Order: 2014-6-6 Served: June 24, 2014



### UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY WASHINGTON, D.C.

Issued by the Department of Transportation

on the 24 th day of June, 2014

Essential Air Service at

ATHENS, GEORGIA BRADFORD, PENNSYLVANIA EL CENTRO, CALIFORNIA FORT DODGE, IOWA FRANKLIN/OIL CITY, PENNSYLVANIA GREENVILLE, MISSISSIPPI HAGERSTOWN, MARYLAND JACKSON, TENNESSEE KINGMAN, ARIZONA LANCASTER, PENNSYLVANIA MACON, GEORGIA MERCED, CALIFORNIA MUSCLE SHOALS, ALABAMA

Under 49 U.S.C. 41731 et seq

. Docket DOT-OST-2002-11348

Docket DOT-OST-2003-14528

Docket DOT-OST-2008-0299

Docket DOT-OST-2001-10682

Docket DOT-OST-1997-2523

Docket DOT-OST-2008-0209

Docket DOT-OST-2006-25228

Docket DOT-OST-2000-7857

Docket DOT-OST-1996-1899

Docket DOT-OST-2002-11450

Docket DOT-OST-2007-28671

Docket DOT-OST-1998-3521

Docket DOT-OST-2000-7856

FINAL ORDER TERMINATING EAS ELIGIBILITY AND

ESTABLISHING WAIVER PROCEDURES

Summary By this Order, the Department is finalizing its tentative decision in Order 2014-4-26, issued April 24, 2014, terminating the eligibility of the communities captioned above under the Essential Air Service (EAS) program based on requirements passed by Congress in the FAA

Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 (Public La w No. 112-95).

Background

The FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 amended 49 U.S.C. § 41731(a)(1)(B) to change the definition of “eligible place” for the purpose of receiving EAS. The amendment states that to be eligible, a co mmunity must maintain an average of 10 enplanements or more per service day, as determined by the Secretary, durin g the most recent fiscal year beginning after September 30, 2012. The legislation exempts loca tions in Alaska and Hawaii and communities- 2 -

that are more than 175 driving miles from the nearest large or medium hub airport. 1 The Secretary also has the authority to waive the 10 -enplanement standard, on an annual basis, if the community can demonstrate that the reason the location averages fewer than 10 enplanements
per day is due to a temporary decline in enplanements. 2

The tentative decision in the show-cause Order issued April 24, 2014, gave interested parties until May 14, 2014, to submit objections to the Depa rtment’s findings. The Department received objections to the show-cause Order from 11 of the 13 communities.

Decision After careful consideration of this matter, the De partment has decided to make final the tentative findings in Order 2014-4-26.

This Order addresses each affected community’s comments in detail, below. As a general matter, none of the affected communities disputed the Department’s determination that the community is within 175 miles of a large or medium hub or that the community averaged fewer than 10 enplanements a day. Rather, some commun ities argued that they should remain in the program because extenuating circumstances cause d them to be below 10 enplanements per day, such as unreliable service, high fares, pilot shortages, the automatic Federal government budget cuts that began March 1, 2013 (i.e ., sequestration), or unfulfilled promises by their EAS carrier. Those arguments do not address the facts upon whic h the Department is required by statute to base the decision. Instead, those types of arguments should be reserved for communities applying for a waiver from the statutory requirement that a community maintain an average of 10 or more enplanements per service day and will be considered by the Department on their merits at that time. The process for applying for a waiver is discussed later in th is Order. Finally, two

communities, Athens and Macon, did not subm it any objections to the show cause Order. 3

Each community’s objection and our fina l determination are described below.

ATHENS Athens did not submit an objection to the show cau se Order. With no obj ection from Athens, the Department makes final its findings that Athens is within 175 miles of a large or medium hub and had an average of 5.9 enplanements per day in fiscal year 2013. Having failed to meet the statutory requirements, Athens is no longer an eligible community under the EAS program.

