38636 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 120 / Wednesday, June 21, 2000 / Proposed Rules

1Safety Study: Commuter Airline Safety, National

Transportation Safety Board, NTSB/SS–94/02,

November 1994.

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Parts 121 and 139

[Docket No. FAA–2000–7479; Notice No. 00–

05]

RIN 2120–AG96

Certification of Airports

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking

(NPRM).

SUMMARY: This document proposes to

revise the current airport certification

regulation and to establish certification

requirements for airports serving

scheduled air carrier operations in

aircraft with 10–30 seats. In addition,

changes are proposed to address

National Transportation Safety Board

(NTSB) recommendations and petitions

for exemptions and rulemaking. A

section of an air carrier operation

regulation also would be amended to

conform with proposed changes to

airport certification requirements. The

FAA believes that these proposed

revisions are necessary to ensure safety

in air transportation and to provide a

comparable level of safety at all

certificated airports.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on

or before September 19, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Comments on this proposed

rulemaking should be mailed or

delivered, in duplicate, to: U.S.

Department of Transportation Dockets,

Docket No. FAA–2000–7479, 400

Seventh Street, SW., Room Plaza 401,

Washington, DC 20590. Comments may

be filed and examined in Room Plaza

401 between 10 a.m. and 5 p.m.

weekdays, except Federal holidays.

Comments also may be sent

electronically to the Dockets

Management System (DMS) at the

following Internet address: http://

dms.dot.gov at any time. Commenters

who wish to file comments

electronically, should follow the

instructions on the DMS web site.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Linda Bruce, Airport Safety and

Operations Division (AAS–300), Office

of Airport Safety and Standards, Federal

Aviation Administration, 800

Independence Ave., SW., Washington,

DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267–8553, or

E-mail: linda.bruce@faa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

Interested persons are invited to

participate in this rulemaking by

submitting such written data, views, or

arguments, as they may desire.

Comments relating to the

environmental, energy, federalism, or

economic impact that might result from

adopting the proposals in this document

are also invited. Substantive comments

should be accompanied by cost

estimates. Comments should identify

the regulatory docket or notice number

and should be submitted in triplicate to

the Rules Docket address specified

above.

All comments received, as well as a

report summarizing each substantive

public contact with FAA personnel on

this rulemaking, will be filed in the

docket. The docket is available for

public inspection before and after the

comment closing date.

The Administrator will consider all

comments received on or before the

closing date before taking action on this

proposed rulemaking. Comments filed

late will be considered as far as possible

without incurring expense or delay. The

proposals contained in this rulemaking

may be changed in light of the

comments received.

Commenters wishing the FAA to

acknowledge receipt of their comments

submitted in response to this notice

must include a pre-addressed, stamped

postcard with those comments on which

the following statement is made:

‘‘Comments to Docket No. FAA–2000–

7479.’’ The postcard will be date

stamped and mailed to the commenter.

Availability of NPRMs

An electronic copy of this document

may be downloaded using a modem and

suitable communications software from

the FAA regulations section of the

FedWorld electronic bulletin board

service (telephone: 703–321–3339), or

the Government Printing Office’s

(GPO’s) electronic bulletin board service

(telephone: 202–512–1661).

Internet users may reach the FAA’s

web page at http://www.faa.gov/avr/

arm/nprm/nprm.htm or the GPO’s web

pages at http://www.access.gpo.gov/

nara for access to recently published

rulemaking documents.

Any person may obtain a copy of this

NPRM by submitting a request to the

Federal Aviation Administration, Office

of Rulemaking, ARM–1, 800

Independence Avenue, SW.,

Washington, DC 20591, or by calling

(202) 267–9680. Communications must

identify the notice number or docket

number of this NPRM.

Persons interested in being placed on

the mailing list for future NPRM’s

should request from the above office a

copy of Advisory Circular No. 11–2A,

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

Distribution System, that describes the

application procedure.

Background

History

Since 1970, the FAA Administrator

has had the statutory authority to issue

airport operating certificates to airports

serving certain air carriers and to

establish minimum safety standards for

the operation of those airports. This

authority is currently found in Title 49,

United States Code (U.S.C.) section

44706, Airport operating certificates.

The FAA uses this authority to issue

requirements for the certification and

operation of certain land airports. These

requirements are contained in Title14,

Code of Federal Regulations part 139 (14

CFR part 139), Certification and

Operations: Land Airports Serving

Certain Air Carriers, as amended.

Until recently, this statutory authority

was limited to those land airports

serving passenger operations of an air

carrier that is conducted with an aircraft

having a seating capacity of more than

30 passengers. However, this authority

was broadened by the Federal Aviation

Administration Reauthorization Act of

1996. Section 44706 was amended to

allow the FAA to certificate airports,

with the exception of those located in

the State of Alaska, that serve any

scheduled passenger operation of an air

carrier operating aircraft designed for

more than 9 passenger seats but less

than 31 passenger seats. FAA’s existing

authority to certificate airports serving

air carrier operations conducted in

aircraft with more than 30 seats

remained unchanged.

This amendment was proposed by the

Secretary of Transportation in response

to a recommendation made by the NTSB

that the FAA seek authority from

Congress to issue certificates to airports

serving commuter airlines. In November

1994, the NTSB released its findings

resulting from a study of commuter

airline safety.1 This study identified

several safety improvements that the

NTSB felt would improve the commuter

airline safety record. While this study,

and subsequent recommendations,

focused on airline and aircraft

operations, it also was critical of the

FAA for not requiring airports serving

commuter operations to maintain their

facilities in the same manner as airports

serving major air carriers.

This was not the first attempt to

obtain the legislative authority to

certificate commuter airports. In 1987,

the General Accounting Office (GAO)

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 120 / Wednesday, June 21, 2000 / Proposed Rules 38637

2Aviation Safety: Commuter Airports Should

Participate in the Airport Certification Program,

U.S. General Accounting Office, GAO/RCED–88–41,

November 1987.

issued a safety report on the

certification of small airports.2 Similar

to the NTSB findings, the GAO

concluded that airport safety would be

enhanced if all airports serving

scheduled air carrier service were to be

certificated and recommended the FAA

include such facilities in its airport

certification program. The FAA

concurred with the GAO’s findings, but

determined its statutory authority to

certificate airports was limited to

airports that serve scheduled and

unscheduled passenger operations of air

carrier aircraft with more than 30 seats.

A proposed amendment to broaden this

authority was submitted to Congress,

but the measure was not enacted.

The 1996 amendment to the statute

did not mandate the issuance of airport

certificates to airports serving commuter

air carriers. It only provides general

authority under which the FAA may

promulgate appropriate regulatory

standards. The FAA proposes to use this

authority to extend to airports its policy

of one level of safety for all covered air

carriers. In response to a series of

commuter accidents and the NTSB’s

findings, the FAA established this

policy of one level of safety, and

comprehensively revised regulations

pertaining to the air carrier operations,

specifically 14 CFR parts 121 and 135,

to ensure similar safety standards

among air carriers. Similarly, this

proposal would establish minimum

safety standards among all covered

airports (airports that the FAA has the

authority to certificate) served by air

carriers.

Further, this proposal would revise

and clarify several safety and

operational requirements that have

become outdated. The last major

revision of part 139 occurred in

November 1987, and since then,

industry practices and technology have

changed. In the subsequent years, the

FAA has gathered data on the

effectiveness of part 139 requirements,

(primarily through joint industry/FAA

working groups, field research and

periodic airport certification

inspections), and proposes to use this

rulemaking opportunity to update part

139 requirements.

Current Requirements

Under existing part 139, the FAA

requires airport operators to comply

with certain safety requirements prior to

serving operations of large air carrier

aircraft (aircraft with more than 30

seats). When an airport operator

satisfactorily complies with such

requirements, the FAA issues to that

facility an airport operating certificate

that permits an airport to serve large air

carriers. These safety requirements

cover a broad range of airport

operations, including the maintenance

of runway pavement, markings and

lighting; notification of air carriers of

unsafe or changed conditions; and

preparedness for aircraft accidents and

other emergencies. The FAA

periodically inspects these airports to

ensure continued compliance with part

139 safety requirements.

Under existing rules, the FAA issues

two types of airport operating

certificates depending on the type of air

carrier operations an airport serves.

Operators of airports that serve

scheduled operations of large air carrier

aircraft are issued an Airport Operating

Certificate (AOC), commonly referred to

as a ‘‘full’’ certificate. As these airport

operators regularly serve large air carrier

operations, they must fully comply with

all part 139 requirements. Of the

approximately 660 certificated airports,

approximately 430 airport operators

hold a ‘‘full’’ certificate. Conversely,

airport operators serving only

unscheduled operations of large air

carrier aircraft are required to have a

Limited Airport Operating Certificate

(LAOC), known as a ‘‘limited’’

certificate. Approximately 135 airport

operators hold a ‘‘limited’’ certificate.

Air carrier operations in large aircraft

are so infrequent at these facilities that

their operators are only required to

comply with part 139 in a limited

manner. For example, existing § 139.213

requires airport operators holding a

‘‘limited’’ certificate to comply with

only certain pavement, lighting,

marking and emergency response

requirements. Such airports are

typically located in remote communities

or support seasonal activities, such as

skiing during winter months.

The remaining certificated airports

(approximately 90) are Department of

Defense (DOD) airports serving air

carrier operations. These facilities are

issued an airport operating certificate

but are exempted from part 139

requirements under FAA Exemption No.

5750B.

The FAA requires all operators of

certificated civilian airports to develop,

and comply with, a written document

that details how the airport operator

will comply with the requirements of

part 139. As every airport is unique and

local circumstances vary, this written

document sets forth the site-specific

procedures, equipment, and personnel

that each airport operator uses to

comply with part 139 requirements.

This document at an airport with a

‘‘full’’ certificate is called the Airport

Certification Manual (ACM). At an

airport with a ‘‘limited’’ certificate, it is

known as Airport Certification

Specifications (ACS).

Enforcement Action

The FAA can impose a civil penalty

of $1,000 per day per violation on

operators of airports that are currently

certificated under part 139 (airports

serving scheduled and unscheduled

operations of large air carrier aircraft). If

this proposal is adopted, the FAA also

could impose monetary penalties on

airport operators serving scheduled

operations of small air carrier aircraft for

any failure to comply with the

requirements of their certification

manual or part 139. However, the FAA

does consider mitigating circumstances,

including an airport operator’s

willingness to correct any deficiencies

and ability to pay civil penalties.

In its inspection role, the FAA works

with airport operators and encourages a

cooperative relationship between the

certificate holder and inspectors, and

commonly uses administrative actions

to have most discrepancies corrected.

Civil penalties and in extreme cases,

certificate action, are levied against

airport operators only as a last resort to

gain compliance.

New Certificate Holders

If this proposal is adopted, airport

operators not currently certificated by

the FAA would be required to apply for

a certificate under part 139 in order to

serve certain air carrier operations. Such

airport operators would contact the

appropriate FAA Regional Airports

Division office to initiate the application

process. Once contacted, the FAA

Regional Airports Division office would

interview the airport operator to obtain

information about the airport and air

carrier operations served (or anticipated

to be served). If the FAA determines that

a certificate is necessary, the airport

operator would be provided an

application for certification (FAA Form

5280–1, Airport Operating Certification

Application) and guidance materials.

The airport operator would submit a

completed application (as specified

under proposed § 139.103) to the FAA

Regional Airports Division office for

approval. As part of the application

package, the airport operator would

provide the FAA two copies of its

proposed airport certification manual

and written documentation as to when

air carrier service will begin. The FAA

would review the application and

associated documentation to ensure that

38638 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 120 / Wednesday, June 21, 2000 / Proposed Rules

they are complete and conduct an

inspection of the airport for compliance

with the requirements of part 139.

The FAA will issue an airport

operating certificate if the application

and other required documentation

meets the provision of part 139, and the

inspection reveals that airport is in

compliance with part 139. The

certificate may include other provisions

the FAA finds necessary to ensure safety

in air transportation (see discussion of

proposed § 139.103 Application for

certificate and § 139.105 Inspection

authority).

Assistance is available for applicants

applying for an airport operating

certificate. FAA regional offices offer

guidance and support to airport

operators in complying with part 139.

Access to the FAA is available by

telephone, e-mail, conventional mail,

regional newsletters, and on-site visits.

In addition, the FAA makes available to

airport operating certificate applicants,

free of charge, advisory circulars,

informational brochures, and safety

placards to assist the certificate holder

in complying with the requirements of

part 139. The FAA regional offices also

will assist airport operators in applying

for Federal funds that may be used to

comply with the requirement of part

139.

The Role of the Aviation Rulemaking

Advisory Committee

The FAA has established an Aviation

Rulemaking Advisory Committee

(ARAC) to provide advice and

recommendations to the FAA

Administrator concerning a range of

FAA’s rulemaking activity, including air

carrier operations, airman certification,

aircraft certification, airports, security,

and noise. The committee affords the

FAA a forum to easily obtain direct,

firsthand information and insight from

affected interests through meeting

together and exchanging ideas with

respect to proposed rules and existing

rules that should be revised or

eliminated. While the activities of the

ARAC do not circumvent the normal

coordination process or the public

rulemaking procedures, the committee’s

recommendations on a particular issue

or proposed rule are taken under

consideration by the FAA and fully

disclosed in the public docket.

The ARAC consists of approximately

65 government, industry, labor, and

consumer advocacy organizations

selected by the FAA to represent various

viewpoints of those impacted by FAA

regulations. These members are

organized into several issue areas to

address specific technical subjects,

including airport certification. The

ARAC only undertakes those tasks

requested by the FAA. Meetings of the

ARAC are open to the public and

interested persons with expertise in the

subject matter are invited to participate.

To assist in the certification of

airports serving smaller air carrier

operations, the FAA requested the

ARAC’s advice and recommendations

on what requirements should be

applicable to airports that have

scheduled service with aircraft having a

seating capacity of 10–30 seats [60 FR

21582, May 2, 1995]. In developing

these recommendations, the FAA asked

the ARAC to consider alternatives to

minimize the operational burden on

smaller facilities, including options for

aircraft rescue and firefighting (ARFF)

services. The FAA also suggested the

ARAC conduct a survey of affected

airports to gauge the impact of any

proposed requirement. At the time of

this request, the FAA did not have the

statutory authority to regulate airports

serving scheduled operations of air

carrier aircraft with 10–30 seats.

The ARAC accepted this task and

established a Commuter Airport

Certification Working Group to develop

recommendations on this issue.

Comprised of members of the main

committee, the working group’s

membership included representatives

from the following organizations:

1. Air Line Pilots Association

2. Aircraft Owners and Pilots

Association

3. American Association of Airport

Executives

4. National Air Transportation

Association

5. National Association of State

Aviation Officials

6. Regional Airline Association

The FAA and Landrum and Brown,

an airport planning and engineering

consulting firm, also provided technical

support.

Over the course of a year, the

Commuter Airport Certification

Working Group met five times to

research the issue and develop

recommendations for the ARAC. The

working group initially endeavored to

establish a voluntary industry standard

consistent with the FAA’s lack of

authority to regulate airports serving

commuter operations. However, after

the passage of Public Law 104–264, the

FAA requested the working group to

immediately finish its report and to take

a regulatory approach to the

certification of airports serving small air

carrier aircraft. This action was based on

the FAA’s decision to exercise its new

authority to regulate airports serving

small air carrier operations.

While the working group agreed on

many issues, two members (primarily

the Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA))

disagreed with several of the group’s

recommendations. This minority

differed on six regulatory requirements,

including marking and lighting; ARFF;

and handling of hazardous substances

and materials. Subsequently, the

working group developed both a

majority and minority position at the

FAA’s request. Individual working

group members also provided comments

on issues when their respective

organizations differed from the position

taken by the ARAC working group.

In February 1997, both the majority

and minority views of the working

group, and those of individual work

group members, were presented to the

FAA. Overall, the working group

majority recommended that a nonregulatory approach to improve

commuter airport safety could

accomplish the same level of safety as

regulating these airports. In light of the

proposed rulemaking, the majority

suggested that such a regulation should

focus on accident prevention rather than

accident mitigation, particularly due to

the limited public funds available to

these small airports.

Despite its opposition to a

rulemaking, the ARAC did provide, as

requested by the FAA, proposed

regulatory language for the certification

of airports serving scheduled operations

of small air carrier aircraft. The FAA

considered this proposed regulatory

language in this rulemaking and where

possible, discusses ARAC’s concerns for

each proposed requirement in the

following Section-by-Section analysis.

As appropriate, both the majority and

minority positions are discussed.

However, the decisions in this

document are the FAA’s. Neither the

majority opposition to rulemaking, nor

the minority support of rulemaking, was

a deciding factor in the FAA’s decision

to institute this rulemaking.

As requested by the FAA, the ARAC

also conducted a survey of airports that

might be affected to determine what

safety practices are already being

conducted and the potential operational

and economic impact if these airports

were to comply with existing part 139

requirements. This survey requested

information on rescue and firefighting

capabilities, airport staff, certification

status, annual enplanements, existing

marking, lighting and signs, and capital

and recurring costs of certain equipment

and procedures. The results of this

survey are included with the ARAC

final recommendations on commuter

airport certification, filed in the public

docket (see ADDRESSES). These survey

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 120 / Wednesday, June 21, 2000 / Proposed Rules 38639

results also are discussed in the

economic analysis associated with this

rulemaking. Also, a copy of the

economic analysis is filed in the docket

and a summary of it is included in this

proposal.

Much of the work done by the ARAC

was the result of its members’

willingness to donate their time and

resources to travel to meetings and

conduct research. The FAA wishes to

recognize this contribution and

appreciates the working group’s effort to

develop recommendations that

represent a balance of safety and

economic considerations.

Alternatives

This NPRM addresses two issues: (1)

the revision of certain requirements of

14 CFR part 139, and (2) certification

requirements of airports serving

scheduled air carrier operations with

10–30 seat aircraft under 14 CFR part

139.

The FAA considered alternatives for

each of these issues. Based on this

analysis, the FAA determined that it

was necessary to revise 14 CFR part 139

and that the revised part 139 should

include the certification of airports

serving scheduled air carrier operations

with 10–30 passenger seat aircraft. See

a more detailed description of these

alternatives in the ‘‘Description of

Alternatives’’ section that follows the

‘‘Section-by-Section Analysis.’’

General Discussion of the Proposal

This proposal would

comprehensively revise the airport

certification process by including

airports serving small air carrier aircraft

to ensure these airports meet a

minimum level of safety comparable to

airports already certificated. Operators

of airports serving small air carrier

aircraft and currently not regulated

under part 139 (approximately 40

airports) would be required to develop

and implement an ACM, and to comply

with certain safety and operational

requirements. These airport operators,

however, would be permitted some

flexibility in complying with more

burdensome requirements.

In addition to serving large,

unscheduled air carrier aircraft,

approximately 120 of the approximately

135 airports holding a LAOC also serve

scheduled small air carrier aircraft. To

address these additional operations, this

proposal would require the operators of

these 120 airports to implement existing

safety measures (such as aircraft rescue

and firefighting) on a more frequent

basis and comply with additional safety

requirements. The remaining 15 airport

operators holding a LAOC would

continue to comply with part 139

requirements as they do today.

Likewise, this proposal would require

airport operators holding an AOC (or a

‘‘full’’ certificate), approximately 430

airports, to continue to comply with

part 139 requirements as they do today.

These airport operators would be

required to revise their certification

manuals and comply with proposed

modifications to existing requirements.

The operators of approximately 50 of

these airports also may be required to

implement certain safety measures on a

more frequent basis if they serve small

air carrier operations that do not occur

concurrently with large air carrier

aircraft operations.

In addition, this proposal would

clarify that airports operated by the

United States government, including

DOD, are not subject to part 139.

Subsequently, the 90 DOD airports

currently certificated under part 139

would no longer need to request an

exemption from part 139 requirements

to continue serving air carrier

operations.

To minimize confusion resulting from

the inclusion of airports serving small

air carrier aircraft operations into the

FAA’s existing airport certification

program, the FAA is proposing to

reclassify airport operating certificates

and certification manuals. Instead of

differentiating between an AOC and a

LAOC, and creating additional types of

airport operating certificates, this

proposal would provide for only one

type of certificate, an AOC, and no

longer make a distinction between an

ACM and an ACS. All airport certificate

holders would be required to adopt and

implement an ACM, regardless of size

and type of air carrier operations.

All holders of airport operating

certificates would be issued new

certificates, including those existing

airport operators holding ‘‘full’’ or

‘‘limited’’ certificates. Operators of

currently certificated airports would not

be required to reapply for an airport

operating certificate. if this proposal is

adopted, the FAA would convert

existing certificates, as appropriate.

The FAA proposes to continue to

distinguish between airports that serve

different sizes or types of air carriers,

and establish requirements appropriate

for each type of airport. Under this

proposal, similar airports would be

grouped into four new classes, I–IV, and

requirements are proposed for each new

class of airport. This approach would

ensure that airports serving small air

carrier aircraft or unscheduled air

carrier operations (e.g., charter flights)

are not unduly burdened with

requirements more appropriate for

airports serving frequent operations of

large air carriers. In addition, these new

classes of airports address those airports

that serve a mixture of air carrier

operations.

Airports serving all types of

scheduled operations of large air carrier

aircraft, and any other type of air carrier

operations, would be known as Class I

airports. Operators of these airports

would be required to comply with all

part 139 requirements. Essentially, all

airport operators holding an existing

‘‘full’’ certificate would become Class I

airports.

Class II airports would be those

airports that serve scheduled operations

of small air carrier aircraft (10–30 seats)

and unscheduled operations of larger air

carrier aircraft (more than 30 seats).

Airports that would be classified as

Class II would be those existing

‘‘limited’’ certificate airports that serve

scheduled operations by small air

carrier aircraft.

Class III airports would be those

airports that serve only scheduled

operations of air carrier aircraft with 10–

30 seats. Class III airports would be

those facilities newly certificated as the

result of this rulemaking.

Class IV airports would be those

airports currently with a ‘‘limited’’

certificate serving only unscheduled air

carrier operations in aircraft with more

than 30 seats.

Airports in the State of Alaska that

serve large air carrier operations would

continue to be certificated under part

139, as Class I or Class IV airports. No

requirements are proposed, as specified

in the authorizing statute, for those

airports in the State of Alaska that only

serve scheduled operations of smaller

air carrier operations.

The FAA currently requires operators

of certificated airports to develop an

ACM or ACS, depending on the type of

certification, to detail how the airport

operator will comply with the

requirements of part 139. As every

airport is unique, it is difficult to

impose requirements that prescribe

exacting technical standards that would

work at every airport. Instead the FAA

sets forth performance-based standards

that airport operators implement in the

manner best suited to their facilities.

In this manner, the FAA can vary

requirements that airport operators must

comply with. For example, existing

§ 139.213 requires operators of

‘‘limited’’ certificated airports to include

in their ACS procedures to comply with

seven operational requirements found in

Subpart D, whereas operators of ‘‘full’’

certificated airports must provide for all

part 139 requirements in their manual.

This proposal takes a similar approach

38640 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 120 / Wednesday, June 21, 2000 / Proposed Rules

and proposes different requirements and

manual content for each new airport

class.

Under this proposal, the requirements

for manual content would vary between

the airport classes, with the most

comprehensive manual required of

Class I airports. Operators of Class I

airports would have to comply with

more safety requirements than the

operators of Class II, III, and IV airports

as they serve more complex and varied

air carrier operations.

As a consequence of these proposed

changes, several existing sections of the

regulation would be combined and the

current numbering scheme of subparts C

and D would be altered. The following

chart illustrates these changes,

comparing existing section titles and

numbering against those proposed.

COMPARISON OF SECTION TITLES AND NUMBERING BETWEEN EXISTING AND PROPOSED PART 139

Existing part 139 Proposed part 139

Subpart A—General ............ § 139.1 Applicability ......................................................... § 139.1 Applicability.

§ 139.3 Definitions ........................................................... § 139.3 Delegation of authority (new section—§ 139.3

would be moved to proposed § 139.5).

§ 139.5 Standards and procedures for compliance with

the certification and operations requirements of this

part.

§ 139.5 Definitions (section number change—§ 139.5

would be moved to proposed § 139.7).

§ 139.7 Methods and procedures for compliance (title

and section number change).

Subpart B—Certification ..... § 139.101 Certification requirements: General ................ § 139.101 General requirements (title change).

§ 139.103 Application for certificate ................................. § 139.103 Application for certificate.

§ 139.105 Inspection authority ......................................... § 139.105 Inspection authority (revised section—

§§ 139.105 and .301 would be combined to form proposed § 139.305).

§ 139.107 Issuance of certificate ..................................... § 139.107 Issuance of certificate.

§ 139.109 Duration of certificate ...................................... § 139.109 Duration of certificate.

§ 139.111 Exemptions ..................................................... § 139.111 Exemptions.

§ 139.113 Deviations ....................................................... § 139.113 Deviations.

Subpart C—Airport Certification Manual (title

change).

§ 139.201 Airport operating certificate: Airport certification manual.139.201 General requirements. (title change—

§§ 139.201, .203, .207, .209, .211, and .215 would be

combined to form proposed § 139.201).

§ 139.203 Preparation of airport certification manual ...... § 139.203 Contents of airport certification manual (new

section—§§ 139.205 and 139.213 would combined to

form proposed § 139.203).

§ 139.205 Contents of airport certification manual .......... § 139.205 Amendment of airport manual (section number change—§ 139.217 would be moved to proposed

§ 139.205).

§ 139.207 Maintenance of airport certification manual ....

§ 139.209 Limited airport operating certificate: Airport

certification specifications.

§ 139.213 Contents of airport certification specifications

§ 139.215 Maintenance of airport certification specifications.

§ 139.217 Amendment of airport certification manual or

airport certification specifications.

Subpart D—Operations ....... § 139.301 Inspection authority ......................................... § 139.301 Records (new section—§ 139.301 would be

moved to proposed § 139.105).

§ 139.303 Personnel ........................................................ § 139.303 Personnel.

§ 139.305 Paved areas .................................................... § 139.305 Paved areas.

§ 139.307 Unpaved areas ................................................ § 139.307 Unpaved areas.

§ 139.309 Safety areas .................................................... § 139.309 Safety areas.

§ 139.311 Marking and lighting ........................................ § 139.311 Marking, signs, and lighting (title change).

§ 139.313 Snow and ice control ...................................... § 139.313 Snow and ice control.

§ 139.315 Aircraft rescue and firefighting: Index determination.§ 139.315 Aircraft rescue and firefighting: Index determination.

§ 139.317 Aircraft rescue and firefighting: Equipment

and agents.

§ 139.317 Aircraft rescue and firefighting: Equipment

and agents.

§ 139.319 Aircraft rescue and firefighting: Operational

requirements.

139.319 Aircraft rescue and firefighting: Operational requirements.

139.321 Handling and storing of hazardous substances

and materials.

139.321 Aircraft rescue and firefighting: Exemptions

(new section—existing § 139.321 would be moved to

proposed § 139.323).

§ 139.323 Traffic and wind direction indicators ............... § 139.323 Handling and storing of hazardous substances and materials (section number change).

§ 139.325 Airport emergency plan ................................... § 139.325 Traffic and wind direction indicators (section

number change).

§ 139.327 Self-inspection program .................................. § 139.327 Airport emergency plan (section number

change).

§ 139.329 Ground vehicles .............................................. § 139.329 Self-inspection program (section number

change).

§ 139.331 Obstructions .................................................... § 139.331 Ground vehicles (section number change).

§ 139.333 Protection of navaids ...................................... § 139.333 Obstructions (section number change).

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 120 / Wednesday, June 21, 2000 / Proposed Rules 38641

COMPARISON OF SECTION TITLES AND NUMBERING BETWEEN EXISTING AND PROPOSED PART 139—Continued

Existing part 139 Proposed part 139

§ 139.335 Public protection ............................................. § 139.335 Protection of navaids (section number

change).

§ 139.337 Wildlife hazard management .......................... § 139.337 Public protection (section number change).

§ 139.339 Airport condition reporting ............................... § 139.339 Wildlife hazard management (section number

change).

§ 139.341 Identifying, marking, and reporting construction and other unserviceable areas.§ 139.341 Airport condition reporting (section number

change).

§ 139.343 Noncomplying conditions ................................ § 139.343 Identifying, marking, and reporting construction and other unserviceable areas (section number

change).

§ 139.345 Noncomplying conditions (section number

change).

As noted earlier, changes are

proposed to operational and safety

requirements. The specifics of these

revisions are discussed in detail in the

following section, ‘‘Section-by-Section

Analysis.’’ The proposed revisions

reflect changes to technology and

industry practice. This action does not

address runway friction measurement

(both winter and maintenance), runway

distance remaining signs, and certain

requirements related to ARFF

equipment, training, and extinguishing

agents. The FAA is continuing to review

these issues with industry

representatives (primarily through the

ARAC) and may propose rulemaking as

a result of these efforts in a separate

action.

Throughout the proposed rule,

references are made to 49 U.S.C. 44706.

This statute is the recodification of the

FAA’s authority to prescribe airport

certification regulations previously

found in the Federal Aviation Act of

1958, 49 U.S.C. App. 1432 et seq.

Additionally, the FAA proposes to

revise the title of 14 CFR part 139,

‘‘Certification and Operations: Land

Airports Serving Certain Air Carriers’’ to

‘‘Certification of Airports.’’

Request for Additional Information

Throughout this proposal, the FAA is

requesting economic and operational

information on specific topics. As

explained in the following Section-bySection Analysis, the FAA intends to

use this information to further analyze

certain proposed requirements.

Additional information is requested on

the following subject areas:

1. Certification of heliports. Under the

discussion of proposed § 139.1, the FAA

is requesting comments on the need to

certificate heliports, including

recommendations on certification

requirements and any associated safety

and economic considerations that

should be addressed.

2. Reduction or revocation of an

airport operating certificate. Under

proposed § 139.109, information is

requested as to why it would be more

costly for an airport operator to

surrender an airport operating certificate

and then later to regain it, than it is to

maintain a certificate uninterrupted.

3. Retro-reflective runway and

taxiway signs. The FAA is soliciting

comments under proposed § 139.311 on

the use of retro reflective guidance and

directional signs at airports serving

small or unscheduled air carrier aircraft.

4. ARFF Exemption. The FAA

requests comments on the new ARFF

exemption process delineated under

proposed § 139.321.

5. Implementation. Finally, the FAA

is requesting comments on various

elements of the implementation

schedule, should this proposal be

adopted.

Section-by-Section Analysis

Subpart A—General

Section 139.1 Applicability

Section 139.1 establishes that part 139

prescribes rules for the certification and

operation of airports serving certain air

carrier operations. This proposal

expands this section by amending and

reorganizing existing language into new

paragraphs (a) and (b).

