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 24th 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 Law 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 community must maintain an average of 10 enplanements or more per 

service day, as determined by the Secretary, during the most recent fiscal year beginning after 

September 30, 2012. The legislation exempts locations 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 Department’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 Department 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 communities argued that they should remain in the 

program because extenuating circumstances caused 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 which 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 this Order. Finally, two 

communities, Athens and Macon, did not submit any objections to the show cause Order.

3

 

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

ATHENS 

Athens did not submit an objection to the show cause Order. With no objection 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 Bradford Regional Airport, submitted an objection on 

behalf of the community. The Airport Director did not dispute the passenger or mileage 

numbers. However, he argued that passenger numbers were above 10 enplanements per day 

until Gulfstream [International] Airlines (now Silver Airways) 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 apply 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 attractive. With no objection from the community to 

the facts that Bradford is within 175 miles of a large or medium hub or that it averaged fewer 

than 10 enplanements per day, we find that Bradford, which is within 175 miles of a large or 

medium hub and had an average of 6.9 enplanements 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 Juan 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. Additionally, the community’s hub destination was changed from Los 

Angeles International Airport (LAX) to San Diego and Burbank. Congressman Vargas did not 

dispute the Department’s finding that El Centro enplaned fewer than 10 passengers per day; 

rather, he encouraged the Department to change the methodology to include the previous three 

fiscal years, as opposed to the 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 encourages the Department to consider some of the 

extenuating circumstances that led to El Centro enplaning fewer than 10 passengers per day. 

Mayor Dale explained that the community has “generated approximately 20 passengers per day 

in 2009 through 2012.” The Mayor further explained that the most recent fiscal year 

enplanement data is a temporary decline and not consistent with the level of enplanements the 

community previously generated. 

By letter dated May 12, 2014, California State Senator Ben Hueso urged the Department to 

consider the negative economic impact on El Centro as a result of losing EAS eligibility. 

Additionally, Senator Hueso encouraged 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 enplanement level by 0.5 passengers per day. 

Additionally, the Department received similar letters from the County Executive Office, the El 

Centro Chamber of Commerce, Imperial Valley 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 businesses and concerned citizens. Those letters 

urged the Department to consider the community’s historical enplanement data and the economic 

impact of losing EAS eligibility, and take into account that the community has some of the 

highest unemployment in the nation and was negatively impacted by the economic downturn of 

2008. None of these letters disputed our tentative findings. 

We recognize the arguments made by the community; however, the requirements of the statute 

do not provide us the discretion to consider these factors in reaching our final decision. Given 
- 4 -

that there is no objection to the facts 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 objector disputed the factual 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, while 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 flight and duty standards for numerous canceled flights, as the 

main reason for not meeting the 10-enplanement threshold. They stated that the decline in 

passenger enplanements is temporary and, historically, Fort Dodge easily exceeded the 10-

enplanemnt-per-day requirement. 

We recognize the arguments made by the community. However, the requirements of the statute 

do not provide us the discretion to consider these factors in reaching our final decision. Given 

that the community did not contest our tentative findings that Fort Dodge is within 175 miles of a 

large or medium hub, and had an average of 9.4 enplanements 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 reason for its fewer than 10 enplanements per 

day. They stated that Silver canceled a significant percentage of its flights each year since 2008 

when it became the community’s EAS carrier, especially over the winter months. In addition, 

they stated that Silver failed to market the Venango County Regional Airport. The Airport 

Director states that Silver has not been willing 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 reliable carrier with a consistent schedule, reasonable fares to 

Pittsburgh, and experience operating in a northern climate, would surpass the 10 enplanement 

per day threshold. 

We recognize the arguments made by the community. However, the requirements of the statute 

do not provide us the discretion to consider these factors in reaching our final decision. 

Because there were no objections to our tentative findings that Franklin/Oil City is within 175 

miles of a large or medium hub, and had an average 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 large-hub airport. See 54 Fed. Reg. 52766 (December 22, 1989) (amending 

14 CFR Part 398). 
- 5 -

2013, we find that Franklin/Oil City has not met the statutory requirements and, thus, is no 

longer an eligible community under the EAS program. 

GREENVILLE 

The Honorable John H. Cox III, Mayor of Greenville, 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 final termination order, stating that the 

community failed to make 10 enplanements per day 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 Silver Airways’ beginning service 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 community. However, the requirements of the statute 

do not provide us the discretion to consider these factors in reaching our final decision. In the 

absence of any objection to our findings that Greenville is within 175 miles of a large or medium 

hub and had an average of 9.3 enplanements per day in fiscal year 2013, we find that Greenville 

has not satisfied the statutory requirements, and thus, is no longer an eligible community under 

the EAS program. 

HAGERSTOWN 

Philip Ridenour, Airport Director, submitted an objection 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 enplanements, 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 community. However, the requirements of the statute 

do not provide us the discretion to consider these factors in reaching our final 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 enplanements per day in fiscal year 2013, we find that 

Hagerstown has not satisfied the statutory requirements. Thus, Hagerstown is no longer an 

eligible community under the EAS program. 