BRADFORD Tom Frungillo, the Airport Director of the Brad ford Regional Airport, submitted an objection on behalf of the community. The Airport Direct or did not dispute the passenger or mileage numbers. However, he argued that passenger numbers were above 10 enplanements per day until Gulfstream [Interna tional] Airlines (now Silver Airw ays) took over the EAS contract in 2008. The Airport Director blamed the decline on poor service, lack of sales and marketing efforts and high fares out of the Cleveland hub. Furthermore, he stated that the decrease in

1 49 U.S.C. § 41731(c) & (d).

2 49 U.S.C. § 41731(e).

3 This does not prejudice Athens or Macon’s ability to ap ply for a waiver, as discussed later in this Order.- 3 -

service at the Cleveland hub has affected the local airport and its customers by reducing service options and making the local service less attract ive. With no objection from the community to

the facts that Bradford is with in 175 miles of a large or medium hub or that it averaged fewer than 10 enplanements per day, we find that Bradfo rd, which is within 175 miles of a large or medium hub and had an average of 6.9 enplanemen ts per day in fiscal year 2013, has not met the statutory requirements. As such, Bradford is no longer an eligible community under the EAS

program.

EL CENTRO By letter dated May 13, 2014, U.S. Congressman Ju an Vargas encouraged the Department to consider the unique circumstances that lead to El Centro enplaning 9.5 passengers per day during fiscal year 2013. In that letter, he attributes the low number of enplanements to a change in EAS service providers, which left the community without codeshare and interline agreements with larger air carriers. Additi onally, the community’s hub destination was changed from Los Angeles International Airport (LAX) to San Di ego and Burbank. Congressman Vargas did not dispute the Department’s finding that El Centro enplaned fewe r than 10 passengers per day; rather, he encouraged the Department to chan ge the methodology to incl ude the previous three fiscal years, as opposed to th e most recent fiscal year.

By letter dated May 12, 2014, the Mayor of the City of Imperial, Mr. Geoff Dale, stated that the community does not dispute the data, but encourag es the Department to consider some of the extenuating circumstances that le d to El Centro enplaning fewe r than 10 passengers per day. Mayor Dale explained that the community has “generated approxi mately 20 passengers per day in 2009 through 2012.” The Mayor further explai ned that the most recent fiscal year enplanement data is a temporary decline and not consistent with the leve l of enplanements the community previously generated.

By letter dated May 12, 2014, California State Se nator Ben Hueso urged the Department to consider the negative economic im pact on El Centro as a result of losing EAS eligibility. Additionally, Senator Hueso encourag ed the Department to take into consideration the fact that the community has surpassed the 10 passenger enplanement threshold in four of the last five years, and only barely missed the 10 enplan ement level by 0.5 passengers per day.

Additionally, the Department received similar le tters from the County Executive Office, the El Centro Chamber of Commerce, Imperial Va lley Economic Development Corporation, the Southern California Association of Governments, Imperial County Office of Education, Imperial Valley Regional Occupational Program, Imperial Chamber of Commerce, Imperial County Transportation Commission, California Assembly Member, Mr. V. Manuel Perez, the Imperial County Board of Supervisors, and from several bu sinesses and concerned ci tizens. Those letters urged the Department to consider the community’s historical enplanement data and the economic impact of losing EAS eligibilit y, and take into account that th e community has some of the highest unemployment in the na tion and was negatively impacted by the economic downturn of 2008. None of these letters disp uted our tentative findings.

We recognize the arguments made by the commun ity; however, the requirements of the statute do not provide us the discretion to consider thes e factors in reaching our final decision. Given- 4 -

that there is no objection to the f acts that El Centro is within 175 miles of large or medium hub and had an average of 9.5 enplanements per day in fiscal year 2013, we find that El Centro has not satisfied the statutory requirements and is no longer eligible for EAS.