New paragraph (a) would incorporate

a new group of airports that would

require an airport operating certificate

(AOC) before serving certain air

carrier operations. In addition to those

airports already certificated under part

139, airports serving scheduled

operations of air carrier aircraft seating

10 to 30 passengers would require a

certificate under this part. This

expansion of the rule’s applicability

would reflect recent revisions to 49

U.S.C. 44706, that authorized the

Administrator to issue an AOC to

airports serving any scheduled

operations of an air carrier operating

aircraft designed for more than 9

passenger seats but less than 31

passenger seats.

Throughout paragraph (a), references

to the term ‘‘aircraft seating capacity’’

would be changed to ‘‘aircraft design.’’

This proposal would more accurately

reflect how the FAA and other civil

aviation authorities certificate air carrier

aircraft for passenger operations. This

revision would have no effect on how

aircraft passenger seating capacity is

determined. An FAA-issued aircraft

type certificate and its foreign

equivalent specify passenger seating

capacity and may only be changed by

amendment to the aircraft type

certificate.

Further, the FAA proposes to move

language currently found in § 139.101(a)

to new paragraph § 139.1(a). The phrase

specifies that part 139 is applicable to

land airports in the United States, the

District of Columbia, or any U.S.

territory or possession. This language is

more appropriate in § 139.1,

Applicability.

Proposed paragraph § 139.1(b) would

group together the type of airports that

would be exempt from part 139. As

currently is the case, airports serving air

carrier operations only because they

have been designated as alternate

airports (under § 121.590) would not be

certificated under part 139. The revised

part 139 also would not be applicable,

as specified in the authorizing statute, at

airports in the State of Alaska that serve

scheduled operations of air carrier

aircraft seating 10–30 passengers.

However, airports in the State of Alaska

that serve scheduled and/or

unscheduled operations of air carrier

aircraft with more than 30 passenger

seats and serve smaller scheduled air

carrier operations must be certificated

under part 139. Under this proposal,

these airports would be certificated as a

Class I or Class IV airport because they

serve larger air carrier operations.

In addition, airports operated by U.S.

government agencies would not be

required to comply with part 139. The

FAA has issued airport operating

certificates, under FAA Exemption No.

38642 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 120 / Wednesday, June 21, 2000 / Proposed Rules

5750, to Department of Defense (DOD)

airports that serve civilian commercial

carriers. Standards for military airports,

and others operated by other branches

of the Federal government (e.g., NASA,

Dept. of Energy), differ from those

prescribed under part 139.

The FAA does not have the statutory

authority to regulate airports operated

by U.S. government agencies. Since the

continuance of commercial flights into

these facilities is necessary to support

federal government requirements, the

FAA proposes to eliminate exemptions

to U.S. government entities, (such as

DOD’s exemption to part 139) but will

allow U.S. government entities to apply

for an AOC for air carrier operations.

Changes to part 121 are proposed to

permit air carriers to use such airports

(see discussion under proposed

§ 121.590, Use of certificated land

airports).

This does not address airports where

civilian and military operations

commingle. These airports are known as

either ‘‘joint-use airports’’ or ‘‘shareduse airports.’’

Joint-use airports are owned by the

U.S. government, which leases or

surpluses a portion of their facility to

the local government for civilian air

carrier operations. Shared-use airports

are co-located U.S. and local

government facilities at which portions

of the movement areas, such as

runways, taxiways, and ramps are

shared. Under this proposal, civilian air

carrier operations of either a joint-use

airport or a shared-use airport will come

under the purview of part 139.

Also, this proposal excludes heliports.

The focus of this proposal is on the

safety needs of airports serving fixed

wing aircraft. While concerned with the

safe operations of helicopters, the FAA

believes certification of heliports should

be handled separately and is

considering how to certify these

facilities. The FAA is requesting

comments on the need to certificate

heliports. The FAA requires specific

recommendations on certification

requirements and associated safety and

economic considerations.

Section 139.3 Delegation of Authority

Under this proposal, existing § 139.3,

titled ‘‘Definitions,’’ would be moved to

proposed § 139.5. Proposed § 139.3

would be titled ‘‘Delegation of

Authority.’’ This section would be new.

This new section would set forth

FAA’s existing delegation authority that

allows FAA employees to act on behalf

of the FAA Administrator in the

oversight of the certification of airports.

As proposed, the Administrator’s

delegation of authority has not changed,

and the FAA’s Associate Administrator

for Airports could act in the capacity of

the Administrator.

Section 139.5 Definitions

In this proposal, existing § 139.3

would be redesignated as proposed

§ 139.5. Existing § 139.3 establishes

terms, and their definitions, used in part

139. The definitions contained in this

revised section reflect proposed changes

made throughout the rule. As such,

several existing definitions have been

modified or deleted and new definitions

are proposed.

The FAA proposes to delete the

existing term ‘‘air carrier aircraft.’’ Two

new terms, ‘‘large air carrier aircraft’’

and ‘‘small air carrier aircraft,’’ have

been added to part 139 to differentiate

requirements of airports serving

differing sizes of air carrier aircraft.

Proposed exclusively for part 139, these

new definitions are based on the

number of passenger seats of an air

carrier aircraft, and should not be

confused with existing definitions for

‘‘large aircraft’’ and ‘‘small aircraft’’

found in 14 CFR part 1 that classify

aircraft by weight.

The term ‘‘air carrier’’ would no

longer be defined in part 139. Instead,

the definition of ‘‘air carrier,’’ as set out

in 14 CFR part 1 would apply in part

139. The term ‘‘average daily

departures’’ would be revised slightly

by changing the phrase ‘‘consecutive

months’’ to read ‘‘consecutive calendar

months.’’ Other references throughout

the rule to duration of time using

months would be similarly updated to

ensure clarity and consistency.

The term ‘‘airport operating

certificate’’ would be modified to make

reference to four new classes of

certificated airports. The term

‘‘certificate holder’’ likewise would be

modified to correspond with new

airport classifications. References to

subpart D and LAOC would be deleted.

Instead, the term ‘‘certificate holder’’

would be used generically to describe

any airport operator issued an AOC

under part 139.

As described earlier, the FAA

proposes to modify part 139 to change

the process by which airports are

categorized, and establish four new

types of airport classes. These four

classifications—Class I, II, III, and IV

airports—would be added to existing

definitions.

A Class I airport would serve the most

varied types of air carrier operations. A

Class I operator would be authorized to

serve air carrier operations of large and

small air carrier aircraft. Under this

proposal, airports already certificated

under part 139 to serve scheduled

operations of large air carrier aircraft

would be reclassified as Class I airports.

The FAA anticipates approximately 430

airports would be certificated as Class I

airports.

A Class II airport would serve

scheduled operations of small air carrier

aircraft and unscheduled passenger

operations of larger air carrier aircraft. A

Class II airport would not serve

scheduled large air carrier aircraft.

Airports classified as Class II would be

those existing airports with a LAOC

(airports serving unscheduled large air

carrier aircraft) that serve scheduled

operations by small air carrier aircraft.

The FAA anticipates approximately 120

airports would be certificated as a Class

II airport.

A Class III airport would serve

scheduled operations of small air carrier

aircraft. A Class III airport would not

serve scheduled or unscheduled large

air carrier aircraft.

Under the current regulation, airports

meeting this criteria are not certificated.

The FAA anticipates approximately 40

airports would be newly-certificated as

Class III airports.

A Class IV airport would serve

unscheduled passenger operations of

large air carrier aircraft but would not

serve scheduled large or small air carrier

aircraft. Airports currently holding a

LAOC, but not serving scheduled small

air carrier operations, would be

certificated as Class IV airports. The

FAA anticipates approximately 15

airports would be certificated as Class

IV airports.

The following table illustrates the

types of air carrier operations each

proposed category of airport can serve:

Type of air carrier operation

Proposed airport class

Class I Class II Class III Class IV

Scheduled Large Air Carrier Aircraft ............................................................................... X

Unscheduled Large Air Carrier Airrcraft .......................................................................... X X X

Scheduled Small Air Carrier Aircraft ............................................................................... X X X

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 120 / Wednesday, June 21, 2000 / Proposed Rules 38643

To reflect the proposed deletion of

heliports from part 139, the term

‘‘movement area’’ would be modified to

remove any reference to areas used by

helicopters to hover or taxi.

The term ‘‘clean agent’’ would be

added to specify a new type of aircraft

fire extinguishing agent that an airport

operator could use to comply with part

139 ARFF requirements. Clean agent is

a term used by the firefighting

community to describe a category of fire

extinguishing agents that replace halon

1211 (see discussion of § 139.317,

Aircraft rescue and firefighting:

Equipment and agents). The proposed

definition is based on National Fire

Protection Association (NFPA) 2001,

Standards on Clean Agent Fire

Extinguishing Systems (1996 Edition),

that establishes standards for halon

1211 substitutes. The NFPA is an

independent, nonprofit organization

that advocates consensus codes and

standards, research, and education for

fire and related safety issues. Many

NFPA codes and standards are used as

the basis for legislation and regulations

in federal, state, and local governments.

In addition to NFPA 2001, the FAA is

proposing that a clean agent used to

comply with part 139 requirements

would need to have the equivalent

extinguishing action as halon 1211, as

defined in FAA Technical Report DOT/

FAA/AR–95/87. This document

establishes a test protocol to measure an

extinguishing agent’s equivalency to

halon 1211 and its appropriateness for

use on aircraft fires.

In addition, the terms ‘‘scheduled

operation’’ and ‘‘unscheduled

operation’’ would be added to

distinguish the types of operations

served by the four classes of airports.

The definition of ‘‘scheduled operation’’

is also found in 14 CFR part 119,

Certification: Air carriers and

commercial operators. A scheduled

operation is conducted by an air carrier

or a commercial operator in accordance

with a published schedule for passenger

operations that includes dates or times,

and the operation is openly advertised

or made available to the general public.

Conversely, the definition of an

‘‘unscheduled operation’’ would be an

operation conducted by an air carrier or

a commercial operator that is

specifically negotiated with the

customer or that meets the definition of

a supplemental operation found in part

119, Certification: Air carriers and

commercial operators, or the definition

of a public charter found in part 380,

Public charters.

All other existing definitions would

remain unchanged.

Section 139.7 Methods and Procedures

for Compliance

In this proposal, existing § 139.5,

titled ‘‘Standards and procedures for

compliance with the certification and

operations requirements of this part,’’

would be moved to proposed § 139.7.

Existing § 139.5 specifies that an

operator of a certificated airport must

comply with the requirements of part

139 in a manner acceptable to the

Administrator, and that methods and

procedures contained in advisory

circulars (AC’s) are an acceptable means

of compliance.

The relocated section would be titled,

‘‘Methods and procedures for

compliance,’’ and would be clarified as

described below. The FAA proposes to

delete the language ‘‘with the

certification and operations

requirements of this part’’ from the title

of existing § 139.5. This editorial change

would ensure consistent section titles

throughout the part. In addition, the

term ‘‘standards’’ would be replaced

with the term ‘‘methods’’ so as not to

confuse the means of compliance (the

methods) with the requirements of the

regulations (the standards) prescribed in

proposed subparts C and D.

With the addition of new airports to

the part 139 process, the FAA believes

existing language of this section should

be clarified to eliminate any confusion.

Several sentences would be combined

and revised to state clearly that the use

of methods and procedures provided in

FAA AC’s to comply with part 139

requirements are acceptable.

Advisory Circulars are developed in

conjunction with the aviation industry

to ensure consistent and reasonable

means of complying with regulations.

As technology and the aviation industry

evolve the advisory circular process

provides an expeditious means to revise

guidance materials.

Certificate holders may comply with

part 139 requirements by means other

than those specified in the AC’s.

However, any alternative must be

authorized by the FAA, and must

provide the equivalent level of safety in

meeting the requirements of part 139.

This provision is repeated throughout

this proposal in sections where advisory

circulars are available to assist the

certificate holder in meeting specific

regulatory requirements proposed in the

document.

Subpart B—Certification

Section 139.101 General Requirements

This NPRM proposes to retitle

§ 139.101, ‘‘Certification requirements:

general,’’ as ‘‘General requirements,’’

and combines the text of existing

paragraphs (a) and (b) into a new

paragraph (a). New paragraphs (b) and

(c) would be added. Existing § 139.101

specifies that no person may operate an

airport in the U.S. and U.S. territories

that serve certain types of air carrier

operations without a part 139 certificate,

or in violation of that certificate.

While proposed paragraph (a)

combines existing § 139.101(a) and (b)

into one paragraph, the requirement that

an airport subject to this part may not

be operated without an operating

certificate, or in violation of its

certificate, remains unchanged.

References to LAOC’s and ACS’s would

be replaced with proposed changes to

the certification process. As mentioned

earlier, references to land airports

located in the United States or its

territories would be moved to a more

appropriate location in proposed

§ 139.1, Applicability.

The term ‘‘except as otherwise

authorized by the Administrator’’ in

existing paragraph (b) would be moved

to new paragraph (a). This change

would enable the FAA to authorize

operations not covered by the

regulation.

New paragraph (b) would require each

airport operator to adopt, and comply

with, an ACM in accordance with

proposed requirements.

New paragraph (c) proposes that each

airport class implement its ACM within

a specified time. It is anticipated that

under this proposal most airport

operators will only need to document

processes and procedures already in

place. However, airport operators that

would be required to develop an ACM

for the first time, or to make extensive

revisions to an existing manual, would

have more time to comply than other

airports. Staggering compliance dates

also would permit adequate time for the

FAA to process new and revised

certification manuals.

Compliance with requirements for

runway and taxiway signs, ARFF, and

emergency plans would take additional

time and corresponding sections of the

ACM may not be completed within the

timeframes specified in new paragraph

(c). Certificated airport operators may

need to seek Federal and local funding,

order equipment, and train personnel.

Consequently, additional time is

proposed to implement these

requirements (see discussions under

proposed § 139.311, Marking, signs, and

lighting; § 139.321, Aircraft rescue and

firefighting: Exemptions; and § 139.327,

Airport emergency plan).

The FAA is requesting comments on

the proposed implementation

schedules. If the commenter proposes

alternative compliance dates, comments

38644 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 120 / Wednesday, June 21, 2000 / Proposed Rules

should include supporting operational

and economic data.

Section 139.103 Application for

Certificate

Existing § 139.103 establishes

requirements to apply for an airport

operating certificate or an limited

airport operating certificate. This

proposal would amend existing

§ 139.103 by revising paragraphs (a) and

(b) and by adding a new sentence to the

beginning of this section. Proposed

changes are intended to incorporate

application requirements also found in

existing §§ 139.201(a) and 139.209(a).

This section would continue to

require an applicant for an AOC to

prepare, and submit an application form

and an airport certification manual to

the Administrator for approval.

References to LAOC and ACS also

would be deleted in order to correspond

to proposed changes to the certification

process and classification of airports.

If this proposal is adopted, airport

operators currently holding a certificate

under part 139 would not be required to

apply for a new AOC, but may need to

amend an existing ACM or ACS.

Section 139.105 Inspection Authority

The FAA proposes to incorporate

existing inspection authority provision

of §§ 139.105 and 139.301 into one

paragraph. Language referencing

statutory authority also would be

updated.

Existing § 139.105 states that an

airport operator holding a certificate

under part 139 must allow the FAA to

make inspections to determine

compliance with the regulation. This

would not change. This new section

would state that the Administrator may

make inspections and tests to determine

compliance with airport certification

regulations.

References to the Federal Aviation

Act of 1958 would also be removed and

replaced with references to the current

statutory authority. In addition,

references to LAOC have been deleted.

Section 139.107 Issuance of Certificate

Existing § 139.107 specifies standards

that must be meet before the FAA can

issue a certificate. This NPRM would

revise existing language into new

paragraphs (a), (b), and (c), propose new

requirements an applicant must meet,

and deletes references to LAOC.

New paragraph (a) would require

applicants to provide written

documentation that air carrier service

would begin on a specific date. The

FAA intends to limit applicants for part

139 certification to those facilities with

planned air service.

As presently required under

§ 139.107, new paragraph (b) would

require an applicant for an AOC to meet

the requirements for an ACM (as

required under proposed § 139.103 and

139.203) prior to issuance of a

certificate.

New paragraph (c) combines the

remaining requirements of existing

§ 139.107. Also, the standard ‘‘public

interest’’ would be replaced with the

new standard ‘‘safety in air

transportation’’ as required by the

authorizing statute.

Section 139.109 Duration of Certificate

Existing § 139.109 states that a

certificate issued under part 139 is

effective until surrendered by the

certificate holder, or suspended or

revoked by the Administrator. This

NPRM proposes to modify this section

by placing existing language into new

paragraph (a). A new paragraph (b) also

is proposed and references to LAOC

would be deleted.

New paragraph (b) stipulates that the

Administrator may revoke an AOC if air

carrier operations have not occurred for

24 consecutive months. However, in

deciding whether to revoke an AOC

because of lack of service, the FAA

would consider the airport’s reasonable

expectation of future air carrier service.

In previous proposals to part 139,

airport operators have recommended

that the reduction or revocation of an

airport operating certificate should be at

the option of the airport operator and

not the FAA. These commenters were

concerned that if an airport later needed

to regain its certification, the cost to do

so would prove burdensome. The FAA

does not agree with this cost

assessment. The FAA requests

comments (to include economic and

operational data) as to why it would be

more costly to surrender a certificate

and then later to regain it, than it is to

maintain a certificate uninterrupted.

An airport operator that has lost its

certification can continue to comply

with the requirements of its certification

manual and the requirements of part

139 until it regains its certificate. While

the FAA does not inspect noncertificated airports, the operators of

such airports are encouraged to use part

139 as a guide to ensure safety. Further,

many such airport operators would be

required by Federal grant assurances to

continue to implement elements of their

certification program even when not

certificated under part 139.

Under various statutes, the Federal

Government is authorized to grant

property, funds, and other assistance to

local communities for the development

of airport facilities. In return, airport

owners assume certain obligations,

either by contract or by restrictive

covenants in property deeds that require

the airport operator to maintain and

operate its airport facilities safely,

efficiently, and in accordance with

specified conditions. These conditions

are known as ‘‘grant assurances’’ and

require the airport owner to comply

with certain maintenance and

operational conditions similar to those

found in the requirements of part 139.

For example, grant assurances require

the airport operator to maintain

pavements constructed or repaired with

Federal assistance. These airport

operators must also make arrangements

for promptly marking, lighting and

reporting hazards and other conditions

affecting aeronautical use of the airport.

This revised section also proposes

language enabling a certificate holder to

appeal an order revoking its AOC. The

appeal process is found in 14 CFR part

13.

Section 139.111 Exemptions

Existing § 139.111 establishes

procedures for the certificate holder to

petition for an exemption from the

requirements of part 139. The FAA

proposes to modify this section to

reflect proposed changes to the format

used for petitions for exemption from

aircraft rescue and firefighting

requirements.

Under revised paragraph (b),

references to 14 CFR 11.25, Petitions for

Rulemaking or Exemption, would be

deleted. Instead, a new sentence would

be added to the end of the paragraph

that specifies that an applicant for, or

holder of, an AOC desiring to petition

from aircraft rescue and firefighting

requirements must do so as prescribed

under new § 139.321 (see discussion

under proposed § 139.321, Aircraft

rescue and firefighting: Exemptions).

Section 139.113 Deviations

This notice proposes to revise existing

§ 139.113 language to permit the

certificate holder more flexibility during

emergencies requiring deviation from

some of part 139 requirements. Existing

§ 139.113 permits the certificate holder

to deviate from requirements of subpart

D of the regulation during emergency

conditions.

As proposed, the standard ‘‘involving

the transportation of persons by air

carriers,’’ would be deleted from the

first sentence. This standard was

originally included in part 139 to ensure

that airport resources and services

would not be routinely used to respond

to emergencies in the local community.

However, this section has been

subsequently interpreted as prohibiting

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 120 / Wednesday, June 21, 2000 / Proposed Rules 38645

the certificate holder from deviating

from part 139 requirements unless the

emergency involves air carrier

operations.

It was never the FAA’s intent to

restrict airport emergency services from

assisting with occasional catastrophic

events because an air carrier was not

involved. No amount of pre-planning

can cover every emergency scenario,

and the FAA believes emergency service

providers are best suited during an

emergency to determine the appropriate

response.

When a deviation occurs, it would be

considered permissible under proposed

§ 139.113, so long as the certificate

holder notifies the FAA within 14 days

of the deviation. This change, however,

is not meant to allow a certificate holder

to take advantage of emergency

situations to regularly deviate from the

requirements of part 139. For instance,

this proposed section is not intended to

allow local municipalities to use the

emergency services of a part 139 airport

to routinely respond to emergencies in

the surrounding community during air

carrier operations. This section is

intended only to allow a certificate

holder to provide temporary assistance

during occasional catastrophic or

natural emergencies.

Certificate holders that are recipients

of Federal funds also should note that

this proposed section would not excuse

them from any limitations or provision

of their grant assurances that restrict the

use of facilities and equipment

purchased with Federal funds.

In addition, the term ‘‘airport

certification manual’’ would be added to

the first sentence of this paragraph to

clarify that the certificate holder may,

when responding to an emergency,

deviate from both its certification

manual and any requirements of subpart

D.

The FAA further proposes to modify

requirements of this section to allow the

certificate holder to notify the FAA of

deviations by telephone, or other means

of electronic communications, rather

than requiring an automatic written

notification.

Subpart C—Airport Certification

Manual

The FAA proposes to revise the title

of this subpart by removing references

to airport certification specifications. In

general, the contents of subpart C would

be clarified and requirements for

airports serving scheduled operations of

small air carrier aircraft have been

included.

Section 139.201 General requirements

Existing § 139.201 requires applicants

for an AOC to develop, and submit for

approval, a certification manual.

This section also requires certificate

holders to comply with their approved

ACM.

This NPRM proposes to retitle this

section from ‘‘Airport operating

certificate: Airport certification

manual,’’ to ‘‘General requirements.’’ In

addition, the section would be revised

to consolidate requirements of existing

§§ 139.201, 139.203, 139.207, 139.209,

139.211, and 139.215 into a single

section.

The FAA proposes the same general

requirements for preparation and

maintenance of ACM’s for all

certificated airports. Existing part 139

provides separate sections for the

preparation and maintenance of an

ACM and ACS, although the

requirements of these sections are

essentially the same.

New paragraphs (b) and (c) would set

forth manual preparation, maintenance,

and distribution requirements. The

proposed changes clarify signature

responsibilities of the certificate holder,

and the necessity to document manual

changes. In addition, these changes

would require that any revision to the

certification manual contain the FAA’s

approval, in addition to an approval

date.

Also, the requirement that a

certification manual be typewritten

would be expanded to include any

printed form. This change is intended to

clarify that any type of printed form,

whether produced on a typewriter,

computer, etc., would be acceptable to

the Administrator.

Existing §§ 139.201(a) and 139.209(a)

would be deleted as the language in

both these paragraphs duplicates the

language of proposed § 139.103 (see the

discussion of proposed § 139.103,

Application for certificate). Also, the

1988 dates in existing §§ 139.201(c) and

139.209(c) would be deleted as these

dates are no longer applicable.

Existing paragraph (b) provides

guidance and an acceptable means of

compliance with ACM requirements

would be revised and moved to new

paragraph (d). References to the specific

series numbers within the AC system

would be deleted. Instead, this new

paragraph would make a general

reference to the AC system. This will

allow more flexibility in updating the

AC numbering system, without

requiring a subsequent revision to the

regulation. References to specific AC

series numbers would be similarly

updated throughout subpart D.

Section 139.203 Contents of Airport

Certification Manual

Under this proposal, existing

§ 139.203, titled ‘‘Preparation of airport

certification manual,’’ would be moved

to proposed § 139.201. Existing

§ 139.203 establishes standards for

maintaining an ACM.

The contents of §§ 139.205 and

139.213 are combined in proposed new

§ 139.203. Additional requirements are

proposed to correspond to the new

classifications of certificated airports

and changes to subpart D.

Similar to existing §§ 139.205(a) and

139.213(a), new paragraph (a) would

require all classes of airports to include

in their certification manual a

description of procedures and

equipment used to comply with subpart

D and any other requirements of this

section. However, existing language of

§§ 139.205(a) and 139.213(a) would be

revised. Existing §§ 139.205(a)(2) and

139.213(a)(2), specifying compliance

with limitations imposed by the

Administrator, would be moved to

proposed new paragraph (b).

All certificate holders would be

required to have an ACM, and new

paragraph (b) would specify the manual

contents for each class of airport. As

noted above, the content of the manual

would vary depending on the class of

airport. The most comprehensive

manual would be required for Class I

airports because they serve more

complex and varied air carrier

operations.

A chart is proposed in new paragraph

(b) to aid the certificate holder in

determining the content of its manual.

This chart lists the four proposed airport

classifications and links each class to

the appropriate certification manual

element.

In revised § 139.203(b), proposed

Class I airport certificate holders would

be required to include in their ACM all

elements that are currently required. In

addition, this proposal would require

the operators of these airports to

incorporate into their ACM several new

elements.

Class I airport certificate holders

would include in their ACM a

description of personnel training and

equipment, and a system for

maintaining records. This is intended to

correspond to proposed new § 139.301

and proposed changes to existing

§ 139.303 (see the discussion under

proposed section 139.301, Records; and

139.303, Personnel).

Airport operators currently holding a

LAOC would be required to convert

their existing ACS into an ACM. All

elements that are presently required to

38646 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 120 / Wednesday, June 21, 2000 / Proposed Rules

be in an airport certificate holder’s ACS

would be transferred into the new ACM.

Manuals for airports certificated as

Class II and IV airports would include

procedures to ensure safety in storing

and handling hazardous materials,

traffic and wind indicators, and selfinspections, as specified in subpart D.

These airport operators currently

address these safety issues differently .

Under existing part 139, these safety

issues must be addressed in the ACS,

but not necessarily in the manner

prescribed under subpart D.

The FAA has found that most

certificate holders with an LAOC

already provide for these elements in

their ACS, as required under existing

subpart D. Part 139 requirements related

to the handling of hazardous materials,

wind and traffic indicators, and selfinspections represent good general

airport operating practices that many of

these airports already have adopted.

In addition, operators of airports

certificated as Class II and IV airports

would be required to include in their

ACM a grid map or other means of

identifying locations and terrain on and

around the airport that are significant to

emergency operations. For many years,

airports serving scheduled large air

carrier operations have been required to

include this grid map in their

certification manual. This map assists

airport personnel in maintaining the

airport, and emergency personnel in

responding to incidents at the airport.

As such, the FAA proposes that all

certificate holders include a grid map in

their ACM.

Operators of proposed Class II and IV

airports also would be required to

include in their ACM an emergency

plan and procedures for, and

descriptions of, recordkeeping and

personnel training. This is intended to

correspond to other proposed changes

in the regulation. Unlike proposed Class

I certificate holders, Class II and IV

certificate holders would not have to

include in their certification manuals

provisions to conduct triennial full scale

emergency disaster drills. For more

details on these proposed requirements,

see the discussion under proposed

§ 139.301, Records; § 139.303,

Personnel; and § 139.327, Airport

emergency plan.

A significant change for operators of

proposed Class II and IV airports would

be the requirement to include in the

ACM a description of the procedures

and equipment used for complying with

the ARFF standards of proposed

§§ 139.317 and 139.319. While these

airports provide for ARFF coverage, the

level of coverage may not meet

standards prescribed under existing

§§ 139.317 and 139.319. The FAA

proposes to require operators of Class II

and IV airports to include ARFF

procedures in their ACM, as specified in

subpart D, and comply with at least

Index A ARFF requirements. Airport

operators could petition for an

exemption from some or all ARFF

requirements under proposed § 139.321,

Aircraft rescue and firefighting:

Exemptions, provided conditions

prescribed in proposed § 139.321 are

met.

Unlike Class IV airports, Class II

airports would serve both unscheduled

operations of large air carrier aircraft

and scheduled small air carrier aircraft.

As such, the FAA proposes additional

safety requirements appropriate for

Class II airports. These airports would

most likely serve more total air carrier

operations than proposed Class IV

airports and would be required to

comply with additional requirements.

These additional requirements would be

addressed in the ACM as follows:

1. Procedures for avoidance of

interruption, or failure during

construction work, of utilities serving

facilities or navaids that support air

carrier operations;

2. A snow and ice control plan as

required under proposed § 139.313;

3. Procedures for controlling ground

vehicles as required under proposed

§ 139.331;

4. Procedures for obstruction removal,

marking, or lighting as required under

proposed § 139.333;

5. Procedures for protection of

navaids as required under proposed

§ 139.335;

6. A wildlife hazard management plan

as required under proposed § 139.339;

and

7. Procedures for identifying,

marking, and reporting construction and

other unserviceable areas as required

under proposed § 139.343.

Class III airports would be newly

certificated under this proposal. As

such, operators of these airports would

be required to develop an ACM. For

some operators, this requirement would

be minimal because it would only

require documenting existing

procedures. Other Class III airport

operators would be required, for the first

time, to develop new procedures. Still

others would be required to establish

manuals based on a combination of new

and existing procedures.

Under new paragraph (b), proposed

Class III airport operators would be

required to include in their ACM a

description of the following procedures

and equipment—

1. Lines of succession of airport

operational responsibility;

2. Each current exemption issued to

the airport from the requirements of this

part;

3. Limitations imposed by the

Administrator;

4. A grid map or other means of

identifying locations and terrain

features on and around the airport

which are significant to emergency

operations;

5. The location of each obstruction

required to be lighted or marked within

the airport’s area of authority;

6. A description of each movement

area available for air carriers and its

safety areas and each road described in

§ 139.319(k) of this part that serves it;

7. Procedures for avoidance of

interruption, or failure during

construction work, of utilities serving

facilities or navaids that support air

carrier operations;

8. A description of the system for

maintaining records as required under

§ 139.301 of this part;

9. A description of personnel training

as required under § 139.303 of this part;

10. Procedures for maintaining the

paved areas as required under § 139.305

of this part;

11. Procedures for maintaining the

unpaved areas as required under

§ 139.307 of this part;

12. Procedures for maintaining the

safety areas as required under § 139.309

of this part;

13. A sign plan depicting the runway

and taxiway identification system and

location and inscription of the signs as

required under § 139.311 of this part;

14. A description of, and procedures

for maintaining, the marking, signs, and

lighting systems as required under

§ 139.311 of this part;

15. A snow and ice control plan as

required under § 139.313 of this part;

16. A description of the facilities,

equipment, personnel, and procedures

for meeting the rescue and firefighting

requirements in accordance with

§§ 139.317 and 139.319 of this part;

17. A description of any approved

exemption from the rescue and

firefighting requirements as authorized

under § 139.321 of this part;

18. Procedures for handling fuel,

lubricants and oxygen required under

§ 139.323 of this part;

19. A description of, and procedures

for maintaining, the traffic and wind

direction indicators as required under

§ 139.325 of this part;

20. An emergency plan as required

under § 139.327 of this part;

21. Procedures for conducting the

self-inspection program as required

under § 139.329 of this part;

22. Procedures for controlling ground

vehicles as required under § 139.331 of

this part;

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 120 / Wednesday, June 21, 2000 / Proposed Rules 38647

23. Procedures for obstruction

removal, marking, or lighting as

required under § 139.333 of this part;

24. Procedures for protection of

navaids as required under § 139.335 of

this part;

25. A description of public protection

as required under § 139.337 of this part;

26. A wildlife hazard management

plan as required under § 139.339 of this

part;

27. Procedures for airport condition

reporting as required under § 139.341 of

this part;

28. Procedures for identifying,

marking, and reporting construction and

other unserviceable areas as required

under § 139.343 of this part; and

29. Other requirements that the

Administrator finds is necessary to

ensure safety in air transportation.

