This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER

contains regulatory documents having general

applicability and legal effect, most of which

are keyed to and codified in the Code of

Federal Regulations, which is published under

50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.

The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by

the Superintendent of Documents. Prices of

new books are listed in the first FEDERAL

REGISTER issue of each week.

Rules and Regulations Federal Register

3311 

Vol. 78, No. 11 

Wednesday, January 16, 2013 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 139 

[Docket No.: FAA–2010–0247; Amdt. No. 

139–27] 

RIN 2120–AJ70 

Safety Enhancements, Certification of 

Airports 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This rulemaking amends 

regulations pertaining to certification of 

airports to clarify that the applicability 

of these regulations is based only on 

passenger seats in passenger-carrying 

operations as determined by either the 

regulations or the aircraft type 

certificate. This final rule also adds a 

new section that prohibits fraudulent or 

intentionally false statements 

concerning an airport operating 

certificate. Finally, this final rule adopts 

administrative changes for internal 

consistency, or to codify existing 

industry practice. These changes are 

necessary to clarify the applicability 

language, and ensure the reliability of 

records maintained by a certificate 

holder and reviewed by the FAA. Lastly, 

this final rule changes the definition of 

joint-use airport to correspond with 

statutory authority. 

DATES: Effective March 18, 2013. 

ADDRESSES: For information on where to 

obtain copies of rulemaking documents 

and other information related to this 

final rule, see ‘‘How To Obtain 

Additional Information’’ in the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of 

this document. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

technical questions concerning this 

action, contact Kenneth Langert, Office 

of Airports Safety and Standards, 

Airport Safety and Operations Division 

(AAS–300), Federal Aviation 

Administration, 800 Independence 

Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; 

telephone (202) 493–4529; e-mail 

Kenneth.Langert@faa.gov. For legal 

questions concerning this action, 

contact Sabrina Jawed, AGC–240, Office 

of the Chief Counsel, Federal Aviation 

Administration, 800 Independence 

Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; 

telephone (202) 267–3073; fax (202) 

267–7971; email 

Sabrina.Jawed@faa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Authority for This Rulemaking 

The FAA’s authority to issue rules on 

aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the 

United States Code. Subtitle I, section 

106 describes the authority of the FAA 

Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation 

Programs, describes in more detail the 

scope of the agency’s authority. 

This rulemaking is promulgated 

under the authority described in subtitle 

VII, part A, subpart III, section 44706, 

‘‘Airport Operating Certificates’’. Under 

that section, Congress charges the FAA 

with promoting safe flight of civil 

aircraft in air commerce by prescribing 

regulations for practices, methods, and 

procedures the Administrator finds 

necessary for safety in air commerce, 

including issuing airport operating 

certificates that contain terms the 

Administrator finds necessary to ensure 

safety in air transportation. This 

regulation is within the scope of that 

authority because it would (i) enhance 

safety in airport operations by clarifying 

the applicability of part 139, and (ii) 

explicitly prohibit fraudulent or 

intentionally false statements in a 

certificate application or record required 

to be maintained by the certificate 

holder. 

I. Overview of Final Rule 

This final rule will: 

• Clarify that the applicability of part 

139 is based only on passenger seats in 

passenger-carrying operations, as 

determined by either the regulations or 

the aircraft type certificate (§ 139.1); 

• Add a new § 139.115 that prohibits 

fraudulent or intentionally false 

statements concerning an airport 

operating certificate (AOC); 

• Amend language in § 139.303 and 

§ 139.329 for consistency, or to codify 

existing industry practice; and 

• Amend the definition of joint-use 

airport in § 139.5 to correspond with 

statutory authority. 

II. Summary of the Costs and Benefits 

of the Final Rule 

Although the FAA cannot quantify 

the benefits of this final rule, the FAA 

believes that the benefits will exceed the 

minimal unquantifiable costs imposed 

by this final rule because this final rule 

will provide consistent rule language 

and accurate reporting. 

III. Background 

A. Summary of NPRM 

Part 139 prescribes the minimum 

standards for maintaining and operating 

the physical airport environment. The 

FAA issues AOCs under part 139 to 

certain airports serving commercial 

passenger-carrying operations based on 

the type of commercial operations and 

size of aircraft served. As of December 

31, 2012, 544 of the four classes of 

airports (I, II, III, and IV) defined in part 

139 hold FAA-issued AOCs. 

On February 1, 2011, the FAA 

published a notice of proposed 

rulemaking (NPRM) on Safety 

Enhancements Part 139, Certification of 

Airports (76 FR 5510). In the NPRM, the 

FAA proposed to amend the airport 

certification standards in part 139 by: 

(1) Clarifying the applicability of part 

139, 

(2) Explicitly prohibiting fraudulent 

or intentionally false statements in a 

certificate application or record required 

to be maintained, 

(3) Requiring a Surface Movement 

Guidance Control System (SMGCS) plan 

if the certificate holder conducts lowvisibility operations, 

(4) Establishing minimum standards 

for training of personnel who access the 

airport non-movement area, and 

(5) Requiring certificate holders to 

conduct pavement surface evaluations 

to ensure reliability of runway surfaces 

in wet weather conditions. 