FORT DODGE Rhonda Chambers, the Director of Aviation for the Fort Dodge Regional Airport, and Paul Trombino, III, the Director of the Iowa State Department of Transportation (IDOT), submitted objections to the show-cause Order. Neither obje ctor disputed the factua l basis for the tentative decision, although the Airport Director stated that the mileage is not reflective of the most traveled route from Fort Dodge to Omaha, NE, wh ile acknowledging that the shortest distance is

well under the 175-mile threshold. 4 IDOT blamed recent statutory and regulatory changes to pilot training requirements and f light and duty standards for numer ous canceled flights, as the main reason for not meeting the 10-enplanement threshold. They stated that the decline in passenger enplanements is temporary and, hist orically, Fort Dodge easily exceeded the 10- enplanemnt-per-day requirement.

We recognize the arguments made by the communit y. However, the requirements of the statute do not provide us the discretion to consider thes e factors in reaching our final decision. Given that the community did not contest our tentative fi ndings that Fort Dodge is within 175 miles of a large or medium hub, and had an average of 9.4 e nplanements per day in fiscal year 2013, we find that Fort Dodge has not met the statutory requirements and is no longer an eligible community under the EAS program.

FRANKLIN/OIL CITY Douglas Baker, the Mayor of Franklin, Otho Bell , the Airport Director of the Venango Regional Airport, the Board of Venango County Commissioners, and the Oil Region Alliance submitted objections. No objectors disputed either the passenger or mileage findings in the show-cause Order. All three objectors stated that Silver Airways, the incumbent carrier, has provided unreliable service and that became the primary re ason for its fewer than 10 enplanements per day. They stated that Silver canceled a significa nt percentage of its f lights each year since 2008 when it became the community’s EAS carrier, esp ecially over the winter months. In addition, they stated that Silver faile d to market the Venango County Regional Airport. The Airport

Director states that Silver has not been w illing to establish a well-timed schedule, including overnighting an aircraft despite the fact that the airport built a hangar for that expressed purpose. The community feels that a reli able carrier with a consistent schedule, reasonable fares to Pittsburgh, and experience operating in a norther n climate, would surpass the 10 enplanement per day threshold.

We recognize the arguments made by the communit y. However, the requirements of the statute do not provide us the discretion to consider these factors in reachi ng our final decision. Because there were no objections to our tentativ e findings that Franklin/Oil City is within 175 miles of a large or medium hub, and had an averag e of 5.0 enplanements per day in fiscal year

4 As we stated in show-cause Order 2014-4-26, and consistent with longstanding and current Department practice, we measure the shortest driving distance from the center of the EAS community to the beginning of the airport property of the nearest medium- or la rge-hub airport. See 54 Fed. Re g. 52766 (December 22, 1989) (amending 14 CFR Part 398).- 5 -

2013, we find that Franklin/Oil City has not me t the statutory requirements and, thus, is no longer an eligible community under the EAS program.

GREENVILLE The Honorable John H. Cox III, Mayor of Gree nville, submitted an objection. The community does not dispute the mileage numbers or the fact that the passenger enplanements were fewer

than 10. 5 However, the community contested the fi nal termination order, stating that the community failed to make 10 enplanements per da y during fiscal year 2013 solely due to the poor air service provided by Silver Airways, the incumbent air carrier. The community pointed out that for the nine-year period prior to SilverAirways’ beginning serv ice at Greenville, the community averaged 14,932 origin and destination passengers, or an average of 23.9 passenger enplanements per day.

We recognize the arguments made by the communit y. However, the requirements of the statute do not provide us the discretion to consider these factors in reaching our fi nal decision. In the absence of any objection to our findings that Gree nville is within 175 miles of a large or medium hub and had an average of 9.3 enplanements per da y in fiscal year 2013, we find that Greenville has not satisfied the statutory requirements, and thus, is no lo nger an eligible community under the EAS program.

HAGERSTOWN Philip Ridenour, Airport Director, submitted an ob jection letter cosigned by the Board of County Commissioners of Washington County, Maryland. The letter stated that they do not object to the Department’s methodology for calculating enplanem ents, nor the 175-mile standard. Rather, they claim that their EAS carrier suffered poor performance due to a lack of qualified pilots, equipment that was not suitable to winter operations, and management that was not committed to marketing the service. They believe that Hagerstown could exceed the 10-enplanement threshold with a reliable service provider.