While operators of proposed Class III

airports would be required to include

many of the same elements in their

certification manual as Class I and II

airports, the FAA can provide relief

from some of these requirements that

are too operational or economically

burdensome. The operators of Class III

airports may petition for an exemption

from some or all ARFF requirements,

and relief is proposed from certain sign

and emergency drill requirements.

In addition, this section would

specify that operators of all proposed

classes of airport would be required to

develop a sign plan as part of their ACM

that shows the location on the airport

and inscription of each sign required by

§ 139.311(b). During a review of airport

sign systems [52 FR 44276, November

18, 1987; and 53 FR 40842, October 18,

1988], the FAA found that planning and

diagramming appropriate signs and

their location avoided unnecessary sign

purchases or improper sign locations.

Accordingly, the FAA believes the

requirement for a sign plan would be

beneficial to all certificated airports and

that most currently certificated airports

comply with this proposed requirement.

The following tables list both current

part 139 requirements and proposed

subject requirements that would be

applicable to each airport classification

should the FAA adopt this proposal.

Proposed requirements would be in

addition to current requirements as

revised, unless otherwise noted in the

table.

A. CURRENT AND PROPOSED REQUIREMENTS FOR CLASS I AIRPORTS

Current requirements Proposed requirements

1. Personnel provisions ...................................... A recordkeeping system and new personnel training standards.

2. Paved and unpaved surfaces ......................... Unchanged.

3. Safety areas ................................................... Unchanged.

4. Marking, lighting and signs ............................. Unchanged.

5. Snow and ice control plan .............................. Unchanged.

6. ARFF .............................................................. New recurrency training, fire extinguishing agent and HAZMAT response standards, and increase frequency of ARFF coverage (where ARFF is not provided for small air carrier operations).

7. HAZMAT handling/storage ............................. Standards for air carrier fueling operations, and additional fuel fire safety and personnel training standards.

8. Traffic/wind indicators ..................................... New supplemental wind cone/segmented circle standards.

9. Airport emergency plan (AEP) ....................... New requirement to plan for fuel storage fires.

10. Self-inspections ............................................ New training requirements for inspection personnel.

11. Ground vehicle operations ........................... Unchanged.

12. Obstructions .................................................. Unchanged.

13. Navaids ......................................................... Unchanged.

14. Public protection ........................................... Unchanged.

15. Wildlife hazard management ........................ New wildlife strike reporting, hazard assessment, and management plan standards.

16. Airport condition reporting ............................ New notification standard.

17. Construction/unserviceable areas ................ Unchanged.

B. CURRENT AND PROPOSED REQUIREMENTS FOR CLASS II AIRPORTS

Current requirements Proposed requirements

1. ......................................................................... New requirements for a recordkeeping system and personnel training.

2. Paved and unpaved surfaces ......................... Unchanged.

3. Safety areas ................................................... Unchanged.

4. Marking, lighting and signs ............................. Unchanged.

5. ......................................................................... New requirement for snow and ice control plan.

6. ARFF (negotiated standard) ........................... New ARFF standards per proposed 139.315–.321).

7. HAZMAT handling/storage (negotiated standard).New HAZMAT handling/storage standard (per proposed 139.323).

8. Traffic/wind indicators (negotiated standard) New traffic/wind indicators standard (per proposed 139.325)

9. ......................................................................... New requirement for AEP (no triennial exercise required).

10. Self-inspections (negotiated standard) ......... New self-inspections standard (per proposed 139.329).

11. ....................................................................... New requirement for ground vehicle operations.

12. ....................................................................... New requirement for obstructions.

13. ....................................................................... New requirement for Navaids.

14. ....................................................................... New requirement for public protection.

15. ....................................................................... New requirement for wildlife hazard management.

16. Airport condition reporting (negotiated

standard).

New airport condition reporting standard (per proposed 139.341).

17. ....................................................................... New requirement for construction/unserviceable areas.

38648 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 120 / Wednesday, June 21, 2000 / Proposed Rules

C. CURRENT AND PROPOSED REQUIREMENTS FOR CLASS III AIRPORTS

Current requirements Proposed requirements:

1. ......................................................................... A recordkeeping system and personnel training.

2. ......................................................................... Paved and unpaved surfaces.

3. ......................................................................... Safety areas.

4. ......................................................................... Marking, lighting and signs.

5. ......................................................................... Snow and ice control plan.

6. ......................................................................... ARFF.

7. ......................................................................... HAZMAT handling/storage.

8. ......................................................................... Traffic/wind indicators.

9. ......................................................................... AEP (no triennial exercise required).

10. ....................................................................... Self-inspections.

11. ....................................................................... Ground vehicle operations.

12. ....................................................................... Obstructions.

13. ....................................................................... Navaids.

14. ....................................................................... Public protection.

15. ....................................................................... Wildlife hazard management.

16. ....................................................................... Airport condition reporting.

17. ....................................................................... Construction/unserviceable areas.

D. CURRENT AND PROPOSED REQUIREMENTS FOR CLASS IV AIRPORTS

Current requirements Proposed requirements

1. ......................................................................... New requirement for a recordkeeping system and personnel training.

2. Paved and unpaved surfaces ......................... Unchanged.

3. Safety areas ................................................... Unchanged.

4. Marking, lighting and signs ............................. Unchanged.

5. .........................................................................

6. ARFF (negotiated standard) ........................... Unchanged.

7. HAZMAT handling/storage (negotiated standard).Unchanged.

8. Traffic/wind indicators (negotiated standard) Unchanged.

9. ......................................................................... New requirement for an AEP (triennial exercise not required).

10. Self-inspections (negotiated standard) ......... Unchanged.

11. .......................................................................

12. .......................................................................

13. .......................................................................

14. .......................................................................

15. .......................................................................

16. Airport condition reporting (negotiated

standard).

Unchanged.

17. .......................................................................

Section 139.205 Amendment of

Airport Certification Manual

Under this proposal, existing

§ 139.205, titled ‘‘Contents of airport

certification manual,’’ would be moved

to proposed § 139.203. Existing

§ 139.217, titled ‘‘Amendment of

Airport Certification Manual or Airport

Certification Specifications,’’ would be

moved to proposed § 139.205 and

retitled. Existing § 139.217 specifies

procedures for amending the ACM or

the ACS.

Minor editorial clarifications are

proposed to existing § 139.217, but

existing amendment procedures and

requirements would be unchanged. The

title of the section would be revised to

delete the term ‘‘Airport Certification

Specifications.’’ Also, references to the

Administrator have been changed to

Associate Administrator for Airports.

Action on petitions made under this

section would be delegated to the

Associate Administrator for Airports.

In addition, amendment procedures

specified in existing paragraph (d)

would be revised. Currently the FAA

may initiate action to amend an ACM,

but there is no time period specified

when the certificate holder will be

notified of the disposition of a proposed

amendment. Under new paragraph (d),

the certificate holder would be notified

within 30 days after receipt of the

notification as to whether the

amendment has been adopted or

rescinded.

Subpart D—Operations

Section 139.301 Records

Under this proposal, existing

§ 139.301, titled ‘‘Inspection authority,’’

would be moved to proposed subpart B

and consolidated with existing language

of § 139.105 to create a single section

titled ‘‘Inspection authority’’ (see

discussion under § 139.105, Inspection

authority). Proposed § 139.301, titled

‘‘Records,’’ would be new and be

applicable to all part 139 airports.

With the addition of new airports to

the certification process, the FAA

believes it is necessary to clarify

certificate holders’ recordkeeping

responsibilities. While many certificated

airports already keep records to show

compliance with part 139, this proposed

amendment would ensure more

consistent recordkeeping and require

that the FAA be given access to such

records.

New paragraph (a) would stipulate

that the certificate holders would make

available to FAA inspectors records

required under part 139 in a manner to

facilitate their monitoring of an airport’s

compliance with part 139.

Proposed new paragraph (b) would

require that a certificate holder make

and maintain records of each scheduled

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 120 / Wednesday, June 21, 2000 / Proposed Rules 38649

or unscheduled operation of large air

carrier aircraft and scheduled operations

of small air carrier aircraft, if the airport

serves less than 10,000 annual air

carrier operations during the previous

24 consecutive calendar months. This

information will assist the FAA in

determining whether the airport

operator should continue to hold an

AOC.

The FAA does not currently collect

data on air carrier operations from

airports with less than 10,000 annual

operations, nor is data collected on

unscheduled air carrier operations.

Without this data, it is difficult for the

FAA to properly allocate resources at

airports serving small or unscheduled

air carrier aircraft. The FAA does not

believe this requirement is unduly

burdensome as many airport operators

already track air carrier operations for

planning purposes and collecting user

fees.

Proposed paragraph (c) would require

the certificate holder to maintain any

additional records that the

Administrator may require. This

paragraph also identifies some new and

existing recordkeeping requirements

contained in proposed part 139.

Section 139.303 Personnel

Existing § 139.303 requires certificate

holders to maintain sufficient qualified

personnel necessary to comply with the

requirements of part 139. Under this

proposal, this section would be revised

to include additional requirements,

organized into four new paragraphs. The

requirements of this revised section

would be applicable to all part 139

airports.

With the addition of new airports to

the certification process, the FAA

proposes to clarify in new paragraphs

(a) and (b) a certificate holder’s

responsibilities to train and equip

personnel performing duties required

under the proposed part 139. This

would include duties performed by

airport personnel necessary to ensure

the safe and efficient operation and

maintenance of the airport. While many

existing part 139 airports must comply

with existing requirements of § 139.303,

this proposal would for the first time

stipulate that certificate holders must

ensure that their personnel have the

available resources needed to properly

perform their duties. For example, a

certificate holder would be required to

provide personnel responsible for the

upkeep of runway lighting with any

necessary electrical supplies and tools,

as well as provide access to pertinent

sections of the ACM, and appropriate

AC’s.

New paragraph (c) proposes that the

certificate holder develop a personnel

training program to ensure that all

personnel have the specific knowledge

to perform their required duties at their

airport and can perform such duties.

Similar to training required for ARFF

personnel, this training would be

required when personnel first assume

their duties and again on a reoccurring

basis, as specified in the ACM.

New paragraph (d) would require the

certificate holder to maintain records of

training given to personnel, as required

under this new section. Training records

for each individual would have to be

kept for each employee a minimum of

two years after completion of the

training to ensure these records are

available for the FAA’s annual

inspection. The FAA has found that

annual ARFF training records currently

required have benefited the FAA and

certificate holders in monitoring the

quality and effectiveness of training.

The FAA believes it would be beneficial

to require training records of other

employees that have duties prescribed

in the ACM.

Section 139.305 Paved Areas, and

Section 139.307 Unpaved Areas

Under this proposal, existing

§§ 139.305 and 139.307 would remain

virtually unchanged. These sections

prescribe standards for maintaining and

repairing paved and unpaved areas.

The term ‘‘Airport Certification

Specifications’’ would be deleted to

reflect proposed certification changes,

and language stating specific series

numbers within the AC system would

be changed to a general reference to the

AC system.

Further, existing § 139.305(a)(1)

would be modified by deleting the terms

‘‘full strength’’ and ‘‘shoulder.’’ The

terms ‘‘full strength’’ and ‘‘shoulder’’

have caused confusion as to what areas

surrounding movement areas to apply

the 3-inch abutting surface limitation.

To minimize damage to an aircraft that

inadvertently leaves a runway, taxiway

or other movement areas, this standard

ensures that the edges of such pavement

do not exceed more than 3 inches in

height than the surrounding areas. This

change clarifies that the standard is

applicable to any area surrounding

pavement used by air carrier aircraft,

regardless of how these areas are used,

or these areas’ condition, strength, or

composition.

Currently, all airports certificated

under part 139 must comply with the

provisions of §§ 139.305 and 139.307. In

addition, proposed manual

requirements (proposed § 139.205)

would require operators of newly

certificated airports to develop

procedures for maintaining paved and

unpaved areas, as required under these

sections. Both the FAA and the ARAC

Commuter Airport Certification

Working Group agree that airports

serving scheduled operations of small

air carrier aircraft should be required to

maintain paved and unpaved areas as

prescribed by these sections. Paved and

unpaved areas include loading aprons,

parking areas, taxiways, and runways.

The deterioration of pavements and

other areas must be limited to ensure

that these areas adequately support air

carrier aircraft operations.

The requirements for paved and

unpaved areas should not prove a

hardship on proposed Class III airports.

As mentioned earlier, many of these

airports have received Federal funding

for paving improvements or new

construction (see discussion of

Regulatory Evaluation). These airports

already maintain paved areas in a

manner authorized by the Administrator

in order to comply with grant

assurances (see discussion of proposed

§ 139.109, Duration of certification).

Pavement rehabilitation and expansion

projects are eligible for further Federal

funding and may be eligible for

additional state or local funding.

Section 139.309 Safety Areas

Existing § 139.309 prescribes

standards for the establishment and

maintenance of a safety area for each

runway and taxiway available for air

carrier use. Under this proposal, this

section would remain the same, except

for minor editorial changes to

paragraphs (a) and (c). The requirements

of this revised section would be

applicable to all part 139 airports,

including proposed Class III airports.

A safety area is a defined area

surrounding a runway or taxiway that is

prepared, or suitable, for reducing the

risk of damage to aircraft in the event an

aircraft undershoots, overshoots, or

deviates from a taxiway or runway.

Establishing a safety area may require

filling of culverts, grading, and

compacting the ground to remove

depressions or high spots. Lights and

signs may be reinstalled on frangible

mountings. A well-maintained safety

area can prevent injuries to passengers

and limit damage to aircraft that depart

from paved surfaces. The safety area

would allow the aircraft to come to a

rest on a graded, obstacle free surface.

Safety areas also allow emergency

response vehicles to more quickly reach

troubled aircraft.

The language of existing paragraph (a)

would be revised to require that

certificate holders ensure runway safety

38650 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 120 / Wednesday, June 21, 2000 / Proposed Rules

areas are maintained in accordance with

the standards of this section, unless

otherwise approved in the ACM.

Dates listed in existing paragraphs

(a)(1) and (2) that ‘‘grandfather’’ existing

safety areas would remain effective.

These dates were adopted when part

139 was revised in 1987 (52 FR 44276,

November 18, 1987.) Prior to 1987,

many airport operators invested

resources to develop safety areas before

standardized guidelines were

established. Further, physical

limitations of airports resulted in

establishment of some safety areas that

did not meet the standard due to local

circumstances. For example, available

solid ground around runways located

adjacent to bodies of water may have

been inadequate to establish a safety

area that meets the required dimensions.

Since 1988, the FAA has required any

renovation or construction of safety

areas to meet the requirements of

§ 139.309 at most airports that would be

effected by this proposed rule, including

proposed Class III airports. Any newly

certificated airport under this proposal

that has renovated or constructed its

safety areas since 1988 could apply for

an exemption under proposed § 139.111

if its safety areas do not comply with the

requirements of this section.

Paragraph (c) would be revised to

make a general reference to the

availability of the AC system.

Section 139.311 Marking, Signs, and

Lighting

Existing § 139.311, titled ‘‘Marking

and lighting,’’ specifies standards for

runway and taxiway markings, signs,

and lighting. Under this proposal, this

section would be retitled and clarified.

In addition, new paragraphs (b) and (g)

would be added. The marking and

lighting requirements would be revised

to correspond to proposed § 139.203

requiring all operators of certificated

airports to comply with this section.

The addition of the word ‘‘signs’’ to

the title of this proposed section reflects

proposed changes to this section that

would separate marking, signs, and

lighting requirements into three distinct

paragraphs. Paragraph (a) would contain

marking requirements, new paragraph

(b) would specify sign requirements,

and paragraph (c) would detail

movement area lighting requirements.

Revised paragraph (a) would contain

existing marking requirements, with a

minor clarification concerning taxiway

edge markings. In addition, the word

‘‘runway’’ would be deleted from the

term ‘‘runway holding position

markings’’ to permit special operations

that require holding position markings

other than those prior to the runway. To

accommodate such special aircraft

operations, the FAA proposes to delete

the word ‘‘runway’’ from both the

phrase ‘‘runway holding position

markings’’ in proposed paragraph (a)

and the phrase ‘‘runway holding

position signs’’ in proposed paragraph

(b).

New paragraph (b) would include sign

requirements currently found in

§ 139.311(a) and specify signs that must

be internally illuminated. Paragraph

(b)(2) would require proposed Class I, II,

and IV airports operators to internally

illuminate taxiing route signs, holding

position signs, and ILS critical area

signs. Paragraph (b)(3) would require

operators of proposed Class III airports

to internally-illuminate only holding

position and ILS critical area signs.

Due to cost associated with installing

and maintaining internally-illuminated

signs, the majority of the ARAC

Commuter Airport Certification

Working Group recommended use of

retro-reflective runway signs (signs that

reflect light back, similar to signs used

on interstate highways) for runways not

equipped with lighting. Internallyilluminated signs would be appropriate

for runways that are equipped with

lighting. The working group report

recognized the cost to install internallyilluminated signs and suggested use of

these signs only on runways that have

a power source in place. The initial cost

to supply electrical power to taxiways

and/or runways was viewed as

relatively high, and the working group

hoped this approach would economize

airport resources.

While the majority of the working

group recommended retro-reflective

signs identifying taxiing routes,

representatives of ALPA recommended

that newly certificated airports

(proposed Class III airports) install

internally-illuminated signs on taxiing

routes where edge or centerline lighting

exists. ALPA opposes retro-reflective

taxiway signs because it believes that

retro-reflective signs may not be visible

to pilots operating aircraft of varying

size and configurations. Conversely, the

majority of members believe that aircraft

with fewer than 31 passenger seats

(typically used at Class III airports) are

lower to the ground, thereby validating

use of retro-reflective signs. ALPA

further argued that similar requirements

for runway and taxiway signs would

ensure standardization and, with the

gradual conversion to internally

illuminated signs, would present a

minimal economic burden, noting that

signs are eligible for Federal funding.

The FAA disagrees with ALPA’s

conclusion that use of internallyilluminated signs will present minimal

impact on airports. While improvements

to taxiway and runway signs are eligible

for Federal funding, such improvements

may not receive funds. Further,

requiring installation of specific

equipment on the assumption that the

equipment is eligible for funds through

the AIP would be misleading. AIP funds

are allocated on a priority basis, and

airport sign improvements would

compete with other airport

improvements and safety projects on a

nationwide basis. Moreover, AIP funds

do not cover all of an airport’s costs

local communities provide some

matching funds.

However, the FAA is concerned about

ALPA’s contention that retro reflective

signs may not be visible to all air carrier

pilots because of differences in aircraft

configurations and the location of taxi

lights, and would like to use this

rulemaking to invite comments on this

issue. FAA also requests comments,

including economic and operational

data, on whether or not the installation

of unlighted retro-reflective signs would

provide an adequate sign system for

Class III airports.

The term ‘‘unless otherwise

authorized by the Administrator’’ also

would be included in new paragraph (b)

to provide for those instances where an

airport has a runway that does not have

edge or in-pavement lighting, thus a

suitable power source may not be

available to illuminate signs. In such

cases, the FAA would work with the

airport to develop acceptable alternative

signs until funding is available for

installing or improving power for

runway lights and signs.

New paragraph (c) would contain

existing lighting requirements for

aircraft operations currently found in

existing § 139.311(b). The word

‘‘darkness’’ would be replaced with the

word ‘‘night,’’ which is defined in 14

CFR part 1. Special criteria also would

be included to address the unique

environment of Alaska.

Also, references to 14 CFR part 77

concerning obstruction would be

deleted. Part 77 is being revised and

may be reorganized. New paragraph

(c)(5) of proposed § 139.311 would

require the marking and lighting of

objects determined by the FAA to be an

obstruction.

The phrase ‘‘authorized by the

Administrator’’ also would be added to

existing language of proposed

paragraphs (a), (b), and (c). This change

would ensure that the requirements of

this section are implemented in a

manner satisfactory to the FAA. This

change corresponds to those in

proposed § 139.7 (see discussion under

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 120 / Wednesday, June 21, 2000 / Proposed Rules 38651

§ 139.7 Methods and procedures for

compliance).

In addition, language in paragraphs

(a), (b), and (c) pertaining to lowest

minimums authorized for a runway

would be modified. This revised

language would clarify that the FAA

authorizes landing and takeoff

minimums for runways. This does not

change how such minimums are

currently determined; the revised

language clarifies that FAA is

responsible for making such

determinations.

With changes to other paragraphs in

this section, existing paragraph (c)

would become new paragraph (d) and

continue to require certificate holders to

properly maintain marking, sign and

lighting systems. Existing (d), requiring

certificate holders to prevent light

interference with air traffic control and

aircraft operations, would become new

paragraph (e). Consequently, existing

paragraph (e) would become new

paragraph (f) and continue to specify

that advisory circulars (AC’s) contain

marking, sign, and lighting standards

that are acceptable to the Administrator.

Existing paragraph (f) would be deleted

as it addresses an implementation date

that has already passed.

A new paragraph (g) proposes a

compliance date for marking and

lighting requirements by operators of

proposed Class III airports. These

airport operators would be provided

adequate time to develop a sign plan,

order, and take delivery of signs, and

install signs required by this part.

Operators of proposed Class II and IV

airports currently holding an LAOC

should already comply with this

section’s requirements.

Section 139.313 Snow and Ice Control

This proposal would make minor

modifications to the existing standards

of § 139.313, titled Snow and ice

control. As proposed, Class I airport

certificate holders would continue to

implement their existing snow plans,

and operators of proposed Class II and

III airports would be required to develop

snow and ice control plans, as

appropriate.

Existing § 139.313 requires operators

of airports serving scheduled operations

of large air carrier aircraft to develop

and implement snow and ice control

plans, if the airport is located in an area

where snow and icing conditions

regularly occur. Snow and ice plans

include procedures for removal and

control of snow and ice accumulations

and notification to air carriers when

movement areas are unusable due to

snow and ice. No changes are proposed

to these requirements.

In the revised paragraph (a), the term

‘‘regularly’’ would be deleted and new

language added to clarify that the FAA

will determine which airports require

snow and ice control plans. The term

‘‘regularly’’ is too vague and difficult to

further define.

Proposed § 139.313(b)(2) would be

modified. This paragraph prescribes the

standard for positioning snow off

movement areas. This proposal would

not change this standard, but would

delete the redundant term ‘‘full

strength.’’ This term ‘‘full strength’’ is

unnecessary as proposed § 139.3 defines

movement areas as those areas used by

aircraft to taxi and land. To function as

such, movement areas must have the

capability to support the weight of the

aircraft using these surfaces—a surface

condition described as full strength.

In addition, references to airport

condition reporting requirements in

paragraph (b) would be updated to

correspond to new section numbering.

Paragraph (c) also would be modified to

reference generically to the AC system

rather than specific series number.

The ARAC Commuter Airport

Certification Working Group’s report

contained a recommendation that Class

II and III airports should be required to

remove snow and ice. The working

group suggested minor modifications to

the rule language that would limit the

requirement to remove snow and ice to

times just prior to air carrier operations.

The group recommended deletion of the

requirement that snow and ice be

removed promptly. The FAA disagrees.

Continuous and prompt removal of

snow and ice ensures safe airport

conditions in hazardous weather

conditions. Failure to promptly remove

snow and ice from movement areas

could make removal of accumulations

just prior to air carrier operation more

difficult.

Sections 139.315–139.321 Aircraft

Rescue and Firefighting (General

Discussion)

Existing part 139 has three sections

dedicated to aircraft rescue and

firefighting (ARFF) requirements. This

proposal would revise these three

sections to include new requirements

and reflect current industry practices. In

addition, a fourth ARFF section is

proposed that would specify procedures

for airport certificate holders to request

an exemption from ARFF requirements.

This proposal also would require that

all airports certificated under part 139

provide appropriate ARFF coverage

meeting at least minimum ARFF

requirements (Index A), subject to the

limited exemption discussed below.

Proposed changes to ACM requirements

(see discussion of proposed § 139.203,

Contents of airport certification manual)

would require all certificated airports to

include procedures in their ACM for

complying with proposed ARFF

requirements appropriate to the air

carrier aircraft and operation served.

Currently, only airports serving

scheduled operations of large air carrier

aircraft are required to comply with all

of part 139 ARFF requirements. Under

existing § 139.321(b)(11), airports

serving unscheduled operations of large

air carrier aircraft (airports holding an

LAOC) are required only to provide for

‘‘emergency response to aircraft rescue

and firefighting needs.’’ This means that

airports holding an LAOC must provide

for ARFF coverage but such coverage

does not have to meet prescribed part

139 ARFF requirements. The FAA

determines ARFF requirements at these

airports on a case-by-case basis. While

the FAA uses part 139 standards as a

benchmark, the level of this coverage

varies depending on the air carrier

operations served and the availability of

local resources.

To standardize ARFF at certificated

airports, the FAA proposes that all

certificated airports serving both

scheduled and unscheduled operations

be required to comply with all ARFF

requirements. However, requiring all

airports to comply with the standards of

this revised section may pose a

substantial cost for airports that do not

currently provide at minimum ARFF

coverage (Index A), or do so only to

cover an occasional unscheduled air

carrier flight. This would include both

currently certificated airports and

airports that would be newly

certificated if this proposal is adopted.

The FAA has provided financial and

technical support to help some airports

holding an LAOC comply with part 139

ARFF requirements, particularly for the

purchase of ARFF equipment. As a

result, many airports holding a LAOC

already comply with most of the ARFF

requirements. However, the FAA

recognizes that these airports typically

are located in smaller communities that

have limited resources and that the

sporadic nature of unscheduled air

carrier operations often makes it cost

prohibitive for such communities to

provide the same level of ARFF

coverage provided by airports serving

scheduled large air carrier aircraft.

Accordingly, the FAA proposes to

establish procedures to exercise its

statutory authority to provide limited

exemptions for certain airports from

some or all prescribed ARFF

requirements on a case-by-case basis.

The issue of ARFF proved to be the

most contentious for the ARAC

38652 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 120 / Wednesday, June 21, 2000 / Proposed Rules

Commuter Airport Certification

Working Group. The group was not able

to reach a consensus on the level of

ARFF coverage appropriate for airports

serving small air carrier aircraft. While

the majority of the working group

agreed that ARFF equipment should

meet minimum ARFF coverage required

under part 139 (Index A), no agreement

was reached for stationing ARFF

personnel and equipment on the airport,

or requiring a 3-minute ARFF response.

The working group’s greatest concern

was over labor and training costs

associated with ARFF requirements.

The working group concluded that

many of the communities serving small

air carrier operations could not afford to

provide the same level of ARFF services

required of airports serving large air

carrier operations, even if Federal funds

were made available to assist in the

purchase of ARFF equipment. The

majority of the members of the working

group recommended that operators of

small airports work with local

firefighting agencies to arrange for

emergency services and incorporate

such arrangements into the airport’s

emergency plan.

The majority of the working group

also concluded that there was a lack of

accident data to support on-airport

ARFF at smaller facilities. The working

group reviewed the National Aviation

Safety Data Analysis Center’s

(NASDAQ) collection of NTSB reports

for all part 135 scheduled airplane

accidents and incidents that occurred

on airports between 1983 and 1996. The

group discovered 15 on-airport

accidents involving small air carriers

that resulted in post crash fires. A total

of 38 fatalities occurred as a result of

these accidents. With the exception of

one accident resulting in fatalities, all

fatalities were the result of the aircraft

impact, not the subsequent fire.

The exception is the crash of

Northwest Airlink Flight 2268, a CASA–

212 commuter aircraft, at the Detroit

Metropolitan Airport on March 4, 1987.

The Detroit Metropolitan Airport is a

part 139 certificated airport with the

most comprehensive ARFF capabilities

(Index E). A rapid intervention ARFF

vehicle was at the crash scene within

one and one-half minutes of the alarm

from the control tower, and the fire was

extinguished within two minutes of the

first alarm. Before ARFF services could

arrive, a quick and intense post crash

fire killed nine aircraft occupants. Ten

occupants survived, by exiting the

aircraft prior to the secondary fire.

The working group did not consider

the November 1996 commuter accident

at Quincy, Illinois, in its review because

the NTSB had not concluded its

investigation at that time.

The Air Line Pilots Association

(ALPA) expressed a minority position

for one level of safety and stringent

ARFF requirements at all certificated

airports regardless of size of aircraft

serving the airport. ALPA favored a 3-

minute test response that is currently

required of airports receiving scheduled

operations of large air carrier aircraft,

and offered suggestions for providing

personnel needed for ARFF response.

Among others, ALPA suggested that

airport operators cross-train their

employees (or tenant employees) to

perform ARFF duties, or that the local

community site a fire station on the

airport. ALPA subsequently provided a

position document that is available in

the docket.

The FAA is not opposed to ALPA’s

position that ARFF coverage be

provided at airports served by small air

carrier aircraft. Current part 139 and this

proposal permit the use of existing

airport employees to perform ARFF

duties so long as the provisions of part

139 are met. With FAA approval, an

airport operator could arrange to have

part, or all, of its ARFF responsibilities

performed by an air carrier or fixed base

operator (FBO) so long as the

requirements of this part and the

airport’s certification manual are met.

However, ALPA’s position on a

standard 3-minute test response is

impractical. Most local volunteer fire

departments would not have volunteers

present for every air carrier operation.

Similarly, locating a fire station on the

airport can mean that, during air carrier

operations, firefighters would not be

available to provide emergency services

elsewhere in the community.

In connection with this rulemaking,

the FAA is considering a clarification of

agency policy on the use of airport

revenue to promote the availability of

ARFF services at small airports.

Generally, a non-aeronautical municipal

use of airport property must be charged

a fair market rental rate for the airport

to comply with grant assurances that

require the airport to maintain a rate

structure that makes it as self-sustaining

as possible (see discussion of § 139.109

Duration of certificate). However, a

municipal fire station on airport

property may receive a reduction in rent

proportional to the airport-related

purpose and use of the station. In

connection with the adoption of

proposed ARFF requirements for

airports serving small air carrier aircraft,

the FAA would consider this reduction

to apply to a municipal fire station

located on a Class II, III, or IV airport

when the municipal station is an

essential element of the local agreement

the airport uses to meet its ARFF

obligations under part 139.

