using either two-way radios or prearranged signs or signals.
    Comment: A commenter recommends revising paragraph (e) to require 
ground vehicle training that includes runway incursion prevention 
awareness. This commenter states that safe airside vehicle operations 
play a significant role in decreasing the hazards of runway incursions.
    FAA Response: The FAA agrees. Data collected by the FAA on runway 
incursions show that ground vehicles and pedestrians in movement and 
safety areas continue to be a cause of both runway incursions and 
surface incidents. To heighten awareness of this important safety 
matter, the FAA supports the commenter's recommendation and has 
modified paragraphs (e) and (f) to specify training, rather than just 
familiarization, on procedures for the safe and orderly access to and 
operation in the movement area and to require records of such training. 
Additionally, this section has been expanded to included safety areas 
and pedestrian activity to ensure a comprehensive approach to 
preventing runway incursions and surface incidents.
    Section as Adopted: This section is adopted with changes. The 
section number has been changed back to Sec. 139.329, and for the 
reasons discussed above, paragraph (e) has been modified to specify 
training on procedures for the safe and orderly access to and operation 
in movement areas and safety areas. Correspondingly, paragraph (f) has 
been changed to require records of such training and that these records 
be maintained for 24 months.
    As discussed previously, the words ``pedestrian'' and ``safety 
area'' have been added throughout the section and to the section title. 
This change now requires the certificate holder to establish and 
implement procedures for access to, and operation on, movement areas 
and safety areas by both pedestrians and ground vehicles.
    To clarify requirements for vehicle and pedestrian control at 
airports without control towers, paragraph (d) also has been modified 
to include the phrase ``or there is no air traffic control'' and ``two-
way radio communications.''

New Section 139.331 Obstructions (Proposed Sec. 139.333)

    Proposal: This section contained requirements for the lighting, 
marking, or removal of obstructions. Except for a change to the section 
number, the requirements of this section remained substantially the 
same. Certificate holders were still required to ensure that each 
object within its area of authority that penetrates imaginary surfaces, 
as provided in part 77, Objects Affecting Navigable Airspace, is 
removed, marked, or lighted.
    Changes were proposed to clarify that the requirements of this 
section must be implemented in a manner satisfactory to the FAA and 
that ACs contain some methods of compliance that are acceptable to the 
Administrator. All certificated airports serving scheduled air carrier 
operations (proposed Class I, II, and III airports) were required to 
comply with this revised section. Also, a change to the section number, 
from Sec. 139.331 to Sec. 139.333, was proposed.
    Comment: No comments were received on this section.
    Section as Adopted: The section number has been changed to new Sec. 
139.331 from proposed Sec. 139.333. In addition, references to the 
terms ``imaginary surfaces'' and ``part 77'' have been replaced by the 
phrase ``determined by the FAA to be an obstruction.'' As noted in the 
proposal (65 FR 38650), references to 14 CFR part 77 should have been 
deleted throughout part 139 as part 77 is being revised and may be 
reorganized. Accordingly, references to part 77 in this section have 
been replaced with a general statement that the FAA will determine if 
an object is an obstruction. Also, the first and second sentence of 
this section have been combined for clarity.

New Section 139.333 Protection of NAVAIDS (Proposed Sec. 139.335)

    Proposal: This section contained standards for the protection of 
navigational aids (NAVAIDS). Except for a change to the section number, 
the requirements of this section remained substantially the same and 
required the certificate holder to protect against the derogation of 
electronic or visual navigational equipment and air traffic control 
facilities located on the airport. This included protection against 
vandalism, theft, and construction that may cause interference.
    Changes were proposed to clarify that the requirements of this 
section must be implemented in a manner satisfactory to the FAA and 
that ACs contain some methods of compliance that are acceptable to the 
Administrator. All certificated airports serving scheduled air carrier 
operations (proposed Class I, II, and III airports) were required to 
comply with this revised section.
    In addition, a change to the section number, from Sec. 139.333 to 
Sec. 139.335, was proposed.
    Comment: No comments were received on this section.
    Section as Adopted: The section number has been changed to new Sec. 
139.333 from Sec. 139.335. Otherwise, the section is adopted as 
proposed.

New Section 139.335 Public Protection (Proposed Sec. 139.337)

    Proposal: This section contained existing requirements for a 
certificate holder to prevent the inadvertent entry

[[Page 6411]]

of persons or vehicles to the movement area and to provide reasonable 
protection of persons and property from aircraft blast. All 
certificated airports serving scheduled air carrier operations (Class 
I, II, and III airports) were required to comply with this section.
    Comment: A commenter requests additional time for Class III 
airports to comply with this section. The commenter recommends that 
these airports be allowed 3 years after the effective date of the rule 
to comply because the cost of implementing this section will be high in 
small rural communities. No operational or financial data is provided 
to substantiate this claim.
    FAA Response: The FAA disagrees. The requirements of the section 
are intended to prevent the inadvertent access by the public, which can 
be done quickly and for a relatively small cost. The FAA is unaware of 
any current certificate holders experiencing problems meeting this 
requirement, and the commenter did not provide any operational or cost 
data to suggest otherwise.
    Elaborate fencing, automated access control points, closed-circuit 
cameras, guards, etc. are not required to comply with this section. 
Existing measures, used by airport operators for theft and liability 
purposes, to keep the public out of movement areas will usually 
suffice. For example, if a public road dead-ends at the airport, the 
certificate holder could use a sign and wood barricade to alert the 
public not to enter.
    In addition, some airport operators that have accepted Federal 
funds may have obligations under their grant assurances to control the 
use of the airport in a manner that will eliminate hazards to aircraft 
and to people on the ground. Grant assurances require ``an owner of an 
airport developed with Federal assistance to provide adequate controls 
such as fencing and other facilities to keep motorist, cyclists, 
pedestrians, and animals from inadvertently wandering onto the landing 
area or areas designated for aircraft for aircraft maneuvering.''
    Comment: Several commenters disagree with the FAA's statement that 
there will be minimal or no incremental compliance cost for this 
section. One of these commenters states that it would cost $150,000 to 
comply with this section. This would include the cost to develop 
personnel identification media, provide personnel with security 
training, and install passenger-screening equipment in the terminal 
building.
    Another commenter states that security is expensive and that 
fences, access gates, background checks, and law enforcement personnel 
all combine to increase cost. This commenter provides two pages of 
justification why the FAA should not require certificate holders, 
particularly at Class III airports, to comply with the requirements of 
14 CFR part 107, Airport Security.
    FAA Response: This section does not require the certificate holder 
to comply with part 107 nor does it require the certificate holder to 
use any physical or personnel security measures to protect against 
criminal and terrorist acts.
    As noted above, this section only requires the certificate holder 
to have appropriated safeguards against inadvertent entry to movement 
areas by unauthorized persons or vehicles. These safeguards may consist 
of a combination of natural barriers, fencing, and warning signs, which 
suffice to deter personnel or vehicles from accidentally entering the 
movement area.
    The reference to part 107 (new 49 CFR part 1542, Airport Security) 
in paragraph (b) may have caused confusion. This reference merely 
alerts the certificate holder that any fencing used to comply with part 
107 will automatically meet the requirements of this section. This is 
because any fencing used to comply with part 107 far exceeds the public 
protection requirements of part 139.
    Comment: One commenter requests the FAA examine the impact of this 
section on smaller airports. This commenter, the American Association 
of Airport Executives, states that the fencing requirement alone could 
be very expensive and one of its airport members claims it would have 
to install 18 linear miles of fence to comply with this section.
    FAA Response: The FAA disagrees. It is difficult to respond to this 
comment, as the FAA is not familiar with the referenced airport 
operator's situation. However, based on experience with current 
certificate holders, the FAA does not agree that an airport operator 
would need to purchase new fencing to encompass the entire airport 
property in order to comply with this section. Most likely the airport 
operator's existing fencing or safeguards to keep the public out of 
movement areas will be acceptable.
    Again, the reference to fencing meeting access control requirements 
of part 107 in paragraph (b) may have caused confusion. As noted above, 
paragraph (b) does not require fencing, but merely alerts the 
certificate holder that any fencing used to comply with part 107 will 
automatically meet the requirements of this section.
    Section as Adopted: The section is adopted with minor editorial 
changes. The section number has been changed back to Sec. 139.335, and 
paragraph (b) has been edited for clarity. In addition, references to 
14 CFR part 107 have been revised to reflect changes made to FAA 
security regulations and the creation of the Transportation Security 
Administration.

New Section 139.337 Wildlife Hazard Management (Proposed Sec. 139.339)

    Proposal: This section contained existing requirements for the 
certificate holder to respond to wildlife hazards, including criteria 
for when a certificate holder is required to develop and implement a 
wildlife hazard management plan. The proposal made several changes to 
these requirements and clarified what is expected of the certificate 
holder when developing a wildlife hazard management plan. All operators 
of certificated airports serving scheduled air carrier operations were 
required to comply with this section.
    Existing Sec. 139.337 was redesignated as proposed Sec. 139.339. 
Existing paragraph (f) was moved to the beginning of this section and 
became new paragraph (a). This paragraph required that an airport 
operator take immediate action to alleviate wildlife hazards. All other 
paragraph designations were changed accordingly.
    Several changes were made to wildlife hazard assessment 
requirements. A new requirement was proposed specifying that a wildlife 
hazard assessment must be conducted by a wildlife damage management 
biologist who meets certain education and experience qualifications. 
Another new requirement was proposed mandating that any recommended 
actions for reducing the wildlife hazard made by the wildlife damage 
management biologist be included in the assessment. In addition, the 
existing requirement that an assessment include an analysis of the 
events prompting the assessment was modified to include an analysis of 
any circumstances that may have prompted the assessment as well.
    Several modifications were made to the requirement to submit a 
wildlife hazard assessment for FAA approval. These changes included a 
new requirement for the FAA to take into consideration any actions 
recommended by the wildlife hazard assessment in determining the need 
for a certificate holder to have a wildlife hazard management plan. In 
addition, changes were made to requirements for the wildlife hazard 
management plan. A new requirement was added that directs the 
certificate holder to annually review the plan. Also, existing language 
from Subpart C, Airport Certification Manual,

[[Page 6412]]

was added to require that an approved wildlife hazard management plan 
be included in the airport operator's ACM.
    Finally, specific references to AC series numbers were deleted, and 
several terms used throughout the section were revised, including the 
term ``ecological study.'' A new paragraph was added to allow proposed 
Class II and III airports to implement less than full wildlife 
mitigation procedures if air carrier operations at these airports are 
so few or infrequent that any large expenditure would be unduly 
burdensome or costly.
    Comment: Three commenters support the changes to this section. One 
of these commenters believes that such changes will reduce wildlife 
aircraft strikes at FAA-regulated airports.
    FAA Response: The FAA agrees.
    Comment: A commenter notes that the proposal did not mention the 
ARAC Commuter Airport Certification Working Group's majority view on 
wildlife hazard management. This commenter requests that the FAA review 
and consider these recommendations before issuing a final rule.
    FAA Response: The FAA agrees that the proposal did not discuss the 
ARAC Commuter Airport Certification Working Group's majority view on 
wildlife hazard management. This omission was not intentional, and the 
FAA did consider both the working group's majority and minority views 
on this issue.
    The working group's majority opinion stated that existing part 139 
wildlife hazard management requirements would be economically 
burdensome for airports serving smaller air carrier operations. It 
recommended that such airport operators be required only to take 
immediate measures to alleviate wildlife hazards whenever detected and 
not be required to conduct an assessment and develop a wildlife hazard 
management plan.
    The working group's majority stated the opinion that many airports 
serving small air carrier operations do not have complete perimeter 
fences or other measures to deter wildlife access to the movement area. 
Its opinion was that such airport operators do not have the financial 
resources to hire a consultant to study a potential wildlife hazard, 
and it would be too costly to require these airport operators to 
establish priorities for habitat modification. However, the ARAC 
majority did state that it is essential for the airport operator to 
have a plan to remove a wildlife hazard when detected.
    In contrast, the working group's minority recommended that airports 
serving small air carrier aircraft comply with all requirements of this 
section. This minority position, submitted by the Air Line Pilots 
Association (ALPA), stated that airport personnel ``often do not have 
the expertise to develop effective measures for mitigating wildlife 
hazards.'' ALPA noted that wildlife hazards to aviation are a difficult 
and growing issue that should be taken seriously by all small airport 
operators and by requiring small airport operators to comply with this 
section it would ``help ensure that professional wildlife management 
techniques are utilized to control wildlife problems at affected 
airports.''
    The FAA partly agrees with the working group's minority position 
and determined that all airports serving scheduled operations (Class I, 
II, and III airports) will comply with revised wildlife hazard 
management requirements. At airports that only serve unscheduled air 
carrier operations (Class IV airports), the FAA believes that 
compliance with wildlife mitigation requirements would be unduly 
burdensome since these airports serve covered air carrier operations on 
an infrequent basis. Changes to paragraph (d)(3) also allow the FAA to 
consider frequency and size of air carrier aircraft served in 
determining the need for Class I, II, and III airport operators to 
comply with certain wildlife hazard management requirements.
    Comment: A commenter supports the proposed change to replace the 
term ``ecological study'' in paragraph (b) with the term ``wildlife 
hazard assessment.''
    FAA Response: The FAA agrees.
    Comment: Two commenters recommend modifying the events described in 
paragraph (b) that trigger the requirement for a wildlife hazard 
assessment. These commenters suggest that the term ``damaging bird 
strike'' be added to paragraph (b)(1). One of these commenters notes 
that the current language of paragraph (b)(1) does not require a 
wildlife hazard assessment if an aircraft experiences a single bird 
strike. This commenter states that a single bird strike should trigger 
an assessment because a single bird strike can be just as hazardous as 
some of the minor aircraft strikes involving mammals.
    FAA Response: The FAA agrees that language in paragraph (b) is 
unclear regarding aircraft strikes by a single bird or engine ingestion 
of wildlife other than birds. To clarify, proposed paragraph (b)(1) has 
been broken into two subparagraphs in the final rule that specify that 
a wildlife hazard assessment is required if an air carrier aircraft 
experiences either multiple bird strikes or an engine ingestion of 
wildlife.
    To clarify what is required of the certificate holder if an air 
carrier aircraft experiences a strike by a single bird, paragraph 
(b)(2) also has been modified. In the proposal, this paragraph required 
the certificate holder to conduct a wildlife hazard assessment if an 
air carrier aircraft experiences a ``damaging collision'' with wildlife 
other than birds. This has been modified to require an assessment if an 
air carrier aircraft experiences substantial damage from striking any 
wildlife, and the term ``substantial damage'' has been defined. 
Consequently, the need for an assessment is now based on the type of 
damage sustained from a wildlife strike, rather than the type or 
numbers of wildlife strikes.
    This change also mirrors how wildlife strikes are reported on FAA 
Form 5200-7, Bird/Other Wildlife Strike Report. This form is used by 
pilots and air traffic controllers to report wildlife strikes to the 
FAA. The information from Form 5200-7 is compiled into a national 
database to assist the FAA and other safety and wildlife organizations 
in learning more about the wildlife/aircraft strike problem. The 
database helps provide information about wildlife strike risk factors 
and possible risk reduction measures and to evaluate the effectiveness 
of these measures. The FAA and the U.S. Department of Agriculture 
(USDA) annually analyze this data and publish a report of their 
findings. This report, the national wildlife strike database, and FAA 
Form 5200-7 are available at the FAA's Internet site at http://wildlife-mitigation.tc.faa.gov or by calling (202) 267-3389.
    Comment: A commenter recommends that proposed paragraph (f) be 
revised to require the certificate holder to include in its wildlife 
hazard management plan procedures for maintaining records of all 
reported wildlife strikes and all wildlife carcasses found within 200 
feet of a runway. The commenter also suggests that the certificate 
holder use this information to periodically evaluate its wildlife 
hazard management plan and revise it if needed. The commenter notes 
that the maintenance of a local wildlife strike database is an 
essential part of the wildlife hazard management plan of any airport 
and that NTSB recommends that bird strike reporting be mandatory.
    FAA Response: The FAA disagrees with the recommendation to require 
airport operators to document all wildlife strikes. Airport operators 
already are required to document wildlife hazards and strikes under 
self-