We recognize the arguments made by the communit y. However, the requirements of the statute do not provide us the discretion to consider these factors in reaching our fi nal decision. Given no objection to the factual tentative findings that Hagerstown is within 175 miles of a large or medium hub and had an average of 3.9 enplanem ents per day in fiscal year 2013, we find that Hagerstown has not satisfied the statutory requ irements. Thus, Hagerstown is no longer an eligible community under the EAS program.

JACKSON By letter dated May 7, 2014, the Executive Di rector of Jackson-Madison County Airport Authority, Mr. Steve Smith, explai ned that Jackson does not dis pute the Department’s findings,

5 Although Greenville did not dispute that it averaged fewer th an 10 enplanements per day in fiscal year 2013, it did contest the actual passenger numbers the Department reported. While the Department found that Greenville averaged 9.3 enplanements day, the community claimed it averaged 9.65 enplanements per day. A letter submitted from Silver Airways’ station manage r, states that their June 2013 tr affic was 253 enplanements and 234 deplanements, 206 passengers greater than what Silver Airways reported to th e Department (191 enplanements and 90 deplanements). However, even assuming the corr ected numbers, the community enplaned fewer than the statutory requirement of 10 en planements per service day.- 6 -

however, the community “disagrees with the arb itrary manner the data is applied to disqualify Jackson from the EAS program.”

Because the community did not dispute the Depa rtment’s tentative findings, we find that Jackson, which is within 175 miles of a large or medium hub and had an average of 7.8 enplanements per day in fiscal year 2013, has not met the statutory requirements. Based on these findings, Jackson is no longer an eligible community under the EAS program.

KINGMAN David French, Executive Director of the Kingman Airport, submitted an objection. The Director acknowledged that the community did not m eet the 10-enplanemet requirement, but he questioned which airport should be the comm unity’s EAS hub and indicated that dual-hub
service would be optimum for the community. 6 The Director also mentioned recent changes to pilot requirements as a reason for th e airport’s low passenger levels.

The community acknowledged that it does not meet the statutory criteria for an “eligible community” on the basis of its average enplanemen ts (2.7 enplanements per day in fiscal year 2013). Kingman also does not object to our findi ng that it is within 175 miles of a large or medium hub. Having failed to meet the statut ory requirements, we find that Kingman is no longer an eligible community under the EAS program.

LANCASTER Airport Director David Eberly submitted an objection. Mr. Eberly did not dispute the Department’s calculations of enplanements, but st ated that the temporary decline in passengers

was due to the EAS carrier’s lack of reliabilit y, and not the result of any action or inaction on behalf of the Lancaster Airport Authority or La ncaster County. Lancaste r stated that service reliability has and will continue to improve now that their EAS carrier has a new management team in place, which will allow Lancaster to m eet the 10-enplanement requirement in the future.

Although we recognize the community’s concerns, the statutory requirements do not afford us the discretion to consider these factors in reaching our final decision. Because the community did not object to our findings that Lancaster is within 175 miles of a large or medium hub and had an average of 6.3 enplanements per day in fi scal year 2013, we find that Lancaster has not met the statutory requirements and thus, is no longer an eligible community under the EAS

program.

MACON The community did not submit an objection.

With no objection from Macon, we find that Mac on has not satisfied the statutory requirements because it is within 175 miles of a large or me dium hub and had an average of 4.0 enplanements per day in fiscal year 2013. Thus, Macon is no longer an eligible community under the EAS

program.