Since the ARAC submitted its report

on the certification of commuter

airports, the NTSB announced its

findings on the commuter aircraft

accident in Quincy, Illinois. The

accident involved the runway collision

of a United Express Flight 5925, a Beech

1900C commuter aircraft, and a Beech

King Air, N1127D, during the landing

sequence of the United Express and the

take off of the King Air from Quincy

Municipal Airport. The Quincy

Municipal Airport has a limited airport

operating certificate and only provides

ARFF coverage during large air carrier

operations. At the time of the accident,

there were no large air carrier aircraft

operations and ARFF services were not

on site. All ten passengers and two

crewmembers aboard Flight 5925 and

the two occupants on the King Air were

killed as the result of post-crash fires.

The NTSB found that the speed with

which the fire enveloped the King Air,

and the intensity of the fire, precluded

survivability of the occupants. The

occupants of the Beech 1900C did have

the opportunity to escape but could not

open external doors that had been

damaged. The NTSB concluded that

lives might have been saved had onairport ARFF protection been required.

However, the board recognized the

economic difficulties on-airport ARFF

requirements would place on smaller

communities. In this regard, the NTSB

recommended that the FAA develop

ways to fund ARFF protection at

airports serving scheduled passenger

operations in aircraft with more than 10

seats.

Section 139.315 Aircraft Rescue and

Firefighting: Index Determination

Airports certificated under part 139

that serve scheduled air carrier

operations with more than 30 seat

aircraft must provide ARFF coverage

that is appropriate to the size of aircraft

using the airport. Existing § 139.315

establishes criteria for determining the

proper ARFF coverage. Requirements

for this coverage are divided into five

categories, or indexes, based on the

length of the longest air carrier aircraft

that departs the airport at a certain

frequency. Index A prescribes the

minimum ARFF standards (type of

extinguishing agent, truck capacity, etc.)

that an airport must provide during

operations of air carrier aircraft less than

90 feet in length. Air carrier aircraft

with 10–30 seats used in scheduled

passenger service are typically less than

in 90 feet in length.

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 120 / Wednesday, June 21, 2000 / Proposed Rules 38653

Under this proposal, clarifications

would be made to the requirements of

existing § 139.315. Existing paragraph

(c)(1) and (c)(2) would be combined into

a single paragraph.

The current format of this paragraph

has resulted in (c)(1) and (c)(2) being

misinterpreted and airports complying

with lower ARFF index requirements

than intended.

A certificated airport serving

scheduled air carrier operations must

comply with the ARFF Index that

corresponds to the largest aircraft as

long as there are five or more average

daily departures of that type of aircraft.

However, confusion exists when the

largest aircraft serving an airport has

less than five daily departures. In such

cases, a certificated airport must meet

the next lower ARFF index

requirements for the largest air carrier

aircraft serving the airport, regardless on

number of average daily departures.

For example, if an airport serves 10

daily departures of Index A aircraft,

three daily departures of Index B

aircraft, and four daily departures of

Index C aircraft, the FAA intends for

this airport to provide at least Index B

ARFF coverage. Index B ARFF coverage

would also be required at an airport

receiving four daily departures of Index

A aircraft, four daily departures of Index

B aircraft, and three daily departures of

Index C aircraft. The existing rule

language has resulted in the incorrect

interpretation that Index A ARFF

coverage would be appropriate in both

examples because daily departures were

used as the determining factor rather

than the largest aircraft serving the

airport. When the largest aircraft serving

a certificated airport has less than five

daily departures, then aircraft size

would determine the ARFF index.

The FAA also proposes revisions to

this section to emphasize that in all

circumstances, the minimum ARFF

index will be Index A.

Section 139.317 Aircraft Rescue and

Firefighting: Equipment and Agents

Existing § 139.317 prescribes

standards for ARFF equipment and fire

extinguishing agents. The FAA proposes

revisions to this section to reflect

changes made to the production of fire

extinguishing agents.

The FAA proposes to add the phrase

‘‘unless otherwise authorized by the

Administrator’’ to this section to

provide relief to airports waiting for

Federal funds to purchase adequate

equipment, or to address other local

circumstances that may require

temporary use of alternative equipment

or extinguishing agents. Long-term relief

from the standards of this section would

be considered under proposed

§ 139.321, Aircraft rescue and

firefighting: Exemption.

In addition, the term ‘‘clean agent’’

would be added to this section. The

term defines a new type of aircraft fire

extinguishing agent that an airport

operator could use to comply with this

section, and as noted earlier, is used by

the firefighting community to describe a

category of fire extinguishing agents that

replace halon 1211.

Under existing § 139.317, halon 1211

is specified as one of the fire

extinguishing agents that an airport

operator can use. However,

chlorofluorocarbon chemicals,

including halon 1211, have been

identified as a stratospheric ozone

depleter. The United States

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

banned the production of halon 1211 on

January 1, 1994. Airport operators

currently using halon 1211 will be

required by the EPA to switch to

authorized agents when their stockpiles

are depleted and may only use halon

1211 during actual aircraft emergencies.

Under this proposal, most of existing

§ 139.317(i) would be deleted. The FAA

proposes to remove references to

specific standards for extinguishing

agent substitutions and place these in an

advisory circular. Only language

allowing the use of alternate

extinguishing agents authorized by the

Administrator would be retained.

The FAA also proposes to remove

language no longer needed in this

section that provided relief to certain

airport certificate holders whose ARFF

vehicles were unable to comply with all

the requirements of this section at the

time of the regulation’s last revision

(November 1987). Since the 1987

revision, the FAA has funded through

the Airport Improvement Program the

purchase and rehabilitation of ARFF

vehicles, and noncompliant vehicles

have been replaced. However, the FAA

recognizes that airports newly

certificated (proposed Class III airports)

may be using ARFF vehicles that do not

comply fully with the requirements of

this section. The exemption process of

proposed § 139.321 would enable the

FAA to consider relief from this

section’s requirements.

The FAA proposes a 2–year timeframe

for those airports required for the first

time to comply with the standards of

this section (proposed Class II, III and IV

airports). The proposed compliance

dates should allow these airports

adequate time to acquire funding for,

and purchase of, ARFF equipment.

Approximately 40 airports (both

certificated and non-certificated) would

have to obtain additional ARFF

equipment. The FAA would consider a

time extension for airports unable to

comply within this 2-year timeframe.

Section 139.319 Aircraft Rescue and

Firefighting: Operational Requirements

Existing § 139.319 prescribes

standards for the training of ARFF

personnel; ARFF vehicle marking,

lighting, and readiness; and emergency

access roads. This section also

establishes criteria for a certificate

holder to make adjustments to ARFF

coverage to correspond to changes in air

carrier operations. Currently, only

airports serving scheduled operations of

large air carrier aircraft are required to

comply with § 139.319. Under this

proposal, all classes of airports would

be required to comply with the

requirements of this revised section.

Existing § 139.319 would be revised to

reflect current rescue and firefighting

practices. Also, it would address a

petition for rulemaking made by the Air

Transport Association of America

(ATA). As the result of these proposed

changes, many existing paragraphs

would be given new paragraph

designations and titles to ensure a

consistent format throughout the

section.

Specifically, existing paragraph (g)

would be moved to new paragraph (l)

and titled ‘‘Methods and procedures.’’

This change would ensure that all

references to compliance methods and

procedures are consistently located at

the end of each section. All references

to specific series numbers within the AC

system would be deleted. Instead, this

revised paragraph would make a general

reference to the AC system.

Several changes also would be made

throughout new paragraph (h) (existing

paragraph (i)) for clarity and to reflect

changes in terminology used to describe

fire extinguishing agents (see discussion

of proposed § 139.317).

In addition, proposed paragraph (i)

would contain existing requirements of

paragraph (j), with several

modifications. Language would be

included in new § 139.319(i)(2) to

clarify that rescue and firefighting

personnel must be trained before initial

performance of duties and, at a

minimum, must receive annual

recurrency training.

Also, the FAA proposes to clarify the

frequency of training required for rescue

and firefighting personnel. Many of the

subject areas required under existing

paragraph (j) (proposed new paragraph

(i)) necessitate ongoing training, and

ARFF personnel would not be expected

to maintain currency with only a oncea-year course. Most ARFF organizations

have a continuous training program

38654 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 120 / Wednesday, June 21, 2000 / Proposed Rules

throughout the year. The FAA supports

this continuous training approach and

proposes a 12–month recurrent training

requirement as the benchmark for the

minimum training required.

The FAA also proposes, in new

paragraphs (i) and (j), to require the use

of hazardous material guidance. In

August 1990, the ATA petitioned the

FAA to amend part 139 ARFF

procedures related to hazardous

materials incidents. In its petition, ATA

expressed concern that without proper

training and guidance, ARFF personnel

could take incorrect action in response

to a hazardous materials incident that

might endanger both the emergency

crews and the general public. At that

time, ATA stated that ARFF crews were

relying solely on hazardous materials

emergency response guidance required

to be carried aboard the aircraft.

ATA recommended that § 139.319 be

amended to require ARFF crews to be

equipped with, and trained in the use

of, the North American Emergency

Response Guidebook published by

Transport Canada, U.S. Department of

Transportation, and the Secretariat of

Communications and Transportation of

Mexico. The ATA stated that the

guidebook would promote a better

understanding of ground emergency

response and alleviate the need for

ARFF personnel to be solely dependent

of on-board information, which may or

may not be available during an

emergency, and may not be appropriate

to a ground-based incident.

In response, the FAA published a

summary of the petition in the Federal

Register (55 FR 39299, September 26,

1990), and received 14 comments from

airport operators, ATA and–ALPA. Most

of the commenters agreed with the

substance of the petition and recognized

the value of providing ARFF personnel

with guidance and training to properly

respond to hazardous materials

incidents. Several airport operators

disagreed with ATA because many

airports already equip ARFF personnel

with the guidebook or provide similar

information to ARFF personnel via a

communication link. However, two

airport operators expressed concern

about requiring a specific document in

part 139 that could become outdated

and hamper existing hazardous

materials emergency communication

procedures already in place. Instead,

these commenters preferred to focus

such efforts on training.

In light of information and data

provided by ATA and airport operators,

the FAA proposes to change existing

paragraph (j)(2)(x) ((proposed paragraph

(i)(2)(x)), to revise the term ‘‘aircraft

cargo hazards’’ to read ‘‘hazardous

materials/dangerous goods incidents.’’

Similarly, new paragraph (j) would be

added to this section prescribing a

general requirement to equip aircraft

rescue and firefighting vehicles with

guidance for responding to hazardous

materials/dangerous goods incident.

The FAA is a proponent of the North

American Emergency Response

Guidebook and proposes to require its

use. This guidebook was developed

jointly by the governments of Canada,

Mexico, and the United States for use by

fire fighters, police and other emergency

services personnel who may be the first

to arrive at the scene of a transportation

incident involving hazardous materials

or dangerous goods. The guidebook

should be used by first responders to

quickly identify the specific or generic

hazards of the material(s) involved in

the incident, and to protect themselves

and the general public during the initial

response phase of the incident. Other

guidance material also may be needed.

While new paragraph (j) specifies the

use of the North American Emergency

Response Guidebook, it also would

allow airport operators the flexibility to

use other guidance material and to make

such information available via direct

communications links to ARFF

personnel at the site of the incident

(e.g., cellular telephone, radio, and other

communication links).

New paragraph (i)(4) would impose

requirements for emergency medical

care training similar to existing

requirements. The term ‘‘emergency

medical care’’ would be amended to

read ‘‘emergency medical services.’’

This change in terminology reflects

current terminology used by the

emergency response community.

Further, it is proposed that emergency

medical requirements be expanded to

specify initial and recurrent training to

eliminate any confusion over the

frequency of such training.

Proposed paragraph (i)(5) would be a

new requirement for the certificate

holder to maintain records for two years

from the date of any training given to

meet the requirements of proposed

§ 139.319. Such records would, at a

minimum, specify the type and date of

training. To document compliance with

this section, airport certificate holders

already maintain these records and the

FAA proposes to formalize this practice.

Similar to proposed § 139.317(l), new

paragraph (m), titled ‘‘Implementation,’’

would specify a compliance date with

airports that would be required for the

first time to comply with the standards

of this section (proposed Class II, III,

and IV airports). The proposed

compliance date allows these airports

adequate time to acquire funding for,

and purchase of, ARFF equipment and

hire/train personnel. The FAA

anticipates that approximately 110

airports (both certificated and noncertificated) would have to obtain

additional equipment and personnel.

Two years should be adequate time to

secure Federal and local funds to

purchase equipment and hire and train

personnel. The FAA would consider a

time extension for airports unable to

comply within this 2-year timeframe.

Section 139.321 Aircraft Rescue and

Firefighting: Exemptions

Existing § 139.321, Handling and

storing of hazardous substances and

materials, would be redesignated as

§ 139.323. Proposed § 139.321 is new

and would establish procedures for

certain airport certificate holders to

request an exemption from the ARFF

requirements of proposed §§ 139.317

and 139.319. This section would also

detail what the FAA would consider in

deciding to grant an exemption from the

ARFF requirements. As proposed, the

FAA could exercise its statutory

authority to exempt certain airport

certificate holders from the prescribed

ARFF requirements. Through this

statutory exemption, the FAA would

maintain the necessary oversight of

ARFF while ensuring that the ARFF

requirements are appropriate for the

airport size and type of air carrier

operations.

Proposed paragraph (a) would

establish that the certificate holder of an

airport that meets the qualifications for

an exemption, as specified in proposed

§ 139.111, may petition the Associate

Administrator for Airports (as delegated

by the Administrator) for an exemption

to the ARFF requirements of proposed

§§ 139.317 and 139.319. Specifically,

the airport certificate holder would have

to demonstrate that the ARFF

requirement it is seeking exemption

from would be unreasonably costly,

burdensome, or impractical.

Proposed (b) would set forth

procedures a certificate holder must

take to request an exemption, including

the information that must be included

in the petition, i.e., the nature and

extent of relief sought, and any

alternative means of compliance.

Proposed paragraph (c) would

establish criteria the FAA would use to

grant exemptions on a case-by-case

basis. As noted in the discussion of

alternatives, any exemption would not

relieve an airport certificate holder from

its obligation to provide some level of

ARFF coverage. All certificated airports

would be required to provide ARFF

coverage.

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 120 / Wednesday, June 21, 2000 / Proposed Rules 38655

3NFPA 407—Standard for Aircraft Fuel

Servicing, National Fire Protection Association,

1996 Edition.

Proposed § 139.321(c) requires the

certificate holder to submit a petition

requesting relief from the requirements

of §§ 139.317 and 139.319 that shows an

equivalent level of safety would be

provided during air carrier operations in

response to aircraft emergencies. This

would include provisions made by the

certificate holder for prearranged

firefighting and medical response,

equipment and fire extinguishing agents

to be used, and training of firefighting

and medical responders. Also, this

section specifies that the certificate

holder will arrange for such emergency

equipment and personnel to be onairport 15 minutes before and 15

minutes after an air carrier aircraft takes

off or lands. This should not be

interpreted to mean that such prearranged ARFF services would

necessarily be required to be stationed

at the airport or wait on-airport during

extended periods between flights.

Of approximately 570 civilian airports

currently certificated under part 139,

operators of approximately 500 of these

airports would be eligible to petition for

an exemption under this new section (as

they have less than one quarter of one

percent of the total number of annual

passenger enplanements). The operators

of the estimated 40 airports that could

be newly certificated (proposed Class III

airports), if this proposal is adopted,

would be eligible to petition for an

exemption from ARFF requirements as

well. The FAA does not anticipate that

all eligible certificate holders would

apply for an exemption under this new

section.

The FAA expects that most requests

for an exemption would be made by

airports that would have to provide

more frequent ARFF services, such as

some proposed Class I, as well as Class

II and III airports. An analysis of

existing ARFF services at these airports

revealed that approximately 110 of these

airports (approximately 50 Class I, 30

Class II, and 30 Class III airports) would

require additional equipment or

personnel to comply with proposed

ARFF requirements (see discussion of

ARFF costs in the Regulatory Evaluation

section). To minimize disruptions at

such airports, certificate holders at these

facilities would have two years to

comply with proposed changes to ARFF

requirements. During this time, a

certificate holder could choose to

comply with these new requirements or

request an exemption. Airport operators

currently holding a ‘‘limited’’ certificate

could request an exemption based on

the currently approved ARFF response

for their airport.

The FAA requests comments on this

exemption process, including economic

and operational data that would assist

the FAA in evaluating the effectiveness

of this process.

Section 139.323 Handling and Storing

of Hazardous Substances and Materials

In this proposal, existing § 139.321,

would be redesignated as proposed

§ 139.323. Existing § 139.321 requires

certain airport operators to establish and

implement procedures for the safe

storage and handling of aviation fuel,

lubricants, and oxygen, and when acting

as a cargo agent, hazardous materials

regulated under 49 CFR 171. This

section also requires the certificate

holder to conduct quarterly inspections

of certain fueling agents. Generally, this

proposal would not change these

requirements.

Changes are proposed to existing

paragraphs (b), (c), (h), and (i) of this

section, as described below. All

proposed airport classifications would

be required to comply with the

requirements of this revised section.

Airport operators that currently serve

scheduled operations of large air carrier

aircraft (proposed Class I airports)

would continue to comply with existing

§ 139.321. Operators of airports holding

an LAOC (proposed Class II and IV

airports) would be required to update

existing procedures for the storage and

handling of hazardous materials

required under existing § 139.213 to

ensure their existing procedures meet

the standards. Also, operators of

proposed Class III airports would be

required for the first time to develop

and implement procedures for the

storage and handling of hazardous

materials. Depending on the local fire

code, some operators of proposed Class

III airports may have already developed

such procedures and would need only

to document such procedures in their

ACM.

The majority of the ARAC Commuter

Airport Certification Working Group

recommended that airports serving

small air carrier aircraft not be required

to comply with this section. The

working group expressed a need for

such procedures, but noted most airport

operators already have procedures that

appear to be adequate for storing and

handling hazardous materials at smaller

facilities. Instead, the majority

recommended that smaller facilities

meet local fire codes pertaining to

storage and handling of hazardous

substances and materials, including

aircraft fuel. The majority stated that

this approach would adequately address

preparedness and safety issues without

being overly burdensome.

Representatives of the National Air

Transportation Association (NATA) and

ALPA disagreed with the majority

position, and recommended that the

FAA require airports serving small air

carrier aircraft to comply with

requirements of the existing section.

ALPA raised concerns that local fire

codes may not adequately address

aircraft storage and refueling operations,

and noted the working group’s

economic analysis found compliance

with this section would not create an

economic burden.

The FAA has determined that the

requirements of this section are

common safety measures and would not

be unduly burdensome. Moreover, these

standards were developed as a result of

a cooperative effort between the FAA,

airport operators, and FBO’s, and have

been successfully used for the past

several years by airport operators and

aircraft fuelers nationwide.

The FAA proposes to delete the term

‘‘grounded’’ from paragraph (b)(1). This

paragraph would then correspond with

the NFPA Standard 407, titled

‘‘Standard for Aircraft Fueling

Servicing.’’ The NFPA standard

recommends that only bonding should

be used during aircraft fueling or

refueler loading.3 The FAA actively

participates in development of NFPA

codes and standards related to aviation

fueling.

The terms ‘‘grounding’’ and

‘‘bonding’’ describe methods to

dissipate electrostatic charges created

when aviation fuels pass through

pumps, filters, and piping, and may

consequently ignite fuel. Bonding is a

procedure that provides a conductive

path to equalize the potential

electrostatic differential between fueling

equipment and aircraft. Bonding is

accomplished by connecting a cable

between the fueling equipment and the

aircraft. Alternatively, grounding

attempts to reroute and dissipate

potential charges into the ground by

connecting the aircraft by a cable to a

static wire, typically a rod in the

ground.

The FAA concurs with NFPA 407 as

testing has shown that most grounding

provides little, if any, protection from

electrostatic hazards. In addition to

corrosion of rods in the ground,

grounding points may have high

electrical resistance. The static wire may

not be sufficient to carry the potential

current and, if the wire fuses, may

actually constitute a source of ignition.

Since 1990, the FAA has encouraged

the use of bonding in aircraft fueling,

fuel delivery and hydrant servicing. The

38656 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 120 / Wednesday, June 21, 2000 / Proposed Rules

4Aviation Accident Report—Fuel Farm Fire at

Stapleton International Airport, Denver, Colorado,

November 25, 1990: NTSB AAR–91/07, National

Transportation Safety Board, October 1, 1991.

FAA Office of Airport Safety and

Standards has issued two informational

notices, known as ‘‘CERTALERTS,’’ to

alert FAA inspectors and airport

operators to changes in grounding and

bonding. ‘‘CERTALERTS’’ are advisory

in nature and are issued periodically to

provide timely information to certificate

holders on a broad range of safety and

airport certification related subjects.

Subsequent to the issuance of NFPA

407, the FAA issued CERTALERT #91–

06 (September 18, 1991) and

CERTALERT #90–08 (November 7,

1990) urging the use of bonding only,

and suggesting design requirements for

the procedure. The FAA proposes to use

this rulemaking action to codify this

recommended practice.

In addition, paragraph (b)(6) would be

modified to delete an implementation

date that has already passed. In its

place, a new requirement is proposed

that would require operators of

proposed Class III airports to complete

specified training within one year.

Existing paragraph (e) would be

modified to include requirements for

annual recurrency training for fueling

agent supervisors and employees. This

is in response to requests by airport

operators for clarification on frequency

training. This requirement would be

similar to recurrency training

requirements proposed for other airport

personnel (see discussion of § 139.319,

Aircraft rescue and firefighting:

Operational requirements) and training

currently used by fueling agents. Most

fueling agents work directly for, or

indirectly represent, large fuel or aircraft

service companies that have established

safety programs that require periodic

recurrency training.

Proposed changes to existing

§ 139.321(h) would clarify the certificate

holder’s responsibility for fuel storage

areas owned or operated by tenant air

carriers. Paragraph (h) currently

exempts the certificate holder from

overseeing part 121 or 135 air carrier

fueling operations to ensure compliance

with requirements of § 139.321.

However, there are no equivalent

requirements under parts 121 and 135

directing air carriers to inspect and

maintain their fuel storage areas, as is

required of airport operators under part

139. Sections 121.135 and 135.23 only

address refueling aircraft and fuel

quality.

On November 25, 1990, a fire erupted

at a fuel storage and dispensing facility

about 1.8 miles from the main terminal

of Stapleton International Airport in

Denver, Colorado. The fire was

extensive, burning for 49 hours, and

required a total of 634 firefighters, 47

fire units, and 4 contract personnel.

More than 56 million gallons of water

and 28,000 gallons of foam concentrate

were expended to extinguish the fire.

No injuries or fatalities occurred as a

result of the fire.4

The NTSB investigation concluded

that the probable cause of this accident

was damaged pumping equipment

resulting in leakage and ignition of fuel.

The NTSB also concluded that a similar

incident could be avoided if airport

certificate holders were responsible for

inspecting all fuel storage areas on the

airport, including air carrier facilities.

The FAA concurs with this

recommendation and proposes to delete

existing paragraph (h) to avoid any

possible confusion over who is

responsible for maintaining and

inspection fuel storage areas used by

part 121 and 135 air carriers.

Subsequently, existing paragraph (i)

would become new paragraph (h). As

proposed, new paragraph (h) would

specify that the requirements of

§ 139.321 are applicable to air carrier

fuel storage areas located on the airport.

Existing paragraph (c) also would be

amended to remove references to

existing paragraph (h).

In addition, existing paragraph (i)

(new paragraph (h)) would be revised to

delete references to the specific series

number within the AC system. Instead,

this revised paragraph would make a

general reference to the AC system.

Section 139.325 Traffic and Wind

Direction Indicators

Under this proposal, the requirements

of existing § 139.323 would be moved to

proposed § 139.325. Existing § 139.323

prescribes conditions that require

certificate holders to provide a wind

cone and a traffic pattern indicator, and

the standards for these devices. All

proposed airport classifications would

be required to comply with this

proposed section.

Changes are proposed to clarify that

airport operators must comply with the

requirements of this section in a manner

satisfactory to the FAA, and that the

available AC’s contain some methods of

compliance that are acceptable to the

Administrator. In addition, this

proposal would revise standards for

segmented circles and supplemental

wind cones.

Existing § 139.323 requires airport

certificate holders serving scheduled

operations of large air carrier aircraft

(proposed Class I airports) to provide

traffic and wind indicators (such as

windsocks) at specific locations on the

airport. In addition, certain night and

uncontrolled traffic operations require

traffic and wind indicators. This

requirement would not change under

this proposal. Airport certificate holders

having a LAOC (proposed Class II and

IV airports) and operators of proposed

Class III airports would need to comply

with standards of this revised section.

Further, all certificate holders would

be required to install supplemental

wind cones adjacent to runway ends

where the primary wind cone is not

visible to a pilot on final approach or

during takeoff. The existing standard

only requires the use of supplemental

wind cones if the airport is located in

Class B airspace. Installation of

supplemental wind cones would ensure

current wind direction information is

available to all pilots rather than just

those using longer runways of airports

typical of Class B airspace. Longer

runway distances may limit a pilot’s

ability to see a mid-field wind cone

during takeoff or landing. Linking the

current standard to Class B airspace has

unintentionally excluded those smaller

airports with longer runways,

particularly those military bases that

have recently converted to civilian use.

Existing paragraph (b) also would be

revised to update the standard for traffic

indicators at airports without a control

tower. Language proposed corresponds

more closely to existing FAA guidance

provided to pilots on visual indicators

at airports without control towers.

Specifically, the requirement for a

segmented circle would be deleted and

a new standard would be added for the

location of landing strip and traffic

pattern indicators.

While many operators of airports

serving scheduled operations of small

air carrier aircraft already provide traffic

and wind indicators, the FAA believes

that requiring all certificated airports to

comply with this section would ensure

standardization.. This position was

supported by the ARAC Commuter

Airport Certification Working Group

report.

Section 139.327 Airport Emergency

Plan

Existing § 139.325 requires certain

certificate holders to develop and

implement an emergency plan and to

conduct tests of this plan. The section

also specifies what the emergency plan

must contain. In this proposal, existing

§ 139.325 would be moved to proposed

§ 139.327 and revised to address all

proposed airport classifications.

Changes also would be made to

emergency response requirements for

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 120 / Wednesday, June 21, 2000 / Proposed Rules 38657

5 Ibid, pg. 53.

incidents involving fuel fires and

hazardous materials.

Airport certificate holders that

currently serve scheduled operations of

large air carrier aircraft (proposed Class

I airports) must comply with existing

requirements of § 139.325 to develop,

implement, and test an emergency plan.

These requirements would be extended

to airport certificate holders currently

holding a LAOC (proposed Class II and

IV airports) and proposed Class III

airport operators.

Airport certificate holders currently

required to have an airport emergency

plan must periodically test their plan.

Specifically, these airport operators are

required to conduct a disaster drill

(know as a full-scale airport emergency

plan exercise) every three years to test

the validity of their emergency plan. A

full-scale airport emergency plan

exercise is a mock airport disaster

staged to test and practice airport

emergency procedures. In such

exercises, the airport operator typically

involves all mutual aid participants

(local hospitals, police, fire

departments, etc.), emergency vehicles

and other equipment, and airport

personnel and tenants, as specified in

the airport emergency plan. The

exercise usually is an all day event

culminating several months of

preparation, and is conducted using

airport resources and support from the

local community.

In the years in between the full-scale

exercise, airport certificate holders are

required to review their emergency

plans to ensure procedures are still

current and all parties involved know

their responsibilities. The testing

requirements for airports serving

scheduled operations of large air carrier

aircraft (proposed Class I airports)

would not change as a result of this

proposal.

Operators of proposed Class II, III, and

IV airports would be required to

annually review their emergency plan to

ensure procedures are current and all

parties involved know their

responsibilities. These operators would

not be required to conduct full-scale

emergency exercises. Many of the

communities that own and operate such

facilities are small and have very

limited resources. However, the FAA

encourages these airports to work with

their communities to develop feasible

disaster drills.

The annual review, often referred to

as a ‘‘table-top’’ exercise, would involve

the airport meeting with responsible

parties around a map of the airport to

discuss possible emergency scenarios.

The review is a reasonable requirement

for airports serving small air carrier

scheduled operations, and will ensure

emergency procedures remain current

without being unduly burdensome.

The ARAC Commuter Airport

Certification Working Group

recommends this approach to

emergency preparedness in its report.

The report states the cost of a full scale

airport emergency plan exercise could

be overly burdensome for airports

serving small air carrier aircraft, and

supported the use of table top exercises

only. The report also recommended that

such tabletop exercises include a field

tour, identification of emergency staging

areas, and perimeter security

requirements to control access to and

from disaster areas.

Other requirements throughout this

section also would be modified. Existing

paragraph (a) would be revised to clarify

that the airport emergency plan provide

for response to an emergency involving

the largest air carrier aircraft serving the

airport. While this requirement is

currently found in existing paragraphs

that address medical services and water

rescue (paragraphs (c) and (f)), it has

always applied to the entire section. To

ensure that all applicable response

measures accommodate the largest air

carrier aircraft serving an airport, the

FAA proposes moving this requirement

to paragraph (a).

In response to an NTSB

recommendation, the FAA proposes that

existing paragraph (b) be modified to

require certificate holders to include in

the airport emergency plan instructions

for response to fires at fuel farms or fuel

storage areas.

In its investigation of the Denver fuel

farm fire (see discussion of proposed

§ 139.323, Handling and storing of

hazardous substances and materials),

the NTSB found that while airport

firefighters and the Denver Fire

Department promptly responded to the

fire, they were unable to maintain a

continuous flow of foam onto the fire,

and the fire reignited and quickly

intensified. The NTSB concluded that

the airport and local firefighters did not

have, nor could they have been

expected to have, a sufficient supply of

foam concentrate to fight a fuel fire of

this magnitude. However, the City of

Denver and its fire department had not

developed a contingency plan for a fire

of this type, and eventually a private

contractor that specialized in large-scale

fuel fires was brought in to extinguish

the fire. Arrangements for this private

contractor were made only after a tenant

air carrier became concerned that its

tanks, neighboring those burning, would

be damaged.5

The NTSB determined this lack of

procedures for responding to a fuel

storage fire of this magnitude prolonged

the duration of the emergency. The

NTSB recommended that the FAA

require part 139 certificate holders to

have contingency plans for fighting very

large fires such as fuel storage area fires.

The FAA concurs with this

recommendation and proposes to

modify existing paragraph (b) to require

certificate holders to include in the

airport emergency plan instructions for

response to fires at fuel farms or fuel

storage areas.

Existing paragraph (b)(5), proposed

paragraph (b)(6), would also be

amended to reflect more current

terminology. The term ‘‘radiological’’

would be replaced with the term

‘‘hazardous materials/dangerous goods.’’