The comment period closed on April 

4, 2011. On April 13, 2011, the FAA 

reopened the comment period until May 

13, 2011, (76 FR 20570) because we 

learned that a number of airport 

operators were not aware that lowvisibility approaches and departures 

had been approved for their airports. 

The FAA notified, by letter, those 

airports with approved low-visibility 

departures, and reopened the comment 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with 
3312 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 11 / Wednesday, January 16, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

period to allow time for affected airports 

to receive notice from the FAA, review 

this NPRM, and adequately assess, 

prepare, and submit comments on the 

possible impact of this NPRM. 

On June 3, 2011, the FAA again 

reopened the comment period until July 

5, 2011, (76 FR 32105) because several 

industry groups requested the full 

economic evaluation the FAA 

developed for this rule. The FAA posted 

the full economic evaluation in the 

docket to allow industry time to review 

it, and adequately assess, prepare, and 

submit comments on the possible 

impact of this NPRM. 

B. Summary of Comments 

The FAA received 49 comment 

documents in response to the NPRM 

from the following commenters: Alaska 

DOT &PF; American Association of 

Airport Executives (AAAE); Airports 

Council International—North America 

(ACI–NA); Air Line Pilots Association, 

International (ALPA); Aircraft Owners 

and Pilots Association (AOPA); Broward 

County Aviation Department; 

Burlington International Airport; City of 

Atlanta Department of Aviation; City of 

Prescott; Clark County Department of 

Aviation; Dallas/Fort Worth 

International Airport; Denver 

International Airport; Experimental 

Aircraft Association (EAA); Fairbanks 

International Airport; Glynn County 

Airport Commission; Houston Airport 

System; Ithaca Tompkins Regional 

Airport; Kent County Department of 

Aeronautics; Lafayette Airport 

Commission; Los Angeles World 

Airport; Louisville Regional Airport 

Authority; Manchester-Boston Regional 

Airport; Maryland Aviation 

Administration; Mid Ohio Valley 

Airport; Municipal Airport Authority of 

the City of Fargo; Myrtle Beach 

International Airport; National Air 

Transportation Association (NATA); 

Omni Air International; Phoenix Sky 

Harbor International Airport; Port of 

Seattle; Portland International Airport; 

Rapid City Regional Airport; Salt Lake 

City International; Sarasota Manatee 

Airport Authority; Sioux Falls Regional 

Airport; Southwest Airlines; St. 

Petersburg-Clearwater International 

Airport; The Columbus Regional Airport 

Authority; The Port Authority of New 

York & New Jersey; Western Reserve 

Port Authority; and nine individuals. 

All of the commenters generally 

recommended changes to the proposal. 

C. Differences Between the NPRM and 

the Final Rule 

The table below shows the main 

topics covered by the proposals in the 

NPRM (indicated by a ‘‘YES’’) and 

whether or not the proposal for that 

topic is in this final rule (indicated by 

either a ‘‘YES’’ or a ‘‘NO’’). 

Safety enhancements part 

139 NPRM Final rule 

Applicability of Part 139 ..... YES ... YES. 

Certification and Falsification.YES ... YES. 

Surface Movement Guidance Control System 

(SMGCS).

YES ... NO. 

Non-Movement Area Safety 

Training.

YES ... NO. 

Runway Pavement Surface 

Evaluation.

YES ... NO. 

In addition to the above, the FAA is 

adopting administrative changes and 

amending the definition of joint-use 

airport, as discussed below. The 

administrative changes will not require 

part 139 AOC holders to change their 

current operational practices. 

IV. Discussion of Final Rule and 

Comments 

A. Applicability of Part 139 (§ 139.1) 

Currently, § 139.1(a)(1) states that an 

airport must be certificated under part 

139 to host scheduled passenger 

carrying operations of an air carrier 

operating aircraft designed for more 

than nine passenger seats, as 

determined by the aircraft type 

certificate issued by a competent civil 

aviation authority. The current wording 

of § 139.1 has created confusion 

regarding the operation of a particular 

aircraft type, the Cessna 208B Caravan 

(the ‘‘Caravan’’). The standard highdensity airline configuration for the 

Caravan features four rows of 1–2 

seating behind the two seats in the 

cockpit. The Caravan is certificated as a 

single-pilot aircraft, but has two pilot 

seats. In non-revenue service, the 

second pilot seat may be occupied by a 

passenger. However, in scheduled 

passenger-carrying operations, § 135.113 

prohibits passengers from occupying the 

second pilot seat, which means there are 

not more than nine passenger seats 

during those operations. 

In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to 

clarify § 139.1 to state that the 

applicability of part 139 is based only 

on passenger seats in passenger-carrying 

operations as determined by either the 

regulations under which the operation 

is conducted or the aircraft type 

certificate. 