6 Great Lakes currently provides Kingman nonstop service to Los Angeles International (LAX) and direct (one-stop) service to Denver International (DEN).- 7 -

MERCED By letter dated May 1, 2013, Mayor Pro-Tempore of the City of Merced, Mr. Josh Pedrozo, did not dispute the Department’s te ntative findings. Rather, Mr. Pedrozo provided reasons why Merced enplaned fewer than 10 passengers, which has historically not been an issue for the community. According to the letter, Merced averaged 24 enplanements from 2002 through 2008; Great Lakes started servi ng the community in 2008, and sin ce that time, the air carrier made 11 schedule changes. Additionally, Great Lakes frequently did not meet the on-time criteria of +5 minutes for departure and +16 mi nutes for arrival. For the above reasons, Mr. Pedrozo believes that customer confidence, loya lty, and satisfaction with the community’s air service were greatly diminished.

Although we recognize the community’s concerns, the statute does not provide us the discretion to weigh these factors in reachi ng our final determination. In the absence of any objection to our tentative findings that Merced is less than 175 miles from the nearest large or medium hub and had an average of 7.7 enplanements per day in fi scal year 2013, we find that Merced has not met the statutory requirements and, thus, is no longe r an eligible community under the EAS program.

MUSCLE SHOALS Barry Griffith, Airport Director at Northwest Alabama Regional Airport, submitted an objection. Mr. Griffith did not object to th e passenger or mileage numbers. However, he contested the final termination order, stating that the reason the co mmunity failed to make 10 enplanements per day during fiscal year 2013 was due stri ctly to the poor ai r service provided by S ilver Airways, the

incumbent air carrier. Mr. Griffith also men tioned that other EAS comm unities in Mississippi served by Silver Airways have seen drastic redu ctions in passenger enplanements from the time

that Silver became their EAS carrier. Mr. Griffi th further pointed out that for the nine-year period prior to Silver Airways becoming the serv ice provider at Muscle Shoals, the community averaged 12,170 annual origin and destination passengers, or 19 passenger enplanements per day.

Although we recognize the community’s concerns, th e statute does not afford us the discretion to

consider these concerns in re aching our final determination. Because the community did not object to our tentative finding th at Muscle Shoals is within 17 5 miles of a large or medium hub and had an average of 6.3 enplanements per day in fiscal year 2013, we determine that Muscle Shoals has not met the statutory requirements, and, thus, is no longer an eligible community under the EAS program.

Continuity of Service Notwithstanding the determination by the Depart ment and this Order, the incumbent carriers must provide EAS at these communities, pendi ng the communities’ potential petition for a

waiver and our consideration of the merits of th at petition as further out lined below. Carriers that fail to provide EAS at their respective communities may be referred to the Department’s Office of Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings fo r appropriate handling. This Order does not preclude carriers from starting or continuing air service at thes e communities without subsidy.- 8 -

Petitions for Waivers The Department will consider petitions for a waiver of 49 U.S.C. § 41731(a)(1)(B) under the authority provided in 49 U.S.C. § 41731(e). Sp ecifically, each petition must be filed in

accordance with 49 CFR Part 5.11(b). 7 The petition should state that it is a request for exemption from 49 U.S.C. § 41731(a)(1)(B) and include an explanation of the nature and extent of the relief sought and any information and argu ments available to the petitioner to support the petition for waiver.

As required by 49 U.S.C. § 41731(e), the Secretar y’s authority to grant a waiver of the 10 enplanement per day requirement is limited to those situations where it is clear that the failure to meet the 10 enplanement requirement is due to a temporary decline. Although we would not be inclined to view a community th at has averaged fewer than 10 enplanements per year over a long period of time as being temporary, we do intend to evaluate each petition based upon the

individual merits and circum stances of that community.

All petitions for a waiver must be submitted within 30 days of the service date of this Order (by July 24, 2014) with the t itle “Petition of (EAS community) fo r a waiver from the 10-enplanement statute, Docket-OST-DOT-(appropriate Docket number from page 1 of this Order),” in order to ensure timely consideration in accordance with 49 CFR Part 5.11(b). All petitions must be filed electronically to EAS@dot.gov or by FAX to 202-366-7638. Each petition received by the Department will be made availabl e at http://www.regulations.gov. Any requests for a waiver submitted prior to the date of this Order will not be considered. Communities that requested a waiver in their response to the show-cause Or der must resubmit their request, including any supporting arguments and information, in accordan ce with the procedures described in this

Order.