[[Page 6413]]

inspection requirements and to take appropriate action. Further, an 
airport operator may not know of all wildlife strike reports as such 
reports are typically made by pilots and air traffic controllers and 
sent directly to the FAA.
    However, the FAA agrees in part that airport operators should use 
wildlife strike reports to periodically evaluate and revise their 
wildlife hazard management plan. Airport operators can access wildlife 
strike reports submitted to the FAA by calling the FAA at (202) 267-
3389. Similarly, the FAA inspectors will use both the FAA wildlife 
strike database and an airport's self-inspection log to determine the 
need for a wildlife hazard assessment or to assess the effectiveness of 
an existing wildlife hazard management plan.
    Comment: Several commenters express concerns over the potential 
cost for small airport operators to conduct a wildlife hazard 
assessment. These commenters state that the cost to conduct an 
assessment at a small airport could mean a significant long-term cost 
and an increase in personnel. One of these commenters remarks that the 
expense of a wildlife hazard assessment is not warranted unless there 
has been a strike or aircraft damage, as outlined in existing Sec. 
139.337. Another commenter, a Class III airport operator, states that 
it has received an estimate from an environmental contractor to conduct 
an assessment. Assuming no significant wildlife hazard, this contractor 
estimates the cost of an assessment at $8,000.
    FAA Response: The FAA agrees that a wildlife hazard assessment is 
only required under the conditions specified in paragraph (b).
    In addition, the FAA agrees that an assessment could mean a long-
term cost for an airport operator. The cost for an assessment will vary 
depending on the wildlife concerns at each airport. Typically, a survey 
of the airport and its surroundings should reveal that the cause of the 
wildlife hazard may be relatively simple to fix, such as exposed 
rafters in an aircraft hangar or a poorly maintained perimeter fence. 
There may be airports where an assessment could take longer, 
particularly if a wildlife census is needed or migratory patterns must 
be monitored.
    Based on the wildlife aircraft strike data received from FAA Form 
5200-7, the FAA has determined that 40 percent of those airports 
required to comply with this section for the first time (Class II and 
Class III airports) will be required to conduct a wildlife hazard 
assessment. Biologists at the FAA and the USDA Wildlife Services 
estimate that half of these airports could readily complete a wildlife 
assessment within a few days for a nominal cost.
    The services of the FAA, the USDA, and local sources are readily 
available, often free of charge, to airport operators initially seeking 
to mitigate wildlife issues. Wildlife biologists at both the FAA and 
the USDA offer free telephone consultations, guidance material and 
literature, on-site preliminary evaluations and suggested remedies. 
These experts work jointly to track airport wildlife problems and 
resolutions and serve as a clearing-house for such information. 
Further, they can direct airport operators to local help, including 
game wardens, animal control personnel, extension agencies, and 
college/university resources, as well as provide information on airport 
operators that have pooled their resources and share a wildlife 
biologist.
    Most of the remaining airport operators required to conduct an 
assessment may need a few additional days to complete their wildlife 
assessments. These airports have more complex wildlife issues, and the 
FAA and the USDA estimate that in all but a few cases, assessments at 
these airports could be completed in 5 to 7 days. In such instances, 
the FAA and the USDA would probably require the airport operator to 
reimburse the cost of a biologist's wages, plus travel and expenses. If 
a consulting firm is used, the FAA estimates that the average cost for 
a consultant to conduct an assessment at such airports is approximately 
$3,500 (based on the average cost of $105 per staff hour).
    In a few instances, an assessment would take longer than a week due 
to the magnitude or complexity of the wildlife problem. For example, a 
study of migratory birds may require a yearlong study. The average cost 
for a 1-year study involving monthly surveys is $50,000 and a 1-year 
study requiring quarterly surveys costs approximately $25,000. These 
fees usually include the cost to conduct a wildlife census, evaluate 
habitat, develop a wildlife hazard management plan, and train staff in 
wildlife control techniques.
    While a wildlife hazard management plan may be eligible for AIP 
funding if it results in capital improvements to the airport, some 
airport operators may not be able to comply with this section if a 
complex assessment is required. In such cases, airport operators may 
petition for an exemption under Sec. 139.111.
    Comment: A commenter requests that Class III airports be allowed 
additional time to comply with this section. Specifically, the 
commenter requests that these airports be allowed 12 months to prepare 
a wildlife hazard assessment and an additional 6 months to prepare a 
wildlife hazard management plan.
    FAA Response: The FAA disagrees. No compliance dates were proposed 
in this section because not all certificated airports have experienced 
the triggering events that require an assessment, and for those 
required to conduct an assessment, there are many variables involved.
    At airports where a triggering event has occurred, the time to 
conduct an assessment will vary for each airport operator. The length 
of time needed to complete a wildlife hazard assessment will depend on 
the complexity of the wildlife hazard and the circumstances that 
triggered the assessment. An assessment also may reveal that a wildlife 
hazard management plan is not needed. Similarly, the time to complete a 
wildlife hazard management plan will be different for each airport 
operator.
    If the FAA determines there is a need for a wildlife hazard 
assessment or management plan, it will consult with the airport 
operator to determine a reasonable completion date.
    Comment: A commenter notes that there are several typographical 
errors in paragraphs (c), (d), and (f).
    FAA Response: The FAA agrees. These errors have been corrected.
    Comment: A commenter questions whether the phrase ``near the 
airport'' in paragraph (b) should be more narrowly defined.
    FAA Response: The term ``near the airport'' is not defined in 
paragraph (b). The conditions attracting wildlife to an airport are so 
varied that it is difficult to assign a specified distance from the 
airport within which the presence of a wildlife hazard would require an 
airport operator to conduct an assessment. The only defined distances 
are those specified by statute for the siting of landfills near certain 
public airports. In addition, other recommended distances for wildlife 
attractants are contained in AC 150/5200-33, Hazardous Wildlife 
Attractants On or Near Airports.
    As is currently the case, the FAA will work with each airport 
operator to determine if a wildlife hazard is close enough to aircraft 
traffic patterns and the airport to trigger a wildlife hazard 
assessment.
    Comment: Four commenters express concerns over the proposed 
requirement to use a qualified wildlife damage management biologist. 
Some of these commenters state that the required use of such a 
biologist would be cost prohibitive because it would require many 
airport operators to hire additional personnel or overburden USDA with 
requests for a qualified biologist. Another commenter suggests

[[Page 6414]]

that this section be modified to allow an airport operator to conduct 
an assessment according to a methodology prepared by a wildlife damage 
management biologist. The commenter argues that this approach would 
permit airport operators in the same geographic area to reduce costs by 
jointly contracting for the services of a qualified biologist.
    FAA Response: The FAA agrees in part. The language of paragraph (c) 
has been modified so that the qualifications for a wildlife damage 
management biologist are not as restrictive. While the wildlife hazard 
assessment still must be conducted by a wildlife damage management 
biologist, the requirement for this individual to have a Bachelor of 
Science degree has been deleted. The required biologist need only have 
professional training or experience in wildlife hazards at airports. 
This change will give airport operators greater flexibility in 
selecting a qualified biologist.
    The FAA disagrees with the recommendation that an airport operator 
be allowed to conduct its assessment under the guidance of a qualified 
biologist. As discussed in the proposal (65 FR 38659), the FAA has 
determined that the potential for loss of life and equipment resulting 
from wildlife aircraft strikes requires persons who conduct wildlife 
hazard assessments to have the education, training, and experience in 
conducting such assessments. However, this section does not prohibit 
airport operators from pooling resources and jointly contracting for 
the services of a qualified biologist. In addition, airport personnel 
can be used to assist the qualified biologist in conducting the 
assessment.
    Regarding commenters' concerns that USDA will not be able to comply 
with additional requests for a qualified biologist to conduct 
assessments, the FAA disagrees that the USDA will be overburdened to a 
point that it will not be able to provide such services. The FAA works 
closely with USDA to ensure biologists are available for part 139 
wildlife hazard assessments and has coordinated this rulemaking with 
them. The FAA does not anticipate that its biologist, or USDA's 
biologists, will be overburdened due to the additional airport 
operators needing to conduct an assessment because of changes to part 
139.
    Comment: A commenter disagrees with proposed new paragraph (c)(5) 
that would require an airport operator to include in its wildlife 
hazard assessment recommendations made by a qualified biologist for 
reducing wildlife hazard. This commenter believes a biologist would be 
unfamiliar with airport operations and may make recommendations that 
would ``not be feasible and therefore not necessary to include in the 
assessment.''
    FAA Response: The FAA disagrees. The specialized training and 
experience that is required of a qualified biologist under part 139 
should result in wildlife hazard management recommendations that 
consider airport operations. Further, the FAA's review and approval of 
the assessment will determine the feasibility of such recommendations 
and ensure that they are appropriate for the type of air carrier 
operations served.
    Comment: One commenter recommends that paragraph (f)(7) be changed 
to allow airport personnel to be trained by an individual other than 
the biologist required under paragraph (c). This commenter suggests 
that initial training of airport personnel be conducted by the required 
biologist using a ``train-the-trainer'' approach. The commenter 
believes this will allow airport personnel to conduct any subsequent 
training.
    FAA Response: The FAA agrees. Paragraph (f)(7) does not prohibit 
the ``train-the-trainer'' approach so long as the required biologist 
conducts the initial training.
    Comment: A commenter recommends that paragraph (c) be revised to 
include provisions to assist airport operators in contacting and 
working with USDA. This commenter noted that USDA's expertise and 
resources in assessing, monitoring, and mitigating wildlife hazards at 
airports is extensive and ``constitutes the foundation upon which the 
FAA bases its expertise in the subject area.'' This commenter also 
suggests that the FAA ``recognize the expertise and consider the 
resources of state wildlife agencies in meeting'' the requirements of 
this section. The commenter believes this change would provide airport 
operators a cost-cutting alternative to hiring the services of a 
qualified wildlife damage management biologist.
    FAA Response: The FAA disagrees that paragraph (c) should include 
information on using Federal or State wildlife services. The 
availability of State and local agencies varies from State to State, 
and information on these agencies would require frequent updates to 
keep it current. Therefore, it would be impractical to place this 
information in the regulation. As noted above, airport operators can 
contact the FAA for this information.
    Comment: A commenter notes that there is no definition included in 
this section that accurately describes what ``qualified'' means when 
used in connection with the term ``wildlife damage management 
biologist.''
    FAA Response: A qualified wildlife damage management biologist is a 
biologist that has qualifications specified under Sec. 139.337(c), as 
adopted.
    Comment: A commenter questions the deletion of the term 
``observed'' from paragraph (b)(3). The commenter states that the 
change from ``is observed to have access to any airport flight pattern 
or aircraft movement area'' to ``has access to any airport flight 
pattern or aircraft movement area'' would require all airport operators 
to conduct a wildlife hazard assessment, rather than just those airport 
operators that observe wildlife of a size or in numbers capable of 
causing an aircraft strike or engine ingestion.
    FAA Response: The FAA agrees the term ``observed'' should be 
replaced in paragraph (b)(3). The original text of paragraph (b)(3) has 
been restored.
    Comment: A commenter states that paragraph (b)(3) ``appears to be a 
catchall justification subject to the interpretation of an inspector 
not qualified in wildlife assessment.'' This commenter recommends a 
``low-cost, initial overview validation'' conducted by a qualified 
individual to determine if a hazard exists and the need for an 
assessment.
    FAA Response: As discussed above, the restoration of the original 
text of paragraph (b)(3) narrows its scope. However, the FAA does not 
agree with the recommended alternative to a wildlife hazard assessment. 
As previously noted, many wildlife hazard assessments are the low-cost 
initial overview recommended by the commenter. Further, FAA airport 
certification safety inspectors are qualified to determine if an 
assessment is needed. The FAA trains these inspectors to determine if a 
potential wildlife hazard exists. The FAA's wildlife biologist also 
consults regularly with these inspectors, as well as with airport 
operators.
    Comment: A commenter recommends that paragraph (h) include the 
following sentence: ``Certificate holders are encouraged to discuss 
potential use of new or innovative wildlife hazard management methods 
with the Administrator, and to share results of experimental methods, 
in the interest of increasing public safety and wildlife hazard 
management efficiency.''
    FAA Response: The FAA disagrees. Such discussion of new or 
innovative wildlife hazard management methods already occurs when the 
FAA reviews wildlife hazard assessments or wildlife

[[Page 6415]]

hazard management plans. Additionally, the FAA's staff wildlife 
biologist participates with other professional wildlife managers in 
developing and revising wildlife hazard management standards and 
finding resolutions to aviation wildlife problems. This ongoing effort 
is discussed on the FAA Internet site at http://wildlife-mitigation.tc.faa.gov.
    Comment: Two commenters express concerns over proposed paragraph 
(f)(6), which would require an airport operator to annually review its 
wildlife hazard management plan. One commenter states that the annual 
review is excessive, especially since it could take more than a year to 
develop. The other commenter requests clarification on whether an 
airport operator is allowed to conduct its own annual review rather 
than the qualified biologist.
    FAA Response: Paragraph (f)(6) requires that the wildlife hazard 
management plan include procedures for an annual review of the plan. 
These procedures will not become effective until the plan is completed 
and approved by the FAA. Accordingly, an annual review will not be 
necessary until 1 year after the FAA has approved the plan.
    The annual review of the wildlife hazard management plan must be 
conducted in the manner specified in the plan and as approved by the 
FAA. Approved procedures to conduct this review will depend on the 
complexity of the wildlife hazard and mitigation measures. In most 
instances, the FAA would permit the airport operator to conduct its own 
review. However, a qualified biologist may be required to review and 
evaluate certain aspects of the wildlife hazard assessment.
    Section as Adopted: This section is adopted with changes. For the 
reasons discussed above, the events triggering a wildlife hazard 
assessment in Sec. 139.337(b) have been revised. Editorial changes have 
been made to paragraph (c), and some of the requirements for a wildlife 
damage management biologist have been deleted. Similarly, editorial 
changes have been made to paragraphs (d), (e), and (f).
    In addition, paragraph (g) has been deleted and the stipulation 
that the FAA will consider the frequency and size of air carrier 
aircraft in determining the need for a wildlife hazard plan has been 
added to paragraph (d)(3) and now applies to all airport classes. 
Subsequently, paragraph (h) has been redesignated as paragraph (g). 
Finally, the section number has been changed to new Sec. 139.337 from 
proposed Sec. 139.339.

New Section 139.339 Airport Condition Reporting (Proposed Sec. 139.341)

    Proposal: This section contained existing requirements for 
reporting changed airfield conditions to air carriers. Except for a 
change to the section number, the requirements of this section remained 
substantially the same. Certificate holders were still required to 
collect and disseminate information on the conditions of the airport, 
including any construction or maintenance activities, weather or animal 
hazards, and nonfunctional equipment and services. All certificated 
airports were required to comply with this section.
    While reporting requirements remained the same, a minor change was 
made to clarify that a certificate holder can use notification systems 
other than the FAA's pilot notification system, the Notices to Airmen 
(NOTAM) System. Also, the term ``safety area'' was added to paragraph 
(c)(2) to ensure that airport users are notified of irregularities in 
the safety area, in addition to those in the movement area, loading 
ramps, and parking areas.
    References to other section numbers and the term ``Airport 
Certification Specifications'' were changed to reflect proposed 
certification changes. Minor clarifications were proposed to clarify 
that the requirements of this section must be met in a manner 
satisfactory to the FAA and that the ACs contain some methods of 
compliance that are acceptable to the Administrator. In addition, the 
section number was changed to proposed Sec. 139.341 from Sec. 139.339.
    Comment: A commenter, a Class I airport operator, states that it 
supports the changes to this section.
    FAA Response: The FAA agrees.
    Comment: A commenter states that the wording of proposed Sec. 
139.341(c)(6) could be interpreted to mean that the certificate holder 
must issue a NOTAM for each individual runway and taxiway sign that is 
found inoperative. The commenter notes that this is unrealistic and 
would place a burden on the NOTAM System and air traffic control 
personnel.
    FAA Response: The FAA agrees that the language of paragraph (c)(6) 
is unclear. It could be interpreted to mean the certificate holder must 
report either the malfunction of any sign required under Sec. 139.311 
or the malfunction of the entire sign system.
    The reporting of the malfunction of any required sign would quickly 
overwhelm the notification system. The vast majority of signs required 
under Sec. 139.311 are location and direction signs. These signs are 
periodically inoperative, mainly due to burned out lights. Because of 
their large number, particularly at Class I airports, a certificate 
holder frequently finds these signs inoperative during daily self-
inspections and is required under Sec. 139.311 to repair them promptly.
    However, reporting a malfunctioning mandatory instruction sign to 
air carriers is another matter. These signs, holding position signs and 
ILS critical area signs, convey critical safety information, including 
where an aircraft should stop before entering an active runway and 
areas where an aircraft could block the transmission of navigational 
information to other aircraft. Accordingly, paragraph (c)(6) has been 
revised to require certificate holders to report to air carrier tenants 
the malfunction of holding position signs or ILS critical area signs. 
This change will ensure that air carriers are informed of either an 
individual or a systemic failure of these signs.
    Section as Adopted: This section is adopted with changes. For the 
reasons discussed above, proposed Sec. 139.341(c)(6) (new Sec. 
139.339(c)(6)) has been revised to limit the type of signs that a 
certificate holder must report if found malfunctioning. The word 
``sign'' has been replaced by the terms ``holding position signs'' and 
``ILS critical area signs.'' The section number also has been changed 
to new Sec. 139.339 from proposed Sec. 139.341, and the reference to 
proposed Sec. 139.321, ARFF: Exemptions, in paragraph (c)(8) has been 
deleted.
    In addition, a new paragraph (d) has been added requiring 
certificate holders to maintain a record, for at least 12 consecutive 
months, of each airport condition report. While this requirement was 
not discussed in the proposal, other similar recordkeeping requirements 
were, and new paragraph (d) mirrors these requirements.
    The FAA has determined that records of airport condition reports 
should be retained in the same manner as the records of self-
inspections, as required under Sec. 139.327. Although not proposed, 
this change is the logical outgrowth of similar recordkeeping 
requirements. Airport condition reports are typically the result of 
conditions found during a self-inspection, and this change will ensure 
the recordkeeping requirements in the two sections are consistent.
    In accordance with AC 150/5200-28, Notices to Airmen (NOTAMS) for 
Airport Operators, most certificate holders already keep airport 
condition report records and have incorporated them into the follow-up 
process used to address discrepancies found during self-

[[Page 6416]]

inspections. Accordingly, the FAA already included the cost and hours 
to comply with this recordkeeping requirement in its estimate of 
initial and annual recordkeeping burden required under the Paperwork 
Reduction Act.

New Section 139.341 Identifying, Marking, and Lighting Construction and 
Other Unserviceable Areas (Proposed Sec. 139.343)

    Proposal: This section prescribed existing standards for the 
marking and lighting of construction and other unserviceable areas of 
the airfield. Except for a change to the section number, the 
requirements of this section remained the same. Certificate holders 
were still required to light and mark any construction or unserviceable 
areas and associated equipment that may create a hazard. All 
certificated airports serving scheduled air carrier operations 
(proposed Class I, II, and III airports) were required to comply with 
this section.
    References to other section numbers and the term ``Airport 
Certification Specifications'' were changed to reflect proposed 
certification changes. Minor clarifications were proposed to clarify 
that the requirements of this section must be met in a manner 
satisfactory to the FAA and that ACs contain some methods of compliance 
that are acceptable to the Administrator. In addition, the section 
number was changed from Sec. 139.341 to proposed Sec. 139.343.
    Comment: No comments were received on this section.
    Section as Adopted: This section is adopted with two minor changes. 
The word ``reporting'' in the section title has been changed to 
``lighting'' to more accurately reflect the requirements of this 
section. In addition, the section number was changed to new Sec. 
139.341 from proposed Sec. 139.343.

New Section 139.343 Noncomplying Conditions (Proposed Sec. 139.345)

    Proposal: This section contained existing requirements for 
certificate holders to restrict air carrier operations in those areas 
of the airport that have become unsafe and no longer comply with the 
requirements of subpart D of part 139. Operators of all proposed 
airport classes were required to comply with this section. Except for a 
change to the section number, the requirements of this section remained 
the same. The section number was redesignated from Sec. 139.343 to 
proposed Sec. 139.345.
    Comment: No comments were received on this section.
    Section as Adopted: The section number has been changed to new Sec. 
139.343 from proposed Sec. 139.345. Otherwise, the section is adopted 
as proposed.

Final Rule Compliance

    This final rule becomes effective 120 days after its publication in 
the Federal Register.

Section 121.590 Compliance

    In the conduct of operations at part 139 certificated airports, air 
carriers, and the pilots used by them, may continue to operate into 
part 139 airports until these airports have obtained new or revised 
AOCs, as required under new Sec. 139.101, General requirements. 
However, at specified dates after the effective date of the rule, air 
carriers and their pilots can only use those airports that have been 
certificated under new part 139.
    As specified in new Sec. 121.590(a), air carriers and their pilots 
will be prohibited from operating at Class I airports 12 months after 
the effective date of the rule and at Class II, III, and IV airports 18 
months after the effective date of the rule if the operators of these 
airports have not obtained a new or revised part 139 AOC. To assist air 
carriers in determining which airports have obtained a new or revised 
AOC, the FAA's Airport Safety and Operations Division (AAS-300) will 
provide information on the certification status of part 139 airports on 
its Web site at http://www.faa.gov/arp/.