This term would better reflect the type

of incidents airports need to be prepared

for, including incidents involving

corrosive, biological, explosive,

radioactive, or toxic air cargo or ground

freight. This change also addresses the

ATA petition for rulemaking regarding

hazardous materials/dangerous goods

incident guidance (see the discussion

under proposed § 139.319).

Additionally, existing paragraph

(d)(3) would be modified to include the

new term ‘‘notification.’’ The revised

section would allow airport operators to

use either an alarm system or a

notification system to announce an

emergency. The ARAC Commuter

Working Group report noted that

smaller airports required to have an

emergency plan may not have the

resources to implement a sophisticated,

automated alarm system used by many

larger facilities. Instead, these smaller

airports may use a notification system

that is as simple as a series of telephone

calls to summon emergency response.

The requirement would ensure that an

adequate system is in place, and

periodically tested. Each airport would

determine the type of system that best

meets its needs.

Existing paragraph (g)(5) would be

moved to new paragraph (h) and

existing paragraph (h), prescribing

acceptable methods and procedures,

would become new paragraph (i). New

paragraph (h) would prescribe the

requirement for, and the frequency of,

full-scale airport emergency plan

exercises, as described earlier.

Requirements in paragraphs (d) and

(f) that relate to water rescue situations

and coordination with control towers

would be clarified to apply only to those

airports with water on or adjacent to the

airport, or with a control tower.

New paragraph (j) would allow

certificate holders of proposed Class II,

38658 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 120 / Wednesday, June 21, 2000 / Proposed Rules

III, and IV airports one year from the

effective date of the rule to submit their

emergency plans to the FAA for

approval. Even though the FAA

provides guidance materials to aid in

the development of an airport

emergency plan, the process will require

coordination and cooperation with the

surrounding communities and may be a

time consuming process.

Section 139.329 Self-Inspection

Program

Existing § 139.327 requires certificate

holders to conduct daily inspections of

the movement area to ensure the airport

remains in compliance with part 139.

This section specifies additional

conditions that require inspections.

Also, the certificate holder is required to

have a system to notify air carriers of

field conditions and a recordkeeping

system to document inspections.

In this proposal, existing § 139.327

would be redesignated as proposed

§ 139.329 and revised to address

training requirements for individuals

conducting airport inspections.

Language also would be added to permit

airport inspections to be conducted by

individuals other than employees of the

airport operator. All proposed airport

classes would be required to comply

with this revised section.

The proposed changes to existing

§ 139.327 will assist existing and new

airport certificate holders in

understanding their responsibilities to

inspect their facilities. As a

consequence, airport operators already

required to have a self-inspection

program under existing § 139.205 would

need to modify their inspection

program.

Operators of airports that currently

serve scheduled operations of large air

carrier aircraft (proposed Class I

airports) must continue to comply with

the requirements of this section, and

would be required to modify their

inspection program. Airport certificate

holders holding an existing LAOC

(proposed Class II and IV airports)

would be required to update existing

self-inspection programs. In addition,

operators of proposed Class III airports

would be required to develop and

implement an self-inspection program.

Existing paragraph (a) would be

amended to allow airport operators to

designate individuals of their choice to

conduct inspections as long as the

individuals meet the requirements of

this section. For example, the proposed

change would allow the airport operator

to designate an individual other than

airport personnel, such as air carrier

station personnel or an employee of an

FBO, to conduct required inspections

when airport personnel are not present

during hours of scheduled operations. A

similar proposal was recommended by

the ARAC Commuter Airport

Certification Working Group to permit

airports serving scheduled operations of

small air carrier aircraft to designate

inspection responsibilities.

This proposal could reduce labor

costs associated with personnel working

overtime or the need to hire additional

employees to cover early morning or

late evening operations, particularly

when tenant employees will be present

during these hours of operation.

However, the certificate holder would

be responsible for ensuring that

inspections are done correctly, and that

individuals conducting inspections are

qualified to perform the duties

associated with the inspection.

Personnel requirements of existing

paragraph (b) would be enhanced to

require that personnel meet the

requirements of proposed § 139.303,

Personnel, and to be trained in specific

topics, including airport familiarization

and discrepancy reporting procedures.

This change is necessary to ensure that

certificate holders are using qualified

individuals to conduct airport

inspections, particularly in light of the

proposal to use designees to perform

this function.

Section 139.331 Ground Vehicles

Under this proposal, the requirements

of existing § 139.329 would not be

changed but the section would be

redesignated as proposed § 139.331.

Existing § 139.329 requires the

certificate holder to limit access to

movement areas to those ground

vehicles necessary for airport

operations. This section also requires

the certificate holder to ensure that

employees, tenants, or contractors who

operate ground vehicles in the

movement area are familiar with

established ground vehicle operating

procedures. Currently, operators of

airports certificated to serve scheduled

operations of large air carrier operations

must comply with existing § 139.329.

Minor modifications are proposed to

clarify that the requirements of this

section are implemented in a manner

satisfactory to the FAA. All certificated

airports serving scheduled air carrier

operations (proposed Class I, II, and III

airports) would be required to comply

with this revised section.

Except for representatives of the

National Air Transportation Association

(NATA) and ALPA, the ARAC

Commuter Airport Certification

Working Group report recommended

that operators of airports serving

scheduled operations of small air carrier

aircraft be required to comply only with

training and reporting measures of

paragraphs (e) and (f) of this section.

The working group noted the

importance of familiarization with

proper vehicle safety procedures;

however, the majority of the group was

concerned that other requirements of

this section would be operationally or

economically excessive for the limited

number of scheduled air carrier

operations at these airports.

The working group also noted that

many of these airports do not have

towers, and therefore do not warrant

extensive ground vehicle requirements

contained in this section. The FAA

disagrees with this position. While

existing § 139.329(c) requires the use of

two-way radios, escort vehicles, and

specialized procedures when radios are

inoperative, these measures are only

applicable at airports where an air

traffic control tower is operational.

Further, operators of airports with FAA

control towers enter into a letter of

agreement with FAA Air Traffic Control

that requires ground vehicle procedures

in movement areas. Operators of most

affected airports already work with their

tenants to implement such procedures.

Also, standards have been developed

for the consistent application of this

section as a result of a cooperative effort

between the FAA, airport operators, and

FBO’s. These standards have been

successfully used for the past several

years, and should continue in a manner

that is already well understood and, in

most cases, used by airport operators

and their tenants nationwide.

Section 139.333 Obstructions and

Section 139.335 Protection of Navaids

In this proposal, the requirements of

existing §§ 139.331 and 139.333 would

remain substantially unchanged but

would be redesignated as proposed

§§ 139.333 and 139.335, respectively.

These sections specify standards for

obstructions, and the protection of

navigational aids.

Clarifications are proposed that state

that the requirements of this section

must be implemented in a manner

satisfactory to the FAA, and that the

AC’s contain some methods of

compliance that are acceptable to the

Administrator. All certificated airports

serving scheduled air carrier operations

(proposed Class I, II, and III airports)

would be required to comply with these

revised sections.

Existing § 139.331 (proposed § 139.

333) requires certificate holders to

ensure that each object within its area

of authority that penetrates imaginary

surfaces, as provided in part 77, Objects

Affecting Navigable Airspace, is

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 120 / Wednesday, June 21, 2000 / Proposed Rules 38659

removed, marked, or lighted. Existing

§ 139.333 (proposed § 139.335) requires

the certificate holder to protect against

the derogation of electronic or visual

navigational equipment (navaids) and

air traffic control facilities located on

the airport. This includes protection

against vandalism, theft and

construction that may cause

interference.

Both the FAA and the ARAC Working

Group agree that airports serving

scheduled operations of small air carrier

aircraft should meet these requirements.

Many of these airports already provide

for the removal or marking of obstacles,

and have procedures in place to protect

navaids. This minimizes disruption of

aircraft operations and limits liability.

Section 139.337 Public Protection

Under this proposal, the requirements

of existing § 139.335, would not be

changed but the section would be

moved to proposed § 139.337. Existing

§ 139.335 requires certificate holders to

prevent the inadvertent entry of persons

or vehicles to the movement area, and

to provide reasonable protection of

persons and property for aircraft blast.

All certificated airports serving

scheduled air carrier operations would

be required to comply with this section.

This would include proposed Class I, II,

and III airports.

This section would continue to

require the airport certificate holders to

provide safeguards to prevent

inadvertent entry to movement areas by

unauthorized persons or vehicles, and

to protect persons and property from

aircraft blast. While airports serving

scheduled operations of small air carrier

aircraft typically already provide the

public protection required by this

section, the FAA wants to ensure a

standard minimum level of public

protection at all airports serving

scheduled air carrier operations.

The ARAC Commuter Airport

Certification Working Group also

recommended that airport certificate

holders provide protection from

inadvertent entry and from aircraft blast

as required by this section, with the

exception of existing § 139.335(b). The

working group suggested that

§ 139.335(b), referencing security

fencing requirements, be deleted. This

section is applicable to all airports

serving scheduled air carrier operations,

including those airports that must also

comply with 14 CFR 107, Airport

Security. The FAA proposes to leave

paragraph (b) unchanged because it

achieves the goal of preventing

inadvertent entry.

Section 139.339 Wildlife Hazard

Management

The FAA proposes to move the

requirements of existing § 139.337, to

proposed § 139.339. Existing § 139.337

establishes criteria for when a certificate

holder is required to develop and

implement a wildlife hazard

management plan. This section specifies

what this plan must include, and the

action the certificate holder must take to

respond to wildlife hazards.

This proposed section would update

the terminology and to clarify what is

expected of the certificate holder when

developing a wildlife hazard

management plan. All operators of

certificated airports serving scheduled

air carrier operations would be required

to comply with this section. This would

include proposed Class I, II, and III

airports.

Some operators of proposed Class II

and III airports would be required under

proposed § 139.339 to conduct a

wildlife hazard assessment, and

formulate and implement a wildlife

hazard management plan. Thus, the

FAA proposes to change existing

wildlife hazard management

requirements to assist airport operators

that would be complying with these

requirements for the first time to better

understand their responsibilities. As a

consequence, airport certificate holders

already required to comply with these

requirements (proposed Class I airports)

would need to make minor

modifications to their airport wildlife

hazard management plan.

If this proposal is adopted, existing

paragraph (f) would be moved to the

beginning of this section and become

new paragraph (a). The requirement that

an airport operator take immediate

action to alleviate wildlife hazards

would not change. Rather, the FAA

proposes to reemphasis the importance

of this requirement. Existing paragraph

(a) would become new paragraph (b)

and all other paragraph designations

would be changed accordingly.

In proposed paragraph (b) (existing

paragraph (a)), the term ‘‘ecological

study’’ would be changed to ‘‘wildlife

hazard assessment’’ to reflect more

accurately the type of wildlife

evaluation required to be conducted at

airports.

Paragraph (c) would be amended to

clarify that the wildlife hazard

assessment must be conducted by a

‘‘qualified wildlife damage management

biologist.’’ The FAA has determined

that the potential for loss of life and

equipment resulting from wildlife

aircraft strikes requires the conduct of

hazard assessments by persons having

the education, training, and experience

in wildlife hazard assessments. This

new term is used throughout the revised

section. The term ‘‘circumstances’’

would be added to paragraph (c)(1) to

specify that an assessment must contain

either the event, such as an actual

aircraft strike, or the circumstances, e.g.,

frequent sighting of deer crossing

runways, prompting the assessment.

Also, new paragraph (c)(5) would be

added to require the airport certificate

holder to include in the wildlife hazard

assessment the recommended actions

from the qualified wildlife damage

management biologist for reducing the

wildlife hazard.

Several modifications would be made

to proposed paragraph (d) to improve

clarity. A new item would be added to

the list of considerations contained in

this paragraph used to determine a need

for a wildlife hazard management plan.

New paragraph (d)(2) specifies that the

FAA would take into consideration any

actions recommended by the wildlife

hazard assessment in determining the

need for a certificate holder to have a

wildlife hazard management plan. The

FAA would typically recommend a

wildlife hazard management plan if

actions to reduce wildlife hazards are

recommended in the wildlife hazard

assessment required by proposed

paragraph (b) of this section.

Proposed paragraphs (e)(1) and (e)(2)

(existing paragraphs (d)(1) and (d)(2))

would be reordered for clarity, but the

language remains the same. However,

new paragraph (e)(3) would be added to

clarify that the approved wildlife hazard

management plan is part of the ACM.

This would help assure that the

certificate holder takes action to reduce

wildlife hazards at its airport.

Changes to improve clarity also are

proposed for new paragraph (f) (existing

paragraph (e)). This paragraph details

what an airport certificate holder should

include in a wildlife hazard

management plan. In particular, the

requirement for periodic reviews of the

plan would be amended to require

annual reviews. This is intended to

remove any ambiguity as to when a

review is needed.

Existing paragraph (g) would be

redesignated as new paragraph (h) and

modified to delete references to specific

AC series numbers. Instead, this revised

paragraph would make a general

reference to the AC system. New

paragraph (h) would allow for some

proposed Class II or III airports to

implement less than full wildlife

mitigation procedures where air carrier

operations are so few or infrequent that

any large expenditure would be unduly

burdensome or costly.

38660 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 120 / Wednesday, June 21, 2000 / Proposed Rules

Section 139.341 Airport Condition

Reporting, and Section 139.343

Identifying, Marking, and Reporting

Construction and Other Unserviceable

Areas

As proposed, existing §§ 139.339 and

139.341 would be moved to proposed

§§ 139.341 and 139.343, respectively.

These sections require the certificate

holder to report changed airfield

conditions to air carriers, and prescribes

standards for the marking and reporting

of construction and other unserviceable

areas of the airfield.

The requirements of these sections

would remain substantially the same.

References to other section numbers and

the term ‘‘Airport Certification

Specifications’’ would be changed to

reflect proposed certification changes.

Minor clarifications also are proposed

that the requirements of these sections

must be met in a manner satisfactory to

the FAA, and that the AC’s contain

some methods of compliance that are

acceptable to the Administrator.

Airports that currently serve

scheduled and unscheduled operations

of large air carrier aircraft (proposed

Class I, II, and IV airports) would

continue to have to comply with

existing § 139.339 requirements as

would operators of newly certificated

proposed Class III airports. Existing

§ 139.339 requires airport certificate

holders to collect and disseminate

information on the conditions of the

airport, including any construction or

maintenance activities, weather or

animal hazards, and nonfunctional

equipment and services. In most

instances, this currently would require

the certificate holder to use FAA’s pilot

notification system, the Notices to

Airmen (NOTAM) System.

Under this proposal, such condition

reporting requirements would remain

the same, except that the NOTAM

system need only be used when

appropriate. Since the current condition

reporting requirement was incorporated

into part 139, the NOTAM system has

changed and some airport condition

reports are no longer accepted into this

system. Also, the term ‘‘safety area’’

would be added to paragraph (c)(2) to

ensure that airport users are notified of

irregularities in the safety area, in

addition to those in the movement area,

loading ramps, and parking areas.

The ARAC Working Group report

supports the requirement that airports

serving scheduled operations of small

air carrier aircraft meet the requirements

of proposed § 139.341 (existing

§ 139.339). . Most of these airports

already make use of the NOTAM system

and have in place procedures to alert

their users to airport conditions as well.

Similarly, existing § 139.341

(proposed § 139.343) requires the airport

certificate holder to report and mark any

construction or unserviceable areas, and

associated equipment that may create a

hazard. The requirements of this section

would remain unchanged, and all

certificated airports serving scheduled

air carrier operations would be required

to comply with this section. This would

include proposed Class I, II, and III

airports.

Again, many of these airports have

procedures in place to mark or light

construction areas and unserviceable

areas, and as such, this section should

not pose a burden. It would, however,

ensure that airport operators comply

with these safety practices in a

consistent and regular manner.

Section 139.345 Noncomplying

Conditions

Existing § 139.343 requires a

certificate holder to restrict air carrier

operations in those areas of the airport

that have become unsafe and no longer

comply with the requirements of

subpart D of part 139. Under this

proposal, the requirements of this

section would not be changed but the

section would be redesignated as

proposed § 139.345.

All proposed airport classifications

would be required to comply with this

section. This section should be

applicable to all certificated airports to

ensure that when an airport operator

cannot meet the requirements of subpart

D, as specified in its certification

manual, action is taken to prevent air

carriers from operating in those portions

of the airport where possible unsafe

conditions exist.

Section 121.590 Use of Certificated

Land Airports

Currently, § 121.590 requires most air

carriers conducting part 121 operations

to operate into part 139 certificated

airports. Passenger-carrying operations

with airplanes designed for less than 31

passenger seats may operate into an

airport that is not certificated under part

139, if the airport meets certain

requirements of paragraph (b) of

§ 121.590. An airport designated by an

air carrier as an alternate airport need

not be certificated under part 139.

As proposed, existing § 121.590

would be amended to conform to the

proposed changes to part 139. While

most air carriers under part 121 would

continue to be required to conduct their

operations at airports certificated under

part 139, provisions excepting certain

air carrier operations from this

requirement would be modified to

correspond to proposed changes to part

139.

Language has been added to

paragraph (a) to clarify that in addition

to conducting part 121 operations into

an airport certificated under part 139, an

air carrier must ensure that the airport

is certificated to serve the particular

airplane used for the operation. The size

of air carrier aircraft that airports

certificated under part 139 are allowed

to serve varies, depending upon how the

airport is certificated. Thus, an airport

certificated under part 139 to serve

smaller air carrier aircraft, may not have

adequate services to serve large air

carrier aircraft, particularly emergency

rescue services. This modification

would ensure part 121 operations are

being conducted only at airports that

have appropriate safety measures and

emergency services for the size of

aircraft being used.

A new paragraph (b) is proposed to

address air carrier and commercial

operations conducted into airports

operated by the U.S. government.

Existing paragraph (b) would be

amended and would become new

paragraph (c). New paragraph (b) would

permit air carriers and commercial

operators conducting part 121

operations to use U.S. governmentoperated airports. This change

corresponds to proposed part 139

revisions that clarify that airports

operated by the U.S. government are not

subject to part 139 (see discussion under

§ 139.1 Applicability). Thus, air carriers

and commercial operators using these

airports are not subject to § 121.590(a),

and may use a U.S. governmentoperated airport if such an airport meets

the equivalent safety standards of those

required under part 139, as approved by

the FAA.

While the FAA does not have the

authority to certificate U.S. governmentoperated airports, it does have the

authority under part 121, as noted

above, to require air carriers and

commercial operators to conduct their

operations into airports that meet

appropriate safety standards. The FAA

believes this is necessary to ensure that

air carriers and commercial operators

conducting part 121 operations meet the

highest practicable level of safety while

engaging in common carriage

operations. However, proposed changes

to part 139 could result in part 121 air

carriers desiring to conduct operations

into U.S. government-operated airports

that are not certificated under part 139.

New paragraph (b) would resolve this

inconsistency and allow air carriers the

flexibility to use these airports, if such

facilities meet the equivalent safety

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 120 / Wednesday, June 21, 2000 / Proposed Rules 38661

standards of those required under part

139.

In addition, a new paragraph (c) is

proposed to clarify that an air carrier or

commercial operator conducting

domestic and flag operations with

turbojet powered airplanes designed for

fewer than 10 passenger seats may

operate into airports not certificated

under part 139. This is a modification

of the existing exception found in

§ 121.590(b) for air carriers conducting

passenger-carrying operations with

airplanes designed for less than 31

passenger seats. The existing exception

would be amended to correspond with

proposed changes to part 139 that

would require the certification of

airports serving certain air carrier

aircraft with less than 30 seats. New

paragraph (c) also would allow domestic

and flag operations with airplanes

designed for more than 9 and fewer than

31 passenger seats within the State of

Alaska to operate into airports not

certificated under part 139. This

addition would correspond to the

statute exception that airports in the

State of Alaska serving such operations

need not be certificated by the FAA.

Both types of operations described in

new paragraph (c) would be required to

operate at airports that meet certain

safety criteria (such as runway lighting

and pavement appropriate for the type

of aircraft used), as currently required

under § 121.590(b).

Also, the term ‘‘commercial operator’’

would be added to this section to ensure

that an intrastate operator certificated

under part 121 only operates into an

airport that is appropriate for the

operator’s particular airplane and

operation.

Implementation

On publication of this NPRM, the

public will have 90 days to submit

comments on this proposal (see

discussion under ‘‘Comments Invited’’).

All comments received will be

considered before the FAA takes action

on the proposal. Should the FAA decide

to proceed with this proposal, a final

rule would be issued.

In the final rule, the FAA prescribes

a date that the rule becomes effective.

The final rule may also specify other

dates by which regulated parties must

implement certain requirements. This is

often the case when requirements

necessitate that the regulated party

secure funds, initiate construction, or

procure and install equipment.

Under the statutory authority the FAA

to certificates airports serving scheduled

operations of small air carrier aircraft

including provisions for a congressional

review of the final regulations

concerning these airports before these

regulations take effect. Title 49 U.S.C.

44706(e) stipulates that any regulation

pertaining to these airports ‘‘shall not

take effect until such regulation, and a

report on the economic impact of the

regulation on air service to the airports

covered by the rule, has been submitted

to Congress and 120 days have elapsed

following the date of such submission.’’

If a final rule results from this proposal,

date of issuance, and any effective and

implementation dates associated with

this rule, would be adjusted accordingly

to allow for the completion of this

Congressional review.

The FAA proposes to allow 90 days

from the effective date of the rule for

operators of proposed Class I airports

currently holding an AOC to make the

necessary changes to their ACM’s (see

proposed § 139.101 General

Requirements). These airports would be

required to revise their manual to

implement new recordkeeping and

personnel training requirements. To a

great extent, these airports already

comply with these requirements and

would need to document procedures

already in place. The FAA believes that

in such cases, additional time to procure

funds and secure contracts for

equipment or services would not be

necessary.

The FAA proposes to allow 240 days

from the effective date of this

amendment for operators of proposed

Class II and III airports to submit, have

approved, and implement an ACM (see

proposed § 139.101, General

requirements.) This timeframe would

apply to airports certificated for the first

time (proposed Class III airports), and

those airports holding an LOAC that

would be required to have a Class II

AOC as the result of this rulemaking.

As operators of proposed Class II

airports would be complying with the

emergency plan requirement for the first

time, the FAA proposes to allow these

certificate holders one additional year to

comply (see proposed § 139.327(j)).

Similarly, operators of proposed Class II

airports will be allowed two years to

comply with ARFF requirements (see

proposed § 139.321(b)). While proposed

Class II airports already hold an LOAC

and are required to provide some type

of ARFF coverage, operators of proposed

Class II airports still may need

additional time to arrange ARFF

coverage for small air carrier operations.

These certificate holders may need to

extend the ARFF coverage already

provided for the unscheduled large air

carrier aircraft operations or revamp

their ARFF services.

Operators of proposed Class II airports

would not require additional time to

comply with sign requirements. As they

currently hold an LAOC, these facilities

should already be in compliance with

proposed sign requirements.

The FAA recognizes that the

coordination, funding, and procurement

process associated with the proposed

requirements for signs, ARFF, and

airport emergency plans may require

additional time for implementation at

proposed Class III airports. Therefore,

the FAA also proposes to allow

operators of proposed Class III airports

additional time beyond the effective

date of the final rule to implement

specific requirements, as follows:

1. Signs—3 years (proposed

§ 139.311(b))

2. ARFF—2 years (proposed

§ 139.321(b))

3. Airport —Emergency Plan—1 year

(proposed § 139.327(j))

Additionally, the FAA proposes to

allow 150 days for airport operators

currently holding an LAOC that would

be recategorized as Class IV airports to

convert their current ACS into an ACM

(see proposed § 139.101, General

requirements). While proposed Class IV

airport operators would also have to

implement new recordkeeping and

personnel training requirements, to a

great extent, these certificate holders

already comply with recordkeeping and

personnel training requirements and

would need to document procedures

already in place. In such cases,

additional time to procure funds and

secure contracts for equipment or

services would not be necessary.

However, the FAA proposes that

operators of proposed Class IV airports

be allowed an additional year beyond

the effective date of the rule to submit

an airport emergency plan for FAA

approval (see proposed § 139.327,

Airport emergency plan).

As the period of time from when a

final rule is published to when it is

effective could have a significant

financial impact on affected airports, the

FAA requests comments on possible

implementation schedules. The FAA is

specifically requesting comments on

proposed compliance schedules

discussed earlier. Comments and

recommendations for alternative

compliance dates should be supported

by economic and operational statistics.

Alternatives Considered by the FAA

As noted previously, this NPRM

addresses two issues: (1) the revision of

certain requirements of 14 CFR part 139,

and (2) certification requirements of

airports serving scheduled air carrier

operations with 10–30 seat aircraft

under 14 CFR part 139. Alternatives for

each issue are addressed separately.

38662 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 120 / Wednesday, June 21, 2000 / Proposed Rules

Issue I. Revision of 14 CFR Part 139

The FAA is proposing to revise

current part 139 to clarify and update

several requirements to better reflect

current industry practices and

technology. For the most part, the FAA

believes these revisions would only

require already certificated airports to

take administrative action to document

existing operational procedures. The

approximately 660 airport operators that

currently hold a certificate under part

139 (those operators of airports serving

air carrier operations with more than 30

seat aircraft) would be affected by this

change.

The FAA considered four alternatives

to the revision of 14 CFR part 139.

These alternatives would affect all

covered airports, including those

considered to be small business entities

(owned and operated by a municipality

with less than 49,999 population). In

analyzing these alternatives, the FAA

addressed the concerns of airports of

varying sizes and operations, including

those classified as small business

entities:

(1) Amend administrative and

definition sections of 14 CFR part 139 to

incorporate airports serving scheduled

small air carrier operations into existing

certification process; no changes to

operational requirements.

Under this alternative, required

operational and safety measures of

subpart D would remain unchanged.

Only minor language changes to part

139 would be proposed to incorporate a

new category of airports. Applicability,

definition and administrative sections of

the existing rule would be amended to

establish airport certification manual

(ACM) and other administrative

requirements for airports serving

scheduled, small air carrier operations.

While this approach would address

proposed changes to part 139

applicability section (inclusion of

airports serving scheduled, small air

carrier operations) and would be the

least costly of the alternatives

considered, it would not address the

problem of out-dated operational

requirements. The last major revision of

part 139 occurred in November 1987,

and since then, industry practices and

technology have changed. The FAA

believes airport resources would be

better spent complying with

requirements that reflect current

industry practices and technology that

help ensure safety.

(2) In addition to amending

administrative and definition sections of

14 CFR part 139, only revise those part

139 operational requirements that the

FAA has received a formal request to

amend.

In addition to making administrative

changes to part 139 to incorporate

airports serving small air carrier aircraft,

the FAA could address two requests for

an amendment to part 139 operational

requirements that require public

notification and comment.

Both the NTSB and the Air Transport

Association of America (ATA) have

formally requested that the FAA amend

part 139 emergency response

requirements. After the 1990 fuel farm

fire at the Stapleton International

Airport (Denver, CO), the NTSB

recommended that the FAA require

holders of airport operating certificates

to be responsible for inspecting all fuel

storage areas on the airport and have

contingency plans for fighting large fires

in fuel storage areas. In addition, the

ATA petitioned the FAA in 1990 to

amend part 139 aircraft rescue and

firefighting (ARFF) procedures to

require ARFF personnel to be equipped

with, and trained in the use of, Federal

guidance for emergency response to

hazardous materials incidents.

The FAA concurs with both of these

recommendations. If this proposal is

adopted, the FAA believes these

changes would not pose a hardship on

existing or newly certificated airports.

In many cases, operators of covered

airports already ensure that ARFF

personnel are supplied with hazardous

materials guidance. Further, developing

and documenting procedures to ensure

an adequate response to large fuel fires

would require minimal administrative

time for those airport operators that

have not already documented such

procedures. The FAA believes that these

revisions would ensure airport operators

comply with these safety practices in a

consistent and regular manner.

While this alternative would result in

necessary improvements to airport

emergency procedures and dispose of

outstanding requests for rulemaking, it

would not address other needed

updates. To ensure safety, the FAA

believes that additional revisions are

necessary to reflect current operating

and safety measures.

(3) Require only newly certificated

airports to comply with proposed

amendments to part 139 operational

requirements; ‘‘grandfather’’ airports

currently certificated and allow these

facilities to continue to comply with

existing operational requirements.

Under this alternative, operators of

airports newly certificated as the result

of this rulemaking, and any airport

operator that subsequently applies for

an airport operating certificate, would

be required to comply with all proposed

revised operational requirements. This

would not be the case for airport

operators currently holding an AOC or

a LAOC. These airport operators would

only need to make a few administrative

changes to their ACM or ACS, but

would continue to comply with the

operational requirements of Subpart D

in the same manner as they currently

do.

While this approach could be a less

costly means of revising part 139, the

FAA is opposed to establishing two sets

of airport certification standards. The

FAA believes that a single set of airport

certification standards promotes the

consistent application of safety

measures and ensures a common and

reliable operating environment at all

airports. Similar to air traffic control

procedures, if pilots and other airport

users can come to expect the same

facilities, procedures and equipment at

every airport at which they operate,

then many of the uncertainties and

miscommunications that can cause

accidents are no longer an issue.

For this reason, the consistent

application of specific measures from

airport to airport that ensure safety is,

and will remain, the primary objective

of FAA’s airport certification program.

To achieve this goal, the FAA will

continue to promote a single set of

airport certification standards.

(4) Update part 139 by revising

administrative and operational

requirements throughout the regulation;

both airports that are currently

certificated and those newly certificated

under part 139 would be required to

comply with the revised requirements.

Of all the alternatives considered for

the revision of part 139, this alternative

is the most comprehensive. Changes to

both administrative and operational

requirements would be made

throughout the regulation, and all

operators of airports certificated under

part 139 would be required to comply

with the revised regulation. This would

ensure a comparable level of safety at all

covered airports.

As noted earlier, the last major

revision of part 139 occurred in 1987,

and since then, industry practices and

technology have changed. Under this

alternative, revisions would be made

throughout the rule to incorporate such

changes. In addition, the regulation

would be amended to require additional

airports to comply with an existing

requirement that the FAA has found to

be beneficial (for example, the

requirement for airport emergency

planning).

While this comprehensive approach

to the revision of part 139 could be the

most costly alternative, granting relief to

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 120 / Wednesday, June 21, 2000 / Proposed Rules 38663

smaller airports from certain operational

requirements is still possible.

Experience gained since the last

revision of part 139 also has shown that

certain safety measures that have proven

successful at larger airports may be cost

prohibitive at smaller facilities. Under

this alternative, the FAA could propose

relief in some instances where an

operational requirement would prove to

be an economic burden to smaller

facilities. For example, the proposed

rule could require an emergency plan

for all covered airports, but not require

that all airport operators conduct a full

scale emergency exercise every three

years. Instead, the revised rule could

require such airport operators to

document and review annually

established emergency procedures.