Proposals to Restore Eligibility For communities whose eligibility for EAS is te rminated by this Order or whose petition for a waiver is denied by the Department, 49 U.S.C. § 41733(g) permits a State or local government to submit a joint proposal with an air carrier for th e restoration of their EAS subsidy. Upon receipt of a joint proposal, the Secretary will restore a community’s eligibility for EAS subsidy if the Secretary determines that:

(i) The rate of subsidy per passenger under the proposal does not exceed the subsidy cap established by section 3 22 of Pub. L. 106-69; (ii) The proposal is likely to result in an av erage number of enplanements per day in excess of 10; and (iii) The proposal is consistent w ith the legal and regulatory requirements for the EAS

program.

This Order is issued under authorit y delegated in 49 CFR Part 1.25a(b).

7 Because 49 U.S.C. § 41731(e) permits the Secretary to waive th e 10-enplanement requirement, the Department is exercising its statutory waiver authority through its pe tition for exemption process set forth in 49 CFR Part 5.11- 9 -

ACCORDINGLY,

1. The Department finalizes its tent ative findings in Order 2014-4-26;

2. The Department finds that Athens, Georgia, is no longer an eligible EAS community. The Department will terminate subsidy for EA S at Athens on September 30, 2014, and its EAS carrier may terminate service on or after this da te, unless the community files a waiver petition as described in this Order;

3. The Department finds that Bradford, Penns ylvania, is no longer an eligible EAS community. The Department will terminate s ubsidy for EAS at Bradford on September 30, 2014, and its EAS carrier may terminate service on or after this date, unless the community files a waiver petition as desc ribed in this Order;

4. The Department finds that El Centro, Ca lifornia, is no longe r an eligible EAS community. The Department will terminate s ubsidy for EAS at El Centro on September 30, 2014, and its EAS carrier may terminate service on or after this date, unless the community files a waiver petition as desc ribed in this Order;

5. The Department finds that Fort Dodge, Iowa , is no longer an eligible EAS community. The Department will terminate subsidy for EA S at Fort Dodge on September 30, 2014, and its EAS carrier may terminate service on or after this date, unless the community files a waiver petition as described in this Order;

6. The Department finds that Franklin/Oil City, Pennsylvania, is no longer an eligible EAS community. The Department will terminate subs idy for EAS at Franklin/Oil City on September 30, 2014, and its EAS carrier may terminate service on or after this date , unless the community files a waiver petition as described in this Order;

7. The Department finds that Greenville, Miss issippi, is no longer an eligible EAS community. The Department will terminate s ubsidy for EAS at Greenville on September 30, 2014, and its EAS carrier may terminate service on or after this date, unless the community files a waiver petition as desc ribed in this Order;

8. The Department finds that Hagerstown, Ma ryland, is no longer an eligible EAS community. The Department will terminate s ubsidy for EAS at Hagerstown on September 30, 2014, and its EAS carrier may terminate service on or after this date, unless the community files a waiver petition as desc ribed in this Order;

9. The Department finds that Jackson, Tennessee, is no longer an elig ible EAS community. The Department will terminate subsidy for EA S at Jackson on September 30, 2014, and its EAS carrier may terminate service on or after this da te, unless the community files a waiver petition as described in this Order;- 10 -

10. The Department finds that Kingman, Arizona, is no longer an eligible EAS community. The Department will terminate subsidy for EA S at Kingman on September 30, 2014, and its EAS carrier may terminate service on or after this da te, unless the community files a waiver petition as described in this Order;

11. The Department finds that Lancaster, Pe nnsylvania, is no longer an eligible EAS community. The Department will terminate s ubsidy for EAS at Lancaster on September 30, 2014, and its EAS carrier may terminate service on or after this date, unless the community files a waiver petition as desc ribed in this Order;