Part 139 Compliance

    Any airport operator that desires to serve applicable air carrier 
operations must comply with the requirements of this final rule. The 
action required by an airport operator to comply will vary depending on 
the type of air carrier operations served and whether the airport 
operator currently holds a part 139 AOC, as well as the individual 
airport's ACM.
    Operators of currently certificated airports are not required to 
reapply for an AOC. The FAA will issue new part 139 AOCs to all current 
certificate holders, as appropriate. For most current certificate 
holders, this will involve updating their existing ACM to incorporate 
several new elements. The remaining certificate holders may be required 
to comply with certain requirements for the first time or to extend 
existing part 139 services to cover additional air carrier operations.
    The final rule requires all covered airport operators to submit an 
ACM tailored to each airport for the FAA's approval. The ACM is a 
written document that details how the airport operator will comply with 
the requirements of part 139. Airport operators that currently hold an 
AOC already have an ACM. Airport operators that currently hold a 
limited AOC have a modified version of an ACM, known as an airport 
certification specification (ACS). Under the final rule, all ACSs must 
be converted to ACMs.
    Depending on existing operational procedures and emergency 
services, every ACM/ACS will be in varying stages of compliance with 
the final rule. Some airport operators may need only to document 
existing operational procedures to comply with the new requirements. 
This is the case for many Class I airport operators. Newly certificated 
airport operators (Class III) may also have to develop and document new 
operational and emergency procedures to comply with the new 
requirements. Class II and IV airport operators may be required to do 
both.
    Once an airport operator submits its revised or new ACM, the FAA 
will work with the airport operator to tailor the document to ensure 
compliance with the final rule and may conduct an inspection of the 
airport to verify that the ACM reflects actual airport conditions. The 
FAA also may request changes to the ACM and any procedures it 
describes.
    Airport operators may continue to serve air carrier operations as 
they currently do until the deadline for submitting new or revised 
ACM's to the FAA. After this date, airport operators that have not 
submitted their ACM for approval will no longer be able to serve 
applicable air carrier operations. Airport operators that have 
submitted either a new ACM or an update will be contacted by the FAA to 
determine if additional action is needed and to what extent they can 
continue to serve air carrier operations until a new certificate is 
issued.

Currently Certificated Airports

    All airport operators that hold an existing AOC will be 
reclassified as Class I airports (airports serving scheduled operations 
of large air carrier aircraft). These airport operators have 6 months 
from the effective date of this final rule to submit revisions to their 
ACM's for FAA approval.
    All airport operators that hold an existing Limited Airport 
Operating Certificate will be reclassified either as Class II airports 
(airports serving scheduled operations of small air carrier aircraft 
and unscheduled operations of large air carrier aircraft) or Class IV 
airports (airports serving unscheduled operations of large air carrier 
aircraft). The operators of these airports will have to convert their 
existing ACS into an

[[Page 6417]]

ACM. They will have 12 months from the effective date of this final 
rule to submit the revised document to the FAA for approval. In 
addition, operators of Class II and IV airports have additional time to 
comply with new sign, ARFF, and emergency planning requirements and may 
request additional compliance time.

Uncertificated Airports

    Airports serving scheduled operations of small air carrier aircraft 
will be newly certificated as the result of this final rule. Operators 
of these airports, designated as Class III airports, that want to 
continue to serve such air carrier operations are now required to have 
an AOC and must initiate the application process as prescribed in Sec. 
139.103. This process is explained in more depth in the proposal (65 FR 
38637). Operators of Class III airports have 12 months from the 
effective date of this final rule to submit their new ACM to the FAA 
for approval. Similar to Class II and IV airport operators, Class III 
airport operators have additional time to comply with new sign, ARFF, 
and emergency planning requirements and may request additional 
compliance time.

Airports Located in the State of Alaska

    The statutory authority covering the certification of airports that 
serve scheduled operations of small air carrier aircraft is not 
applicable to Alaskan airports. As noted in the proposal (65 FR 38639), 
airports in the State of Alaska that serve large air carrier operations 
will continue to be certificated under part 139 as Class I or IV 
airports. Accordingly, the compliance dates in the final rule for these 
airport classifications will apply. Otherwise, there are no part 139 
applications for those airports in the State of Alaska that only serve 
scheduled operations of small air carrier aircraft.

Airports Operated by the U.S. Government

    Airports operated by the U.S. Government will no longer be 
certificated under part 139. However, they may still continue to serve 
air carriers operations, as set out in Sec. 121.590. As stated in the 
proposal (65 FR 38641), the FAA does not have the statutory authority 
to regulate airports operated by U.S. Government agencies, and 
corresponding changes to Sec. 121.590 will now permit air carriers to 
use U.S. Government operated airports that are not certificated under 
part 139.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 
3507(d)), the FAA has submitted a copy of these sections to the Office 
of Management and Budget for its review. The collection of information 
was approved and assigned OMB Control Number 2120-0675.
    This final rule revises current airport certification requirements 
in 14 CFR part 139 and establishes certification requirements for 
airports serving scheduled air carrier operations in aircraft with more 
than 9 passenger seats but less than 31 passenger seats. The final rule 
also clarifies existing requirements, incorporates existing industry 
practices, and responds to an outstanding petition for rulemaking and 
certain NTSB recommendations.
    Similar to how the FAA currently certificates airports, this final 
rule requires airport operators that choose to be certificated under 
part 139 to document and implement procedures for complying with part 
139 safety and operational requirements. To accommodate variations in 
airport layout, operations, air carrier service, and other local 
considerations, compliance procedures will be tailored to each airport 
operator when complying with more burdensome requirements.
    Several sections of the proposal had recordkeeping and reporting 
requirements. Comments received on these requirements are addressed 
previously in the appropriate section-by-section analysis. Several 
modifications were made to recordkeeping and reporting requirements in 
the final rule as the result of comments received. As a result, the 
annual and recurring recordkeeping and reporting burdens have been 
adjusted accordingly.
    The NPRM estimate of respondents has changed slightly from 606 
airport operators to 603 airport operators. The likely respondents to 
recordkeeping and reporting requirements contained in the final rule 
are those civilian U.S. airport certificate holders who operate 
airports that serve scheduled and unscheduled operations of air carrier 
aircraft with more than 30 passenger seats (approximately 566 
airports). These airport operators already hold a part 139 AOC and 
comply with most of the information collection requirements required in 
the final rule. Certain airport operators not currently certificated by 
the FAA also will be required to apply for a certificate under this 
rule if they want to continue to serve certain air carriers. These 
airports, approximately 37 airports, serve scheduled operations of air 
carrier aircraft designed for more than 9 passenger seats but less than 
30 passenger seats.
    While many part 139 reporting and recordkeeping requirements remain 
substantially unchanged, additional information collections have been 
adopted in this final rule. Both existing and new requirements are 
necessary to allow the FAA to verify compliance with proposed part 139 
safety and operational requirements.
    This final rule constitutes a recordkeeping and reporting burden 
for operators of airports certificated under part 139 because the FAA 
will continue to require operators of certificated airports to comply 
with certain safety requirements prior to serving certain air carrier 
aircraft. When an airport satisfactorily complies with these 
requirements, the FAA issues to that facility an AOC that permits an 
airport to serve large air carriers. The FAA periodically inspects 
these airports to ensure continued compliance safety requirements, 
including the maintenance of specified records. Both the application 
for an AOC and compliance inspections (typically conducted on an annual 
basis) require regulated airport operators to collect and report 
certain operational information.
    In addition, this final rule requires operators of certificated 
airports to develop and comply with a FAA-approved ACM, in manner 
similar to what was previously required. The ACM details how an airport 
complies with the requirements of part 139 and includes other 
instructions and procedures to assist airport personnel in performing 
their duties and responsibilities.
    Under this rule, the FAA continues to require that the AOC remain 
in effect as long as the need exists and the operator complies with the 
terms of the AOC and the ACM. Certain changes in the operation of the 
airport must be reported to the FAA for information or approval. If the 
airport operator believes that an exemption is needed to commence 
airport operations, justification for and the FAA's approval of the 
exemption is required for issuance of the AOC. The operator may request 
the FAA's approval of changes to the AOC or ACM, or an exemption from 
part 139 requirements, by submitting justification and documentation. 
Also, the FAA Administrator may propose changes to the AOC or ACM, and 
the airport operator may submit contrary evidence of argument 
concerning the proposed changes.

[[Page 6418]]

    The frequency of collection would vary depending on the type of 
information collected, the size of the respondent's airport, and the 
type of air carrier operations served.
    The FAA refined its NPRM estimate of initial and annual hourly 
burden to respondents, as detailed in the following table. Burden hours 
are listed separately for airports that currently hold a part 139 AOC 
and for those airports that will be newly certificated:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Initial reporting  hours      Initial recordkeeping      Annual reporting  hours   Annual recordkeeping hours
                                         ----------------------------            hours           -------------------------------------------------------
          New part 139 sections                                      ----------------------------
                                            Currently       Newly       Currently       Newly       Currently       Newly       Currently       Newly
                                          certificated  certificated  certificated  certificated  Certificated  certificated  certificated  certificated
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
139.103.................................             0           296             0             0             0            16             0             0
139.111.................................             0             0             0             0             0            32             0             0
139.113.................................             0             0             0             0             0             5             0             0
139.201.................................             0             0             0             0             0           592             0           592
139.203.................................             0         1,480             0             0             0             0             0             0
139.205.................................        22,640             0             0             0             0         1,184             0             0
139.303.................................             0             0         9,056           592             0             0        13,569           340
139.313.................................         1,560           648             0             0             0             0           520           216
139.317.................................             0             0             0             0             0             0             0         2,035
139.319.................................             0             0             0           888             0             0             0           555
139.321.................................             0             0           260           296             0             0         2,264           148
139.325.................................             0             0         5,200         1,480             0             0         3,120           888
139.327.................................             0             0         2,080           592             0             0        13,520         3,848
139.329.................................             0             0         8,960         2,960             0             0           560           185
139.337.................................             0             0             0             0            16            16         3,424         1,173
139.339.................................             0             0           520           148             0             0         3,250           925
                                         ---------------
    Subtotal............................        24,200         2,424        26,076         6,956            16         1,845        40,227        10,905
                                         ---------------
    Totals..............................            26,624
                                                    33,032
                                                     1,861
                                                    51,132
                                         ===============
                                                                  59,656
                                                                  52,993
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The estimate of the total initial reporting and recordkeeping 
hourly burden for the final rule is 59,656 (an increase of 15,296 hours 
from the NPRM estimate). The annual hourly burden is 52,993 (an 
increase of 223 hours from the NPRM estimate). Burden hours are 
estimated as the number of reports and records made by each respondent. 
This figure varies yearly, as does the average time per response. These 
variations are largely due to disparities in airport size and aircraft 
operations served. The labor burden is estimated on an annual basis.
    Operations/maintenance labor accounts for an estimated 70 percent 
of the hours, and clerical labor makes up the other 30 percent. Cost 
per hour is estimated at $26 for operations/maintenance labor and $14 
for clerical labor. Other expenses, such as general and administrative 
costs, overhead costs, and other indirect costs are estimated at 
approximately 15 percent of the direct labor costs. The estimate of the 
total initial reporting and recordkeeping cost burden for the final 
rule is $1,536,738 (an increase of $394,025 from the NPRM estimate). 
The annual cost burden is $1,356,098 (an increase of $5,743 from the 
NPRM estimate).
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor and a person is not required 
to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a 
currently valid OMB control number.

International Compatibility

    In keeping with U.S. obligations under the Convention on 
International Civil Aviation, it is the FAA policy to comply with 
International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Standards and 
Recommended Practices to the maximum extent practicable. The FAA 
determined that there are no ICAO Standards and Recommended Practices 
that correspond to these regulations.
    The Joint Aviation Authorities, an associated body of the European 
Civil Aviation Conference, develop Joint Aviation Requirements (JAR) in 
aircraft design, manufacture, maintenance, and operations for adoption 
by participating member civil aviation authorities. The JAR does not 
address airport certification.

Regulatory Evaluation, Regulatory Flexibility Determination, 
International Trade Impact Assessment, Federalism, and Unfunded 
Mandates Assessment

    Changes to Federal regulations must undergo several economic 
analyses. First, Executive Order 12866 directs 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, as amended, requires agencies 
to analyze the economic impact of regulatory changes on small entities. 
Third, the Trade Agreements Act (19 U.S.C. 2531-2533) 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 also requires agencies to consider 
international standards and, where appropriate, use them as the basis 
of U.S. standards. And fourth, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 
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 aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 
million or more annually (adjusted for inflation).
    In conducting these analyses, the FAA has determined that the 
economic impact of this rule will generate benefits that justify its 
costs, does meet the standards for a ``significant regulatory action'' 
as defined in the Executive Order, and is significant as defined by the 
Department of Transportation's Regulatory Policies and Procedures. The 
rule, therefore, is subject to review by OMB. The FAA has determined 
that this rule will not constitute a barrier to

[[Page 6419]]

international trade and does not contain a significant 
intergovernmental or private sector mandate. The agency has concluded 
that the rule will have a significant impact on a substantial number of 
small entities and has prepared a final regulatory flexibility 
analysis. These analyses, available in the docket, are summarized 
below.
    In 1995, the FAA issued regulations aimed at ensuring safety in 
scheduled air carrier operations in aircraft with 10 or more passenger 
seats. Since then, Congress has authorized the FAA to certificate 
airports serving scheduled air carrier operations, conducted in small 
aircraft. In 2000, the FAA issued an NPRM to revise the airport 
certification process and to establish certification requirements for 
these airports.
    Under this revised certification process, certificated airports 
will be reclassified into four new classes, Class I-IV, based on the 
type of air carrier operations served. Class I, II, and IV airports 
will be those airports that currently hold AOCs, and Class III airports 
will be those airports being newly certificated. As specified in the 
authorizing statute, airport certification requirements will not be 
applicable to airports located in the State of Alaska that only serve 
scheduled operation of small air carrier aircraft.
    Similar to how the FAA currently certificates airports, the rule 
requires airport operators choosing to be certificated under part 139 
to document and implement procedures for complying with part 139 safety 
and operational requirements. To accommodate variations in airport 
layout, operations, air carrier service, and other local 
considerations, the rule requires that compliance procedures be 
tailored to each airport operator when complying with the more 
burdensome requirements.

Benefits

    The expected benefits of this rule include reducing fatalities, 
injuries, and property damage at airports with certain scheduled and 
unscheduled air carrier operations. This is expected to be particularly 
true at airports serving scheduled air carrier operations conducted in 
common carrier aircraft designed for more than 9 passenger seats but 
less than 31 passenger seats (smaller aircraft).
    This rule affects all currently certificated airports and an 
estimated 37 additional airports that are currently uncertificated. 
Accordingly, benefits are expected to accrue at all four classes of 
certificated airports created under this rule. Several different types 
of safety improvements are expected. These involve the:
    (1) Prevention of accidents or collisions because of nonstandard or 
inadequate signs, markings, and lighting and traffic and wind direction 
indicators;
    (2) Mitigation of accident damages by improving runway safety areas 
at certain airports;
    (3) Mitigation of accidents as a result of expanding ARFF coverage 
to additional air carrier operations;
    (4) Prevention and mitigation of fires at airport fuel farms;
    (5) Prevention and mitigation of accidents caused by snow and ice 
accumulation; and
    (6) Prevention and mitigation of wildlife problems as a result of 
improved procedures for wildlife hazard management.
    A brief discussion of benefits is included below. A more extensive 
discussion is contained in the full regulatory evaluation in the 
docket.

Runway Safety Areas

    This rule will require that Class III airports meet safety area 
requirements for the first time. These airports have been encouraged to 
install safety areas for over 10 years, and many have done so through 
Federal airport funding programs. Although the rule will not require 
immediate installation of these safety facilities at any class of 
airports, over time the eventual installation of safety areas at 
certificated airports will result in more safety in air transportation.
    The following is a good example of the potential benefits from 
runway safety areas. On May 8, 1999, a SAAB 340 aircraft overran a 
runway at New York's John F. Kennedy International Airport. The airport 
had recently installed arresting material in compliance with part 139 
safety area requirements that resulted in the airplane stopping 50 feet 
short of Thurston Bay. The incident resulted in very little damage to 
the aircraft and one minor passenger injury. In sharp contrast, an 
accident occurred on the same runway in 1984, before the arresting 
material was installed, resulted in an SAS DC-10 aircraft running into 
the bay. This accident resulted in multiple passenger injuries and 
extensive airplane damage.

Emergency Response Services and Equipment

    An important safety benefit of this final rule is more widespread 
availability of emergency response services and equipment. These 
services are used to respond to airport emergencies, including aircraft 
accidents, medical emergencies in the terminal building and aircraft 
fueling fires or spills.
    Part 139 accident mitigation requirements provide a comprehensive 
response to aircraft accidents, and other emergencies. For example, 
required alarm and communication systems ensure that both ARFF and 
airport personnel are notified promptly of an accident, and alert other 
necessary emergency service providers in the local community (i.e., 
paramedic, police, ambulance service and hospitals). Similarly, 
accident mitigation measures ensure other needed emergency services are 
provided, including security and crowd control, removal of disabled 
aircraft and other debris from movement areas, transportation and 
facilities for uninjured and injured persons, and storage of deceased 
persons. All of these measures contribute to a comprehensive emergency 
response that mitigates the loss of passenger lives and property, 
prevents injury to responding personnel, and protects air carrier 
aircraft and the public from unsafe conditions.
    There is ample evidence that part 139 accident mitigation 
requirements can save lives and reduce injuries. Perhaps the clearest 
example of that was an accident that occurred at Los Angeles 
International Airport on February 1, 1991. This tragedy involved the 
collision of a U.S. AIR 737-300 and a Skywest Metro on Runway 24L. The 
crew and 10 passengers on the Metro were killed, as were some of the 
crew and 20 passengers on the 737-300. However, the NTSB credited the 
part 139-required emergency response for saving lives.
    A major safety provision of the final rule is that it will extend 
the required availability of emergency response services and equipment 
at every landing and takeoff of scheduled air carrier aircraft with 10 
to 30 seats. This capability is required now for air carrier operators 
with more than 30 seats, and, as discussed earlier, there is evidence 
that lives have been saved and injuries prevented or reduced as a 
result. In some cases, this protection may not currently be available 
for small aircraft operations at airports served by large air carrier 
aircraft. For example, an accident that occurred at Quincy, Illinois (a 
Class I airport) on November 19, 1996 might have been mitigated had 
ARFF been on site during the departure of a small air carrier aircraft.
    This accident involved the collision of a United Express Beech 
1900C (a small aircraft) and a Beech King Air (a general aviation 
aircraft) during the

[[Page 6420]]

ground operations of the two aircraft. These aircraft collided at the 
intersection of two runways. At the time of the accident, there were no 
large air carrier aircraft operations in progress or imminent, and, 
consequently, the airport operator was not required to provide 
emergency response services, and these services were not on the site. 
When required, emergency response services, including ARFF, were 
provided by the fire department, whose personnel would come to the 
airport from an offsite location to staff emergency equipment during 
the operations of large air carrier aircraft. All 10 passengers and 2 
crew members aboard the United Express Beech 1900C and the two 
occupants aboard the King Air were killed as a result of post crash 
fires.
    The NTSB found that the speed with which the fire enveloped the 
King Air, and the intensity of the fire, precluded the survivability of 
the occupants. However, the occupants of the Beech 1900C did have the 
opportunity to escape, but could not open external doors. The NTSB 
concluded, ``if on-airport ARFF protection had been required for this 
operation at Quincy Airport, lives might have been saved.'' (NTSB 
Aircraft Accident Report--Runway Collision United Express Flight 5925 
and Beechcraft King Air A90--Quincy Municipal Airport, Illinois--
November 19, 1996--NTSB AAR-97/04, P.51.)
    Based on this accident history, a risk assessment provides a 
reasonable quantified estimate of the potential value of part 139 
emergency response requirements. The final rule will extend these 
emergency services to passengers traveling in air carrier aircraft with 
10 to 30 passenger seats. For an accident in a 30 passenger seat 
aircraft occupied at 60 percent of capacity (the industry average), the 
expected benefits equal $63 million based on 21 potentially prevented 
fatalities (18 passengers and three crew members) multiplied by $3 
million per prevented fatality. While $63 million is the expected 
benefit over a ten year horizon, using the Poisson distribution with a 
mean of one accident over a ten-year period, there is a 26 percent 
chance of two or more such accidents with a value in excess of $100 
million.