No comments specifically objected to 

the proposal to clarify the applicability 

of part 139. The final rule adopts the 

language as proposed. 

B. Certification and Falsification 

(§ 139.115) 

The FAA proposed a new § 139.115 

that would prohibit fraudulent or 

intentionally false statements on an 

application for a certificate or other 

records required to be kept. 

All comments regarding this section 

supported the FAA’s proposal. To 

ensure the reliability of records 

maintained by a certificate holder and 

reviewed by the FAA, the FAA is 

adding a new § 139.115 that prohibits: 

(1) The making of any fraudulent or 

intentionally false statement on an 

application for a certificate; 

(2) The making of any fraudulent or 

intentionally false statement on any 

record or report required by the FAA; 

and 

(3) The reproduction or alteration, for 

a fraudulent purpose, of any FAA 

certificate or approval. 

The final rule allows the FAA to 

suspend or revoke an AOC if an owner, 

operator, or other person acting on 

behalf of the certificate holder violates 

any of these prohibitions. The FAA may 

also suspend or revoke any other FAA 

certificate issued to the person 

committing the act. This requirement is 

similar to the falsification prohibitions 

in 14 CFR parts 43, 61, 65, and 67. 

C. SMGCS (§ 139.203) 

The FAA proposed to amend 

§ 139.203 to require that airport 

certification manuals contain a SMGCS 

plan for airports approved for 

operations below 1,200 feet runway 

visual range. A SMGCS plan would 

facilitate the safe movement of aircraft 

and vehicles on the airport by 

establishing more rigorous control 

procedures and requiring enhanced 

visual aids. Additionally, the ability to 

conduct low visibility operations allows 

a certificate holder to stay open during 

poor weather conditions, thus reducing 

flight delays and cancellations. 

The basis for approving low-visibility 

operations for each runway would be 

incorporated in the certificate holder’s 

SMGCS plan. Only certificate holders 

that conduct low-visibility operations 

would be required to develop and 

implement a SMGCS plan. These plans 

would vary among airports because of 

local conditions, and would be subject 

to FAA approval. 

Twelve commenters stated that either 

the cost calculations in our proposal 

were not realistic, or the amount of time 

in low-visibility conditions did not 

warrant the investment. Additionally, 

several comments contended that the 

burden to airports would not be 

beneficial, and would require a large 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with 
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 11 / Wednesday, January 16, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 3313 

1See FAA Fact Sheet at 

www.faa.gov/news/fact_sheets/ 

news_story.cfm?newsId=10133. 

2See FAA Annual Runway Safety Report 2010, at 

www.faa.gov/airports/runway_safety/news/ 

publications/media/ 

Annual_Runway_Safety_Report_2010.pdf. 

infrastructure investment. Based on 

comments and further cost analysis, this 

section of the rule is not currently cost 

beneficial to implement and the FAA is 

withdrawing the SMGCS proposal. 

However, the FAA may propose 

rulemaking in the future if it is 

determined to be necessary. 

D. Training (§§ 139.303 & 139.329) 

i. Non-Movement Area 

In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to 

require training for all persons 

authorized to access the non-movement 

area (with certain exceptions noted in 

the proposal). This training would 

complement the existing training for 

persons accessing the movement and 

safety areas, and could be combined 

with the training for persons accessing 

both the movement and non-movement 

areas. 

Nearly all commenters expressed 

support for increasing safety. However, 

most commenters contended the 

proposal was unnecessary because 

airlines and ground servicing providers 

conduct safety training to satisfy the 

Occupational Safety and Health 

Administration (OSHA) requirements. 

They also stated the cost to the industry 

would be burdensome, and would take 

away time from other duties that 

produce greater safety benefits. Further, 

they stated the NPRM overstates the 

benefit and underestimates the lifecycle 

costs by not including costs for 

additional staff or facilities needed for 

training and record keeping. One airport 

included a cost case study, and other 

airports provided differing cost figures 

that were helpful in identifying all costs 

involved. 

Based on comments and further 

analysis, the FAA is withdrawing the 

proposal covering non-movement area 

safety training. However, the FAA may 

propose rulemaking in the future if it is 

determined to be necessary. 

ii. Substituting ‘‘Persons’’ for 

‘‘Personnel’’ 

The proposal also included 

substituting all ‘‘persons’’ for all 

‘‘personnel’’ in § 139.303(c). We 

received no comments objecting to this 

change. The FAA adopts this change, 

and will also substitute all ‘‘persons’’ for 

‘‘employee, tenant or contractor’’ in 

§§ 139.329 (b) and (e) for consistency. 