12. The Department finds that Macon, Georgia, is no longer an eligible EAS community. The Department will terminate subsidy for EA S at Macon on September 30, 2014, and its EAS carrier may terminate service on or after this da te, unless the community files a waiver petition as described in this Order;

13. The Department finds that Merced, California, is no longer an elig ible EAS community. The Department will terminate subsidy for EA S at Merced on September 30, 2014, and its EAS carrier may terminate service on or after this da te, unless the community files a waiver petition as described in this Order;

14. The Department finds that Muscle Shoals , Alabama, is no longer an eligible EAS community. The Department will terminate subs idy for EAS at Muscle Shoals on September 30, 2014, and its EAS carrier may terminate service on or after this date, unless the community files a waiver petition as desc ribed in this Order;

15. The Department sets the due date for waiver petitions as July 24, 2014. Petitions should

be emailed to EAS@dot.gov or by FAX to 202-366-7638 with the title “Petition of (EAS community) for waiver from the 10-enplanement statute, Docket-OST-DOT-(appropriate Docket number from page 1 of this Order)”;

16. Before terminating service, the carrier(s) serv ing the communities identified in this Order must notify any passengers holding reservations for travel after the suspension date, assist those passengers in making alternate air transportation a rrangements, or provide a refund of the ticket price, without penalty, if requested;

17. These dockets will remain open until further order of the Department; and-11 -

18. The Department will serve copies of this Orde r on the mayors, civic, and airport officials

at the communities identified in this Order.

By:

SUSAN L. KURLAND Assistant Secretary for

Aviation and International Affairs

(SEAL)

An electronic version of this document is available

at http://www.regulations.govAppendix A

YE 9/30/13 YE 9/30/13 Nearest Approx. Nearest Approx.

Passenger Enplanements Large Miles to Medium Miles to

EAS Community State Carrier serving Totals* Per Day Hub L-Hub Hub M-Hub

Athens Georgia SeaPort 3,681 5.9 ATL 72 n/a

Bradford Pennsylvania Silver Airways 4,292 6.9 n/a BUF 77

El Centro California SeaPort 5,950 9.5 SAN 114 n/a

Fort Dodge Iowa Great
Lakes/suspended 5,868 9.4 n/a OMA 156

Franklin/Oil City Pennsylvania Silver Airways 3,134 5.0 n/a PIT 85

Greenville Mississippi Silver Airways 5,836 9.3 n/a MEM 154

Hagerstown Maryland Sun Air 2,419 3.9 IAD 78 n/a

Jackson Tennessee SeaPort 4,865 7.8 n/a MEM 86

Kingman Arizona Great Lakes 1,661 2.7 LAS 121 n/a

Lancaster Pennsylvania Sun Air 3,943 6.3 PHL 86 n/a

Macon Georgia Silver Airways 2,482 4.0 ATL 82 n/a

Merced California Great Lakes 4,810 7.7 n/a SJC 107

Muscle Shoals Alabama Silver Airways 3,973 6.3 n/a BNA 122

* Enplanements and deplanementsAppendix B

ORDERS OUTLINING SERVICE TO BE PROVIDED

EAS Community Order(s)
ATHENS, GEORGIA 2012-9-27
BRADFORD, PENNSYLVANIA 2012-9-23
EL CENTRO, CALIFORNIA 2013-1-2 and 2013-4-3
FORT DODGE, IOWA* 2011-11-30
FRANKLIN/OIL CITY, PENNSYLVANIA 2012-9-23
GREENVILLE, MISSISSIPPI 2012-5-17
HAGERSTOWN, MARYLAND 2012-8-9
JACKSON, TENNESSEE 2014-1-23
KINGMAN, ARIZONA 2013-6-1
LANCASTER, PENNSYLVANIA 2012-8-9
MACON, GEORGIA 2013-2-26
MERCED, CALIFORNIA 2012-9-9
MUSCLE SHOALS, ALABAMA 2012-5-17

*Great Lakes' service is currently suspended