Fuel Storage Fires

    Another expected benefit of this rule is prevention/mitigation of 
fuel storage fires. The rule requires all classes of airports to 
address fuel storage fires in their disaster plans. This will better 
prepare airports to prevent and/or extinguish the kind of fire that 
occurred at the Stapleton International Airport in Denver, CO, on 
November 25, 1990. That fire erupted on a fuel farm about 1.8 miles 
from the main terminal and burned for 48 hours, destroying about 3 
million gallons of fuel. Flight operations of a major air carrier were 
disrupted due to the lack of fuel, and the air carrier estimated total 
damage to have reached between $15 and $20 million.
    The NTSB concluded that the City and County of Denver (the airport 
certificate holder) and the fire department, in particular, apparently 
had not considered the possibility of a fire of this type since no 
procedures or contingency plans were in place. The FAA has determined 
that contingency plans that cover the possibility of a major fuel farm 
fire could result in similar fires being extinguished much sooner, 
perhaps resulting in considerably less damage.

Snow and Ice Control

    Another safety benefit is expected from improved snow and ice 
control, which will reduce the potential for snow- and ice-related 
accidents. On March 17, 1993, a BAC-BA-Jetstream 3101 aircraft was 
making a night instrument approach to Raleigh County Memorial Airport 
in Beckley, WV. Because the runway was not properly plowed, and berms 
of snow concealed the runway lights at ground level, the captain lost 
control after touchdown, and the airplane sustained substantial damage.
    This rule will require Class II and III airports to develop 
tailored snow and ice control plans. Class I airports are already 
required to have such plans, and Class IV airports are not required to 
have such plans. Although many of these classes of airports already 
have procedures for snow and ice removal, this rule will formalize 
consistent plans across all airports with scheduled air carrier 
services. The FAA concludes that this low-cost requirement to 
standardize responses to snow and ice conditions at certificated 
airports will significantly help prevent the kind of accident discussed 
above.

Wildlife Hazard Management

    The expected benefit of this section of this final rule is the 
reduction of wildlife hazards to air carrier operations. Airports not 
currently certificated by the FAA are not required to meet part 139 
wildlife hazard management requirements. At some of these airports, 
wildlife hazards already exist that under the final rule will require 
the airport operator to conduct a wildlife assessment and possibly the 
implementation of a wildlife hazard management plan. The expansion of 
wildlife hazard management requirements to these airports is intended 
to ensure that all airport certificate holders serving scheduled air 
carriers address wildlife hazards in a consistent and effective manner. 
Accordingly, the FAA expects to reduce the number of wildlife strikes 
that will otherwise occur.
    At Class III airports between 1991 and 1997, there were 10 reported 
wildlife strikes involving 19-passenger seat Beech-1900 aircraft (22 
potential total occupants). The FAA values each prevented fatality to 
be $3 million. FAA cost estimates for injuries range from $38,500 for a 
minor injury to $521,800 for a serious injury. It is likely that 
without mitigation the past 10 or more wildlife strikes to aircraft 
will reoccur at Class III airports, affecting 10 to 130 aircraft 
occupants. It is not unreasonable to expect that 10 percent of these 
occupants will incur minor to serious injury and that several may die 
as result of a wildlife strike. The FAA estimates that the minimum 
potential averted cost is several hundred thousand dollars; yet just 
one fatal accident raises the preventable cost to $3 million.
    With the structured approach of the final rule to resolving 
wildlife strikes to aircraft, it is very reasonable to expect that each 
airport solution will be one where the benefits exceed the costs, and 
in some cases, the net benefit may be substantial. Airport improvements 
to reduce wildlife hazards will ultimately provide a safer environment 
for all civil aircraft operations. Given the growing population of 
certain wildlife, the increasing number of aircraft operations and the 
history of reported wildlife strikes, potential benefits for just the 
newly certificated airports (37 Class III airports) range from a low of 
several million dollars (from damage and injuries avoided) to an 
estimate in excess of $10 million.
    The benefits of the wildlife strike provision of the final rule 
extend beyond all Class III airports to all certificated airports. 
However, the wide range of possible compliance methods forestall a 
reasonable range estimate of net benefits. It is very reasonable to 
expect that wildlife preventative action at each certificated airport 
will have benefits in excess of costs with system-wide benefits in the 
millions.

Costs

    Some of the requirements of this rule that will impose costs--such 
as improved snow and ice control; marking, signs, and lighting; and 
wildlife hazard management--are intended to prevent accidents. Other

[[Page 6421]]

requirements, such as emergency planning and improved emergency 
response capability, are intended to mitigate accidents should they 
occur.
    When the FAA published the NPRM the agency estimated that the 
present value of the 10-year costs of the proposed rule was about $46 
million. Based on the comments received, the FAA increased the 
estimated costs for the final rule, primarily to allow for ARFF costs 
at airports that will be newly certificated as a result of this rule.
    The major items of this rule that are expected to impose costs are 
summarized below:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Initial/capital    Annual recurring
         Major cost items                 costs              costs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Risk Reduction Items (Subpart D--          $1,495,316         $1,447,215
 Operations): Personnel; Records;
 Marking, Signs, and Lighting;
 Snow and Ice Control; Handling
 and Storing of Hazardous
 Substances and Materials; Traffic
 and Wind Direction Indicators;
 Self-Inspection Program; Access
 to Movement Areas and Safety
 Areas; Wildlife Hazard Management
Mitigation Items (ARFF, Airport             2,719,242          8,405,105
 Emergency Plan)..................
                                   -------------------------------------
    Program Total--Current Dollars         $4,214,558         $9,852,320
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FAA estimates that the present value of the 10-year cost of 
this rule is $73.4 million. A more detailed description of how these 
costs were estimated is contained in the full regulatory evaluation.
    The FAA has made an effort not to underestimate costs. As a result, 
the estimated costs of this rule may be high because it is largely 
based on assumed average costs being applicable to all airports in each 
class, when in actuality each airport will have requirements tailored 
to its individual situation. In the application of this rule, each 
airport (particularly the new Class III airports) may have already 
complied with this rule, or may receive relief from certain aspects of 
this rule under the exemption provisions.

Benefit-Cost Comparison

    The estimated benefits and costs herein assume that the average 
airport incurs the full compliance cost and that the traveling public 
and society receives the associated benefit. Much of the difficulty to 
accurately assess the expected benefit and cost of this regulation is 
the complex nature of compliance with part 139 requirements. Each 
airport is unique with potentially different methods used by the 
airport operator to comply with part 139 requirements. Further, there 
are very significant Federal policies in place to mitigate the economic 
impact of the final rule. These policies are discussed in length in a 
separate Report to Congress. This Report discusses the economic impact 
of the final rule on air service to Class III airports.
    As discussed in the Report to Congress, several factors may help to 
mitigate part 139 compliance costs. First, Congress has directed the 
FAA to set aside $15 million of AIP funds for certain capital 
expenditures that may be required by the final rule for four fiscal 
years. Second, the FAA will assist airport operators to obtain 
additional Federal funds, as appropriate. Third, at approximately two-
thirds of these newly certificated airports (Class III airports), air 
carriers also receive federal EAS subsidies, so the Federal government 
will probably absorb most, if not all of the cost of the rule through 
increased subsidies to air carriers. Fourth, if Federal, state and 
local funding is not adequate, the FAA will seek alternative means of 
compliance with part 139 requirements or will use its statutory 
authority to grant exemptions from requirements that would be too 
costly, burdensome, or impractical.
    The FAA estimates that one or more accidents that will be mitigated 
by compliance with emergency response requirements of the final rule 
will result in an estimated benefit ranging from $63 million to well in 
excess of $100 million. The FAA is not providing a single dollar value 
for the total benefits of the final rule because the range of the 
possible compliance methods is too great and complying with risk 
reduction and accident mitigation requirements may require multiple 
actions. The FAA does note that the benefits estimate is conservative 
and the potential error in assessing the benefits will be to 
underestimate total benefits.
    The FAA estimates that the present value of the 10-year cost of 
this final rule is about $73.4 million. This estimate is likely to be 
high because it is based on assumed average costs across all airports 
in each airport class. In the application of this rule, each airport 
may already be in compliance with all or certain requirements of this 
final rule, or may receive relief from certain aspects of the rule 
through alternate means of compliance or the exemption process.
    Thus, the FAA believes that numerous safety benefits will result 
from the multiple provisions in the final rule. These benefits will 
reduce the risk of future accidents and mitigate loss if another 
accident occurs. As noted above, the total cost estimate is 
conservative and does not include a host of policies and available 
funding designed to reduce the compliance cost of the final rule. 
Consequently, in view of the moderate costs and potential benefits, the 
FAA concludes that the benefits of the final rule justify the costs.

Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA)

    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 consider 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 determination is that it will have 
such an impact, the agency must prepare a regulatory flexibility 
analysis as described in the RFA. However, if an agency determines that 
a proposed, or final, rule is not expected to have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, section 
605(b) of the 1980 RFA provides that the head of the agency may so 
certify and a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required. The 
certification must include a statement providing the factual basis for 
this

[[Page 6422]]

determination, and the reasoning should be clear.
    This rule will affect publicly owned airports. When the population 
of a public airport-owning entity is less than 50,000, it is considered 
a small entity. Based upon the above review, the FAA concludes that 
this final rule will have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities. Accordingly, the following final 
regulatory flexibility assessment was prepared as required by the RFA.

Issues To Be Addressed in a Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

    The central focus of a final regulatory flexibility analysis, like 
the initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA), is the requirement 
that agencies evaluate the impact of a rule on small entities and 
analyze regulatory alternatives that minimize the impact when there 
will be a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities.
    The five requirements, outlined in section 604(a)(1-5) of the 1980 
RFA, are listed and discussed below:
    (1) A succinct statement of the need for, and objectives of, the 
rule. Before 1996, the FAA's statutory authority to certificate 
airports was limited to those airports serving air carrier operations 
using aircraft with more than 30 passenger seats. However, this 
authority (49 U.S.C. 44706) was broadened by the Federal Aviation 
Administration Reauthorization Act of 1996 to allow the FAA to 
certificate airports, with the exception of those located in the State 
of Alaska, that serve any scheduled passenger operation of an air 
carrier operating aircraft designed for more than 9 passenger seats but 
less than 31 passenger seats. The FAA's existing authority to 
certificate airports serving air carrier operations conducted in 
aircraft with more than 30 seats remained unchanged.
    With this rule, the FAA intends to extend airport certification 
standards to airports serving scheduled air carrier operations 
conducted in aircraft designed for more than 9 passenger seats but less 
than 31 passenger seats.
    The primary objective of this final rule is to ensure safety in air 
transportation by regulating the operation and maintenance of airports 
serving certain scheduled air carrier operations. The rule is necessary 
to prevent future accidents similar to those that have recently 
occurred and to mitigate fatalities and injuries when accidents do 
occur.
    (2) A summary of the significant issues raised by the public 
comments in response to the IRFA, a summary of the assessment of the 
agency of such issues, and a statement of any changes made in the 
proposed rule as a result of such comments. There were a substantial 
number of comments received from operators of airports serving small 
air carrier operations concerned about the financial burden that the 
proposed rule would place on them. In particular these commenters are 
concerned about personnel costs to comply with proposed ARFF 
requirements.
    In response to public comments, several changes were made to the 
final rule. A primary change is that the sections of the proposed rule 
that dealt with obtaining an exemption from the ARFF requirements have 
been clarified for the final rule. The final rule is more explicit in 
describing how to apply for an exemption. The FAA believes that the 
exemption provision will result in actual compliance costs that are 
substantially less than those estimated in the final regulatory 
evaluation. The agency was not able to quantify the reduction in 
compliance costs resulting from possible exemptions. However, it should 
be noted that all requirements of part 139 will be tailored to each 
airport through the ACM. In addition, the time period to accomplish 
some requirements, such as the preparation of the ACM, was extended, 
especially for the smaller airports.
    (3) A description of, and an estimate of the number of, small 
entities to which the rule will apply or an explanation of why no such 
estimate is available. The Small Business Administration (SBA) 
classifies all airports that are operated under the airport ownership 
of a public entity with a population of 50,000 or less as small 
entities. Using the SBA's definition of a ``small'' public entity, 
there are more than 200 small entity airports that will be affected by 
this rule. Most of the small entities are expected to be Class I 
airports (more than 100 are small entities), which are already 
certificated under part 139. The largest economic impact is expected to 
occur to the Class III airports (approximately 25 are small entities), 
which would be newly certificated under the final rule.
    (4) A description of the projected reporting, recordkeeping, and 
other compliance requirements of the rule, including an estimate of the 
classes of small entities that will be subject to the requirement and 
the type of professional skills necessary for preparation of the report 
or record. The final rule will create additional reporting or 
recordkeeping requirements beyond those already specified in existing 
part 139. For each airport, the preparation of this documentation may 
involve the airport manager, operations and maintenance personnel, and 
clerical staff. For each small entity, the FAA estimates the average 
initial hours required to set up a recordkeeping system will be 70 
hours and expects a continuing additional paperwork requirement of 
about 90 hours annually.
    (5) A description of the steps the agency has taken to minimize the 
significant economic impact on small entities consistent with the 
stated objectives of applicable statutes, including a statement of the 
factual, policy, and legal reasons for selecting the alternative 
adopted in the final rule, and why each one of the other significant 
alternatives to the rule considered by the agency that affect the 
impact on small entities was rejected. The FAA extensively considered 
several alternatives, described in the IRFA, and determined that the 
alternative chosen for the NPRM was the only alternative that was 
relatively affordable and achieved the safety objectives of the 
proposed rule. This initial alternative was subjected to public 
scrutiny during the comment period of the NPRM process. The comments 
received were responded to, as described above, and this final rule is 
the selected alternative.

Extended Discussion of the Rule Comments on Affordability and Safety

    The last major revision of part 139 occurred in November 1987. 
Since then, industry practices and technology have changed 
significantly. Subsequently, the FAA monitored the effectiveness of 
part 139 and has taken this opportunity to update part 139 
requirements.
    The FAA initiated this rulemaking to ensure safety in air 
transportation at airports serving small air carrier operations, fully 
appreciating the financial limitations of these airports. In 1996, 
Congress authorized the FAA to certificate airports serving small air 
carrier operations to ensure further safety at airports providing 
scheduled air service. This was the same year that all occupants died 
in a collision of a United Express Beech 1900C (under 30 seat air 
carrier aircraft) and a Beech King Air (a general aviation aircraft). 
The NTSB concluded that ``* * * if on-airport ARFF protection had been 
required for this operation at Quincy Regional Airport, lives might 
have been saved.''
    An industry/FAA evaluation of possible regulatory alternatives for 
the certification of airports serving small air carrier aircraft 
concluded that there exists a need to require at least some minimum 
level of both risk reduction and accident mitigation measures at 
airports during operations of smaller air carrier airplanes.

[[Page 6423]]

    The FAA recognizes the need to provide some flexibility in the 
implementation of certain safety measures at airports with infrequent 
air carrier service or where local resources are severely limited. 
Airports in smaller communities do not always have the resources to 
support their airports at the same level as large metropolitan areas 
without adversely affecting other community services and 
infrastructure.
    There are other mitigating factors. The FAA permits alternate means 
of compliance to accommodate local conditions and uses its statutory 
authority to grant exemptions from part 139 requirements, as 
appropriate. This statutory authority requires the FAA to ensure that 
an airport it certificates provides for the operation and maintenance 
of adequate safety equipment.
    There are several methods available to small-entity airports to 
mitigate the economic impact of this rule. One is that the Airport 
Improvement Program (AIP) funding (often supplemented by state grants) 
is available for certain capital expenditures that may be required by 
the rule such as firefighting equipment, airport marking and signs. 
Another avenue is the Essential Air Service (EAS) Program. For Class 
III airports that are owned by small communities, serve a limited 
number of passengers, and operate at a loss, it is likely that much of 
the final actual costs to the airport would be passed on to the air 
carriers. At airports where carriers receive EAS subsidies 
(approximately two-thirds of all Class III airports) the Federal 
Government will probably absorb most, if not all, of the cost of the 
rule through increased subsidies.
    By tailoring compliance to accommodate local conditions, and/or 
making use of the statutory exemption, the FAA will maintain the 
necessary oversight of ARFF, while ensuring that the ARFF requirements 
are appropriate for the airport size and type of air carrier 
operations. There will not be a blanket exemption for airports with 
infrequent or smaller air carrier operations, nor will the agency 
relieve an airport from the obligation to provide some level of ARFF 
coverage.

Summary

    After considering the alternatives for the certification of 
airports serving small air carrier operations and alternatives for 
updating part 139 (as specified in the IFRA), the FAA determined that 
this rule is necessary to ensure safety in air transportation. However, 
to accommodate variations in airport size and operation, the FAA may 
allow alternative means of compliance with part 139 requirements. This 
will allow the most cost effective and flexible method of ensuring 
safety to be employed at all covered airports while providing for the 
special needs of small entities.

International Trade Impact Assessment

    The Trade Agreement Act of 1979 prohibits Federal agencies from 
engaging in any standards or related activities that create unnecessary 
obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States. Legitimate 
domestic objectives, such as safety, are not considered unnecessary 
obstacles. The statute also requires consideration of international 
standards and, where appropriate, that they be the basis for U.S. 
standards.
    In accordance with the above statute, the FAA has assessed the 
potential effect of this final rule and has determined that it will 
have only a domestic impact and therefore create no obstacles to the 
foreign commerce of the United States.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1532-1538) is 
intended, among other things, to curb the practice of imposing unfunded 
Federal mandates on State, local, and tribal governments.
    Title II of the Act 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 the expenditure of 
$100 million or more (adjusted annually for inflation in any one year) 
by State, local, and tribal governments (in the aggregate) or by the 
private sector. Such a mandate is deemed to be a ``significant 
regulatory action.''
    This final rule does not contain such a mandate. Therefore, the 
requirements of Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 do 
not apply.