The FAA has determined this language 

provides greater clarity and is consistent 

with previous FAA interpretations. 

iii. Annual Recurrent Training 

Since 2007, the U.S. aviation 

community has initiated and completed 

significant short-term actions to 

improve safety at U.S. airports based on 

the FAA’s ‘‘Call to Action.’’ 1 As part of 

the Call to Action, the FAA Office of 

Airport Safety and Standards issued a 

change to AC 150/5210–20, Ground 

Vehicle Operations on Airports, on 

March 31, 2008. The AC change strongly 

recommended regular recurrent driver 

training for all persons with access to 

the movement area. This included 

voluntarily conducting recurrent annual 

movement area driver’s training for all 

personnel who enter the movement 

area. All certificated airports voluntarily 

developed plans to require annual 

recurrent training for all individuals 

with access to the movement areas. As 

a result of the Call to Action, in 2010 the 

Office of Airports recorded that all 

airports were requiring recurrent 

training for non-airport employees such 

as Fixed-Base Operators (FBO) or airline 

mechanics.2 The FAA intended to 

propose a requirement in the NPRM that 

would make the existing industry 

practice mandatory. Given the 

universality of the training, the FAA has 

determined that it would be contrary to 

the public interest to initiate a separate 

rulemaking action just for this provision 

in order to provide an opportunity to 

comment. The existing level of training 

indicates that as a group certificated 

airports are willing to conduct the 

training, and that codifying existing 

industry practice adds no further costs. 

This final rule now requires annual 

recurrent training for all persons in the 

movement and safety areas for Classes I 

through IV airports. Regulatory text is 

being added to § 139.329 to further 

clarify that all persons that have access 

to, and operate in, movement areas and 

safety areas require initial and recurrent 

drivers training (at least once every 12 

consecutive calendar months). 

Additionally, since Class IV airports 

will be required to comply with this 

regulation, an ‘‘X’’ will be added in the 

Class IV column in § 139.203(b) manual 

element number 22. 

E. Runway Pavement Surface 

Evaluation (§ 139.305) 

In the NPRM, the FAA proposed 

amending § 139.305 to require airports 

to establish and implement a runway 

friction testing program for each runway 

used by jet aircraft. Under the proposal, 

a certificate holder would schedule 

periodic friction evaluations of each 

runway that accommodates jet aircraft. 

Components of the program would 

include a testing frequency that takes 

into consideration the volume and type 

of traffic as well as friction readings 

from continuous friction measuring 

equipment (CFME) operated by trained 

personnel. Corrective action would be 

required, as needed. 

Ten commenters questioned whether 

the cost of the CFME or the tests 

required would provide significant 

benefit. Five commenters wanted to 

know who would be responsible for 

qualifying the trainers for the CFME 

operators. The remaining comments 

raised concerns about: 

(i) Non-jet traffic; 

(ii) The use of the CFME for winter 

operations; 

(iii) What constitutes acceptable 

friction levels; 

(iv) What is an acceptable testing 

frequency; 

(v) Are there any funding sources; 

(vi) What is the implementation time 

frame; and 

(vii) Consideration of new equipment. 

The FAA also proposed for § 139.305 

that airport operators be required to 

locate potential hydroplaning areas as 

well as measure the depth and width of 

a runway’s grooves to check for wear 

and damage. Airports would also 

establish and implement a program for 

testing performance of grooves and 

transverse slopes. 

Four commenters stated that the 

NPRM did not provide enough detail for 

cross-slope inspection requirements. 

Three commenters felt that this issue 

was already considered in current part 

139 regulations. Other commenters 

wanted the FAA to determine 

inspection specifics and acceptance 

levels. Two commenters thought that 

this proposal would increase costs. 

Based on comments and further 

analysis, the FAA is withdrawing the 

proposals for § 139.305. The FAA notes 

that guidance currently exists 

addressing these issues and it will 

conduct outreach with certificate 

holders. Guidance on runway friction 

testing frequency and friction levels is 

in Advisory Circular 150/5320–12C 

Measurement, Construction, and 

Maintenance of Skid-Resistant 

Pavement Surfaces. Guidance on the use 

of CFME in contaminated conditions for 

operational purposes is found in 

Advisory Circular 150/5200–30C, 

Airport Winter Safety and Operations. 

Finally, the FAA notes that current part 

139 requirements require airports to 

inspect runways for ponding problems. 

However, the FAA may propose 

rulemaking in the future if it is 

determined to be necessary. 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with 
3314 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 11 / Wednesday, January 16, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

F. Definition of Joint Use Airport 

(§ 139.5) 

The FAA is changing the definition of 

‘‘joint use airport’’ in § 139.5 to 

correspond with the definition provided 

by Congress in the FAA Modernization 

and Reform Act of 2012 (49 U.S.C. 

47175 (2012)). This change is not 

subject to notice and comment 

procedures because it meets the 

Administrative Procedure Act’s good 

cause exception (5 U.S.C. 553). 

V. Regulatory Notices and Analyses 

A. Regulatory Evaluation 

Changes to Federal regulations must 

undergo several economic analyses. 

First, Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 

direct 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 (Pub. L. 96–354) 

requires agencies to analyze the 

economic impact of regulatory changes 

on small entities. Third, the Trade 

Agreements Act (Pub. L. 96–39) 

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 requires 

agencies to consider international 

standards and, where appropriate, that 

they be the basis of U.S. standards. 