In addition to relief from certain

operational requirements, compliance

costs for smaller airports could be offset

by Federal funding for many safety

improvements and renovations that

would assist these airports in complying

with part 139 requirements. Likewise,

such airport operators may share costs

related to part 139 certification with

airport users, e.g., air carriers, and can

even choose not to be certificated under

part 139. Part 139 is mandatory only if

the airport operator chooses to serve air

carrier operations.

After considering the alternatives for

the revision of part 139, the FAA

determined that revising administrative

and operational requirements, as

discussed in Alternative #4, is necessary

to ensure safety in air transportation at

certificated airports.

Issue II. Certification of Airports Serving

Scheduled Operations of Air Carrier

Aircraft With 10–30 Passenger Seats

The second component of this

proposed rulemaking is the certification

of airports that serve scheduled air

carrier operations with 10–30 seat

aircraft. While all of the proposed

changes to part 139 may potentially

effect airports serving air carrier

operations by small aircraft, the degree

of regulatory oversight would depend

on the level of operational and safety

measures required.

Studies conducted by the GAO, and

recent recommendations of the NTSB,

urged that the FAA be authorized to

regulate airports serving air carriers

using aircraft with 10 to 30 seats. This

recommendation was not based upon

the fact that these airports had a poor

safety record (no category of airport has

a poor safety record), but rather to

provide, to the extent possible, a

comparable level of safety at all airports

used by air carriers.

With the passage of the Federal

Aviation Administration

Reauthorization Act of 1996, section

44706, as noted earlier, Congress

provided the FAA the necessary

authority to certificate airports serving

scheduled air carrier operations with 10

to 30 seat aircraft, except in the State of

Alaska. This new authority is in

addition to existing authority to regulate

airports serving air carrier operations

using aircraft with more than 30 seats.

FAA’s new authority to regulate

airports serving smaller air carrier

operations requires the agency to

identify and consider a reasonable

number of regulatory alternatives that

are ‘‘least costly, most cost-effective or

the least burdensome.’’ This must be

done before the FAA selects the

alternative that will provide a

comparable level of safety at airports

serving scheduled small air carrier

aircraft as provided at currently

certificated airports. Using these

parameters, the FAA considered the

following alternatives:

(1) Maintain current regulatory

oversight of airports serving air carriers

operations with more than 30 seat

aircraft; no certification requirements

for airports only serving small air carrier

aircraft.

Under this alternative, the FAA

would continue its current airport

certification program under part 139

and would encourage non-certificated

airports to voluntarily comply with

applicable part 139 safety measures.

Through its airport certification and

capital improvement programs, the FAA

has established a successful partnership

with the airport community. This

partnership furthers safety through

consistent application of safety

measures, and provides a forum to

address national safety concerns and

priorities. This effort has resulted in

development of guidance and standards

that are available to all airport operators

and for which compliance with is often

a condition of Federal grant agreements.

Consequently, many airports serving

scheduled air carrier operations with

10–30 seat aircraft voluntarily comply

with these established guidance and

standards.

However, the degree to which noncertificated airports comply still varies.

FAA inspections historically have

shown that unless a benchmark for

safety is set and enforced, inconsistent

application of safety measures will

occur due to a variety of factors. The

most common problem is that many

local communities owning and

operating existing certificated airports

provide the necessary resources to

comply with only the mandatory

regulatory requirements. Such resources

are even harder to come by under a

voluntary compliance program.

While maintaining current airport

certification criteria might be the least

costly course of action, the FAA concurs

with GAO and NTSB findings that

certification of airports serving smaller

air carriers is necessary to provide a

comparable level of safety at all airports

and ensure safety in air transportation.

To achieve this comparable level of

safety, the FAA believes it is necessary

to create a standard set of requirements

for all covered airports.

(2) Require airports that are currently

certificated under part 139 to extend

part 139 coverage to air carrier

operations with 10–30 seat aircraft; no

regulation of airports that serve only 10–

30 seat aircraft.

Many airports currently certificated

under part 139 (airports serving air

carrier operations with more than 30

seat aircraft) also serve scheduled air

carrier operations with 10–30 seat

aircraft. Under this option, operators of

such airports would continue to meet

part 139 requirements as they do today.

However, these airport operators also

would be required to comply with part

139 requirements during scheduled air

carrier operations with 10–30 seat

aircraft as well.

At larger airports, required part 139

safety measures are typically applied to

all air carrier operations regardless of

the number of passenger seats as varying

types of air carrier operations occur

throughout a 24-hour period. Thus, it is

more convenient and economical to

comply with part 139 requirements at

all times. This is not always the case at

smaller airports certificated under part

139. At such airports, large air carrier

operations only occur during a certain

portion of the day, or on an infrequent

basis, and certain part 139 safety

requirements are in effect only during

these operations. Approximately 225

currently certificated airports fall into

this category.

For example, aircraft rescue and

firefighting (ARFF) coverage is required

to be present on the airport only 15

minutes prior, and 15 minutes after,

certain air carrier operations (those with

more than 30 seat aircraft). Under this

alternative, an airport operator that has

arranged for the local fire department to

come to its facility once a day to cover

its single air carrier operations with

more than 30 seat aircraft would have to

arrange for additional ARFF coverage

for air carrier operations using small

aircraft. At airports serving small air

carrier operations throughout the day,

the frequency of required ARFF

coverage may increase dramatically.

38664 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 120 / Wednesday, June 21, 2000 / Proposed Rules

While this alternative might be the

least costly approach to regulating

airports that serve scheduled air carrier

operations with 10–30 seat aircraft, it

would not cover all airports serving

scheduled air carrier operations of 10–

30 seat aircraft. This option would only

effect airports already certificated under

part 139. The approximately 40 airports

(excluding airports in Alaska) that

currently serve only scheduled air

carrier operations with 10–30 seat

aircraft would continue to be excluded

from part 139 requirements.

The FAA believes that a comparable

level of safety and consistent regulatory

oversight is necessary at all covered

airports serving air carrier operations in

small aircraft.

(3) Extend the scope of part 139 to

include all airports that serve scheduled

air carrier operations with 10–30 seat

aircraft; require airports that only serve

scheduled small air carrier operations to

comply with standards appropriate to

the type of air carrier operation served.

Part 139 safety and operational

requirements can be conceptually

divided into two categories-risk

reduction requirements and accident

mitigation requirements. Most part 139

requirements fall under the risk

reduction category, as these

requirements are intended to decrease

the possibility of an accident by

providing a safe and standardized

operating environment. Such

requirements include, but are not

limited to, the marking, lighting, and

maintenance of runways and taxiways;

removal and marking of hazards in

aircraft movement areas; and regular

facility inspections.

Conversely, accident mitigation

requirements are intended to minimize

the consequences of an aircraft accident.

Requirements for aircraft rescue and

firefighting and emergency planning are

examples of accident mitigation

requirements that are included in this

category. (For a more detailed analysis

of each specific risk reduction and

accident mitigation standard, see the

‘‘Section-by-Section Analysis’’ Section.)

For liability and safety reasons, many

operators of airports serving scheduled

operations of small air carrier aircraft

already have in place risk reduction and

accident mitigation measures. These

measures have been in place for many

years. As noted earlier, risk reduction

requirements were developed jointly

with the airport community, and are

good general airport operating practices

(e.g., providing a lighted wind direction

indicator or erecting fences to keep the

public and wildlife from aircraft

movement areas).

Further, airport operators that have

accepted Federal funds are required by

grant assurance agreements to comply

with some of the risk reduction

measures required part 139. Of the

approximately 40 airports that could be

newly certificated under this proposal,

all but three have received Federal

funds, totaling $178.5 million between

1982–1997. These funds were used for

improvements such as runway

pavement overlays, rehabilitation of

runway and taxiway lighting, and

purchase of snow removal equipment.

Even with wide spread compliance,

the FAA believes that all covered

airports should be required to comply

with part 139 risk reduction standards.

The FAA believes that due to liability

concerns and Federal funding

obligations, compliance with part 139

risk reduction standards should not be

a hardship on these airport operators.

Requiring these airport operators to

establish and document how they

comply with risk reduction

requirements in their ACM will achieve

consistency in the daily application of

such procedures, and ensure

consistency during changes to airport

personnel or management.

While requiring operators of airports

serving small air carrier aircraft to

comply only with risk reduction

measures could be a least costly

regulatory approach, the FAA believes

that some level of accident mitigation

still is necessary to achieve a

comparable level of safety at all airports.

To save passenger lives and property,

prevent injury to responding personnel

and protect the traveling public from

unsafe conditions, the FAA believes that

airports serving air carriers should be

adequately prepared to respond to

aircraft accidents and other airportspecific emergencies.

Since accident mitigation costs could

have a significant economic effect on

airports serving small air carrier aircraft,

the FAA considered not requiring such

measures. Certain equipment (such as

ARFF trucks and buildings) used to

comply with accident mitigation

standards is eligible for Federal funds.

However, operating costs such as

personnel and maintenance would not

be eligible for these funds.

Consequently, accident mitigation

standards could be the most costly for

smaller airports. This is particularly true

if ARFF coverage requires equipment

and personnel to be on-site and in a

‘‘ready’’ status for more than an

occasional air carrier operation.

However, aircraft accidents present

many unique circumstances that a

community’s regular emergency

response may not be prepared for, and

given some remote locations of airports,

may not be able to respond to in a

reasonable time frame. Aircraft fuel fires

burn more intensively and quickly than

other fires, and require specialized

training, equipment and extinguishing

agents that may not always be provided

by a local fire department. Such

incidents also may require emergency

responders to be prepared for a large

number of casualties and possible

hazardous cargo.

While this alternative promotes a

minimum level of safety through

consistent compliance with risk

reduction requirements, the FAA

believes that not all communities would

place enough emphasis on accident

mitigation measures to ensure safety in

air transportation at all covered airports

and that further measures are needed.

(4) Amend part 139 to require all

airports, regardless of size of air carrier

aircraft and frequency of service, to

comply with all required risk reduction

and accident mitigation standards.

Of all the alternatives considered for

certification of airports serving small air

carrier aircraft, this approach is the most

comprehensive. It would require all

operators of airports certificated under

part 139 (both currently and newly

certificated) to comply with both

proposed risk reduction and accident

mitigation requirements. Accident

mitigation requirements would include

airport emergency planning and ARFF

services.

As noted in the discussion of Issue I

above, analysis of possible regulatory

alternatives for the certification of

airports serving small air carrier aircraft

concluded that there exists a need to

require at least some minimum level of

both risk reduction and accident

mitigation measures. Without such

measures, a comparable level of safety at

all airports cannot be achieved.

However, the FAA recognizes the

need to provide some flexibility in the

implementation of certain safety

measures at airports with infrequent air

carrier service or where local resources

are severely limited. Smaller

communities do not always have the

resources to provide the same level of

services at their airports as airports in

large metropolitan areas without

adversely affecting other community

services and infrastructure.

To address such cost issues, the FAA

could exercise its statutory authority to

exempt certain airports from some

prescribed ARFF requirements. Under

statutory authority, the FAA ensures

that certificated airports provide for the

operation and maintenance of adequate

safety equipment, including firefighting

and rescue equipment capable of rapid

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 120 / Wednesday, June 21, 2000 / Proposed Rules 38665

access to any part of the airport used for

landing, takeoff, or surface maneuvering

of an aircraft. If the FAA determines that

this would not be in the public’s

interest, relief from aircraft rescue and

firefighting requirements would be

granted if:

• A certificated airport has less than

one-quarter of one percent of the total

number of passenger boardings each

year at all certificated airports; and

• The FAA decides ARFF

requirements would be unreasonably

costly, burdensome, or impractical.

In 1997, one-quarter of one percent of

the total number of passenger boardings,

or enplanements, equaled 1.55 million

annual enplanements. The majority of

currently certificated airports and all

other airports serving scheduled air

carrier operations meet this part of the

criterion. Likewise, operators of airports

serving small air carrier aircraft that are

not currently certificated under part 139

also meet this criterion (only 70 of the

largest certificated airports have annual

enplanement numbers in excess of 1.55

million annually).

Through the statutory exemption, the

FAA would maintain the necessary

oversight of ARFF while ensuring that

ARFF requirements are appropriate for

the airport size and type of air carrier

operations. This would not be a blanket

exemption for airports with infrequent

or smaller air carrier operations nor

would it relieve an airport from the

obligation to provide some level of

ARFF coverage, but would be decided

on a case-by-case basis. All certificated

airports would be required to provide

some level of ARFF service. For

example, the FAA might approve a fiveminute response time (versus the threeminute response required under part

139) at a limited certificated airport

where unscheduled air carrier

operations are infrequent and the

community has arranged for an offairport fire station to provide ARFF

coverage.

Airport operators holding limited

certificates (airports that serve

unscheduled air carrier operation with

more than 30 seat aircraft) currently

comply with ARFF requirements similar

to what is proposed under this

alternative. Existing part 139 requires

limited certificated airports to provide

for ARFF and does not specify ARFF

standards. Typically, these airports are

served infrequently by unscheduled air

carrier flights, and the FAA allows some

flexibility in the level of ARFF coverage

provided. In establishing ARFF coverage

at such airports, the FAA uses part 139

ARFF standards as a benchmark, and

allows deviation from the requirements

if the airport operator can demonstrates

a comparable level of safety.

For these reasons, this proposal

includes procedures for an airport to

request relief from part 139 ARFF

requirements if the airport can provide

an acceptable alternate means of

compliance. Some relief from airport

emergency plan requirements could be

provided as well. For example, airports

serving scheduled large air carrier

operations are required to conduct an

emergency disaster drill every three

years. Under this alternative, this

requirement would not be proposed for

other covered airports. Instead, these

airports would be required to review

their plans annually to ensure

information contained in the plan is

accurate.

After considering the alternatives for

the certification of airports serving

smaller air carrier operations, the FAA

is proposing to amend part 139 to

require that all airports, regardless of

size and type of air carrier operations,

comply with risk reduction and

accident mitigation measures necessary

to ensure safety in air transportation.

However, to achieve a comparable level

of safety at airports that vary greatly in

size and operations, the FAA proposes

to permit alternative means of

compliance with certain accident

mitigation requirements. This will allow

the most cost effective and flexible

method of ensuring safety to be

employed at all covered airports.

For more detailed cost analyses of

these alternatives, see the ‘‘Regulatory

Evaluation’’ section below.

Paperwork Reduction Act

This proposal contains the following

new information collection

requirements subject to review by the

Office of Management and Budget

(OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction

Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)). The

title, description, and number of

respondents, frequency of the

collection, and estimate of the annual

total reporting and recordkeeping

burden are shown below.

Title: Certification of Airports

Summary: The FAA proposes to

revise current part 139 and to establish

certification requirements for airports

serving scheduled air carrier operations

in aircraft with 10–30 seats.

In 1996, the statue that authorizes the

FAA to certificate airports was amended

to include a new category of covered

airports (those with airports serving

scheduled operations of air carrier

aircraft with 10–30 passenger seats). The

FAA proposes to use this new authority

and certificate all airport operators

allowed by law.

Further, this proposal would revise

and clarify several safety and

operational requirements. The last major

revision of part 139 occurred in

November 1987, and since then,

industry practices and technology have

changed. In the subsequent years, the

FAA has gathered data on the

effectiveness of part 139 requirements,

(primarily through joint industry/FAA

working groups, field research and

periodic airport certification

inspections), and proposes to use this

rulemaking opportunity to update part

139 requirements. Changes also are

proposed to address National

Transportation Safety Board (NTSB)

recommendations and petitions for

exemption and rulemaking.

These proposed revisions are

necessary to ensure safety in air

transportation and to provide a

comparable level of safety at all

certificated airports.

Use of: This information is necessary

to allow the FAA to verify compliance

with proposed part 139 safety and

operational requirements. While many

part 139 reporting and recordkeeping

requirements remain substantially

unchanged, the FAA is proposing

additional information collections.

Under existing part 139, the FAA

requires airports to comply with certain

safety requirements prior to serving

operations of large air carrier aircraft

(aircraft with more than 30 seats). When

an airport satisfactorily complies with

these requirements, the FAA issues to

that facility an airport operating

certificate (AOC) that permits an airport

to serve large air carriers. The FAA

periodically inspects these airports to

ensure continued compliance with part

139 safety requirements, including the

maintenance of specified records. Both

the application for an AOC and annual

compliance inspections require

regulated airport operators to collect

and report certain operational

information.

Specifically, operators of certificated

airports are required to develop and

comply with an FAA-approved Airport

Certification Manual (ACM). This

manual details how an airport will

comply with the requirements of part

139, and includes other instructions and

procedures to help assist airport

personnel perform their duties and

responsibilities. Under this proposal,

the FAA would continue to require all

operators of certificated airports to have

an ACM.

The AOC remains in effect as long as

the need exists and the operator

complies with the terms of the AOC and

the ACM. Certain changes in the

operation of the airport must be

38666 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 120 / Wednesday, June 21, 2000 / Proposed Rules

reported to the FAA for information or

approval. If the airport operator believes

that an exemption is needed to

commence airport operations,

justification for, and FAA approval of,

the exemption is required for issuance

of the AOC. The operator may request

FAA approval of changes to the AOC or

ACM, or an exemption from part 139

requirements, by submitting

justification and documentation. Also,

the FAA Administrator may propose

changes to the AOC or ACM and the

airport operator may submit contrary

evidence of argument concerning the

proposed changes.

Respondents (including number of):

The likely respondents to this proposed

information request are those civilian

U.S. airport certificate holders who

operate airports that serve scheduled

and unscheduled operations of air

carrier aircraft with more than 30

passenger seats and scheduled

operations of air carrier aircraft with 10–

30 passenger seats. The FAA estimates

that 606 airports serve this type of air

carrier operations, of which an

estimated 565 already hold an AOC and

comply with most of the proposed

information collection requirements.

Frequency: The frequency of

collection would vary depending on the

type of information collected, the size of

the respondent’s airport, and type of air

carrier operations served. Information

needed for the application for an AOC

would be collected only at the time the

application is submitted. An airport

operator applying for an AOC would be

required to develop an ACM. This

document would be periodically

updated and such changes would have

to be reported to the FAA. Further,

airport certificate holders would be

required to establish and maintain

specific records such as personnel

training and facility inspections.

Annual Burden Estimate: This

proposal would constitute a

recordkeeping and reporting burden for

operators of airports certificated under

part 139. This proposal would require

such airport operators to develop and

maintain an ACM, report ACM

amendments to the FAA, and record

personnel training and facility

inspections. In addition, those airports

applying for an AOC would be required

to file an application.

The following table lists estimated

initial and annual hours respondents

would need to comply with proposed

part 139 reporting and recordkeeping

requirements:

Proposed part 139 sections

Initial reporting

hours

Initial recordkeeping hoursAnnual

reporting

hours

Annual

recordkeeping

hours

139.103 ............................................................................................................................................ 304 0 16 0

139.111 ............................................................................................................................................ 0 0 32 0

139.113 ............................................................................................................................................ 0 0 5 0

139.201 ............................................................................................................................................ 0 0 608 608

139.203 ............................................................................................................................................ 1,520 0 0 0

139.205 ............................................................................................................................................ 11,248 0 1,216 0

139.301 ............................................................................................................................................ 0 27 0 324

139.303 ............................................................................................................................................ 0 4,848 0 13,909

139.313 ............................................................................................................................................ 2,208 0 0 736

139.317 ............................................................................................................................................ 0 0 0 2,090

139.319 ............................................................................................................................................ 0 912 0 570

139.321 ............................................................................................................................................ 552 0 80 0

139.323 ............................................................................................................................................ 0 574 0 2,404

139.327 ............................................................................................................................................ 0 6,920 0 4,152

139.329 ............................................................................................................................................ 0 2,528 0 16,432

139.331 ............................................................................................................................................ 0 12,640 0 790

139.339 ............................................................................................................................................ 0 0 32 4,816

139.341 ............................................................................................................................................ 0 79 0 3,950

Subtotal ................................................................................................................................. 15,832 28,528 1,989 50,781

Total ...................................................................................................................................... 44,360 52,770

Operations/maintenance labor

accounts for an estimated 70 percent of

the hours listed in the table above, and

clerical labor makes up the other 30

percent. Cost per hour is estimated to be

$26 for operations/maintenance labor

and $14 for clerical labor. Other

expenses such as general and

administrative costs, overhead costs,

and other indirect costs are estimated to

amount to approximately 15 percent of

the direct labor costs. The estimate of

the total initial reporting and

recordkeeping burden would be

$1,142,713. The annual reporting and

recordkeeping burden would be

$1,359,355.

The agency is soliciting comments to

(1) evaluate whether the proposed

collection of information is necessary

for the proper performance of the

functions of the agency, including

whether the information will have

practical utility; (2) evaluate the

accuracy of the agency’s estimate of the

burden; (3) enhance the quality, utility,

and clarity of the information to be

collected; and (4) minimize the burden

of the collection of information on those

who are to respond, including through

the use of appropriate automated,

electronic, mechanical, or other

technological collection techniques or

other forms of information technology

(for example, permitting electronic

submission of responses).

Individuals and organizations may

submit comments on the information

collection requirement by September 19,

2000, to the address listed in the

ADDRESSES section of this document.

Persons are not required to respond to

a collection of information unless it

displays a currently valid OMB control

number. The burden associated with

this proposal has been submitted to

OMB for review. The FAA will publish

a notice in the Federal Register

notifying the public of the approval

number.

Compatibility With ICAO Standards

In keeping with U.S. obligations

under the Convention on International

Civil Aviation, it is FAA policy to

comply with International Civil

Aviation Organization (ICAO) Standards

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 120 / Wednesday, June 21, 2000 / Proposed Rules 38667

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 proposed regulations.

The Joint Aviation Authorities, an

associated body of the European Civil

Aviation Conference, develop Joint

Aviation Requirements (JAR) in aircraft

design, manufacture, maintenance, and

operations for adoption by participating

member civil aviation authorities. The

JAR does not address airport

certification.

Regulatory Evaluation, Regulatory

Flexibility Determination, International

Trade Impact Assessment, Federalism

Implications, and Unfunded Mandates

Assessment

Proposed changes to Federal

regulations must undergo several

economic analyses. First, Executive

Order 12866 directs that each Federal

agency shall propose or adopt a

regulation only upon a reasoned

determination that the benefits of the

intended regulation justify its costs.

Second, the Regulatory Flexibility Act

of 1980, as amended, requires agencies

to analyze the economic impact of

regulatory changes on small entities.

Third, the Office of Management and

Budget directs agencies to assess the

effects of regulatory changes on

international trade. And fourth, the

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

(Public Law 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).

In conducting these analyses, the FAA

has determined that the economic

impact of this proposed rule will

generate benefits that justify its costs

and does meet the standards for a

‘‘significant regulatory action’’ as

defined in the Executive Order and is

significant as defined by the Department

of Transportation’s Regulatory Policies

and Procedures. The proposal, therefore,

is subject to review by the Office of

Management and Budget. The FAA has

determined that this rule will not

constitute a barrier to international

trade; and does not contain a significant

intergovernmental or private sector

mandate. The agency has concluded

that the proposed rule would have a

significant impact on a substantial

number of small entities and has

prepared an initial regulatory flexibility

analysis. These analyses, available in

the docket, are summarized below.

The FAA invites the public to provide

comments and supporting data on the

assumptions made in this evaluation.

All comments received will be

considered in taking final action on this

notice.

Benefits

The expected benefit of this proposed

rule is an enhanced level of safety

resulting in reduced fatalities, injuries,

and property damage at airports with

scheduled air carrier operations,

particularly operations in aircraft

configured with 10 to 30 passenger

seats.

In 1995, the FAA issued regulations

aimed at ensuring safety in scheduled

air carrier operations in aircraft with 10

or more passenger seats. Since then,

Congress has authorized the FAA to

regulate airports serving 10 to 30 seat

aircraft to further help ensure safety at

airports certificated by the FAA. The

FAA is now proposing to establish

standards for these airports. The agency

will make these standards sufficiently

flexible to accommodate existing

conditions at each airport, while

providing maximum possible safety

improvements.

This proposal affects all currently

certificated airports and approximately

38 additional airports that would need

to obtain certificates. Accordingly,

benefits are expected to accrue at all

four proposed classes of certificated

airports. Several different types of safety

improvements are expected. These

involve:

(1) Prevention of runway accidents or

collisions because of inadequate signs

and traffic and wind direction

indicators,

(2) Mitigation of accident damages by

improving runway safety areas at certain

airports,

(3) Mitigation of accidents as a result

of increased requirements for ARFF

services,

(4) Prevention and mitigation of fires

at airport fuel farms,

(5) Prevention and mitigation of

runway accidents caused by snow and

ice accumulation, and

(6) Prevention and mitigation of

wildlife problems as a result of

improved procedures for wildlife hazard

management.

Airport accidents involving aircraft

used in commercial operations are rare

and random events. This was

particularly true of small air carrier

aircraft, in large part, because small

aircraft serve a small portion of

commercial air passenger activity.

However, small air carrier aircraft

activity is growing and is projected to

continue to grow at much higher rates

than major airline activity. For example,

small air carrier revenue passenger

miles are projected to increase an

average of 7.5 percent per year

compared to 4 percent for major

airlines. As a result, prior history may

not be predictive of the future. If

provisions of the rule prevent or

mitigate the consequences of one

catastrophic accident involving an

aircraft with 30 seats, the potential

benefit of lives saved and property

damage avoided is as much as $45

million. If the provisions of the rule

prevents or mitigate an accident

associated with the collision of two

such aircraft, the benefit would double

to as much as $90 million. Potential

safety improvements are not limited to

situations involving small air carrier

aircraft, but encompass larger aircraft

that also use smaller airports.

A brief discussion of benefits is

included below. A more full discussion

is contained in the full regulatory

evaluation in the docket.

Markings, Signs, and Traffic and Wind

Indicators

Increased safety would result from

proposed uniform standards for

installation of runway and taxiway

markings, signs, and lighting, and for

traffic and wind direction indicators.

All classes of certificated airports would

need to comply with these

requirements. Although most airports

affected by the rule currently meet these

standards, a few airports (approximately

9) would need to upgrade certain

requirements. The FAA believes

uniform standards will make a

significant contribution to safety. If

pilots and other airport users can come

to expect the same facilities, procedures,

and equipment at every airport at which

they operate, then many of the

uncertainties and miscommunications

that can cause accidents are no longer

an issue.

Runway Safety Areas

A second example of a safety benefit

expected as a result of this proposal

relates to runway safety areas. On May

8, 1999, a SAAB 340 overran a runway

at New York’s John F. Kennedy

International Airport. The airport had

recently installed arresting material in

compliance with part 139 safety area

requirements that resulted in the

airplane stopping 50 feet short of

Thurston Bay. The incident resulted in

very little damage to the aircraft and one

minor passenger injury. A previous

incident on the same runway in 1984,

before the arresting material was

38668 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 120 / Wednesday, June 21, 2000 / Proposed Rules

installed, resulted in an SAS DC–10

running into the bay. The incident

resulted in passenger injuries and

extensive airplane damage.

This proposal would require that

Class III airports meet safety area

requirements for the first time. The FAA

has encouraged these airports to install

safety areas for over 10 years, and many

airports have already done so. Although

the proposal will not require immediate

installation of these safety facilities at

any class of airports, over time, the

eventual installation of safety areas at

certificated airports will result in safer

airports.

Emergency Response Services and

Equipment

A major safety provision of the

proposal requires the availability of

some kind of emergency response

services and equipment, including

aircraft rescue and firefighting (ARFF)

equipment. The service must be

available during every landing and

takeoff of scheduled air carrier aircraft

with 10 to 30 seats. In some cases, this

service may not currently be available

for small aircraft operations at airports

where such service is provided for

larger aircraft. For example, an accident

that occurred at Quincy, Illinois (a

proposed Category II airport) on

November 19, 1996 might have been

mitigated had ARFF been standing by

during the arrival of the small air carrier

aircraft.

The U.S. air carrier transportation

system is very safe, and accidents

requiring emergency response action are

rare. The risk of death or injury to a

passenger, due in part to current

emergency response requirements, is

very small; however, many incidents

have occurred where the perceived risk

of an accident was great enough that

ARFF units were alerted. The FAA has

tracked airport incidents at currently

certificated airports, and notes that over

1,200 such occurrences took place

during an 18-month period.

These incidents usually involved

large aircraft and occurred at airports

where emergency response services and

equipment were available. Nevertheless,

the FAA has no reason to believe that

small aircraft operations are safer than

large aircraft operations, and concludes

that a proportionate number of similar

incidents occur when and where ARFF

is not available. Thus, the provision of

emergency response capability at all

certificated airports, as proposed, is

necessary to ensure safety in air

commerce.

Fuel Storage Fires

Another expected benefit is

prevention/mitigation of fuel storage

fires. The proposed rule requires all

classes of airports to address fuel storage

fires in their disaster plans. This will

better prepare airports to prevent and/or

extinguish the kind of fire that occurred

at Stapleton International Airport,

Denver, Colorado, on November 25,

1990. That fire erupted on a fuel farm

about 1.8 mile from the main terminal

and burned for 48 hours, destroying

about 3 million gallons of fuel. Flight

operations of a major air carrier were

disrupted due to a lack of fuel, and the

carrier estimated total damage to have

reached between $15 and $20 million.

The National Transportation Safety

Board (NTSB) concluded that the City

and County of Denver (the airport

certificate holder) and the fire

department, in particular, apparently

had not considered the possibility of a

fire of this type since no procedures or

contingency plans were in place. The

FAA has determined that contingency

plans that cover the possibility of a

major fuel farm fire could result in

similar fires being extinguished much

sooner, and perhaps resulting in

considerably less damage.

Snow and Ice Control

A safety benefit is expected from

improved snow and ice control, which

would reduce the potential for snow

and ice related accidents. On March 17,

1993, a BAC–BA-Jetstream 3101 was

making a night instrument approach to

a proposed Class II airport. Because the

runway was not properly plowed, and

berms of snow concealed the runway

lights at ground level, the captain lost

control after touchdown, and the

airplane sustained substantial damage.

This proposed rule would require

Class II and III airports to develop snow

and ice control plans. Although these

proposed classes of airports already

have procedures for snow and ice

removal, this proposal would formalize

consistent plans across all airports with

scheduled air carrier services. The FAA

concludes that this low-cost

requirement to standardize response to

snow and ice at certificated airports

would significantly help prevent the

kind of accident discussed above.

Wildlife Hazard Management

Finally, benefits are expected at all

classes of certificated airports as a result

of proposed actions to reduce wildlife

hazards (bird strikes and other

damaging collisions with wildlife). A

FAA study of civil aircraft wildlife

strikes in the U.S. (‘‘Wildlife Strikes to

Civil Aircraft in the United States,

1991–1997’’) found a significant and

growing hazard of wildlife strikes with

aircraft in the vicinity of airports. The

study determined that 97 percent of all

wildlife strikes occur while arriving or

departing from an airport. The number

of annual strikes increased 53 percent

from 1991 to 1997, and, according to the

FAA report, is now causing about $237

million per year in direct costs.