Executive Order 3132, Federalism

    The FAA has analyzed this final rule under the principles and 
criteria of Executive Order 13132, Federalism. Most airports subject to 
this rule are owned, operated, or regulated by a local governmental 
body (such as a city or county government), which is either 
incorporated by or part of a State. In a few cases, the airports are 
operated directly by the States. The FAA has determined that this rule 
would have minimal direct effect on the States and would not alter the 
relationship established by law between the airport certificate holders 
and the FAA. The FAA considers the annual costs of compliance with this 
rule low compared with the resources available to the airports. Before 
issuing the NPRM leading to this rule, the FAA consulted with 
representatives of the airports through its ARAC. The FAA also 
consulted with the States through various national associations of 
state and local governments. In consulting with state governments, the 
FAA provided the opportunity for them to comment on the NPRM leading to 
this rule.
    After due consideration of comments received, the FAA has 
determined that this action would not have a substantial direct effect 
on the States, on the relationship between the Federal Government and 
the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among 
the various levels of government. Therefore, the FAA has determined 
that this action does not have federalism implications.

Environmental Analysis

    FAA Order 1050.1D defines the FAA actions that may be categorically 
excluded from preparation of a National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) 
environmental impact statement. In accordance with FAA Order 1050.1D, 
appendix 4, paragraph 4(j), this rulemaking action qualifies for a 
categorical exclusion.

Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or 
Use

    The FAA has analyzed this NPRM under Executive Order 13211, Actions 
Concerning Regulations that Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 
Distribution, or Use (May 18, 2001). We have determined that it is not 
a ``significant energy action'' under the executive order because it is 
not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866, 
and it is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the 
supply, distribution, or use of energy.

List of Subjects

14 CFR Part 121

    Air carriers, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Charter flights, Safety, 
Transportation.

14 CFR Part 139

    Air carriers, Airports, Aviation safety, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements.

The Amendment

0
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration 
amends Chapter I of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations as follows:

[[Page 6424]]

PART 121--OPERATING REQUIREMENTS: DOMESTIC, FLAG, AND SUPPLEMENTAL 
OPERATIONS

0
1. The authority citation for part 121 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 40119, 41706, 44101, 44701-
44702, 44705, 44709-44711, 44713, 44716-44717, 44722, 44901, 44903-
44904, 44912, 46105.

0
2. Revise Sec. 121.590 to read as follows:


Sec. 121.590  Use of certificated land airports in the United States.

    (a) Except as provided in paragraphs (b) or (c) of this section, or 
unless authorized by the Administrator under 49 U.S.C. 44706(c), no air 
carrier and no pilot being used by an air carrier may operate, in the 
conduct of a domestic type operation, flag type operation, or 
supplemental type operation, an airplane at a land airport in any State 
of the United States, the District of Columbia, or any territory or 
possession of the United States unless that airport is certificated 
under part 139 of this chapter. Further, after June 9, 2005 for Class I 
airports and after December 9, 2005 for Class II, III, and IV airports, 
when an air carrier and a pilot being used by the air carrier are 
required to operate at an airport certificated under part 139 of this 
chapter, the air carrier and the pilot may only operate at that airport 
if the airport is classified under part 139 to serve the type airplane 
to be operated and the type of operation to be conducted.
    (b) An air carrier and a pilot being used by the air carrier in the 
conduct of a domestic type operation, flag type operation, or 
supplemental type operation may designate and use as a required 
alternate airport for departure or destination an airport that is not 
certificated under part 139 of this chapter.
    (c) An air carrier and a pilot used by the air carrier in 
conducting a domestic type operation, flag type operation, or 
supplemental type operation may operate an airplane at an airport 
operated by the U.S. Government that is not certificated under part 139 
of this chapter, only if that airport meets the equivalent--
    (1) Safety standards for airports certificated under part 139 of 
this chapter; and
    (2) Airport classification requirements under part 139 to serve the 
type airplane to be operated and the type of operation to be conducted.
    (d) An air carrier, a commercial operator, and a pilot being used 
by the air carrier or the commercial operator--when conducting a 
passenger-carrying airplane operation under this part that is not a 
domestic type operation, a flag type operation, or a supplemental type 
operation--may operate at a land airport not certificated under part 
139 of this chapter only when the following conditions are met:
    (1) The airport is adequate for the proposed operation, considering 
such items as size, surface, obstructions, and lighting.
    (2) For an airplane carrying passengers at night, the pilot may not 
take off from, or land at, an airport unless--
    (i) The pilot has determined the wind direction from an illuminated 
wind direction indicator or local ground communications or, in the case 
of takeoff, that pilot's personal observations; and
    (ii) The limits of the area to be used for landing or takeoff are 
clearly shown by boundary or runway marker lights. If the area to be 
used for takeoff or landing is marked by flare pots or lanterns, their 
use must be authorized by the Administrator.
    (e) A commercial operator and a pilot used by the commercial 
operator in conducting a domestic type operation, flag type operation, 
or supplemental type operation may operate an airplane at an airport 
operated by the U.S. Government that is not certificated under part 139 
of this chapter only if that airport meets the equivalent--
    (1) Safety standards for airports certificated under part 139 of 
this chapter; and
    (2) Airport classification requirements under part 139 of this 
chapter to serve the type airplane to be operated and the type of 
operation to be conducted.
    (f) For the purpose of this section, the terms--
    Domestic type operation means any domestic operation conducted 
with--
    (1) An airplane designed for at least 31 passenger seats (as 
determined by the aircraft type certificate issued by a competent civil 
aviation authority) at any land airport in any State of the United 
States, the District of Columbia, or any territory or possession of the 
United States; or
    (2) An airplane designed for more than 9 passenger seats but less 
than 31 passenger seats (as determined by the aircraft type certificate 
issued by a competent civil aviation authority) at any land airport in 
any State of the United States (except Alaska), the District of 
Columbia, or any territory or possession of the United States.
    Flag type operation means any flag operation conducted with--
    (1) An airplane designed for at least 31 passenger seats (as 
determined by the aircraft type certificate issued by a competent civil 
aviation authority) at any land airport in any State of the United 
States, the District of Columbia, or any territory or possession of the 
United States; or
    (2) An airplane designed for more than 9 passenger seats but less 
than 31 passenger seats (as determined by the aircraft type certificate 
issued by a competent civil aviation authority) at any land airport in 
any State of the United States (except Alaska), the District of 
Columbia, or any territory or possession of the United States.
    Supplemental type operation means any supplemental operation 
(except an all-cargo operation) conducted with an airplane designed for 
at least 31 passenger seats (as determined by the aircraft type 
certificate issued by a competent civil aviation authority) at any land 
airport in any State of the United States, the District of Columbia, or 
any territory or possession of the United States.
    United States means the States of the United States, the District 
of Columbia, and the territories and possessions of the United States.

    Note: Special Statutory Requirement to Operate to or From a Part 
139 Airport. Each air carrier that provides--in an aircraft (e.g., 
airplane, rotorcraft, etc.) designed for more than 9 passenger 
seats--regularly scheduled charter air transportation for which the 
public is provided in advance a schedule containing the departure 
location, departure time, and arrival location of the flight must 
operate to and from an airport certificated under part 139 of this 
chapter in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 41104(b). That statutory 
provision contains stand-alone requirements for such air carriers 
and special exceptions for operations in Alaska and outside the 
United States. Nothing in Sec. 121.590 exempts the air carriers 
described in this note from the requirements of 49 U.S.C. 41104(b). 
Certain operations by air carriers that conduct public charter 
operations under 14 CFR part 380 are covered by the statutory 
requirements to operate to and from part 139 airports. See 49 U.S.C. 
41104(b).


0
3. Revise part 139 to read as follows:

PART 139--CERTIFICATION OF AIRPORTS

Subpart A--General

Sec.
139.1 Applicability.
139.3 Delegation of authority.
139.5 Definitions.
139.7 Methods and procedures for compliance.
Subpart B--Certification
139.101 General requirements.
139.103 Application for certificate.
139.105 Inspection authority.
139.107 Issuance of certificate.
139.109 Duration of certificate.

[[Page 6425]]

139.111 Exemptions.
139.113 Deviations.
Subpart C--Airport Certification Manual
139.201 General requirements.
139.203 Contents of Airport Certification Manual.
139.205 Amendment of Airport Certification Manual.
Subpart D--Operations
139.301 Records.
139.303 Personnel.
139.305 Paved areas.
139.307 Unpaved areas.
139.309 Safety areas.
139.311 Marking, signs, and lighting.
139.313 Snow and ice control.
139.315 Aircraft rescue and firefighting: Index determination.
139.317 Aircraft rescue and firefighting: Equipment and agents.
139.319 Aircraft rescue and firefighting: Operational requirements.
139.321 Handling and storing of hazardous substances and materials.
139.323 Traffic and wind direction indicators.
139.325 Airport emergency plan.
139.327 Self-inspection program.
139.329 Pedestrians and Ground Vehicles.
139.331 Obstructions.
139.333 Protection of NAVAIDS.
139.335 Public protection.
139.337 Wildlife hazard management.
139.339 Airport condition reporting.
139.341 Identifying, marking, and lighting construction and other 
unserviceable areas.
139.343 Noncomplying conditions.

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701-44706, 44709, 44719

Subpart A--General


Sec. 139.1  Applicability.

    (a) This part prescribes rules governing the certification and 
operation of airports in any State of the United States, the District 
of Columbia, or any territory or possession of the United States 
serving any--
    (1) Scheduled passenger-carrying operations of an air carrier 
operating aircraft designed for more than 9 passenger seats, as 
determined by the aircraft type certificate issued by a competent civil 
aviation authority; and
    (2) Unscheduled passenger-carrying operations of an air carrier 
operating aircraft designed for at least 31 passenger seats, as 
determined by the aircraft type certificate issued by a competent civil 
aviation authority.
    (b) This part applies to those portions of a joint-use or shared-
use airport that are within the authority of a person serving 
passenger-carrying operations defined in paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2) 
of this section.
    (c) This part does not apply to--
    (1) Airports serving scheduled air carrier operations only by 
reason of being designated as an alternate airport;
    (2) Airports operated by the United States;
    (3) Airports located in the State of Alaska that only serve 
scheduled operations of small air carrier aircraft and do not serve 
scheduled or unscheduled operations of large air carrier aircraft;
    (4) Airports located in the State of Alaska during periods of time 
when not serving operations of large air carrier aircraft; or
    (5) Heliports.


Sec. 139.3  Delegation of authority.

    The authority of the Administrator to issue, deny, and revoke 
Airport Operating Certificates is delegated to the Associate 
Administrator for Airports, Director of Airport Safety and Standards, 
and Regional Airports Division Managers.


Sec. 139.5  Definitions.

    The following are definitions of terms used in this part:
    AFFF means aqueous film forming foam agent.
    Air carrier aircraft means an aircraft that is being operated by an 
air carrier and is categorized as either a large air carrier aircraft 
if designed for at least 31 passenger seats or a small air carrier 
aircraft if designed for more than 9 passenger seats but less than 31 
passenger seats, as determined by the aircraft type certificate issued 
by a competent civil aviation authority.
    Air carrier operation means the takeoff or landing of an air 
carrier aircraft and includes the period of time from 15 minutes before 
until 15 minutes after the takeoff or landing.
    Airport means an area of land or other hard surface, excluding 
water, that is used or intended to be used for the landing and takeoff 
of aircraft, including any buildings and facilities.
    Airport Operating Certificate means a certificate, issued under 
this part, for operation of a Class I, II, III, or IV airport.
    Average daily departures means the average number of scheduled 
departures per day of air carrier aircraft computed on the basis of the 
busiest 3 consecutive calendar months of the immediately preceding 12 
consecutive calendar months. However, if the average daily departures 
are expected to increase, then ``average daily departures'' may be 
determined by planned rather than current activity, in a manner 
authorized by the Administrator.
    Certificate holder means the holder of an Airport Operating 
Certificate issued under this part.
    Class I airport means an airport certificated to serve scheduled 
operations of large air carrier aircraft that can also serve 
unscheduled passenger operations of large air carrier aircraft and/or 
scheduled operations of small air carrier aircraft.
    Class II airport means an airport certificated to serve scheduled 
operations of small air carrier aircraft and the unscheduled passenger 
operations of large air carrier aircraft. A Class II airport cannot 
serve scheduled large air carrier aircraft.
    Class III airport means an airport certificated to serve scheduled 
operations of small air carrier aircraft. A Class III airport cannot 
serve scheduled or unscheduled large air carrier aircraft.
    Class IV airport means an airport certificated to serve unscheduled 
passenger operations of large air carrier aircraft. A Class IV airport 
cannot serve scheduled large or small air carrier aircraft.
    Clean agent means an electrically nonconducting volatile or gaseous 
fire extinguishing agent that does not leave a residue upon evaporation 
and has been shown to provide extinguishing action equivalent to halon 
1211 under test protocols of FAA Technical Report DOT/FAA/AR-95/87.
    Heliport means an airport, or an area of an airport, used or 
intended to be used for the landing and takeoff of helicopters.
    Index means the type of aircraft rescue and firefighting equipment 
and quantity of fire extinguishing agent that the certificate holder 
must provide in accordance with Sec. 139.315.
    Joint-use airport means an airport owned by the United States that 
leases a portion of the airport to a person operating an airport 
specified under Sec. 139.1(a).
    Movement area means the runways, taxiways, and other areas of an 
airport that are used for taxiing, takeoff, and landing of aircraft, 
exclusive of loading ramps and aircraft parking areas.
    Regional Airports Division Manager means the airports division 
manager for the FAA region in which the airport is located.
    Safety area means a defined area comprised of either a runway or 
taxiway and the surrounding surfaces that is prepared or suitable for 
reducing the risk of damage to aircraft in the event of an undershoot, 
overshoot, or excursion from a runway or the unintentional departure 
from a taxiway.
    Scheduled operation means any common carriage passenger-carrying 
operation for compensation or hire conducted by an air carrier for 
which the air carrier or its representatives offers in advance the 
departure location, departure time, and arrival location. It

[[Page 6426]]

does not include any operation that is conducted as a supplemental 
operation under 14 CFR part 121 or public charter operations under 14 
CFR part 380.
    Shared-use airport means a U.S. Government-owned airport that is 
co-located with an airport specified under Sec. 139.1(a) and at which 
portions of the movement areas and safety areas are shared by both 
parties.
    Unscheduled operation means any common carriage passenger-carrying 
operation for compensation or hire, using aircraft designed for at 
least 31 passenger seats, conducted by an air carrier for which the 
departure time, departure location, and arrival location are 
specifically negotiated with the customer or the customer's 
representative. It includes any passenger-carrying supplemental 
operation conducted under 14 CFR part 121 and any passenger-carrying 
public charter operation conducted under 14 CFR part 380.
    Wildlife hazard means a potential for a damaging aircraft collision 
with wildlife on or near an airport. As used in this part, ``wildlife'' 
includes feral animals and domestic animals out of the control of their 
owners.

    Note: Special Statutory Requirement To Operate to or From a Part 
139 Airport. Each air carrier that provides--in an aircraft designed 
for more than 9 passenger seats--regularly scheduled charter air 
transportation for which the public is provided in advance a 
schedule containing the departure location, departure time, and 
arrival location of the flight must operate to and from an airport 
certificated under part 139 of this chapter in accordance with 49 
U.S.C. 41104(b). That statutory provision contains stand-alone 
requirements for such air carriers and special exceptions for 
operations in Alaska and outside the United States. Certain 
operations by air carriers that conduct public charter operations 
under 14 CFR part 380 are covered by the statutory requirements to 
operate to and from part 139 airports. See 49 U.S.C. 41104(b).

Sec. 139.7  Methods and procedures for compliance.

    Certificate holders shall comply with requirements prescribed by 
subparts C and D of this part in a manner authorized by the 
Administrator. FAA Advisory Circulars contain methods and procedures 
for compliance with this part that are acceptable to the Administrator.

Subpart B--Certification


Sec. 139.101  General requirements.

    (a) Except as otherwise authorized by the Administrator, no person 
may operate an airport specified under Sec. 139.1 of this part without 
an Airport Operating Certificate or in violation of that certificate, 
the applicable provisions, or the approved Airport Certification 
Manual.
    (b) Each certificate holder shall adopt and comply with an Airport 
Certification Manual as required under Sec. 139.203.
    (c) Persons required to have an Airport Operating Certificate under 
this part shall submit their Airport Certification Manual to the FAA 
for approval, in accordance with the following schedule:
    (1) Class I airports--6 months after June 9, 2004.
    (2) Class II, III, and IV airports--12 months after June 9, 2004.


Sec. 139.103  Application for certificate.

    Each applicant for an Airport Operating Certificate shall--
    (a) Prepare and submit an application, in a form and in the manner 
prescribed by the Administrator, to the Regional Airports Division 
Manager.
    (b) Submit with the application, two copies of an Airport 
Certification Manual prepared in accordance with subpart C of this 
part.


Sec. 139.105  Inspection authority.

    Each applicant for, or holder of, an Airport Operating Certificate 
shall allow the Administrator to make any inspections, including 
unannounced inspections, or tests to determine compliance with 49 
U.S.C. 44706 and the requirements of this part.


Sec. 139.107  Issuance of certificate.

    An applicant for an Airport Operating Certificate is entitled to a 
certificate if--
    (a) The applicant provides written documentation that air carrier 
service will begin on a date certain.
    (b) The applicant meets the provisions of Sec. 139.103.
    (c) The Administrator, after investigation, finds the applicant is 
properly and adequately equipped and able to provide a safe airport 
operating environment in accordance with--
    (1) Any limitation that the Administrator finds necessary to ensure 
safety in air transportation.
    (2) The requirements of the Airport Certification Manual, as 
specified under Sec. 139.203.
    (3) Any other provisions of this part that the Administrator finds 
necessary to ensure safety in air transportation.
    (d) The Administrator approves the Airport Certification Manual.


Sec. 139.109  Duration of certificate.

    An Airport Operating Certificate issued under this part is 
effective until the certificate holder surrenders it or the certificate 
is suspended or revoked by the Administrator.


Sec. 139.111  Exemptions.

    (a) An applicant or a certificate holder may petition the 
Administrator under 14 CFR part 11, General Rulemaking Procedures, of 
this chapter for an exemption from any requirement of this part.
    (b) Under 49 U.S.C. 44706(c), the Administrator may exempt an 
applicant or a certificate holder that enplanes annually less than one-
quarter of 1 percent of the total number of passengers enplaned at all 
air carrier airports from all, or part, of the aircraft rescue and 
firefighting equipment requirements of this part on the grounds that 
compliance with those requirements is, or would be, unreasonably 
costly, burdensome, or impractical.
    (1) Each petition filed under this paragraph must--
    (i) Be submitted in writing at least 120 days before the proposed 
effective date of the exemption;
    (ii) Set forth the text of Sec.Sec. 139.317 or 139.319 from which 
the exemption is sought;
    (iii) Explain the interest of the certificate holder in the action 
requested, including the nature and extent of relief sought; and
    (iv) Contain information, views, or arguments that demonstrate that 
the requirements of Sec.Sec. 139.317 or 139.319 would be unreasonably 
costly, burdensome, or impractical.
    (2) Information, views, or arguments provided under paragraph 
(b)(1) of this section shall include the following information 
pertaining to the airport for which the Airport Operating Certificate 
is held:
    (i) An itemized cost to comply with the requirement from which the 
exemption is sought;
    (ii) Current staffing levels;
    (iii) The current annual financial report, such as a single audit 
report or FAA Form 5100-127, Operating and Financial Summary;
    (iv) Annual passenger enplanement data for the previous 12 calendar 
months;
    (v) The type and frequency of air carrier operations served;
    (vi) A history of air carrier service;
    (vii) Anticipated changes to air carrier service;
    (c) Each petition filed under this section must be submitted in 
duplicate to the--
    (1) Regional Airports Division Manager and
    (2) U.S. Department of Transportation's Docket Management System, 
as specified under 14 CFR part 11.