Fourth, the Unfunded Mandates Reform 

Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4) 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 with 

base year of 1995). This portion of the 

preamble summarizes the FAA’s 

analysis of the economic impacts of this 

final rule. 

Department of Transportation Order 

DOT 2100.5 prescribes policies and 

procedures for simplification, analysis, 

and review of regulations. If the 

expected cost impact is so minimal that 

a proposed or final rule does not 

warrant a full evaluation, this order 

permits that a statement to that effect 

and the basis for it to be included in the 

preamble if a full regulatory evaluation 

of the cost and benefits is not prepared. 

Such a determination has been made for 

this final rule. The reasoning for this 

determination follows: 

In conducting these analyses, the FAA 

has determined that this final rule: 

(1) Imposes no incremental costs and 

provides benefits, 

(2) Is not an economically ‘‘significant 

regulatory action’’ as defined in section 

3(f) of Executive Order 12866, 

(3) Is not significant as defined in 

DOT’s Regulatory Policies and 

Procedures; 

(4) Will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities; 

(5) Will not have a significant effect 

on international trade; and 

(6) Will not impose an unfunded 

mandate on state, local, or tribal 

governments, or on the private sector by 

exceeding the monetary threshold 

identified. 

These analyses are summarized 

below. 

In response to public comments, the 

FAA is withdrawing some proposed 

NPRM requirements. This section 

analyzes the economic impacts of the 

provisions of this final rule. 

This final rule will: 

• Clarify that the applicability of part 

139 is based only on passenger seats in 

passenger-carrying operations, as 

determined by the regulations or the 

aircraft type certificate (§ 139.1); 

• Add a new § 139.115 that prohibits 

fraudulent or intentionally false 

statements concerning an AOC or other 

record required to be maintained; 

• Amend language in §§ 139.303 and 

138.329 for consistency or to codify 

current industry practice; and 

• Amend the definition of joint-use 

airport in § 139.5 to correspond with 

statutory authority. 

The benefits and costs of each of these 

sections of this final rule are discussed 

below. 

i. Applicability of Part 139 (§ 139.1) 

This section of this final rule clarifies 

that the applicability of part 139 is 

based only on passenger seats in 

passenger-carrying operations, as 

determined by the regulations or the 

aircraft type certificate. 

No quantitative benefits or costs are 

estimated for this section of the final 

rule because it simply clarifies existing 

FAA requirements. 

ii. Certification and Falsification 

(§ 139.115) 

This section of this final rule is 

intended to ensure the reliability of 

records maintained by a certificate 

holder and reviewed by the FAA by 

specifically prohibiting fraudulent or 

intentionally false statements 

concerning an AOC or other record 

required to be maintained. 

This section of this final rule has 

positive qualitative benefits because it 

emphasizes the importance of accurate 

reporting of airport data. However, no 

quantitative benefits are estimated for 

this section of this final rule. 

There are no costs for this section of 

this final rule because it simply 

formalizes the keeping and reporting of 

accurate airport data. 

This requirement is similar to the 

falsification prohibitions in 14 CFR 

parts 43, 61, 65, and 67. 

iii. Amended Language in §§ 139.303 

and 139.329 

Currently, there are inconsistencies in 

the way people are referred to in these 

sections. This final rule will replace all 

references to people with the term 

persons. Additionally, the FAA will 

require annual recurrent training for all 

persons in the movement and safety 

areas and include Class IV airports to 

align with current industry practice. 

The qualitative benefit of this portion 

of this final rule will be to provide 

consistent language within and between 

§§ 139.303 and 138.329. However, the 

FAA cannot provide a quantitative 

estimate of these benefits. 

There are no costs for this portion of 

this final rule because this changed 

language is consistent with previous 

FAA interpretations. 

Although the FAA cannot quantify 

the benefits of this final rule, the FAA 

believes that the benefits will exceed the 

minimal unquantifiable costs imposed 

by this final rule. 

B. Regulatory Flexibility Determination 

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 explain 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 agency determines that it 

will, the agency must prepare a 

regulatory flexibility analysis as 

described in the Act. 

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 RFA 

provides that the head of the agency 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with 
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 11 / Wednesday, January 16, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 3315 

may so certify and a regulatory 

flexibility analysis is not required. The 

certification must include a statement 

providing the factual basis for this 

determination, and the reasoning should 

be clear. 

i. Publicly Owned Airports 

Size standards for small entities are 

published by the Small Business 

Administration (SBA). The small entity 

size standard for municipalities, 

including those owning publicly-owned 

airports, is a population less than 50,000 

people. 

The population of municipalities 

owning airports ranges from many 

millions to a few thousand. Many part 

139 airport owners are small entities. 

Therefore, this final rule will affect a 

large number of small entities. However, 

this final rule will not have a significant 

economic impact on any small entity 

because the final rule imposes no 

incremental costs. 

Therefore, as the acting FAA 

Administrator, I certify that this final 

rule will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of part 139 airport owners. 