The expected benefit is that wildlife

strikes would be reduced. Some

operators of proposed Class II and III

airports would be required to conduct

wildlife hazard assessments, as well as

formulate and implement wildlife

hazard management plans for their

airports. Ultimately, the rule is expected

to reduce the number of strikes that

would otherwise occur.

The FAA report estimates that

wildlife strikes, at the present time,

result in 501,560 hours per year of

aircraft down time.

Costs

Some of the requirements of this

proposal that will impose costs, such as

improved snow and ice control, marking

signing and lighting, and wildlife

hazard management are intended to

prevent accidents. Other requirements,

such as emergency planning and

improved emergency response

capability are intended to mitigate

accidents should they occur.

The major items of this rule that are

expected to impose costs are

summarized below:

Major cost items Initial/Capital

costs

Annual recurring

costs

Risk Reduction Items (Subpart D–Operations—Records); Personnel; Marking; Signs and Lighting; Snow

& Ice Control; Handling & Storing of Hazardous Substances & Materials; Traffic & Wind Direction Indicators; Self-Inspection Program; Ground Vehicles; Wildlife Hazard Management) .................................... $1,273,024 $1,429,382

Mitigation Items (ARFF, Airport Emergency Plan) .......................................................................................... 2,247,928 4,600,918

Program total—current dollars .............................................................................................................. 3,520,952 6,030,300

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 120 / Wednesday, June 21, 2000 / Proposed Rules 38669

The FAA estimates that the present

value of the 10-year cost of this

proposed rule is about $46 million.

A more detailed description of how

these costs were estimated is contained

in the full regulatory evaluation.

This estimate is likely to be high

because it is based on assumed average

costs across all airports in each

proposed class. In the application of this

rule, each airport (particularly Class III

airports) may have already complied

with this rule, or may receive relief from

certain aspects of this rule under the

proposed exemption provisions.

Benefit-Cost Comparison

Although the FAA did not quantify

the benefits of this proposal, some

useful observations can be made. First,

a single accident could easily equal, or

double the estimated total cost of this

proposal. A single accident involving a

30-seat airplane with an industry

standard load factor could result in as

much as a loss of $45 million (with the

value of a fatality avoided valued at $2.7

million). For example, the accident at

the Quincy airport is estimated to have

cost as much as $40 million. Costs

escalate quickly with each additional

aircraft involved. In addition the

proposed rule is expected to mitigate

fuel storage fires, wildlife strikes,

runway incursions, and snow/ice

related accidents.

The FAA has determined that

numerous safety benefits would occur

from the provisions in the proposed

rule. One of these benefits is the

expected mitigation of an accident

similar to the one at the Quincy airport

where fatalities might have been

avoided. The FAA proposes

requirements that could reduce the

potential for reoccurrence of conditions

that resulted in the accident at Quincy

Airport. In view of the moderate costs

and potential benefits expected from

this proposal, the FAA concludes that

this proposal is cost-justified.

Initial Regulatory Flexibility

Determination

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980

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 Act requires agencies to solicit and

consider flexible regulatory proposals

and to explain the rationale for their

actions. The Act 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 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 Act provides that

the head of the agency may so certify,

and a regulatory flexibility analysis

(RFA) is not required. The certification

must include a statement providing the

factual basis for this determination, and

the reasoning should be clear. If the

action will have a significant impact on

a substantial number of small entities,

the agency must prepare an RFA as

described in the Act.

As mentioned earlier, the FAA has

determined that this action would have

a significant impact on a substantial

number of small entities. The FAA has

prepared an RFA in the Regulatory

Evaluation, a copy of which has been

placed in the docket for this rulemaking

action. A summary of this analysis

follows.

Affected Industries

As noted above, the FAA must

attempt to minimize the potential

economic impact of the proposed rule

on small entities, and meet the agency’s

primary responsibility for aviation

safety. The proposal would affect a total

of 601 airports, of which an estimated

217 airports (36 percent) are small

entities.

Description of Alternatives

The Regulatory Flexibility Act

requires the FAA to consider the

advantages and disadvantages of

alternatives to this proposed

rulemaking. The FAA has considered

several alternative approaches to this

proposed rulemaking and has attempted

to minimize the potential economic

impact of the proposal; especially the

impact on small entities. In addition,

this action fulfills the FAA’s

responsibility to respond to the

authority provided by Congress to

certificate airports serving scheduled air

carrier operations with 10–30 seat

aircraft, except for the State of Alaska.

The FAA, in this NPRM, considered

alternatives based on two issues. Issue

I was the revision of 14 CFR part 139,

and Issue II was the certification of

airports serving scheduled operations of

small air carrier aircraft with 10–30

passenger seats. The FAA determined

that it was necessary to revise 14 CFR

part 139 and that the revised part 139

should include the certification of

airports serving scheduled air carrier

operations with 10–30 passenger seat

aircraft.

For Issue I, the revision of part 139,

the four alternatives considered were:

Alternative 1: Amend administrative

and definition sections of 14 CFR part

139 to incorporate airports serving

scheduled air carrier operations into

existing certification process; no

changes to operational requirements.

The estimated total incremental costs

of Alternative 1 would be approximately

$42,000 for one-time costs and $46,000

for recurring costs.

Alternative 2: In addition to amending

administrative and definition sections of

part 139, only revise those part 139

operational requirements that the FAA

has received a formal request to amend.

The estimated total incremental costs

of Alternative 2 would be approximately

$57,000 for one-time costs and $64,000

for recurring costs.

Alternative 3: Require only newly

certificated airports to comply with

proposed amendments to part 139

operational requirements; ‘‘grandfather’’

airports currently certificated and allow

these facilities to continue to comply

with existing operational requirements.

The estimated total incremental costs

of Alternative 3 would be approximately

$1,552,000 for one-time costs and

$1,250,000 for recurring costs.

Alternative 4: Update part 139 by

revising administrative and operational

requirements throughout the regulation;

both airports that are currently

certificated and those newly certificated

under part 139 would be required to

comply with the revised regulations.

The estimated total incremental costs

of Alternative 4 would be approximately

$3,521,000 for one-time costs and

$6,030,000 for recurring costs. This is

the alternative selected by the FAA.

For Issue II, the certification of

airports serving scheduled air carrier

operations with 10–30 passenger seat

aircraft, the four alternatives considered

were:

Alternative 1: Maintain current

regulatory oversight of airports serving

air carrier operations with more than 30

seat aircraft; no certification

requirements for airports only serving

smaller air carrier aircraft.

Alternative 1 maintains the current

airport certification system. Therefore,

there are no incremental costs for

Alternative 1.

Alternative 2: Require airports that are

currently certificated under part 139 to

extend part 139 coverage to air carrier

operations with 10–30 seat aircraft; no

regulation of airports that serve only 10–

30 seat aircraft.

38670 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 120 / Wednesday, June 21, 2000 / Proposed Rules

The estimated total incremental costs

of Alternative 2 would be approximately

$900,000 for one-time costs and

$3,574,000 for recurring costs.

Alternative 3: Extend the scope of part

139 to include all airports that serve

scheduled air carrier operations with

10–30 seat aircraft; require airports that

only serve scheduled small air carrier

operations to comply with fewer

standards than those airports serving

large air carrier operations.

The estimated total incremental costs

of Alternative 3 would be approximately

$2,284,000 for one-time costs and

$5,058,000 for recurring costs.

Alternative 4: Amend part 139 to

require all airports, regardless of size of

air carrier aircraft and frequency of

service, to comply with all required risk

reduction and accident mitigation

standards.

The estimated total incremental costs

of Alternative 4 would be approximately

$3,521,000 for one-time costs and

$6,030,300 for recurring costs. This is

the alternative selected by the FAA.

Compliance Assistance

The FAA’s policy and procedures

related to small entities meets and

exceeds the requirements of the Small

Business Regulatory Enforcement

Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA). FAA’s

regional offices regularly provide

guidance and support in compliance

matters to operators of airports

classified as small entities. The

guidance and support may occur via the

telephone, e-mail, conventional mail,

regional newsletters and FAA

participation in industry conferences. In

addition, it has been a long standing

policy of the FAA to develop and

distribute, free of charge, advisory

circulars, informational brochures, and

safety placards that are intended to

assist the certificate holder in

complying with the requirements of part

139. If this rule is adopted, the FAA will

prepare a small entity compliance guide

for the revised part 139. Also, existing

FAA policy concerning enforcement of

this regulation, and any subsequently

adopted regulation, will continue to

consider small entities status in

obtaining compliance.

Affordability Analysis

The proposed rule was analyzed to

determine its affordability. Many

airports already meet the requirements

of the proposed rule. These airports

would incur only minor incremental

costs as a result of the proposed rule.

The remaining airports meet most of

the requirements of the proposed rule.

These airports may be able to meet the

requirements of the proposed rule with

the purchase of additional equipment,

coordination with air carriers to revise

airline flight schedules, and increased

use of airport staff for collateral duties.

As noted earlier, Federal funds that

can be requested only cover capital

items such as ARFF equipment, runway

marking and lighting, and fencing.

Federal funds cannot be used to cover

the costs of maintenance and operation

expenses or the cost of personnel.

Although many airports already meet

all or most of the standards of the

proposed rule, there would be some

airports that may have difficulty in

financing the improvements needed to

meet the requirements of the proposed

rule. Airports may request relief from

certain requirements, although it may

not be granted. Further, if an airport

enplanes less than one-quarter of one

percent of the passengers at all

certificated airports, the airport operator

may apply for an exemption from the

ARFF requirements of the proposed

rule. It is anticipated that in all requests

for exemptions that the FAA would

work with each airport individually to

find a mutually agreeable solution. For

the reasons discussed earlier, the

proposed rule is expected to be

affordable to all airports.

Business Closure Analysis

The possibility of business failures

being caused by the proposed rule was

analyzed. None of the airports covered

by this rule are expected to close as a

result of this rule. All of these airports

accommodate general aviation aircraft,

as well as air carrier aircraft. Even if

these airports lose their air carrier

service they would likely remain open

to provide service to general aviation

aircraft. However, the FAA does not

intend to cause an airport to suspend

scheduled air service to the community.

As presented above, a certificate holder

may request relief from requirements

that might effect the airport’s scheduled

air service. For example, the FAA has

the authority to exempt from ARFF

requirements airports with less than

one-quarter of one percent (0.025

percent) of annual U.S. enplanements.

Disproportionality Analysis

The proposed rule was analyzed to

determine if it would have a

disproportional effect on smaller

entities. The FAA determined that the

impact of the proposed rule on the

smaller entities would be relatively

higher than the impact on the larger

entities because the smaller entities may

require relatively greater efforts to

comply. If this is the case, the smaller

entity may incur proportionally higher

costs than the larger entity. The FAA

has determined that disproportionate

costs are justified to achieve uniform

standards that enhance safety. The FAA

will exercise its authority to consider

petitions for exemption that may

minimize a disproportionate impact.

International Trade Impact Assessment

The provisions of this rule will have

little or no impact on trade for U.S.

firms doing business in foreign

countries and foreign firms doing

business in the United States.

Federalism Implications

The FAA has analyzed this proposed

rule under the principles and criteria of

Executive Order 13132, Federalism.

Most airports subject to this rule are

owned, operated, or regulated by a local

governmental body (such as a city or

county government), which, in turn, is

either incorporated by or part of a State.

In a few cases, the airports are operated

directly by the states. This rule would

have minimal direct effect on the States,

and would not alter the relationship

between the airport certificate holders

and the FAA that is established by law.

The annual costs of compliance with

this rule would be very low compared

with the resources available to the

airports. Further, before issuing this

NPRM, the FAA consulted with

representatives of the airports through

the Aviation Rulemaking Advisory

Committee, as well as the states through

various national associations of state

and local governments. Also, FAA will

mail to each state government a copy of

the NPRM specifically inviting

comment on this proposal.

Accordingly, the FAA has determined

that this action would not have a

substantial direct effect on the States, on

the relationship between the national

Government and the States, or on the

distribution of power and

responsibilities among the various

levels of government. Therefore, the

FAA has determined that this

rulemaking does not have federalism

implications.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1532–1538) requires

the FAA to assess the effects of Federal

regulatory actions on state, local, and

tribal governments, and on the private

sector of proposed rules that contain a

Federal intergovernmental or private

sector mandate that exceeds $100

million in any one year. This action

does not contain such a mandate.

Because many airports are owned by

small governments, this proposed rule

could affect a large number of small

governments. To provide notice to the

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 120 / Wednesday, June 21, 2000 / Proposed Rules 38671

small governments affected by this

proposed rule, a copy of the NPRM will

be sent to each State’s Aeronautics

Authority. This will provide small

governments the opportunity to

comment on the proposed rule before it

would be implemented.

Environmental Analysis

FAA Order 1050.1D defines FAA

actions that may be categorically

excluded from preparation of a National

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)

environmental assessment or

environmental impact statement. In

accordance with FAA Order 1050.1D,

appendix 4, paragraph 4(j), this

rulemaking action qualifies for a

categorical exclusion.

Energy Impact

The energy impact of the proposed

rule has been assessed in accordance

with the Energy Policy and

Conservation Act (EPCA) and Public

Law 94–163, as amended (42 U.S.C.

6362). It has been determined that it is

not a major regulatory action under the

provisions of the EPCA.

List of Subjects

14 CFR Part 121

Air carriers, Aircraft, Aviation safety,

Charter flights, Safety, Transportation.

14 CFR Part 139

Air carriers, Airports, Aviation safety,

Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements.

The Proposed Amendments

In consideration of the foregoing, the

Federal Aviation Administration

proposes to amend Chapter I of Title 14,

Code of Federal Regulations, as follows:

PART 121—OPERATING

REQUIREMENTS: DOMESTIC, FLAG,

AND SUPPLEMENTAL OPERATIONS

1. The authority citation for part 121

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 40119,

41706, 44101, 44701–44702, 44705, 44709–

44711, 44713, 44716–44717, 44722, 44901,

44903–44904, 44912, 46105.

2. Revise § 121.590 to read as follows.

§ 121.590 Use of certificated land airports.

(a) Except as provided in paragraph

(b) of this section, or unless authorized

by the Administrator, no air carrier, and

no pilot being used by an air carrier

may, in the conduct of operations

governed by this part, operate an

airplane into a land airport in any State

of the United States, the District of

Columbia, or any territory or possession

of the United States, unless that airport

is certificated under part 139 of this

chapter. Further, no air carrier may

operate an airplane at such a certificated

airport, unless that operation is

authorized for the classification of the

airport under part 139 of this chapter.

However, an air carrier may designate

and use as a required alternate airport

for departure or destination, an airport

that is not certificated under part 139 of

this chapter.

(b) An air carrier or a commercial

operator may use an airport not

certificated under part 139 of this

chapter if conducting domestic, flag,

and passenger-carrying supplemental

operations at any airport operated by the

United States government; and the

airport meets the equivalent safety

standards of those required under part

139 of this chapter.

(c) An air carrier or a commercial

operator may use an airport not

certificated under part 139 of this

chapter if conducting domestic and flag

operations with turbojet powered

airplanes designed for fewer than 10

passenger seats; or domestic and flag

operations with airplanes designed for

more than 9 and fewer than 31

passenger seats within the State of

Alaska, if:

(1) The airport is adequate for the

proposed operation, considering such

items as size, surface, obstructions, and

lighting.

(2) For an airplane carrying

passengers at night, the pilot may not

take off from, or land at, an airport

unless—

(i) The pilot has determined the wind

direction from an illuminated wind

direction indicator or local ground

communications or, in the case of

takeoff, that pilot’s personal

observations; and

(ii) The limits of the area to be used

for landing or takeoff are clearly shown

by boundary or runway marker lights. If

the area to be used for takeoff or landing

is marked by flare pots or lanterns, their

use must be authorized by the

Administrator.

3. Revise part 139 to read as follows:

PART 139—CERTIFICATION OF

AIRPORTS

Subpart A—General

Sec.

139.1 Applicability.

139.3 Delegation of authority.

139.5 Definitions.

139.7 Methods and procedures for

compliance.

Subpart B—Certification

139.101 General requirements.

139.103 Application for certificate.

139.105 Inspection authority.

139.107 Issuance of certificate.

139.109 Duration of certificate.

139.111 Exemptions.

139.113 Deviations.

Subpart C—Airport Certification Manual

139.201 General requirements.

139.203 Contents of airport certification

manual.

139.205 Amendment of airport certification

manual.

Subpart D—Operations

139.301 Records.

139.303 Personnel.

139.305 Paved areas.

139.307 Unpaved areas.

139.309 Safety areas.

139.311 Marking, signs, and lighting.

139.313 Snow and ice control.

139.315 Aircraft rescue and firefighting:

Index determination.

139.317 Aircraft rescue and firefighting:

Equipment and agents.

139.319 Aircraft rescue and firefighting:

Operational requirements.

139.321 Aircraft rescue and firefighting:

Exemptions.

139.323 Handling and storing of hazardous

substances and materials.

139.325 Traffic and wind direction

indicators.

139.327 Airport emergency plan.

139.329 Self-inspection program.

139.331 Ground vehicles.

139.333 Obstructions.

139.335 Protection of navaids.

139.337 Public protection.

139.339 Wildlife hazard management.

139.341 Airport condition reporting.

139.343 Identifying, marking, and reporting

construction and other unserviceable

areas.

139.345 Noncomplying conditions.

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

44706, 44709, 44719.

Subpart A—General

§ 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 air carrier aircraft

designed for more than 9 passengers, as

determined by the aircraft type

certificate issued by a competent civil

aviation authority; and

(2) Unscheduled passenger-carrying

operations of air carrier aircraft

designed for more than 30 passengers,

as determined by the aircraft type

certificate issued by a competent civil

aviation authority.

(b) This part does not apply to—

(1) Airports serving scheduled air

carrier operations only by reason of

being designated as an alternate airport;

(2) Airports operated by the United

States;

38672 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 120 / Wednesday, June 21, 2000 / Proposed Rules

(3) Airports located in the State of

Alaska that only serve scheduled

operations of small air carrier aircraft,

and do not serve scheduled or

unscheduled operations of large air

carrier aircraft; or

(4) Heliports.

§ 139.3 Delegation of authority.

The authority of the Administrator

under 49 U.S.C. 44706 to issue, revoke,

and deny airport operating certificates is

delegated to:

(a) The Associate Administrator for

Airports, Director of Airport Safety and

Standards, and Regional Airports

Division Managers; and

(b) Each Airport Certification Safety

Inspector, to the extent necessary to—

(1) Conduct inspections to determine

compliance with the requirements of

this part;

(2) Authorize exemptions and

deviations from any requirement of this

part;

(3) Approve or amend airport

certification manuals required under

this part; and

(4) Approve or disapprove standards,

methods and procedures used to comply

with this part.

§ 139.5 Definitions.

The following are definitions of terms

as used in this part:

AFFF means aqueous film forming

foam agent.

Air carrier operation means the

takeoff or landing of an air carrier

aircraft and includes the period of time

from 15 minutes before and until 15

minutes after the takeoff or landing.

Airport means an area of land or other

hard surface, excluding water, that is

used or intended to be used for the

landing and takeoff of aircraft, including

any buildings and facilities.

Airport operating certificate means a

certificate, issued under this part, for

operation of a Class I, II, III, or IV

airport.

Average daily departures means the

average number of scheduled departures

per day of air carrier aircraft computed

on the basis of the busiest 3 consecutive

calendar months of the immediately

preceding 12 consecutive calendar

months; except that if the average daily

departures are expected to increase,

then ‘‘average daily departures’’ may be

determined by planned rather than

current activity, in a manner authorized

by the Administrator.

Certificate holder means the holder of

an airport operating certificate issued

under this part.

Heliport means an airport, or an area

of an airport, used or intended to be

used for the landing and takeoff of

helicopters.

Class I airport means an airport

certificated to serve scheduled

operations of large air carrier aircraft

that can also serve unscheduled

passenger operations of large air carrier

aircraft and/or scheduled operations of

small air carrier aircraft.

Class II airport means an airport

certificated to serve scheduled

operations of small air carrier aircraft

and the unscheduled passenger

operations of large air carrier aircraft. A

Class II airport cannot serve scheduled

large air carrier aircraft.

Class III airport means an airport

certificated to serve scheduled

operations of small air carrier aircraft. A

Class III airport cannot serve scheduled

or unscheduled large air carrier aircraft.

Class IV airport means an airport

certificated to serve unscheduled

passenger operations of large air carrier

aircraft. A Class IV airport cannot serve

scheduled large or small air carrier

aircraft.

Clean agent means electrically

nonconducting volatile or gaseous fire

extinguishing agent that does not leave

a residue upon evaporation and has

been shown to provide extinguishing

action equivalent to halon 1211 under

test protocols of FAA Technical Report

DOT/FAA/AR–95/87.

Index means an airport ranking

according to the type and quantity of

aircraft rescue and firefighting

equipment and agent required,

determined by the length and frequency

of air carrier aircraft served by the

airport, as provided in subpart D of this

part.

Large air carrier aircraft means, for

the purpose of this part, an aircraft with

a passenger seating capacity of more

than 30 passengers that is operated by

an air carrier.

Movement area means the runways,

taxiways, and other areas of an airport

which are used for taxiing, takeoff, and

landing of aircraft, exclusive of loading

ramps and aircraft parking areas.

Regional Airports Division Manager

means the airports division manager for

the FAA region in which the airport is

located.

Safety area means a designated area

abutting the edges of a runway or

taxiway intended to reduce the risk of

damage to an aircraft inadvertently

leaving the runway or taxiway.

Scheduled operation means any

common carriage passenger-carrying

operation for compensation or hire

conducted by an air carrier or

commercial operator for which the air

carrier, commercial operator, or their

representatives offers in advance the

departure location, departure time, and

arrival location. It does not include any

operation that is conducted as a

supplemental operation under 14 CFR

part 119, or is conducted as a public

charter operation under 14 CFR part

380.

Small air carrier aircraft means, for

the purpose of this part, an aircraft with

a passenger seating capacity of more

than 9 passengers but less than 31 seats

that is operated by an air carrier.

Unscheduled operation means any

common carriage passenger-carrying

operation for compensation or hire

conducted by an air carrier or

commercial operator with aircraft

having more than 30 passenger seats

that is conducted as a supplemental

operation under 14 CFR part 119 or as

a public charter under 14 CFR part 380,

or for which departure time, departure

location, and arrival location are

specifically negotiated with the

customer or the customer’s

representative.

Wildlife hazard means a potential for

a damaging aircraft collision with

wildlife on or near an airport. As used

in this part, ‘‘wildlife’’ includes

domestic animals while out of the

control of their owners.

§ 139.7 Methods and procedures for

compliance.

Certificate holders shall comply with

requirements prescribed by subparts C

and D of this part in a manner

authorized by the Administrator. FAA

Advisory Circulars contain methods and

procedures for compliance with this

part that are acceptable to the

Administrator.

Subpart B—Certification

§ 139.101 General requirements.

(a) Except as otherwise authorized by

the Administrator, no person may

operate an airport specified under

§ 139.1 without an airport operating

certificate, or in violation of that

certificate, the applicable provisions of

this part, or the approved airport

certification manual.

(b) Each airport shall adopt and

comply with an airport certification

manual as required under § 139.203.

(c) Except as provided in §§ 139.311,

139.321, and 139.327, airports required

to have an airport operating certificate

under this part shall have their airport

certification manual approved and

implemented in accordance with the

following schedule:

(1) Class I airports—90 days after [the

effective date of the final rule].

(2) Class II and III airports—240 days

after [the effective date of the final rule].

(3) Class IV airports 180 days after

[the effective date of the final rule].

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 120 / Wednesday, June 21, 2000 / Proposed Rules 38673

§ 139.103 Application for certificate.

Each applicant for an airport

operating certificate shall:

(a) Prepare and submit an application,

in a form and in the manner prescribed

by the Administrator, to the Regional

Airports Division Manager.

(b) Submit with the application, two

copies of an airport certification manual

prepared in accordance with subpart C

of this part.

§ 139.105 Inspection authority.

Each applicant for, or holder of, an

airport operating certificate shall allow

the Administrator to make any

inspections, including unannounced

inspections, or tests to determine

compliance with 49 U.S.C. 44706 and

the requirements of this part.

§ 139.107 Issuance of certificate.

An applicant for an airport operating

certificate is entitled to a certificate if:

(a) The certificate holder provides

written documentation that air carrier

service will begin on a date certain.

(b) The applicant meets the provisions

of § 139.103.

(c) The Administrator, after

investigation, finds that the applicant is

properly and adequately equipped and

able to provide a safe airport operating

environment in accordance with:

(1) Any limitation that the

Administrator finds necessary to ensure

safety in air transportation.

(2) The requirements of the airport

certification manual as specified under

§ 139.203.

(3) Any other provisions of this part

that the Administrator finds necessary

to ensure safety in air transportation.

(d) The Administrator approves the

airport certification manual.

§ 139.109 Duration of certificate.

(a) An airport operating certificate

issued under this part is effective until

the certificate holder surrenders it, or

the certificate is suspended or revoked

by the Administrator.

(b) The Administrator may issue an

order revoking an airport operating

certificate issued under this part if air

carrier operations have not occurred at

an airport for 24 consecutive calendar

months. Any final order is appealable

under 14 CFR part 13.

§ 139.111 Exemptions.

(a) An applicant or a certificate holder

may petition the Administrator under

§ 11.25, Petitions for Rulemaking or

Exemptions, of this chapter for an

exemption from any requirement of this

part.

(b) Under section 44706(c), the

Administrator may exempt an applicant

or a certificate holder that enplanes

annually less than one-quarter of 1

percent of the total number of

passengers enplaned at all air carrier

airports from all, or part, of the aircraft

rescue and firefighting equipment

requirements of this part, on the

grounds that compliance with those

requirements is, or would be,

unreasonably costly, burdensome, or

impractical. An applicant for, or holder

of, an airport operating certificate filing

for such an exemption shall use the

format prescribed under § 139.321.

(c) Each petition filed under this

section must be submitted in duplicate

to the Regional Airports Division

Manager.

§ 139.113 Deviations.

In emergency conditions requiring

immediate action for the protection of

life or property, the certificate holder

may deviate from any requirement of

subpart D of this part, or the airport

certification manual, to the extent

required to meet that emergency. Each

certificate holder who deviates from a

requirement under this section shall,

within 14 days after the emergency,

notify the Regional Airports Division

Manager of the nature, extent, and

duration of the deviation. When

requested by the Regional Airports

Division Manager, the certificate holder

shall provide this notification in

writing.

Subpart C—Airport Certification

Manual

§ 139.201 General requirements.

(a) No person may operate an airport

subject to this part unless that person

adopts and complies with an airport

certification manual as required under

this part, that—

(1) Has been approved by the

Administrator;

(2) Contains only those items

authorized by the Administrator;

(3) Is in printed form and signed by

the certificate holder acknowledging the

certificate holder’s responsibility to

operate the airport in compliance with

the airport certification manual

approved by the Administrator; and

(4) Is in a form that is easy to revise,

and organized in a manner helpful to

the preparation, review, and approval

processes, including a revision log, and

on each page or attachment, the date of

initial approval, or approval by the

Administrator of the latest revision.

(b) Each holder of an airport

operating-certificate shall—

(1) Keep its airport certification

manual current at all times;

(2) Maintain at least one complete and

current copy of its approved airport

certification manual on the airport,

which will made available for

inspection by the Administrator; and

(3) Furnish the applicable portions of

the approved airport certification

manual to the airport personnel

responsible for their implementation.

(c) Each certificated holder shall

ensure that the Regional Airports

Division Manager is provided a

complete copy of its most current

approved airport certification manual

that is specified under paragraph (b)(2)

of this section, including any

amendments approved under § 139.209.

(d) FAA Advisory Circulars contain

methods and procedures for the

development of airport certification

manuals that are acceptable to the

Administrator.

§ 139.203 Contents of airport certification

manual.

(a) Except as otherwise authorized by

the Administrator, each certificate

holder shall include in the airport

certification manual a description of

operating procedures, facilities and

equipment, responsibility assignments,

and any other information needed by

personnel concerned with operating the

airport in order to comply with

applicable provisions of subpart D of

this part, and paragraph (b) of this

section.

(b) Except as otherwise authorized by

the Administrator, the certificate holder

shall include in its airport certification

manual the following elements, as

appropriate for its class:

REQUIRED AIRPORT CERTIFICATION MANUAL ELEMENTS

Manual elements

Airport certificate class

Class I Class II Class III Class IV

1. Lines of succession of airport operational responsibility ............................................ XXXX

2. Each current exemption issued to the airport from the requirements of this part ...... XXXX

3. Any limitations imposed by the Administrator ............................................................. XXXX

38674 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 120 / Wednesday, June 21, 2000 / Proposed Rules

REQUIRED AIRPORT CERTIFICATION MANUAL ELEMENTS—Continued

Manual elements

Airport certificate class

Class I Class II Class III Class IV

4. A grid map or other means of identifying locations and terrain features on and

around the airport which are significant to emergency operations ............................. XXXX

5. The location of each obstruction required to be lighted or marked within the airport’s area of authority ................................................................................................. XXXX

6. A description of each movement area available for air carriers and its safety areas

and each road described in § 139.319(l) that serves it ............................................... XXXX

7. Procedures for avoidance of interruption or failure during construction work of utilities serving facilities or navaids that support air carrier operations ............................ X X X

8. A description of the system for maintaining records as required under § 139.301 .... XXXX

9. A description of personnel training as required under § 139.303 ............................... XXXX

10. Procedures for maintaining the paved areas as required under § 139.305 ............. XXXX

11. Procedures for maintaining the unpaved areas as required under § 139.307 ......... XXXX

12. Procedures for maintaining the safety areas as required under § 139.309 .............. XXXX

13. A plan showing the runway and taxiway identification system along with the location and inscription of the signs as required under § 139.311 .................................... XXXX

14. A description of, and procedures for maintaining, the marking, signs, and lighting

systems as required under § 139.311 .......................................................................... XXXX

15. A snow and ice control plan as required under § 139.313 ....................................... X X X

16. A description of the facilities, equipment, personnel, and procedures for meeting

the rescue and firefighting requirements in accordance with §§ 139.317 and

139.319 ........................................................................................................................ XXXX

17. A description of any approved exemption to rescue and firefighting requirements

as authorized under § 139.321 .................................................................................... XXXX

18. Procedures for handling fuel, lubricants and oxygen required under § 139.323 ...... X X X

19. Procedures for handling fuel, lubricants and oxygen ................................................ X

20. A description of, and procedures for maintaining, the traffic and wind direction indicators as required under § 139.325 .......................................................................... X X X

21. A description of, and procedures for maintaining, the traffic and wind direction indicators ......................................................................................................................... X

22. An emergency plan as required under § 139.327 ..................................................... XXXX

23. Procedures for conducting the self-inspection program as required under

§ 139.329 ...................................................................................................................... X X X

24. Procedures for conducting the self-inspection program ........................................... X

25. Procedures for controlling ground vehicles as required under § 139.331 ................ X X X

26. Procedures for obstruction removal, marking, or lighting as required under

§ 139.333 ...................................................................................................................... X X X

27. Procedures for protection of navaids as required under § 139.335 .......................... X X X

28. A description of public protection as required under § 139.337 ............................... X X X

29. A wildlife hazard management plan as required under § 139.339 ........................... X X X

30. Procedures for airport condition reporting as required under § 139.341 .................. XXXX

31. Procedures for identifying, marking, and reporting construction and other unserviceable areas as required under § 139.343 ................................................................. X X X

32. Any other item that the Administrator finds is necessary to ensure safety in air

transportation ............................................................................................................... X X X X

§ 139.205 Amendment of airport

certification manual.