[[Page 6427]]

Sec. 139.113  Deviations.

    In emergency conditions requiring immediate action for the 
protection of life or property, the certificate holder may deviate from 
any requirement of subpart D of this part, or the Airport Certification 
Manual, to the extent required to meet that emergency. Each certificate 
holder who deviates from a requirement under this section shall, within 
14 days after the emergency, notify the Regional Airports Division 
Manager of the nature, extent, and duration of the deviation. When 
requested by the Regional Airports Division Manager, the certificate 
holder shall provide this notification in writing.

Subpart C--Airport Certification Manual


Sec. 139.201  General requirements.

    (a) No person may operate an airport subject to this part unless 
that person adopts and complies with an Airport Certification Manual, 
as required under this part, that--
    (1) Has been approved by the Administrator;
    (2) Contains only those items authorized by the Administrator;
    (3) Is in printed form and signed by the certificate holder 
acknowledging the certificate holder's responsibility to operate the 
airport in compliance with the Airport Certification Manual approved by 
the Administrator; and
    (4) Is in a form that is easy to revise and organized in a manner 
helpful to the preparation, review, and approval processes, including a 
revision log. In addition, each page or attachment must include the 
date of the Administrator's initial approval or approval of the latest 
revision.
    (b) Each holder of an Airport Operating Certificate shall--
    (1) Keep its Airport Certification Manual current at all times;
    (2) Maintain at least one complete and current copy of its approved 
Airport Certification Manual on the airport, which will be available 
for inspection by the Administrator; and
    (3) Furnish the applicable portions of the approved Airport 
Certification Manual to airport personnel responsible for its 
implementation.
    (c) Each certificate holder shall ensure that the Regional Airports 
Division Manager is provided a complete copy of its most current 
approved Airport Certification Manual, as specified under paragraph 
(b)(2) of this section, including any amendments approved under Sec. 
139.205.
    (d) FAA Advisory Circulars contain methods and procedures for the 
development of Airport Certification Manuals that are acceptable to the 
Administrator.


Sec. 139.203  Contents of Airport Certification Manual.

    (a) Except as otherwise authorized by the Administrator, each 
certificate holder shall include in the Airport Certification Manual a 
description of operating procedures, facilities and equipment, 
responsibility assignments, and any other information needed by 
personnel concerned with operating the airport in order to comply with 
applicable provisions of subpart D of this part and paragraph (b) of 
this section.
    (b) Except as otherwise authorized by the Administrator, the 
certificate holder shall include in the Airport Certification Manual 
the following elements, as appropriate for its class:

                                 Required Airport Certification Manual Elements
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Airport certificate class
               Manual elements               -------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Class I          Class II        Class III         Class IV
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Lines of succession of airport                          X                X                X                X
 operational responsibility.................
2. Each current exemption issued to the                    X                X                X                X
 airport from the requirements of this part.
3. Any limitations imposed by the                          X                X                X                X
 Administrator..............................
4. A grid map or other means of identifying                X                X                X                X
 locations and terrain features on and
 around the airport that are significant to
 emergency operations.......................
5. The location of each obstruction required               X                X                X                X
 to be lighted or marked within the
 airport's area of authority................
6. A description of each movement area                     X                X                X                X
 available for air carriers and its safety
 areas, and each road described in Sec.
 139.319(k) that serves it..................
7. Procedures for avoidance of interruption                X                X                X
 or failure during construction work of
 utilities serving facilities or NAVAIDS
 that support air carrier operations........
8. A description of the system for                         X                X                X                X
 maintaining records, as required under Sec.
 139.301....................................
9. A description of personnel training, as                 X                X                X                X
 required under Sec. 139.303................
10. Procedures for maintaining the paved                   X                X                X                X
 areas, as required under Sec. 139.305......
11. Procedures for maintaining the unpaved                 X                X                X                X
 areas, as required under Sec. 139.307......
12. Procedures for maintaining the safety                  X                X                X                X
 areas, as required under Sec. 139.309......
13. A plan showing the runway and taxiway                  X                X                X                X
 identification system, including the
 location and inscription of signs, runway
 markings, and holding position markings, as
 required under Sec. 139.311................
14. A description of, and procedures for                   X                X                X                X
 maintaining, the marking, signs, and
 lighting systems, as required under Sec.
 139.311....................................
15. A snow and ice control plan, as required               X                X                X
 under Sec. 139.313.........................
16. A description of the facilities,                       X                X                X                X
 equipment, personnel, and procedures for
 meeting the aircraft rescue and
 firefighting requirements, in accordance
 with Sec.Sec. 139.315, 139.317 and 139.319.
17. A description of any approved exemption                X                X                X                X
 to aircraft rescue and firefighting
 requirements, as authorized under Sec.
 139.111....................................

[[Page 6428]]

 
18. Procedures for protecting persons and                  X                X                X                X
 property during the storing, dispensing,
 and handling of fuel and other hazardous
 substances and materials, as required under
 Sec. 139.321...............................
19. A description of, and procedures for                   X                X                X                X
 maintaining, the traffic and wind direction
 indicators, as required under Sec. 139.323.
20. An emergency plan as required under Sec.               X                X                X                X
 139.325....................................
21. Procedures for conducting the self-                    X                X                X                X
 inspection program, as required under Sec.
 139.327....................................
22. Procedures for controlling pedestrians                 X                X                X
 and ground vehicles in movement areas and
 safety areas, as required under Sec.
 139.329....................................
23. Procedures for obstruction removal,                    X                X                X
 marking, or lighting, as required under
 Sec. 139.331...............................
24. Procedures for protection of NAVAIDS, as               X                X                X
 required under Sec. 139.333................
25. A description of public protection, as                 X                X                X
 required under Sec. 139.335................
26. Procedures for wildlife hazard                         X                X                X
 management, as required under Sec. 139.337.
27. Procedures for airport condition                       X                X                X                X
 reporting, as required under Sec. 139.339..
28. Procedures for identifying, marking, and               X                X                X
 lighting construction and other
 unserviceable areas, as required under Sec.
 139.341....................................
29. Any other item that the Administrator                  X                X                X                X
 finds is necessary to ensure safety in air
 transportation.............................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 139.205  Amendment of Airport Certification Manual.

    (a) Under Sec. 139.3, the Regional Airports Division Manager may 
amend any Airport Certification Manual approved under this part, 
either--
    (1) Upon application by the certificate holder or
    (2) On the Regional Airports Division Manager's own initiative, if 
the Regional Airports Division Manager determines that safety in air 
transportation requires the amendment.
    (b) A certificate holder shall submit in writing a proposed 
amendment to its Airport Certification Manual to the Regional Airports 
Division Manager at least 30 days before the proposed effective date of 
the amendment, unless a shorter filing period is allowed by the 
Regional Airports Division Manager.
    (c) At any time within 30 days after receiving a notice of refusal 
to approve the application for amendment, the certificate holder may 
petition the Associate Administrator for Airports to reconsider the 
refusal to amend.
    (d) In the case of amendments initiated by the FAA, the Regional 
Airports Division Manager notifies the certificate holder of the 
proposed amendment, in writing, fixing a reasonable period (but not 
less than 7 days) within which the certificate holder may submit 
written information, views, and arguments on the amendment. After 
considering all relevant material presented, the Regional Airports 
Division Manager notifies the certificate holder within 30 days of any 
amendment adopted or rescinds the notice. The amendment becomes 
effective not less than 30 days after the certificate holder receives 
notice of it, except that, prior to the effective date, the certificate 
holder may petition the Associate Administrator for Airports to 
reconsider the amendment, in which case its effective date is stayed 
pending a decision by the Associate Administrator for Airports.
    (e) Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (d) of this 
section, if the Regional Airports Division Manager finds there is an 
emergency requiring immediate action with respect to safety in air 
transportation, the Regional Airports Division Manager may issue an 
amendment, effective without stay on the date the certificate holder 
receives notice of it. In such a case, the Regional Airports Division 
Manager incorporates the finding of the emergency and a brief statement 
of the reasons for the finding in the notice of the amendment. Within 
30 days after the issuance of such an emergency amendment, the 
certificate holder may petition the Associate Administrator for 
Airports to reconsider either the finding of an emergency, the 
amendment itself, or both. This petition does not automatically stay 
the effectiveness of the emergency amendment.

Subpart D--Operations


Sec. 139.301  Records.

    In a manner authorized by the Administrator, each certificate 
holder shall--
    (a) Furnish upon request by the Administrator all records required 
to be maintained under this part.
    (b) Maintain records required under this part as follows:
    (1) Personnel training. Twenty-four consecutive calendar months for 
personnel training records, as required under Sec.Sec. 139.303 and 
139.327.
    (2) Emergency personnel training. Twenty-four consecutive calendar 
months for aircraft rescue and firefighting and emergency medical 
service personnel training records, as required under Sec. 139.319.
    (3) Airport fueling agent inspection. Twelve consecutive calendar 
months for records of inspection of airport fueling agents, as required 
under Sec. 139.321.
    (4) Fueling personnel training. Twelve consecutive calendar months 
for training records of fueling personnel, as required under Sec. 
139.321.
    (5) Self-inspection. Twelve consecutive calendar months for self-
inspection records, as required under Sec. 139.327.
    (6) Movement areas and safety areas training. Twenty-four 
consecutive calendar months for records of training given to 
pedestrians and ground vehicle operators with access to movement areas 
and safety areas, as required under Sec. 139.329.
    (7) Accident and incident. Twelve consecutive calendar months for 
each accident or incident in movement areas and safety areas involving 
an air carrier aircraft and/or ground vehicle, as required under Sec. 
139.329.
    (8) Airport condition. Twelve consecutive calendar months for 
records of airport condition information dissemination, as required 
under Sec. 139.339.

[[Page 6429]]

    (c) Make and maintain any additional records required by the 
Administrator, this part, and the Airport Certification Manual.


Sec. 139.303  Personnel.

    In a manner authorized by the Administrator, each certificate 
holder shall--
    (a) Provide sufficient and qualified personnel to comply with the 
requirements of its Airport Certification Manual and the requirements 
of this part.
    (b) Equip personnel with sufficient resources needed to comply with 
the requirements of this part.
    (c) Train all personnel who access movement areas and safety areas 
and perform duties in compliance with the requirements of the Airport 
Certification Manual and the requirements of this part. This training 
shall be completed prior to the initial performance of such duties and 
at least once every 12 consecutive calendar months. The curriculum for 
initial and recurrent training shall include at least the following 
areas:
    (1) Airport familiarization, including airport marking, lighting, 
and signs system.
    (2) Procedures for access to, and operation in, movement areas and 
safety areas, as specified under Sec. 139.329.
    (3) Airport communications, including radio communication between 
the air traffic control tower and personnel, use of the common traffic 
advisory frequency if there is no air traffic control tower or the 
tower is not in operation, and procedures for reporting unsafe airport 
conditions.
    (4) Duties required under the Airport Certification Manual and the 
requirements of this part.
    (5) Any additional subject areas required under Sec.Sec. 139.319, 
139.321, 139.327, 139.329, 139.337, and 139.339, as appropriate.
    (d) Make a record of all training completed after June 9, 2004 by 
each individual in compliance with this section that includes, at a 
minimum, a description and date of training received. Such records 
shall be maintained for 24 consecutive calendar months after completion 
of training.
    (e) As appropriate, comply with the following training requirements 
of this part:
    (i) Sec. 139.319, Aircraft rescue and firefighting: Operational 
requirements;
    (ii) Sec. 139.321, Handling and storage of hazardous substances and 
materials;
    (iii) Sec. 139.327, Self-inspection program;
    (iv) Sec. 139.329, Pedestrians and Ground Vehicles;
    (v) Sec. 139.337, Wildlife hazard management; and
    (vi) Sec. 139.339, Airport condition reporting.
    (f) Use an independent organization, or designee, to comply with 
the requirements of its Airport Certification Manual and the 
requirements of this part only if--
    (1) Such an arrangement is authorized by the Administrator;
    (2) A description of responsibilities and duties that will be 
assumed by an independent organization or designee is specified in the 
Airport Certification Manual; and
    (3) The independent organization or designee prepares records 
required under this part in sufficient detail to assure the certificate 
holder and the Administrator of adequate compliance with the Airport 
Certification Manual and the requirements of this part.


Sec. 139.305  Paved areas.

    (a) In a manner authorized by the Administrator, each certificate 
holder shall maintain, and promptly repair the pavement of, each 
runway, taxiway, loading ramp, and parking area on the airport that is 
available for air carrier use as follows:
    (1) The pavement edges shall not exceed 3 inches difference in 
elevation between abutting pavement sections and between pavement and 
abutting areas.
    (2) The pavement shall have no hole exceeding 3 inches in depth nor 
any hole the slope of which from any point in the hole to the nearest 
point at the lip of the hole is 45 degrees or greater, as measured from 
the pavement surface plane, unless, in either case, the entire area of 
the hole can be covered by a 5-inch diameter circle.
    (3) The pavement shall be free of cracks and surface variations 
that could impair directional control of air carrier aircraft. Any 
pavement crack or surface deterioration that produces loose aggregate 
or other contaminants shall be immediately repaired.
    (4) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, mud, dirt, 
sand, loose aggregate, debris, foreign objects, rubber deposits, and 
other contaminants shall be removed promptly and as completely as 
practicable.
    (5) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, any 
chemical solvent that is used to clean any pavement area shall be 
removed as soon as possible, consistent with the instructions of the 
manufacturer of the solvent.
    (6) The pavement shall be sufficiently drained and free of 
depressions to prevent ponding that obscures markings or impairs safe 
aircraft operations.
    (b) Paragraphs (a)(4) and (a)(5) of this section do not apply to 
snow and ice accumulations and their control, including the associated 
use of materials, such as sand and deicing solutions.
    (c) FAA Advisory Circulars contain methods and procedures for the 
maintenance and configuration of paved areas that are acceptable to the 
Administrator.


Sec. 139.307  Unpaved areas.

    (a) In a manner authorized by the Administrator, each certificate 
holder shall maintain and promptly repair the surface of each gravel, 
turf, or other unpaved runway, taxiway, or loading ramp and parking 
area on the airport that is available for air carrier use as follows:
    (1) No slope from the edge of the full-strength surfaces downward 
to the existing terrain shall be steeper than 2:1.
    (2) The full-strength surfaces shall have adequate crown or grade 
to assure sufficient drainage to prevent ponding.
    (3) The full-strength surfaces shall be adequately compacted and 
sufficiently stable to prevent rutting by aircraft or the loosening or 
build-up of surface material, which could impair directional control of 
aircraft or drainage.
    (4) The full-strength surfaces must have no holes or depressions 
that exceed 3 inches in depth and are of a breadth capable of impairing 
directional control or causing damage to an aircraft.
    (5) Debris and foreign objects shall be promptly removed from the 
surface.
    (b) FAA Advisory Circulars contain methods and procedures for the 
maintenance and configuration of unpaved areas that are acceptable to 
the Administrator.


Sec. 139.309  Safety areas.

    (a) In a manner authorized by the Administrator, each certificate 
holder shall provide and maintain, for each runway and taxiway that is 
available for air carrier use, a safety area of at least the dimensions 
that--
    (1) Existed on December 31, 1987, if the runway or taxiway had a 
safety area on December 31, 1987, and if no reconstruction or 
significant expansion of the runway or taxiway was begun on or after 
January 1, 1988; or
    (2) Are authorized by the Administrator at the time the 
construction, reconstruction, or expansion began if construction, 
reconstruction, or significant expansion of the runway or taxiway began 
on or after January 1, 1988.
    (b) Each certificate holder shall maintain its safety areas as 
follows:
    (1) Each safety area shall be cleared and graded and have no 
potentially

[[Page 6430]]

hazardous ruts, humps, depressions, or other surface variations.
    (2) Each safety area shall be drained by grading or storm sewers to 
prevent water accumulation.
    (3) Each safety area shall be capable under dry conditions of 
supporting snow removal and aircraft rescue and firefighting equipment 
and of supporting the occasional passage of aircraft without causing 
major damage to the aircraft.
    (4) No objects may be located in any safety area, except for 
objects that need to be located in a safety area because of their 
function. These objects shall be constructed, to the extent practical, 
on frangibly mounted structures of the lowest practical height, with 
the frangible point no higher than 3 inches above grade.
    (c) FAA Advisory Circulars contain methods and procedures for the 
configuration and maintenance of safety areas acceptable to the 
Administrator.


Sec. 139.311  Marking, signs, and lighting.

    (a) Marking. Each certificate holder shall provide and maintain 
marking systems for air carrier operations on the airport that are 
authorized by the Administrator and consist of at least the following:
    (1) Runway markings meeting the specifications for takeoff and 
landing minimums for each runway.
    (2) A taxiway centerline.
    (3) Taxiway edge markings, as appropriate.
    (4) Holding position markings.
    (5) Instrument landing system (ILS) critical area markings.
    (b) Signs. (1) Each certificate holder shall provide and maintain 
sign systems for air carrier operations on the airport that are 
authorized by the Administrator and consist of at least the following:
    (i) Signs identifying taxiing routes on the movement area.
    (ii) Holding position signs.
    (iii) Instrument landing system (ILS) critical area signs.
    (2) Unless otherwise authorized by the Administrator, the signs 
required by paragraph (b)(1) of this section shall be internally 
illuminated at each Class I, II, and IV airport.
    (3) Unless otherwise authorized by the Administrator, the signs 
required by paragraphs (b)(1)(ii) and (b)(1)(iii) of this section shall 
be internally illuminated at each Class III airport.
    (c) Lighting. Each certificate holder shall provide and maintain 
lighting systems for air carrier operations when the airport is open at 
night, during conditions below visual flight rules (VFR) minimums, or 
in Alaska, during periods in which a prominent unlighted object cannot 
be seen from a distance of 3 statute miles or the sun is more than six 
degrees below the horizon. These lighting systems shall be authorized 
by the Administrator and consist of at least the following:
    (1) Runway lighting that meets the specifications for takeoff and 
landing minimums, as authorized by the Administrator, for each runway.
    (2) One of the following taxiway lighting systems:
    (i) Centerline lights.
    (ii) Centerline reflectors.
    (iii) Edge lights.
    (iv) Edge reflectors.
    (3) An airport beacon.
    (4) Approach lighting that meets the specifications for takeoff and 
landing minimums, as authorized by the Administrator, for each runway, 
unless provided and/or maintained by an entity other than the 
certificate holder.
    (5) Obstruction marking and lighting, as appropriate, on each 
object within its authority that has been determined by the FAA to be 
an obstruction.
    (d) Maintenance. Each certificate holder shall properly maintain 
each marking, sign, or lighting system installed and operated on the 
airport. As used in this section, to ``properly maintain'' includes 
cleaning, replacing, or repairing any faded, missing, or nonfunctional 
item; keeping each item unobscured and clearly visible; and ensuring 
that each item provides an accurate reference to the user.
    (e) Lighting interference. Each certificate holder shall ensure 
that all lighting on the airport, including that for aprons, vehicle 
parking areas, roadways, fuel storage areas, and buildings, is 
adequately adjusted or shielded to prevent interference with air 
traffic control and aircraft operations.
    (f) Standards. FAA Advisory Circulars contain methods and 
procedures for the equipment, material, installation, and maintenance 
of marking, sign, and lighting systems listed in this section that are 
acceptable to the Administrator.
    (g) Implementation. The sign systems required under paragraph 
(b)(3) of this section shall be implemented by each holder of a Class 
III Airport Operating Certificate not later than 36 consecutive 
calendar months after June 9, 2004.