JACKSON 

By letter dated May 7, 2014, the Executive Director of Jackson-Madison County Airport 

Authority, Mr. Steve Smith, explained that Jackson does not dispute the Department’s findings, 

 

5 Although Greenville did not dispute that it averaged fewer than 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 manager, states that their June 2013 traffic was 253 enplanements and 234 

deplanements, 206 passengers greater than what Silver Airways reported to the Department (191 enplanements and 

90 deplanements). However, even assuming the corrected numbers, the community enplaned fewer than the 

statutory requirement of 10 enplanements per service day. 
- 6 -

however, the community “disagrees with the arbitrary manner the data is applied to disqualify 

Jackson from the EAS program.” 

Because the community did not dispute the Department’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 meet the 10-enplanemet requirement, but he 

questioned which airport should be the community’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 the 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 enplanements (2.7 enplanements per day in fiscal year 

2013). Kingman also does not object to our finding that it is within 175 miles of a large or 

medium hub. Having failed to meet the statutory 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 stated that the temporary decline in passengers 

was due to the EAS carrier’s lack of reliability, and not the result of any action or inaction on 

behalf of the Lancaster Airport Authority or Lancaster County. Lancaster 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 meet 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 fiscal 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 Macon has not satisfied the statutory requirements 

because it is within 175 miles of a large or medium 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 tentative 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 serving the community in 2008, and since 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 minutes for arrival. For the above reasons, Mr. 

Pedrozo believes that customer confidence, loyalty, 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 reaching 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 fiscal year 2013, we find that Merced has not met 

the statutory requirements and, thus, is no longer 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 the passenger or mileage numbers. However, he contested the final 

termination order, stating that the reason the community failed to make 10 enplanements per day 

during fiscal year 2013 was due strictly to the poor air service provided by Silver Airways, the 

incumbent air carrier. Mr. Griffith also mentioned that other EAS communities in Mississippi 

served by Silver Airways have seen drastic reductions in passenger enplanements from the time 

that Silver became their EAS carrier. Mr. Griffith further pointed out that for the nine-year 

period prior to Silver Airways becoming the service 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, the statute does not afford us the discretion to 

consider these concerns in reaching our final determination. Because the community did not 

object to our tentative finding that Muscle Shoals is within 175 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 Department and this Order, the incumbent carriers 

must provide EAS at these communities, pending the communities’ potential petition for a 

waiver and our consideration of the merits of that petition as further outlined below. Carriers 

that fail to provide EAS at their respective communities may be referred to the Department’s 

Office of Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings for appropriate handling. This Order does not 

preclude carriers from starting or continuing air service at these 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). Specifically, 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 arguments available to the petitioner to support the 

petition for waiver. 

As required by 49 U.S.C. § 41731(e), the Secretary’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 that 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 circumstances 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 title “Petition of (EAS community) for 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 available 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 Order must resubmit their request, including any 

supporting arguments and information, in accordance with the procedures described in this 

Order. 

Proposals to Restore Eligibility 

For communities whose eligibility for EAS is terminated 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 the 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 322 of Pub. L. 106-69; 

(ii) The proposal is likely to result in an average number of enplanements per day in 

excess of 10; and 

(iii) The proposal is consistent with the legal and regulatory requirements for the EAS 

program. 

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

 

 

7

Because 49 U.S.C. § 41731(e) permits the Secretary to waive the 10-enplanement requirement, the Department is 

exercising its statutory waiver authority through its petition for exemption process set forth in 49 CFR Part 5.11
- 9 -

ACCORDINGLY, 

1. The Department finalizes its tentative 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 EAS at Athens 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; 

3. The Department finds that Bradford, Pennsylvania, is no longer an eligible EAS 

community. The Department will terminate subsidy 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 described in this Order; 

4. The Department finds that El Centro, California, is no longer an eligible EAS 

community. The Department will terminate subsidy 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 described in this Order; 

5. The Department finds that Fort Dodge, Iowa, is no longer an eligible EAS community. 

The Department will terminate subsidy for EAS 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 subsidy 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, Mississippi, is no longer an eligible EAS 

community. The Department will terminate subsidy 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 described in this Order; 

8. The Department finds that Hagerstown, Maryland, is no longer an eligible EAS 

community. The Department will terminate subsidy 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 described in this Order; 

9. The Department finds that Jackson, Tennessee, is no longer an eligible EAS community. 

The Department will terminate subsidy for EAS at Jackson 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; 
- 10 -

10. The Department finds that Kingman, Arizona, is no longer an eligible EAS community. 

The Department will terminate subsidy for EAS at Kingman 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; 

11. The Department finds that Lancaster, Pennsylvania, is no longer an eligible EAS 

community. The Department will terminate subsidy 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 described in this Order; 

12. The Department finds that Macon, Georgia, is no longer an eligible EAS community. 

The Department will terminate subsidy for EAS at Macon 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; 

13. The Department finds that Merced, California, is no longer an eligible EAS community. 

The Department will terminate subsidy for EAS at Merced 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; 

14. The Department finds that Muscle Shoals, Alabama, is no longer an eligible EAS 

community. The Department will terminate subsidy 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 described 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) serving 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 arrangements, 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 Order 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.gov
Appendix 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 deplanements
Appendix 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