C. International Trade Impact 

Assessment 

The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 

(Pub. L. 96–39), as amended by the 

Uruguay Round Agreements Act (Pub. 

L. 103–465), prohibits Federal agencies 

from establishing standards or engaging 

in related activities that create 

unnecessary obstacles to the foreign 

commerce of the United States. 

Pursuant to these Acts, the 

establishment of standards is not 

considered an unnecessary obstacle to 

the foreign commerce of the United 

States, so long as the standard has a 

legitimate domestic objective, such as 

the protection of safety, and does not 

operate in a manner that excludes 

imports that meet this objective. The 

statute also requires consideration of 

international standards and, where 

appropriate, that they be the basis for 

U.S. standards. 

The FAA has assessed the potential 

effect of this final rule and determined 

that it will have only a domestic impact 

and therefore will not create 

unnecessary obstacles to the foreign 

commerce of the United States. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Assessment 

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4) 

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 an 

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.’’ The FAA currently uses an 

inflation-adjusted value of $143.1 

million in lieu of $100 million. This 

final rule does not contain such a 

mandate; therefore, the requirements of 

Title II do not apply. 

E. Paperwork Reduction Act 

The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

(44 U.S.C. 3507(d)) requires that the 

FAA consider the impact of paperwork 

and other information collection 

burdens imposed on the public. In the 

NPRM, we provided data on the 

information collection requirements 

associated with the proposals in that 

document. However, the proposals that 

created these information collection 

requirements are not in this final rule. 

Therefore, the FAA has determined that 

there is no new requirement for 

information collection associated with 

this final rule. 

F. International Compatibility and 

Cooperation 

(1) In keeping with U.S. obligations 

under the Convention on International 

Civil Aviation, it is FAA policy to 

conform to International Civil Aviation 

Organization (ICAO) Standards and 

Recommended Practices to the 

maximum extent practicable. The FAA 

has reviewed the corresponding ICAO 

Standards and Recommended Practices 

and has identified no differences with 

these regulations. 

(2) Executive Order 13609, Promoting 

International Regulatory Cooperation, 

promotes international regulatory 

cooperation to meet shared challenges 

involving health, safety, labor, security, 

environmental, and other issues and to 

reduce, eliminate, or prevent 

unnecessary differences in regulatory 

requirements. The FAA has analyzed 

this action under the policies and 

agency responsibilities of Executive 

Order 13609, and has determined that 

this action would have no effect on 

international regulatory cooperation. 

G. Environmental Analysis 

FAA Order 1050.1E identifies FAA 

actions that are categorically excluded 

from preparation of an environmental 

assessment or environmental impact 

statement under the National 

Environmental Policy Act in the 

absence of extraordinary circumstances. 

The FAA has determined this 

rulemaking action qualifies for the 

categorical exclusion identified in 

Chapter 3, paragraph 312d, and involves 

no extraordinary circumstances. 

VI. Executive Order Determinations 

A. Executive Order 13132, 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 

government body (such as a city or 

county government), which, in turn, is 

incorporated by or is part of a State. 

Some airports are operated directly by a 

State. 

This final rule, which modifies an 

existing regulatory requirement, 

imposes no incremental costs and 

would not alter the relationship 

between certificate holders and the FAA 

as established by law. This final rule is 

not a significant regulatory action under 

the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 

1995. Accordingly, the FAA has 

determined that this action does not 

have a substantial direct effect on the 

States. This final rule makes 

administrative amendments to existing 

regulatory requirements for certificate 

holders. These requirements are under 

existing statutory authority to regulate 

airports for aviation safety. Accordingly, 

there is no change in either the 

relationship between the Federal 

Government and the Sates, or the 

distribution of power among the various 

levels of government. 

The FAA mailed a copy of the NPRM 

to each State government specifically 

inviting comment on Federalism issues. 

No comments were received. 

B. Executive Order 13211, Regulations 

That Significantly Affect Energy Supply 

Distribution, or Use 

The FAA analyzed this final rule 

under Executive Order 13211, Actions 

Concerning Regulations that 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use (May 18, 2001). The 

agency has determined that it is not a 

‘‘significant energy action’’ under the 

executive order and it is not likely to 

have a significant adverse effect on the 

supply, distribution, or use of energy. 

VII. How To Obtain Additional 

Information 

A. Rulemaking Documents 

An electronic copy of a rulemaking 

document may be obtained by using the 

Internet— 

1. Search the Federal eRulemaking 

Portal (http://www.regulations.gov); 

2. Visit the FAA’s Regulations and 

Policies Web page at http:// 

www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/; or 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with 
3316 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 11 / Wednesday, January 16, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

3. Access the Government Printing 

Office’s Web page at http:// 

www.gpo.gov/fdsys. 

Copies may also be obtained by 

sending a request (identified by notice, 

amendment, or docket number of this 

rulemaking) to the Federal Aviation 

Administration, Office of Rulemaking, 

ARM–1, 800 Independence Avenue 

SW., Washington, DC 20591, or by 

calling (202) 267–9680. 