Sec. 139.313  Snow and ice control.

    (a) As determined by the Administrator, each certificate holder 
whose airport is located where snow and icing conditions occur shall 
prepare, maintain, and carry out a snow and ice control plan in a 
manner authorized by the Administrator.
    (b) The snow and ice control plan required by this section shall 
include, at a minimum, instructions and procedures for--
    (1) Prompt removal or control, as completely as practical, of snow, 
ice, and slush on each movement area;
    (2) Positioning snow off the movement area surfaces so all air 
carrier aircraft propellers, engine pods, rotors, and wing tips will 
clear any snowdrift and snowbank as the aircraft's landing gear 
traverses any portion of the movement area;
    (3) Selection and application of authorized materials for snow and 
ice control to ensure that they adhere to snow and ice sufficiently to 
minimize engine ingestion;
    (4) Timely commencement of snow and ice control operations; and
    (5) Prompt notification, in accordance with Sec. 139.339, of all 
air carriers using the airport when any portion of the movement area 
normally available to them is less than satisfactorily cleared for safe 
operation by their aircraft.
    (c) FAA Advisory Circulars contain methods and procedures for snow 
and ice control equipment, materials, and removal that are acceptable 
to the Administrator.


Sec. 139.315  Aircraft rescue and firefighting: Index determination.

    (a) An index is required by paragraph (c) of this section for each 
certificate holder. The Index is determined by a combination of--
    (1) The length of air carrier aircraft and
    (2) Average daily departures of air carrier aircraft.
    (b) For the purpose of Index determination, air carrier aircraft 
lengths are grouped as follows:
    (1) Index A includes aircraft less than 90 feet in length.
    (2) Index B includes aircraft at least 90 feet but less than 126 
feet in length.
    (3) Index C includes aircraft at least 126 feet but less than 159 
feet in length.
    (4) Index D includes aircraft at least 159 feet but less than 200 
feet in length.
    (5) Index E includes aircraft at least 200 feet in length.
    (c) Except as provided in Sec. 139.319(c), if there are five or 
more average daily departures of air carrier aircraft in a single Index 
group serving that airport, the longest aircraft with an average of 
five or more daily departures determines the Index required for the 
airport. When there are fewer than five average daily departures of the 
longest air carrier aircraft serving the airport, the Index required 
for the airport will be the next lower Index group than the Index group 
prescribed for the longest aircraft.
    (d) The minimum designated index shall be Index A.

[[Page 6431]]

    (e) A holder of a Class III Airport Operating Certificate may 
comply with this section by providing a level of safety comparable to 
Index A that is approved by the Administrator. Such alternate 
compliance must be described in the ACM and must include:
    (i) Pre-arranged firefighting and emergency medical response 
procedures, including agreements with responding services.
    (ii) Means for alerting firefighting and emergency medical response 
personnel.
    (iii) Type of rescue and firefighting equipment to be provided.
    (iv) Training of responding firefighting and emergency medical 
personnel on airport familiarization and communications.


Sec. 139.317  Aircraft rescue and firefighting: Equipment and agents.

    Unless otherwise authorized by the Administrator, the following 
rescue and firefighting equipment and agents are the minimum required 
for the Indexes referred to in Sec. 139.315:
    (a) Index A. One vehicle carrying at least--
    (1) 500 pounds of sodium-based dry chemical, halon 1211, or clean 
agent; or
    (2) 450 pounds of potassium-based dry chemical and water with a 
commensurate quantity of AFFF to total 100 gallons for simultaneous dry 
chemical and AFFF application.
    (b) Index B. Either of the following:
    (1) One vehicle carrying at least 500 pounds of sodium-based dry 
chemical, halon 1211, or clean agent and 1,500 gallons of water and the 
commensurate quantity of AFFF for foam production.
    (2) Two vehicles--
    (i) One vehicle carrying the extinguishing agents as specified in 
paragraphs (a)(1) or (a)(2) of this section; and
    (ii) One vehicle carrying an amount of water and the commensurate 
quantity of AFFF so the total quantity of water for foam production 
carried by both vehicles is at least 1,500 gallons.
    (c) Index C. Either of the following:
    (1) Three vehicles--
    (i) One vehicle carrying the extinguishing agents as specified in 
paragraph (a)(1) or (a)(2) of this section; and
    (ii) Two vehicles carrying an amount of water and the commensurate 
quantity of AFFF so the total quantity of water for foam production 
carried by all three vehicles is at least 3,000 gallons.
    (2) Two vehicles--
    (i) One vehicle carrying the extinguishing agents as specified in 
paragraph (b)(1) of this section; and
    (ii) One vehicle carrying water and the commensurate quantity of 
AFFF so the total quantity of water for foam production carried by both 
vehicles is at least 3,000 gallons.
    (d) Index D. Three vehicles--
    (1) One vehicle carrying the extinguishing agents as specified in 
paragraphs (a)(1) or (a)(2) of this section; and
    (2) Two vehicles carrying an amount of water and the commensurate 
quantity of AFFF so the total quantity of water for foam production 
carried by all three vehicles is at least 4,000 gallons.
    (e) Index E. Three vehicles--
    (1) One vehicle carrying the extinguishing agents as specified in 
paragraphs (a)(1) or (a)(2) of this section; and
    (2) Two vehicles carrying an amount of water and the commensurate 
quantity of AFFF so the total quantity of water for foam production 
carried by all three vehicles is at least 6,000 gallons.
    (f) Foam discharge capacity. Each aircraft rescue and firefighting 
vehicle used to comply with Index B, C, D, or E requirements with a 
capacity of at least 500 gallons of water for foam production shall be 
equipped with a turret. Vehicle turret discharge capacity shall be as 
follows:
    (1) Each vehicle with a minimum-rated vehicle water tank capacity 
of at least 500 gallons, but less than 2,000 gallons, shall have a 
turret discharge rate of at least 500 gallons per minute, but not more 
than 1,000 gallons per minute.
    (2) Each vehicle with a minimum-rated vehicle water tank capacity 
of at least 2,000 gallons shall have a turret discharge rate of at 
least 600 gallons per minute, but not more than 1,200 gallons per 
minute.
    (g) Agent discharge capacity. Each aircraft rescue and firefighting 
vehicle that is required to carry dry chemical, halon 1211, or clean 
agent for compliance with the Index requirements of this section must 
meet one of the following minimum discharge rates for the equipment 
installed:
    (1) Dry chemical, halon 1211, or clean agent through a hand line--5 
pounds per second.
    (2) Dry chemical, halon 1211, or clean agent through a turret--16 
pounds per second.
    (h) Extinguishing agent substitutions. Other extinguishing agent 
substitutions authorized by the Administrator may be made in amounts 
that provide equivalent firefighting capability.
    (i) AFFF quantity requirements. In addition to the quantity of 
water required, each vehicle required to carry AFFF shall carry AFFF in 
an appropriate amount to mix with twice the water required to be 
carried by the vehicle.
    (j) Methods and procedures. FAA Advisory Circulars contain methods 
and procedures for ARFF equipment and extinguishing agents that are 
acceptable to the Administrator.
    (k) Implementation. Each holder of a Class II, III, or IV Airport 
Operating Certificate shall implement the requirements of this section 
no later than 36 consecutive calendar months after .


Sec. 139.319  Aircraft rescue and firefighting: Operational 
requirements.

    (a) Rescue and firefighting capability. Except as provided in 
paragraph (c) of this section, each certificate holder shall provide on 
the airport, during air carrier operations at the airport, at least the 
rescue and firefighting capability specified for the Index required by 
Sec. 139.317 in a manner authorized by the Administrator.
    (b) Increase in Index. Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this 
section, if an increase in the average daily departures or the length 
of air carrier aircraft results in an increase in the Index required by 
paragraph (a) of this section, the certificate holder shall comply with 
the increased requirements.
    (c) Reduction in rescue and firefighting. During air carrier 
operations with only aircraft shorter than the Index aircraft group 
required by paragraph (a) of this section, the certificate holder may 
reduce the rescue and firefighting to a lower level corresponding to 
the Index group of the longest air carrier aircraft being operated.
    (d) Procedures for reduction in capability. Any reduction in the 
rescue and firefighting capability from the Index required by paragraph 
(a) of this section, in accordance with paragraph (c) of this section, 
shall be subject to the following conditions:
    (1) Procedures for, and the persons having the authority to 
implement, the reductions must be included in the Airport Certification 
Manual.
    (2) A system and procedures for recall of the full aircraft rescue 
and firefighting capability must be included in the Airport 
Certification Manual.
    (3) The reductions may not be implemented unless notification to 
air carriers is provided in the Airport/Facility Directory or Notices 
to Airmen (NOTAM), as appropriate, and by direct notification of local 
air carriers.
    (e) Vehicle communications. Each vehicle required under Sec. 
139.317 shall be equipped with two-way voice radio communications that 
provide for contact with at least--

[[Page 6432]]

    (1) All other required emergency vehicles;
    (2) The air traffic control tower;
    (3) The common traffic advisory frequency when an air traffic 
control tower is not in operation or there is no air traffic control 
tower, and
    (4) Fire stations, as specified in the airport emergency plan.
    (f) Vehicle marking and lighting. Each vehicle required under Sec. 
139.317 shall--
    (1) Have a flashing or rotating beacon and
    (2) Be painted or marked in colors to enhance contrast with the 
background environment and optimize daytime and nighttime visibility 
and identification.
    (g) Vehicle readiness. Each vehicle required under Sec. 139.317 
shall be maintained as follows:
    (1) The vehicle and its systems shall be maintained so as to be 
operationally capable of performing the functions required by this 
subpart during all air carrier operations.
    (2) If the airport is located in a geographical area subject to 
prolonged temperatures below 33 degrees Fahrenheit, the vehicles shall 
be provided with cover or other means to ensure equipment operation and 
discharge under freezing conditions.
    (3) Any required vehicle that becomes inoperative to the extent 
that it cannot perform as required by paragraph (h)(1) of this section 
shall be replaced immediately with equipment having at least equal 
capabilities. If replacement equipment is not available immediately, 
the certificate holder shall so notify the Regional Airports Division 
Manager and each air carrier using the airport in accordance with Sec. 
139.339. If the required Index level of capability is not restored 
within 48 hours, the airport operator, unless otherwise authorized by 
the Administrator, shall limit air carrier operations on the airport to 
those compatible with the Index corresponding to the remaining 
operative rescue and firefighting equipment.
    (h) Response requirements. (1) With the aircraft rescue and 
firefighting equipment required under this part and the number of 
trained personnel that will assure an effective operation, each 
certificate holder shall--
    (i) Respond to each emergency during periods of air carrier 
operations; and
    (ii) When requested by the Administrator, demonstrate compliance 
with the response requirements specified in this section.
    (2) The response required by paragraph (h)(1)(ii) of this section 
shall achieve the following performance criteria:
    (i) Within 3 minutes from the time of the alarm, at least one 
required aircraft rescue and firefighting vehicle shall reach the 
midpoint of the farthest runway serving air carrier aircraft from its 
assigned post or reach any other specified point of comparable distance 
on the movement area that is available to air carriers, and begin 
application of extinguishing agent.
    (ii) Within 4 minutes from the time of alarm, all other required 
vehicles shall reach the point specified in paragraph (h)(2)(i) of this 
section from their assigned posts and begin application of an 
extinguishing agent.
    (i) Personnel. Each certificate holder shall ensure the following:
    (1) All rescue and firefighting personnel are equipped in a manner 
authorized by the Administrator with protective clothing and equipment 
needed to perform their duties.
    (2) All rescue and firefighting personnel are properly trained to 
perform their duties in a manner authorized by the Administrator. Such 
personnel shall be trained prior to initial performance of rescue and 
firefighting duties and receive recurrent instruction every 12 
consecutive calendar months. The curriculum for initial and recurrent 
training shall include at least the following areas:
    (i) Airport familiarization, including airport signs, marking, and 
lighting.
    (ii) Aircraft familiarization.
    (iii) Rescue and firefighting personnel safety.
    (iv) Emergency communications systems on the airport, including 
fire alarms.
    (v) Use of the fire hoses, nozzles, turrets, and other appliances 
required for compliance with this part.
    (vi) Application of the types of extinguishing agents required for 
compliance with this part.
    (vii) Emergency aircraft evacuation assistance.
    (viii) Firefighting operations.
    (ix) Adapting and using structural rescue and firefighting 
equipment for aircraft rescue and firefighting.
    (x) Aircraft cargo hazards, including hazardous materials/dangerous 
goods incidents.
    (xi) Familiarization with firefighters' duties under the airport 
emergency plan.
    (3) All rescue and firefighting personnel shall participate in at 
least one live-fire drill prior to initial performance of rescue and 
firefighting duties and every 12 consecutive calendar months 
thereafter.
    (4) At least one individual, who has been trained and is current in 
basic emergency medical services, is available during air carrier 
operations. This individual shall be trained prior to initial 
performance of emergency medical services. Training shall be at a 
minimum 40 hours in length and cover the following topics:
    (i) Bleeding.
    (ii) Cardiopulmonary resuscitation.
    (iii) Shock.
    (iv) Primary patient survey.
    (v) Injuries to the skull, spine, chest, and extremities.
    (vi) Internal injuries.
    (vii) Moving patients.
    (viii) Burns.
    (ix) Triage.
    (5) A record is maintained of all training given to each individual 
under this section for 24 consecutive calendar months after completion 
of training. Such records shall include, at a minimum, a description 
and date of training received.
    (6) Sufficient rescue and firefighting personnel are available 
during all air carrier operations to operate the vehicles, meet the 
response times, and meet the minimum agent discharge rates required by 
this part.
    (7) Procedures and equipment are established and maintained for 
alerting rescue and firefighting personnel by siren, alarm, or other 
means authorized by the Administrator to any existing or impending 
emergency requiring their assistance.
    (j) Hazardous materials guidance. Each aircraft rescue and 
firefighting vehicle responding to an emergency on the airport shall be 
equipped with, or have available through a direct communications link, 
the ``North American Emergency Response Guidebook'' published by the 
U.S. Department of Transportation or similar response guidance to 
hazardous materials/dangerous goods incidents. Information on obtaining 
the ``North American Emergency Response Guidebook'' is available from 
the Regional Airports Division Manager.
    (k) Emergency access roads. Each certificate holder shall ensure 
that roads designated for use as emergency access roads for aircraft 
rescue and firefighting vehicles are maintained in a condition that 
will support those vehicles during all-weather conditions.
    (l) Methods and procedures. FAA Advisory Circulars contain methods 
and procedures for aircraft rescue and firefighting and emergency 
medical equipment and training that are acceptable to the 
Administrator.
    (m) Implementation. Each holder of a Class II, III, or IV Airport 
Operating Certificate shall implement the requirements of this section 
no later than 36 consecutive calendar months after June 9, 2004.

[[Page 6433]]

Sec. 139.321  Handling and storing of hazardous substances and 
materials.

    (a) Each certificate holder who acts as a cargo handling agent 
shall establish and maintain procedures for the protection of persons 
and property on the airport during the handling and storing of any 
material regulated by the Hazardous Materials Regulations (49 CFR 171 
through 180) that is, or is intended to be, transported by air. These 
procedures shall provide for at least the following:
    (1) Designated personnel to receive and handle hazardous substances 
and materials.
    (2) Assurance from the shipper that the cargo can be handled 
safely, including any special handling procedures required for safety.
    (3) Special areas for storage of hazardous materials while on the 
airport.
    (b) Each certificate holder shall establish and maintain standards 
authorized by the Administrator for protecting against fire and 
explosions in storing, dispensing, and otherwise handling fuel (other 
than articles and materials that are, or are intended to be, aircraft 
cargo) on the airport. These standards shall cover facilities, 
procedures, and personnel training and shall address at least the 
following:
    (1) Bonding.
    (2) Public protection.
    (3) Control of access to storage areas.
    (4) Fire safety in fuel farm and storage areas.
    (5) Fire safety in mobile fuelers, fueling pits, and fueling 
cabinets.
    (6) Training of fueling personnel in fire safety in accordance with 
paragraph (e) of this section. Such training at Class III airports must 
be completed within 12 consecutive calendar months after June 9, 2004.
    (7) The fire code of the public body having jurisdiction over the 
airport.
    (c) Each certificate holder shall, as a fueling agent, comply with, 
and require all other fueling agents operating on the airport to comply 
with, the standards established under paragraph (b) of this section and 
shall perform reasonable surveillance of all fueling activities on the 
airport with respect to those standards.
    (d) Each certificate holder shall inspect the physical facilities 
of each airport tenant fueling agent at least once every 3 consecutive 
months for compliance with paragraph (b) of this section and maintain a 
record of that inspection for at least 12 consecutive calendar months.
    (e) The training required in paragraph (b)(6) of this section shall 
include at least the following:
    (1) At least one supervisor with each fueling agent shall have 
completed an aviation fuel training course in fire safety that is 
authorized by the Administrator. Such an individual shall be trained 
prior to initial performance of duties, or enrolled in an authorized 
aviation fuel training course that will be completed within 90 days of 
initiating duties, and receive recurrent instruction at least every 24 
consecutive calendar months.
    (2) All other employees who fuel aircraft, accept fuel shipments, 
or otherwise handle fuel shall receive at least initial on-the-job 
training and recurrent instruction every 24 consecutive calendar months 
in fire safety from the supervisor trained in accordance with paragraph 
(e)(1) of this section.
    (f) Each certificate holder shall obtain a written confirmation 
once every 12 consecutive calendar months from each airport tenant 
fueling agent that the training required by paragraph (e) of this 
section has been accomplished. This written confirmation shall be 
maintained for 12 consecutive calendar months.
    (g) Unless otherwise authorized by the Administrator, each 
certificate holder shall require each tenant fueling agent to take 
immediate corrective action whenever the certificate holder becomes 
aware of noncompliance with a standard required by paragraph (b) of 
this section. The certificate holder shall notify the appropriate FAA 
Regional Airports Division Manager immediately when noncompliance is 
discovered and corrective action cannot be accomplished within a 
reasonable period of time.
    (h) FAA Advisory Circulars contain methods and procedures for the 
handling and storage of hazardous substances and materials that are 
acceptable to the Administrator.