B. Comments Submitted to the Docket 

Comments received may be viewed by 

going to http://www.regulations.gov and 

following the online instructions to 

search the docket number for this 

action. Anyone is able to search the 

electronic form of all comments 

received into any of the FAA’s 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.). 

C. 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. 

A small entity with questions regarding 

this document, may contact its local 

FAA official, or the person listed under 

the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT

heading at the beginning of the 

preamble. To find out more about 

SBREFA on the Internet, visit http:// 

www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/ 

rulemaking/sbre_act/. 

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 139 

Air carriers, Airports, Aviation safety, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

The Amendment 

In consideration of the foregoing, the 

Federal Aviation Administration 

amends chapter I of title 14, Code of 

Federal Regulations as follows: 

PART 139—CERTIFICATION OF 

AIRPORTS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 139 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701– 

44702, 44709, 44719. 

■ 2. Amend § 139.1 by revising 

paragraph (a) to read as follows: 

§ 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 configured for more than 9 

passenger seats, as determined by the 

regulations under which the operation 

is conducted or the aircraft type 

certificate issued by a competent civil 

aviation authority; and 

(2) Unscheduled passenger-carrying 

operations of an air carrier operating 

aircraft configured for at least 31 

passenger seats, as determined by the 

regulations under which the operation 

is conducted or the aircraft type 

certificate issued by a competent civil 

aviation authority. 

* * * * * 

■ 3. Amend § 139.5 to revise the 

definition of the term ‘‘Joint-use airport’’ 

to read as follows: 

§ 139.5 Definitions. 

* * * * * 

Joint-use airport means an airport 

owned by the Department of Defense, at 

which both military and civilian aircraft 

make shared use of the airfield. 

* * * * * 

■ 4. Add § 139.115 to subpart B to read 

as follows: 

§ 139.115 Falsification, reproduction, or 

alteration of applications, certificates, 

reports, or records. 

(a) No person shall make or cause to 

be made: 

(1) Any fraudulent or intentionally 

false statement on any application for a 

certificate or approval under this part. 

(2) Any fraudulent or intentionally 

false entry in any record or report that 

is required to be made, kept, or used to 

show compliance with any requirement 

under this part. 

(3) Any reproduction, for a fraudulent 

purpose, of any certificate or approval 

issued under this part. 

(4) Any alteration, for a fraudulent 

purpose, of any certificate or approval 

issued under this part. 

(b) The commission by any owner, 

operator, or other person acting on 

behalf of a certificate holder of an act 

prohibited under paragraph (a) of this 

section is a basis for suspending or 

revoking any certificate or approval 

issued under this part and held by that 

certificate holder and any other 

certificate issued under this title and 

held by the person committing the act. 

■ 5. Amend § 139.203 by revising 

paragraph (b)(22) to read as follows: 

§ 139.203 Contents of Airport Certification 

Manual. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

Manual elements 

Airport certificate class 

Class I Class II Class III Class IV 

*******

22. Procedures for controlling pedestrians and ground vehicles in movement 

areas and safety areas, as required under § 139.329 ................................. X X X X 

*******

■ 6. Amend § 139.303 by revising the 

introductory text of paragraph (c) to 

read as follows: 

§ 139.303 Personnel. 

* * * * * 

(c) Train all persons 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 must 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 must include at least the 

following areas: 

* * * * * 

■ 7. Amend § 139.329 by revising 

paragraph (b) and paragraph (e) to read 

as follows: 

§ 139.329 Pedestrians and ground 

vehicles. 

* * * * * 

(b) Establish and implement 

procedures for the safe and orderly 

access to and operation in movement 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with 
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 11 / Wednesday, January 16, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 3317 

areas and safety areas by pedestrians 

and ground vehicles, including 

provisions identifying the consequences 

of noncompliance with the procedures 

by all persons; 

* * * * * 

(e) Ensure that all persons are trained 

on procedures required under paragraph 

(b) of this section prior to the initial 

performance of such duties and at least 

once every 12 consecutive calendar 

months, including consequences of 

noncompliance, prior to moving on foot, 

or operating a ground vehicle, in 

movement areas or safety areas; and 

* * * * * 

Issued in Washington, DC, on January 4, 

2013. 

Michael P. Huerta, 

Acting Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 2013–00848 Filed 1–15–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

Bureau of Industry and Security 

15 CFR Part 744 

[Docket No. 121113624–2624–01] 

RIN 0694–AF82 

Removal of Persons From the Entity 

List Based on Removal Request; 

Implementation of Entity List Annual 

Review Changes; and Implementation 

of Modifications and Corrections to the 

Entity List 

AGENCY: Bureau of Industry and 

Security, Commerce. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This rule amends the Export 

Administration Regulations (EAR) by 

removing two persons from the Entity 

List (Supplement No. 4 to Part 744), as 

the result of a request for removal 

submitted by these two persons. In 

addition, on the basis of the annual 

review conducted by the End User 

Review Committee, this rule amends the 

Entity List to remove two entries from 

the United Arab Emirates (U.A.E.). 