Sec. 139.323  Traffic and wind direction indicators.

    In a manner authorized by the Administrator, each certificate 
holder shall provide and maintain the following on its airport:
    (a) A wind cone that visually provides surface wind direction 
information to pilots. For each runway available for air carrier use, a 
supplemental wind cone must be installed at the end of the runway or at 
least at one point visible to the pilot while on final approach and 
prior to takeoff. If the airport is open for air carrier operations at 
night, the wind direction indicators, including the required 
supplemental indicators, must be lighted.
    (b) For airports serving any air carrier operation when there is no 
control tower operating, a segmented circle, a landing strip indicator 
and a traffic pattern indicator must be installed around a wind cone 
for each runway with a right-hand traffic pattern.
    (c) FAA Advisory Circulars contain methods and procedures for the 
installation, lighting, and maintenance of traffic and wind indicators 
that are acceptable to the Administrator.


Sec. 139.325  Airport emergency plan.

    (a) In a manner authorized by the Administrator, each certificate 
holder shall develop and maintain an airport emergency plan designed to 
minimize the possibility and extent of personal injury and property 
damage on the airport in an emergency. The plan shall--
    (1) Include procedures for prompt response to all emergencies 
listed in paragraph (b) of this section, including a communications 
network;
    (2) Contain sufficient detail to provide adequate guidance to each 
person who must implement these procedures; and
    (3) To the extent practicable, provide for an emergency response 
for the largest air carrier aircraft in the Index group required under 
Sec. 139.315.
    (b) The plan required by this section must contain instructions for 
response to--
    (1) Aircraft incidents and accidents;
    (2) Bomb incidents, including designation of parking areas for the 
aircraft involved;
    (3) Structural fires;
    (4) Fires at fuel farms or fuel storage areas;
    (5) Natural disaster;
    (6) Hazardous materials/dangerous goods incidents;
    (7) Sabotage, hijack incidents, and other unlawful interference 
with operations;
    (8) Failure of power for movement area lighting; and
    (9) Water rescue situations, as appropriate.
    (c) The plan required by this section must address or include--
    (1) To the extent practicable, provisions for medical services, 
including transportation and medical assistance for the maximum number 
of persons that can be carried on the largest air carrier aircraft that 
the airport reasonably can be expected to serve;
    (2) The name, location, telephone number, and emergency capability 
of each hospital and other medical facility and the business address 
and telephone number of medical personnel on the airport or in the 
communities it serves who have agreed to provide medical assistance or 
transportation;

[[Page 6434]]

    (3) The name, location, and telephone number of each rescue squad, 
ambulance service, military installation, and government agency on the 
airport or in the communities it serves that agrees to provide medical 
assistance or transportation;
    (4) An inventory of surface vehicles and aircraft that the 
facilities, agencies, and personnel included in the plan under 
paragraphs (c)(2) and (3) of this section will provide to transport 
injured and deceased persons to locations on the airport and in the 
communities it serves;
    (5) A list of each hangar or other building on the airport or in 
the communities it serves that will be used to accommodate uninjured, 
injured, and deceased persons;
    (6) Plans for crowd control, including the name and location of 
each safety or security agency that agrees to provide assistance for 
the control of crowds in the event of an emergency on the airport; and
    (7) Procedures for removing disabled aircraft, including, to the 
extent practical, the name, location, and telephone numbers of agencies 
with aircraft removal responsibilities or capabilities.
    (d) The plan required by this section must provide for--
    (1) The marshalling, transportation, and care of ambulatory injured 
and uninjured accident survivors;
    (2) The removal of disabled aircraft;
    (3) Emergency alarm or notification systems; and
    (4) Coordination of airport and control tower functions relating to 
emergency actions, as appropriate.
    (e) The plan required by this section shall contain procedures for 
notifying the facilities, agencies, and personnel who have 
responsibilities under the plan of the location of an aircraft 
accident, the number of persons involved in that accident, or any other 
information necessary to carry out their responsibilities, as soon as 
that information becomes available.
    (f) The plan required by this section shall contain provisions, to 
the extent practicable, for the rescue of aircraft accident victims 
from significant bodies of water or marsh lands adjacent to the airport 
that are crossed by the approach and departure flight paths of air 
carriers. A body of water or marshland is significant if the area 
exceeds one-quarter square mile and cannot be traversed by conventional 
land rescue vehicles. To the extent practicable, the plan shall provide 
for rescue vehicles with a combined capacity for handling the maximum 
number of persons that can be carried on board the largest air carrier 
aircraft in the Index group required under Sec. 139.315.
    (g) Each certificate holder shall--
    (1) Coordinate the plan with law enforcement agencies, rescue and 
firefighting agencies, medical personnel and organizations, the 
principal tenants at the airport, and all other persons who have 
responsibilities under the plan;
    (2) To the extent practicable, provide for participation by all 
facilities, agencies, and personnel specified in paragraph (g)(1) of 
this section in the development of the plan;
    (3) Ensure that all airport personnel having duties and 
responsibilities under the plan are familiar with their assignments and 
are properly trained; and
    (4) At least once every 12 consecutive calendar months, review the 
plan with all of the parties with whom the plan is coordinated, as 
specified in paragraph (g)(1) of this section, to ensure that all 
parties know their responsibilities and that all of the information in 
the plan is current.
    (h) Each holder of a Class I Airport Operating Certificate shall 
hold a full-scale airport emergency plan exercise at least once every 
36 consecutive calendar months.
    (i) Each airport subject to applicable FAA and Transportation 
Security Administration security regulations shall ensure that 
instructions for response to paragraphs (b)(2) and (b)(7) of this 
section in the airport emergency plan are consistent with its approved 
airport security program.
    (j) FAA Advisory Circulars contain methods and procedures for the 
development of an airport emergency plan that are acceptable to the 
Administrator.
    (k) The emergency plan required by this section shall be submitted 
by each holder of a Class II, III, or IV Airport Operating Certificate 
no later than 24 consecutive calendar months after June 9, 2004.


Sec. 139.327  Self-inspection program.

    (a) In a manner authorized by the Administrator, each certificate 
holder shall inspect the airport to assure compliance with this subpart 
according to the following schedule:
    (1) Daily, except as otherwise required by the Airport 
Certification Manual;
    (2) When required by any unusual condition, such as construction 
activities or meteorological conditions, that may affect safe air 
carrier operations; and
    (3) Immediately after an accident or incident.
    (b) Each certificate holder shall provide the following:
    (1) Equipment for use in conducting safety inspections of the 
airport;
    (2) Procedures, facilities, and equipment for reliable and rapid 
dissemination of information between the certificate holder's personnel 
and air carriers; and
    (3) Procedures to ensure qualified personnel perform the 
inspections. Such procedures shall ensure personnel are trained, as 
specified under Sec. 139.303, and receive initial and recurrent 
instruction every 12 consecutive calendar months in at least the 
following areas:
    (i) Airport familiarization, including airport signs, marking and 
lighting.
    (ii) Airport emergency plan.
    (iii) Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) notification procedures.
    (iv) Procedures for pedestrians and ground vehicles in movement 
areas and safety areas.
    (v) Discrepancy reporting procedures; and
    (4) A reporting system to ensure prompt correction of unsafe 
airport conditions noted during the inspection, including wildlife 
strikes.
    (c) Each certificate holder shall--
    (1) Prepare, and maintain for at least 12 consecutive calendar 
months, a record of each inspection prescribed by this section, showing 
the conditions found and all corrective actions taken.
    (2) Prepare records of all training given after June 9, 2004 to 
each individual in compliance with this section that includes, at a 
minimum, a description and date of training received. Such records 
shall be maintained for 24 consecutive calendar months after completion 
of training.
    (d) FAA Advisory Circulars contain methods and procedures for the 
conduct of airport self-inspections that are acceptable to the 
Administrator.


Sec. 139.329  Pedestrians and ground vehicles.

    In a manner authorized by the Administrator, each certificate 
holder shall--
    (a) Limit access to movement areas and safety areas only to those 
pedestrians and ground vehicles necessary for airport operations;
    (b) Establish and implement procedures for the safe and orderly 
access to, and operation in, movement areas and safety areas by 
pedestrians and ground vehicles, including provisions identifying the 
consequences of noncompliance with the procedures by an employee, 
tenant, or contractor;
    (c) When an air traffic control tower is in operation, ensure that 
each pedestrian and ground vehicle in movement areas or safety areas is 
controlled by one of the following:

[[Page 6435]]

    (1) Two-way radio communications between each pedestrian or vehicle 
and the tower;
    (2) An escort with two-way radio communications with the tower 
accompanying any pedestrian or vehicle without a radio; or
    (3) Measures authorized by the Administrator for controlling 
pedestrians and vehicles, such as signs, signals, or guards, when it is 
not operationally practical to have two-way radio communications 
between the tower and the pedestrian, vehicle, or escort;
    (d) When an air traffic control tower is not in operation, or there 
is no air traffic control tower, provide adequate procedures to control 
pedestrians and ground vehicles in movement areas or safety areas 
through two-way radio communications or prearranged signs or signals;
    (e) Ensure that each employee, tenant, or contractor is trained on 
procedures required under paragraph (b) of this section, including 
consequences of noncompliance, prior to moving on foot, or operating a 
ground vehicle, in movement areas or safety areas; and
    (f) Maintain the following records:
    (1) A description and date of training completed after June 9, 2004 
by each individual in compliance with this section. A record for each 
individual shall be maintained for 24 consecutive months after the 
termination of an individual's access to movement areas and safety 
areas.
    (2) A description and date of any accidents or incidents in the 
movement areas and safety areas involving air carrier aircraft, a 
ground vehicle or a pedestrian. Records of each accident or incident 
occurring after the June 9, 2004 shall be maintained for 12 consecutive 
calendar months from the date of the accident or incident.


Sec. 139.331  Obstructions.

    In a manner authorized by the Administrator, each certificate 
holder shall ensure that each object in each area within its authority 
that has been determined by the FAA to be an obstruction is removed, 
marked, or lighted, unless determined to be unnecessary by an FAA 
aeronautical study. FAA Advisory Circulars contain methods and 
procedures for the lighting of obstructions that are acceptable to the 
Administrator.


Sec. 139.333  Protection of NAVAIDS.

    In a manner authorized by the Administrator, each certificate 
holder shall--
    (a) Prevent the construction of facilities on its airport that, as 
determined by the Administrator, would derogate the operation of an 
electronic or visual NAVAID and air traffic control facilities on the 
airport;
    (b) Protect--or if the owner is other than the certificate holder, 
assist in protecting--all NAVAIDS on its airport against vandalism and 
theft; and
    (c) Prevent, insofar as it is within the airport's authority, 
interruption of visual and electronic signals of NAVAIDS.


Sec. 139.335  Public protection.

    (a) In a manner authorized by the Administrator, each certificate 
holder shall provide--
    (1) Safeguards to prevent inadvertent entry to the movement area by 
unauthorized persons or vehicles; and
    (2) Reasonable protection of persons and property from aircraft 
blast.
    (b) Fencing that meets the requirements of applicable FAA and 
Transportation Security Administration security regulations in areas 
subject to these regulations is acceptable for meeting the requirements 
of paragraph (a)(l) of this section.


Sec. 139.337  Wildlife hazard management.

    (a) In accordance with its Airport Certification Manual and the 
requirements of this section, each certificate holder shall take 
immediate action to alleviate wildlife hazards whenever they are 
detected.
    (b) In a manner authorized by the Administrator, each certificate 
holder shall ensure that a wildlife hazard assessment is conducted when 
any of the following events occurs on or near the airport:
    (1) An air carrier aircraft experiences multiple wildlife strikes;
    (2) An air carrier aircraft experiences substantial damage from 
striking wildlife. As used in this paragraph, substantial damage means 
damage or structural failure incurred by an aircraft that adversely 
affects the structural strength, performance, or flight characteristics 
of the aircraft and that would normally require major repair or 
replacement of the affected component;
    (3) An air carrier aircraft experiences an engine ingestion of 
wildlife; or
    (4) Wildlife of a size, or in numbers, capable of causing an event 
described in paragraphs (b)(1), (b)(2), or (b)(3) of this section is 
observed to have access to any airport flight pattern or aircraft 
movement area.
    (c) The wildlife hazard assessment required in paragraph (b) of 
this section shall be conducted by a wildlife damage management 
biologist who has professional training and/or experience in wildlife 
hazard management at airports or an individual working under direct 
supervision of such an individual. The wildlife hazard assessment shall 
contain at least the following:
    (1) An analysis of the events or circumstances that prompted the 
assessment.
    (2) Identification of the wildlife species observed and their 
numbers, locations, local movements, and daily and seasonal 
occurrences.
    (3) Identification and location of features on and near the airport 
that attract wildlife.
    (4) A description of wildlife hazards to air carrier operations.
    (5) Recommended actions for reducing identified wildlife hazards to 
air carrier operations.
    (d) The wildlife hazard assessment required under paragraph (b) of 
this section shall be submitted to the Administrator for approval and 
determination of the need for a wildlife hazard management plan. In 
reaching this determination, the Administrator will consider--
    (1) The wildlife hazard assessment;
    (2) Actions recommended in the wildlife hazard assessment to reduce 
wildlife hazards;
    (3) The aeronautical activity at the airport, including the 
frequency and size of air carrier aircraft;
    (4) The views of the certificate holder;
    (5) The views of the airport users; and
    (6) Any other known factors relating to the wildlife hazard of 
which the Administrator is aware.
    (e) When the Administrator determines that a wildlife hazard 
management plan is needed, the certificate holder shall formulate and 
implement a plan using the wildlife hazard assessment as a basis. The 
plan shall--
    (1) Provide measures to alleviate or eliminate wildlife hazards to 
air carrier operations;
    (2) Be submitted to, and approved by, the Administrator prior to 
implementation; and
    (3) As authorized by the Administrator, become a part of the 
Airport Certification Manual.
    (f) The plan shall include at least the following:
    (1) A list of the individuals having authority and responsibility 
for implementing each aspect of the plan.
    (2) A list prioritizing the following actions identified in the 
wildlife hazard assessment and target dates for their initiation and 
completion:
    (i) Wildlife population management;
    (ii) Habitat modification; and
    (iii) Land use changes.

[[Page 6436]]

    (3) Requirements for and, where applicable, copies of local, State, 
and Federal wildlife control permits.
    (4) Identification of resources that the certificate holder will 
provide to implement the plan.
    (5) Procedures to be followed during air carrier operations that at 
a minimum includes--
    (i) Designation of personnel responsible for implementing the 
procedures;
    (ii) Provisions to conduct physical inspections of the aircraft 
movement areas and other areas critical to successfully manage known 
wildlife hazards before air carrier operations begin;
    (iii) Wildlife hazard control measures; and
    (iv) Ways to communicate effectively between personnel conducting 
wildlife control or observing wildlife hazards and the air traffic 
control tower.
    (6) Procedures to review and evaluate the wildlife hazard 
management plan every 12 consecutive months or following an event 
described in paragraphs (b)(1), (b)(2), and (b)(3) of this section, 
including:
    (i) The plan's effectiveness in dealing with known wildlife hazards 
on and in the airport's vicinity and
    (ii) Aspects of the wildlife hazards described in the wildlife 
hazard assessment that should be reevaluated.
    (7) A training program conducted by a qualified wildlife damage 
management biologist to provide airport personnel with the knowledge 
and skills needed to successfully carry out the wildlife hazard 
management plan required by paragraph (d) of this section.
    (g) FAA Advisory Circulars contain methods and procedures for 
wildlife hazard management at airports that are acceptable to the 
Administrator.


Sec. 139.339  Airport condition reporting.

    In a manner authorized by the Administrator, each certificate 
holder shall--
    (a) Provide for the collection and dissemination of airport 
condition information to air carriers.
    (b) In complying with paragraph (a) of this section, use the NOTAM 
system, as appropriate, and other systems and procedures authorized by 
the Administrator.
    (c) In complying with paragraph (a) of this section, provide 
information on the following airport conditions that may affect the 
safe operations of air carriers:
    (1) Construction or maintenance activity on movement areas, safety 
areas, or loading ramps and parking areas.
    (2) Surface irregularities on movement areas, safety areas, or 
loading ramps and parking areas.
    (3) Snow, ice, slush, or water on the movement area or loading 
ramps and parking areas.
    (4) Snow piled or drifted on or near movement areas contrary to 
Sec. 139.313.
    (5) Objects on the movement area or safety areas contrary to Sec. 
139.309.
    (6) Malfunction of any lighting system, holding position signs, or 
ILS critical area signs required by Sec. 139.311.
    (7) Unresolved wildlife hazards as identified in accordance with 
Sec. 139.337.
    (8) Nonavailability of any rescue and firefighting capability 
required in Sec.Sec. 139.317 or 139.319.
    (9) Any other condition as specified in the Airport Certification 
Manual or that may otherwise adversely affect the safe operations of 
air carriers.
    (d) Each certificate holder shall prepare and keep, for at least 12 
consecutive calendar months, a record of each dissemination of airport 
condition information to air carriers prescribed by this section.
    (e) FAA Advisory Circulars contain methods and procedures for using 
the NOTAM system and the dissemination of airport information that are 
acceptable to the Administrator.


Sec. 139.341  Identifying, marking, and lighting construction and other 
unserviceable areas.

    (a) In a manner authorized by the Administrator, each certificate 
holder shall--
    (1) Mark and, if appropriate, light in a manner authorized by the 
Administrator--
    (i) Each construction area and unserviceable area that is on or 
adjacent to any movement area or any other area of the airport on which 
air carrier aircraft may be operated;
    (ii) Each item of construction equipment and each construction 
roadway, which may affect the safe movement of aircraft on the airport; 
and
    (iii) Any area adjacent to a NAVAID that, if traversed, could cause 
derogation of the signal or the failure of the NAVAID; and
    (2) Provide procedures, such as a review of all appropriate utility 
plans prior to construction, for avoiding damage to existing utilities, 
cables, wires, conduits, pipelines, or other underground facilities.
    (b) FAA Advisory Circulars contain methods and procedures for 
identifying and marking construction areas that are acceptable to the 
Administrator.


Sec. 139.343  Noncomplying conditions.

    Unless otherwise authorized by the Administrator, whenever the 
requirements of subpart D of this part cannot be met to the extent that 
uncorrected unsafe conditions exist on the airport, the certificate 
holder shall limit air carrier operations to those portions of the 
airport not rendered unsafe by those conditions.

    Issued in Washington, DC on January 28, 2004.
Marion C. Blakey,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 04-2255 Filed 2-9-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P