Finally, this rule modifies two existing 

entries to correct the scope of those 

entries, including removing a redundant 

entry that was inadvertently added in a 

final rule. 

DATES: Effective Date: This rule is 

effective January 16, 2013. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Karen Nies-Vogel, Chair, End-User 

Review Committee, Office of the 

Assistant Secretary, Export 

Administration, Bureau of Industry and 

Security, Department of Commerce, 

Phone: (202) 482–5991, Fax: (202) 482– 

3911, Email: ERC@bis.doc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

The Entity List (Supplement No. 4 to 

Part 744) notifies the public about 

entities that have engaged in activities 

that could result in an increased risk of 

the diversion of exported, reexported, or 

transferred (in-country) items to 

weapons of mass destruction (WMD) 

programs. Since its initial publication, 

grounds for inclusion on the Entity List 

have expanded to activities sanctioned 

by the State Department and activities 

contrary to U.S. national security or 

foreign policy interests, including 

terrorism and export control violations 

involving abuse of human rights. 

Certain exports, reexports, and transfers 

(in-country) to entities identified on the 

Entity List require licenses from BIS and 

are usually subject to a policy of denial. 

The availability of license exceptions in 

such transactions is very limited. The 

license review policy for each entity is 

identified in the License Review Policy 

column on the Entity List and the 

availability of license exceptions is 

published in the Federal Register 

notices adding persons to the Entity 

List. BIS places entities on the Entity 

List based on certain sections of part 

744 (Control Policy: End-User and EndUse Based) of the EAR. 

The End-user Review Committee 

(ERC), composed of representatives of 

the Departments of Commerce (Chair), 

State, Defense, Energy and, where 

appropriate, the Treasury, makes all 

decisions regarding additions to, 

removals from, or other modifications to 

the Entity List. The ERC makes all 

decisions to add an entry to the Entity 

List by majority vote and all decisions 

to remove or modify an entry by 

unanimous vote. 

ERC Entity List Decisions 

Removal From the Entity List 

This rule implements a decision of 

the ERC to remove two persons, 

Laurence Mattiucci and Toulouse Air 

Spares SAS, both located in France, 

from the Entity List as a result of a 

successful request for removal from the 

Entity List. Based upon the review of 

the information provided in the removal 

request in accordance with § 744.16 

(Procedure for requesting removal or 

modification of an Entity List entity), 

and after review by the ERC’s member 

agencies, the ERC determined that these 

persons should be removed from the 

Entity List. 

The ERC’s decision to remove these 

two persons took into account their 

cooperation with the U.S. Government, 

as well as their assurances of future 

compliance with the EAR. In 

accordance with § 744.16(c), the Deputy 

Assistant Secretary for Export 

Administration has sent written 

notification to these two persons, 

informing these entities of the ERC’s 

decision to remove them from the Entity 

List. This final rule implements the 

decision to remove the following two 

persons from the Entity List: 

France 

(1) Laurence Mattiucci, 8 Rue de la 

Bruyere, 31120 Pinsaguel, Toulouse, 

France; and 

(2) Toulouse Air Spares SAS, 8 Rue de 

la Bruyere, 31120 Pinsaguel, Toulouse, 

France. 

Annual Review of the Entity List 

This rule also amends the Entity List 

on the basis of the annual review of the 

Entity List conducted by the ERC, in 

accordance with the procedures 

outlined in Supplement No. 5 to part 

744 (Procedures for End-User Review 

Committee Entity List Decisions). The 

changes from the annual review of the 

Entity List that are approved by the ERC 

are implemented in stages as the ERC 

completes its review of entities listed 

under different destinations on the 

Entity List. This rule implements the 

results of the annual review for entities 

located in the United Arab Emirates 

(U.A.E.). The entities located Armenia, 

Cyprus, France, and Iran were also 

reviewed by the ERC, but no additional 

changes are being made to those entries 

as a result of the annual review of the 

Entity List. 

Removals From the Entity List on the 

Basis of Annual Reviews 

This rule removes two entries from 

the Entity List on the basis of the annual 

review of the Entity List. The persons 

removed were determined to no longer 

meet the criteria for inclusion on the 

Entity List. Specifically, this rule 

implements the decision of the ERC to 

remove two persons located in the 

U.A.E., as follows: 

United Arab Emirates 

(1) Abubakr Abuelazm, Dubai, U.A.E., 

500100; and 

(1) Advanced Technology General 

Trading Company, a.k.a, Advanced 

Technologies Emirates FZ–LLC, Office 

#124 1st Floor, Building #3, Dell 

Building, Sheikh Zayed Road, Dubai 

Internet City, Dubai, U.A.E. 

The removal of the above-referenced 

two entities on the basis of annual 

review of the Entity List, and the 

removal of the two entities referenced 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with