(a) Under § 139.3, the Regional

Airports Division Manager may amend

any airport certification manual

approved under this part, either—

(1) Upon application by the certificate

holder; or

(2) On the Regional Airports Division

Manager’s own initiative if the Regional

Airports Division Manager determines

that safety in air transportation require

the amendment.

(b) A certificate holder shall file an

application for an amendment to its

airport certification manual with the

Regional Airports Division Manager at

least 30 days before the proposed

effective date of the amendment, unless

a shorter filing period is allowed by that

office.

(c) At any time within 30 days after

receiving a notice of refusal to approve

the application for amendment, the

certificate holder may petition the

Associate Administrator for Airports to

reconsider the refusal to amend.

(d) In the case of amendments

initiated by the Regional Airports

Division Manager, the office notifies the

certificate holder of the proposed

amendment, in writing, fixing a

reasonable period (but not less than 7

days) within which the certificate

holder may submit written information,

views, and arguments on the

amendment. After considering all

relevant material presented, the

Regional Airports Division Manager

notifies within 30 days the certificate

holder of any amendment adopted or

rescinds the notice. The amendment

becomes effective not less than 30 days

after the certificate holder receives

notice of it, except that prior to the

effective date the certificate holder may

petition the Associate Administrator for

Airports to reconsider the amendment,

in which case its effective date is stayed

pending a decision by the Associate

Administrator for Airports.

(e) Notwithstanding the provisions of

paragraph (d) of this section, if the

Regional Airports Division Manager

finds that there is an emergency

requiring immediate action with respect

to safety in air transportation, the

Regional Airports Division Manager

may issue an amendment, effective

without stay on the date the certificate

holder receives notice of it. In such a

case, the Regional Airports Division

Manager incorporates the finding of the

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 120 / Wednesday, June 21, 2000 / Proposed Rules 38675

emergency, and a brief statement of the

reasons for the finding, in the notice of

the amendment. Within 30 days after

the issuance of such an emergency

amendment, the certificate holder may

petition the Associate Administrator for

Airports to reconsider either the finding

of an emergency or the amendment

itself or both. This petition does not

automatically stay the effectiveness of

the emergency amendment.

Subpart D—Operations

§ 139.301 Records.

In a manner authorized by the

Administrator, each certificate holder

shall:

(a) Furnish upon request by the

Administrator all records required to be

maintained under this part.

(b) If air carrier operations are less

than 10,000 annually, make and

maintain a record of air carrier

operations, by type of aircraft, that

occurred at the airport during previous

24 consecutive calendar months.

(c) Make and maintain any additional

records required by the Administrator,

this part and the airport certification

manual, including, but not limited to,

the following recordkeeping

requirements of this part:

(1) § 139.303, Personnel.

(2) § 139.319, Aircraft rescue and

firefighting: Operational requirements.

(3) § 139.323, Handling and storing of

hazardous substances and materials.

(4) § 139.329, Self-inspection

program.

(5) § 139.331, Ground vehicles.

(6) § 139.341, Airport condition

reporting.

§ 139.303 Personnel.

In a manner authorized by the

Administrator, each certificate holder

shall:

(a) Provide sufficient and qualified

personnel to comply with the

requirements of its airport certification

manual and the requirements of this

part.

(b) Equip personnel with sufficient

resources needed to comply with the

requirements of this part.

(c) Provide personnel with initial and

recurrent training necessary to perform

their duties.

(d) Maintain records of all training

given to each individual under this

section for a period of 24 consecutive

calendar months after completion of

training. Such records shall include, at

a minimum, a description and date of

training received.

§ 139.305 Paved areas.

(a) In a manner authorized by the

Administrator, each certificate holder

shall maintain, and promptly repair the

pavement of, each runway, taxiway,

loading ramp, and parking area on the

airport that is available for air carrier

use as follows:

(1) The pavement edges shall not

exceed 3 inches difference in elevation

between abutting pavement sections,

and between pavement and abutting

areas.

(2) The pavement shall have no hole

exceeding 3 inches in depth, nor any

hole the slope of which from any point

in the hole to the nearest point at the lip

of the hole is 45 degrees or greater, as

measured from the pavement surface

plane, unless, in either case, the entire

area of the hole can be covered by a 5-

inch diameter circle.

(3) The pavement shall be free of

cracks and surface variations that could

impair directional control of air carrier

aircraft.

(4) Except as provided in paragraph

(b) of this section, mud, dirt, sand, loose

aggregate, debris, foreign objects, rubber

deposits, and other contaminants shall

be removed promptly and as completely

as practicable.

(5) Except as provided in paragraph

(b) of this section, any chemical solvent

that is used to clean any pavement area

shall be removed as soon as possible,

consistent with the instructions of the

manufacturer of the solvent.

(6) The pavement shall be sufficiently

drained and free of depressions to

prevent ponding that obscures markings

or impairs safe aircraft operations.

(b) Paragraphs (a)(4) and (a)(5) of this

section do not apply to snow and ice

accumulations and their control,

including the associated use of materials

such as sand and deicing solutions.

(c) FAA Advisory Circulars contain

methods and procedures for the

maintenance and configuration of paved

areas that are acceptable to the

Administrator.

§ 139.307 Unpaved areas.

(a) In a manner authorized by the

Administrator, each certificate holder

shall maintain and promptly repair the

surface of each gravel, turf, or other

unpaved runway, taxiway, or loading

ramp and parking area on the airport

which is available for air carrier use as

follows:

(1) No slope from the edge of the fullstrength surfaces downward to the

existing terrain shall be steeper than 2:1.

(2) The full-strength surfaces shall

have adequate crown or grade to assure

sufficient drainage to prevent ponding.

(3) The full-strength surfaces shall be

adequately compacted and sufficiently

stable to prevent rutting by aircraft, or

the loosening or build-up of surface

material which could impair directional

control of aircraft or drainage.

(4) The full-strength surfaces must

have no holes or depressions which

exceed 3 inches in depth and are of a

breadth capable of impairing directional

control or causing damage to an aircraft.

(5) Debris and foreign objects shall be

promptly removed from the surface.

(b) FAA Advisory Circulars contain

methods and procedures for the

maintenance and configuration of

unpaved areas that are acceptable to the

Administrator.

§ 139.309 Safety areas.

(a) Unless otherwise specified in the

airport certification manual, each

certificate holder shall, in a manner

authorized by the Administrator,

provide and maintain for each runway

and taxiway that is available for air

carrier use—

(1) If the runway or taxiway had a

safety area on December 31, 1987, and

if no reconstruction or significant

expansion of the runway or taxiway was

begun on or after January 1, 1988, a

safety area of at least the dimensions

that existed on December 31, 1987; or

(2) If construction, reconstruction, or

significant expansion of the runway or

taxiway began on or after January 1,

1988, a safety area that is authorized by

the Administrator at the time

construction, reconstruction, or

expansion began.

(b) Each certificate holder shall

maintain its safety areas as follows:

(1) Each safety area shall be cleared

and graded, and have no potentially

hazardous ruts, humps, depressions, or

other surface variations.

(2) Each safety area shall be drained

by grading or storm sewers to prevent

water accumulation.

(3) Each safety area shall be capable

under dry conditions of supporting

snow removal equipment, and aircraft

rescue and firefighting equipment, and

supporting the occasional passage of

aircraft without causing major damage

to the aircraft.

(4) No object may be located in any

safety area, except for objects that need

to be located in a safety area because of

their function. These objects shall be

constructed, to the extent practical, on

frangibly mounted structures of the

lowest practical height with the

frangible point no higher than 3 inches

above grade.

(c) FAA Advisory Circulars contain

methods and procedures for the

configuration and maintenance of safety

areas acceptable to the Administrator.

§ 139.311 Marking, signs, and lighting.

(a) Marking. Each certificate holder

shall provide and maintain marking

38676 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 120 / Wednesday, June 21, 2000 / Proposed Rules

systems for air carrier operations on the

airport that are authorized by the

Administrator and consists of at least

the following:

(1) Runway markings meeting the

specifications for takeoff and landing

minimums for each runway as

authorized by the Administrator.

(2) Taxiway centerline.

(3) Edge markings, as appropriate.

(4) Holding position markings.

(5) ILS critical area markings.

(b) Signs. (1) Each certificate holder

shall provide and maintain sign systems

for air carrier operations on the airport

that are authorized by the Administrator

and consist of at least the following:

(i) Signs identifying taxiing routes on

the movement area.

(ii) Holding position signs.

(iii) Instrument landing system (ILS)

critical area signs.

(2) Unless otherwise authorized by

the Administrator, the signs required by

paragraph (b)(1) of this section shall be

internally-illuminated at each Class I, II,

and IV airport.

(3) Unless otherwise authorized by

the Administrator, the signs required by

paragraphs (b)(1) (ii) and (iii) of this

section shall be internally-illuminated

at each Class III airport.

(c) Lighting. Each certificate holder

shall provide and maintain lighting

systems for air carrier operations when

the airport is open at night, during

conditions below VFR minimums, or in

Alaska, during periods a prominent

unlighted object cannot be seen from a

distance of 3 statute miles or the sun is

more than 6 degrees below the horizon.

This lighting systems shall be

authorized by the Administrator and

consist of at least the following:

(1) Runway lighting meeting the

specifications for takeoff and landing

minimums for each runway as

authorized by the Administrator.

(2) One of the following taxiway

lighting systems:

(i) Centerline lights.

(ii) Centerline reflectors.

(iii) Edge lights.

(iv) Edge reflectors.

(3) An airport beacon.

(4) Approach lighting meeting the

specifications for takeoff and landing

minimums for each runway as

authorized by the Administrator, unless

otherwise provided and maintained by

the FAA or another government agency.

(5) Obstruction marking and lighting,

as appropriate, on each object within its

authority which has been determined by

the FAA to be an obstruction.

(d) Maintenance. Each certificate

holder shall properly maintain each

marking, sign, or lighting system

installed and operated on the airport. As

used in this section, to ‘‘properly

maintain’’ includes: To clean, replace,

or repair any faded, missing, or

nonfunctional item; to keep each item

unobscured and clearly visible; and to

ensure that each item provides an

accurate reference to the user.

(e) Lighting interference. Each

certificate holder shall ensure that all

lighting on the airport, including that

for aprons, vehicle parking areas,

roadways, fuel storage areas, and

buildings, is adequately adjusted or

shielded to prevent interference with air

traffic control and aircraft operations.

(f) Standards. FAA Advisory Circulars

contain methods and procedures for the

equipment, material, installation, and

maintenance of marking, sign, and

lighting systems listed in this section

that are acceptable to the Administrator.

(g) Implementation. The sign systems

required under paragraph (b)(3) of this

section shall be implemented by each

holder of a Class III airport operating

certificate not later than 36 consecutive

calendar months after [the effective date

of the final rule].

§ 139.313 Snow and ice control.

(a) As determined by the

Administrator, each certificate holder

whose airport is located where snow

and icing conditions occur shall

prepare, maintain, and carry out a snow

and ice control plan in a manner

authorized by the Administrator.

(b) The snow and ice control plan

required by this section shall include, at

a minimum, instructions and

procedures for—

(1) Prompt removal or control, as

completely as practical, of snow, ice,

and slush on each movement area;

(2) Positioning snow off the

movement area surfaces so that all air

carrier aircraft propellers, engine pods,

rotors, and wingtips will clear any

snowdrift and snowbank as the aircraft’s

landing gear traverses any portion of the

movement area;

(3) Selection and application of

authorized materials for snow and ice

control to ensure that they adhere to

snow and ice sufficiently to minimize

engine ingestion;

(4) Timely commencement of snow

and ice control operations; and

(5) Prompt notification, in accordance

with § 139.341, of all air carriers using

the airport when any portion of the

movement area normally available to

them is less than satisfactorily cleared

for safe operation by their aircraft.

(c) FAA Advisory Circulars contain

methods and procedures for snow and

ice control equipment, materials, and

procedures for snow and ice control that

are acceptable to the Administrator.

§ 139.315 Aircraft rescue and firefighting:

Index determination.

(a) An Index is required by paragraph

(c) of this section for each certificate

holder. The Index is determined by a

combination of—

(1) The length of air carrier aircraft;

and

(2) Average daily departures of air

carrier aircraft.

(b) For the purpose of Index

determination, air carrier aircraft

lengths are grouped as follows:

(1) Index A includes aircraft less than

90 feet in length.

(2) Index B includes aircraft at least

90 feet but less than 126 feet in length.

(3) Index C includes aircraft at least

126 feet but less than 159 feet in length.

(4) Index D includes aircraft at least

159 feet but less than 200 feet in length.

(5) Index E includes aircraft at least

200 feet in length.

(c) Except as provided in § 139.319(c),

if there are five or more average daily

departures of air carrier aircraft in a

single Index group serving that airport,

the longest aircraft with an average of 5

or more daily departures determines the

Index required for the airport. When

there are fewer than five average daily

departures of the longest air carrier

aircraft serving the airport, the Index

required for the airport will be the next

lower Index group than the Index group

prescribed for that aircraft.

(d) The minimum designated Index

shall be Index A.

§ 139.317 Aircraft rescue and firefighting:

Equipment and agents.

Unless otherwise authorized by the

Administrator, the following rescue and

firefighting equipment and agents are

the minimum required for the Indexes

referred to in § 139.315:

(a) Index A. One vehicle carrying at

least—

(1) 500 pounds of sodium-based dry

chemical, halon 1211, or clean agent; or

(2) 450 pounds of potassium-based

dry chemical and water with a

commensurate quantity of AFFF to total

100 gallons, for simultaneous dry

chemical and AFFF foam application.

(b) Index B. Either of the following:

(1) One vehicle carrying at least 500

pounds of sodium-based dry chemical,

halon 1211, or clean agent, and 1,500

gallons of water, and the commensurate

quantity of AFFF for foam production.

(2) Two vehicles—

(i) One vehicle carrying the

extinguishing agents as specified in

paragraph (a)(1) or (2) of this section;

and

(ii) One vehicle carrying an amount of

water and the commensurate quantity of

AFFF so that the total quantity of water

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 120 / Wednesday, June 21, 2000 / Proposed Rules 38677

for foam production carried by both

vehicles is at least 1,500 gallons.

(c) Index C. Either of the following:

(1) Three vehicles—

(i) One vehicle carrying the

extinguishing agents as specified in

paragraph (a)(1) or (2) of this section;

and

(ii) Two vehicles carrying an amount

of water and the commensurate quantity

of AFFF so that the total quantity of

water for foam production carried by all

three vehicles is at least 3,000 gallons.

(2) Two vehicles—

(i) One vehicle carrying the

extinguishing agents as specified in

paragraph (b)(1) of this section; and

(ii) One vehicle carrying water and

the commensurate quantity of AFFF so

that the total quantity of water for foam

production carried by both vehicles is at

least 3,000 gallons.

(d) Index D. Three vehicles—

(1) One vehicle carrying the

extinguishing agents as specified in

paragraph (a)(1) or (2) of this section;

and

(2) Two vehicles carrying an amount

of water and the commensurate quantity

of AFFF so that the total quantity of

water for foam production carried by all

three vehicles is at least 4,000 gallons.

(e) Index E. Three vehicles—

(1) One vehicle carrying the

extinguishing agents as specified in

paragraph (a)(1) or (2) of this section;

and

(2) Two vehicles carrying an amount

of water and the commensurate quantity

of AFFF so that the total quantity of

water for foam production carried by all

three vehicles is at least 4,000 gallons.

(f) Existing vehicles. Notwithstanding

the provisions of paragraphs (a) through

(e) of this section, any certificate holder

whose vehicles met the requirements of

this part for quantity and type of

extinguishing agent on December 31,

1987, may comply with the Index

requirements of this section by carrying

extinguishing agents to the full capacity

of those vehicles. Whenever any of

those vehicles is replaced or

rehabilitated, the capacity of the

replacement or rehabilitated vehicle

shall be sufficient to comply with the

provisions of the required Index under

this section.

(g) Foam discharge capacity. Each

aircraft rescue and firefighting vehicle

used to comply with Index B, C, D, or

E requirements with a capacity of at

least 500 gallons of water for foam

production shall be equipped with a

turret. Vehicle turret discharge capacity

shall be as follows:

(1) Each vehicle with a minimum

rated vehicle water tank capacity of at

least 500 gallons but less than 2,000

gallons shall have a turret discharge rate

of at least 500 gallons per minute but

not more than 1,000 gallons per minute.

(2) Each vehicle with a minimum

rated vehicle water tank capacity of at

least 2,000 gallons shall have a turret

discharge rate of at least 600 gallons per

minute but not more than 1,200 gallons

per minute.

(3) Notwithstanding the requirements

of this paragraph (g), any certificate

holder whose aircraft rescue and

firefighting vehicles are not equipped

with turrets or do not have the discharge

capacity required in this section, but

otherwise met the requirements of this

part on December 31, 1987, need not

comply with this paragraph (g) for a

particular vehicle until that vehicle is

replaced or rehabilitated.

(h) Agent discharge capacity. Each

aircraft rescue and firefighting vehicle

which is required to carry dry chemical,

halon 1211, or clean agent for

compliance with the index requirements

of this section must meet one of the

following minimum discharge rates for

the equipment installed:

(1) Dry chemical, halon 1211, or clean

agent through a hand line, 5 pounds per

second.

(2) Dry chemical, halon 1211, or clean

agent through a turret, 16 pounds per

second.

(i) Extinguishing agent substitutions.

Other extinguishing agent substitutions

authorized by the Administrator may be

made in amounts that provide

equivalent firefighting capability.

(j) AFFF Quantity Requirements. In

addition to the quantity of water

required, each vehicle required to carry

AFFF shall carry AFFF in an

appropriate amount to mix with twice

the water required to be carried by the

vehicle.

(k) Methods and procedures. FAA

Advisory Circulars in the 150 series

contain standards and procedures for

ARFF equipment and extinguishing

agents that are acceptable to the

Administrator.

(l) Implementation. Each holder of a

Class II, III, or IV airport operating

certificate shall implement the

requirements of this section no later

than 24 consecutive calendar months

after [the effective date of the final rule].

§ 139.319 Aircraft rescue and firefighting:

Operational requirements.

(a) Rescue and firefighting capability.

Except as provided in paragraph (c) of

this section, each certificate holder shall

provide on the airport, during air carrier

operations at the airport, at least the

rescue and firefighting capability

specified for the Index required by

§ 139.317 in a manner authorized by the

Administrator.

(b) Increase in Index. Except as

provided in paragraph (c) of this

section, if an increase in the average

daily departures or the length of air

carrier aircraft results in an increase in

the Index required by paragraph

(a) of this section, the certificate

holder shall comply with the increased

requirements.

(c) Reduction in rescue and

firefighting. During air carrier operations

with only aircraft shorter than the Index

aircraft group required by paragraph (a)

of this section, the certificate holder

may reduce the rescue and firefighting

to a lower level corresponding to the

Index group of the longest air carrier

aircraft being operated.

(d) Procedures for reduction in

capability. Any reduction in the rescue

and firefighting capability from the

Index required by paragraph (a) of this

section in accordance with paragraph (c)

of this section shall be subject to the

following conditions:

(1) Procedures for, and the persons

having the authority to implement, the

reductions must be included in the

airport certification manual.

(2) A system and procedures for recall

of the full aircraft rescue and firefighting

capability must be included in the

airport certification manual.

(3) The reductions may not be

implemented unless notification to air

carriers is provided in the Airport/

Facility Directory or Notices to Airmen

(NOTAM), as appropriate, and by direct

notification of local air carriers.

(e) Vehicle communications. Each

vehicle required under § 139.317 shall

be equipped with two-way voice radio

communications that provides for

contact with at least—

(1) Each other required emergency

vehicle;

(2) The air traffic control tower, if it

is located on the airport; and

(3) Other stations, as specified in the

airport emergency plan.

(f) Vehicle marking and lighting. Each

vehicle required under § 139.317 shall—

(1) Have a flashing or rotating beacon;

and

(2) Be painted or marked in colors to

enhance contrast with the background

environment and optimize daytime and

nighttime visibility and identification.

(g) Vehicle readiness. Each vehicle

required under § 139.317 shall be

maintained as follows:

(1) The vehicle and its systems shall

be maintained so as to be operationally

capable of performing the functions

required by this subpart during all air

carrier operations.

(2) If the airport is located in a

geographical area subject to prolonged

38678 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 120 / Wednesday, June 21, 2000 / Proposed Rules

temperatures below 33 degrees

Fahrenheit, the vehicles shall be

provided with cover or other means to

ensure equipment operation and

discharge under freezing conditions.

(3) Any required vehicle that becomes

inoperative to the extent that it cannot

perform as required by paragraph (h)(1)

of this section shall be replaced

immediately with equipment having at

least equal capabilities. If replacement

equipment is not available immediately,

the certificate holder shall so notify the

Regional Airports Division Manager and

each air carrier using the airport in

accordance with § 139.341. If the

required Index level of capability is not

restored within 48 hours, the airport

operator, unless otherwise authorized

by the Administrator, shall limit air

carrier operations on the airport to those

compatible with the Index

corresponding to the remaining

operative rescue and firefighting

equipment.

(h) Response requirements. (1) With

the airport rescue and fire-fighting

equipment required under this part and

the number of trained personnel which

will assure an effective operation, each

certificate holder shall—

(i) Respond to each emergency during

periods of air carrier operations; and

(ii) When requested by the

Administrator, demonstrate compliance

with the response requirements

specified in this section.

(2) The response required by

paragraph (h)(1)(ii) of this section shall

achieve the following performance:

(i) Within 3 minutes from the time of

the alarm, at least one required airport

rescue and firefighting vehicle shall

reach the midpoint of the farthest

runway serving air carrier aircraft from

its assigned post, or reach any other

specified point of comparable distance

on the movement area which is

available to air carriers, and begin

application of extinguishing agent.

(ii) Within 4 minutes from the time of

alarm, all other required vehicles shall

reach the point specified in paragraph

(h)(2)(i) of this section from their

assigned post and begin application of

extinguishing agent.

(i) Personnel. Each certificate holder

shall ensure the following:

(1) All rescue and firefighting

personnel are equipped in a manner

authorized by the Administrator with

protective clothing and equipment

needed to perform their duties.

(2) All rescue and firefighting

personnel are properly trained to

perform their duties in a manner

authorized by the Administrator. Such

personnel shall be trained prior to

initial performance of rescue and

firefighting duties, and receive recurrent

instruction every 12 consecutive

calendar months. Curriculum for initial

and recurrent training shall include at

least the following areas:

(i) Airport familiarization.

(ii) Aircraft familiarization.

(iii) Rescue and firefighting personnel

safety.

(iv) Emergency communications

systems on the airport, including fire

alarms.

(v) Use of the fire hoses, nozzles,

turrets, and other appliances required

for compliance with this part.

(vi) Application of the types of

extinguishing agents required for

compliance with this part.

(vii) Emergency aircraft evacuation

assistance.

(viii)Firefighting operations.

(ix) Adapting and using structural

rescue and firefighting equipment for

aircraft rescue and firefighting.

(x) Aircraft cargo hazards, including

hazardous materials/dangerous goods

incidents.

(xi) Familiarization with firefighters’

duties under the airport emergency

plan.

(3) All rescue and firefighting

personnel participate in at least one

live-fire drill every 12 consecutive

calendar months.

(4) At least one of the required

personnel on duty during air carrier

operations has been trained and is

current in basic emergency medical

services. Such personnel shall be

trained prior to initial performance of

emergency medical services, and receive

recurrent instruction every 12

consecutive calendar months. Training

shall include at least 40 hours covering

the following areas:

(i) Bleeding.

(ii) Cardiopulmonary resuscitation.

(iii) Shock.

(iv) Primary patient survey.

(v) Injuries to the skull, spine, chest,

and extremities.

(vi) Internal injuries.

(vii) Moving patients.

(viii) Burns.

(ix) Triage.

(5) Each certificate holder shall

maintain a record of all training given

to each individual under this section for

24 consecutive calendar months after

completion of training. Such records

shall include, at a minimum, a

description and date of training

received.

(6) Sufficient rescue and firefighting

personnel are available during all air

carrier operations to operate the

vehicles, meet the response times, and

meet the minimum agent discharge rates

required by this part;

(7) Procedures and equipment are

established and maintained for alerting

rescue and firefighting personnel by

siren, alarm, or other means authorized

by the Administrator, to any existing or

impending emergency requiring their

assistance.

(j) Hazardous materials guidance.

Each aircraft rescue and firefighting

vehicle responding to an emergency on

the airport shall be equipped with, or

have available through a direct

communications link, the North

American Emergency Response

Guidebook published by the U.S.

Department of Transportation or similar

response guidance to hazardous

materials/dangerous goods incidents.

(k) Emergency access roads. Each

certificate holder shall ensure that roads

which are designated for use as

emergency access roads for aircraft

rescue and firefighting vehicles are

maintained in a condition that will

support those vehicles during allweather conditions.

(l) Methods and procedures. FAA

Advisory Circulars contain methods and

procedures for ARFF and emergency

medical equipment and training that are

acceptable to the Administrator.

(m) Implementation. Each holder of a

Class II, III, or IV airport operating

certificate shall implement the

requirements of this section no later

than 24 consecutive calendar months

after [the effective date of the final rule].

§ 139.321 Aircraft rescue and firefighting:

Exemptions.

(a) Under § 139.111, a certificate

holder may petition the Associate

Administrator for Airports for an

exemption from ARFF requirements of

§§ 139.317 and 139.319.

(b) Each petition filed under this

section must—

(1) Be submitted in writing at least

120 days before the proposed effective

date of the exemption;

(2) Be submitted in duplicate to the

Regional Airports Division Manager;

(3) Set forth the text of § 139.317 or

§ 139.319 from which the exemption is

sought;

(4) Explain the interest of the

certificate holder in the action

requested, including the nature and

extent of relief sought, and alternative

means of compliance proposed; and

(5) Contain information, views, or

arguments that demonstrates that the

requirements of § 139.317 or § 139.319

would be unreasonably costly,

burdensome, or impractical.

(c) The Associate Administrator for

Airports may grant an exemption to the

requirements of §§ 139.317 and 139.319

if it is determined that—

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 120 / Wednesday, June 21, 2000 / Proposed Rules 38679

(1) The certificate holder’s

compliance with the requirements of

§§ 139.317 and 139.319 would be

unreasonably costly, burdensome, or

impractical; and

(2) The exemption granted would

provide a level of safety in responding

to emergencies involving air carrier

operations that is equivalent to the

rescue and firefighting response

required under §§ 139.317 and 139.319.

In determining whether to grant an

exemption, the Administrator shall

consider the certificate holder’s

provisions for the following:

(i) Pre-arranged firefighting and basic

emergency medical response that is onairport 15 minutes before and 15

minutes after an air carrier aircraft takes

off or lands;

(ii) Capability of responding

emergency equipment and fire

extinguishing agents to address aircraft

fire and rescue situations;

(iii) Initial and recurrent training of

responding personnel on the use of

emergency equipment, basic emergency

medical response, and airport

familiarization;

(iv) Procedures to provide

replacement emergency equipment or

personnel in the event pre-arranged

firefighting and basic emergency

medical response specified in paragraph

(c)(2)(i) of this section becomes

unavailable; and

(v) Planned action to come into

compliance with the rescue and

firefighting response requirements of

§§ 139.317 and 139.319.

(d) Upon approval of the petition, the

certificate holder shall include in the

airport certification manual the

exemption approved under paragraph

(c) of this section.

§ 139.323 Handling and storing of

hazardous substances and materials.

(a) Each certificate holder which acts

as a cargo handling agent shall establish

and maintain procedures for the

protection of persons and property on

the airport during the handling and

storing of any material regulated by the

Hazardous Materials Regulations (49

CFR parts 171 through 180), that is, or

is intended to be, transported by air.

These procedures shall provide for at

least the following:

(1) Designated personnel to receive

and handle hazardous substances and

materials.

(2) Assurance from the shipper that

the cargo can be handled safely,

including any special handling

procedures required for safety.

(3) Special areas for storage of

hazardous materials while on the

airport.

(b) Each certificate holder shall

establish and maintain standards

authorized by the Administrator for

protecting against fire and explosions in

storing, dispensing, and otherwise

handling fuel, lubricants, and oxygen

(other than articles and materials that

are, or are intended to be, aircraft cargo)

on the airport. These standards shall

cover facilities, procedures, and

personnel training and shall address at

least the following:

(1) Bonding.

(2) Public protection.

(3) Control of access to storage areas.

(4) Fire safety in fuel farm and storage

areas.

(5) Fire safety in mobile fuelers,

fueling pits, and fueling cabinets.

(6) Training of fueling personnel in

fire safety in accordance with paragraph

(e) of this section. Such training at Class

III airports must be completed within 12

consecutive calendar months after [the

effective date of the final rule].

(7) The fire code of the public body

having jurisdiction over the airport.

(c) Each certificate holder shall, as a

fueling agent, comply with, and require

all other fueling agents operating on the

airport to comply with, the standards

established under paragraph (b) of this

section and shall perform reasonable

surveillance of all fueling activities on

the airport with respect to those

standards.

(d) Each certificate holder shall

inspect the physical facilities of each

airport tenant fueling agent at least once

every 3 consecutive calendar months for

compliance with paragraph (b) of this

section and maintain a record of that

inspection for at least 12 consecutive

calendar months. The certificate holder

may use an independent organization to

perform this inspection if—

(1) It is authorized by the

Administrator; and

(2) It prepares a record of its

inspection sufficiently detailed to assure

the certificate holder and the FAA that

the inspection is adequate.

(e) The training required in paragraph

(b)(6) of this section shall include at

least the following:

(1) At least one supervisor with each

fueling agent shall have completed an

aviation fuel training course in fire

safety that is authorized by the

Administrator. Such an individual shall

be trained prior to initial performance of

duties, and receive recurrent instruction

every 24 consecutive calendar months.

(2) All other employees who fuel

aircraft, accept fuel shipments, or

otherwise handle fuel shall receive at

least on-the job training and recurrent

instruction every 12 consecutive

calendar months in fire safety from the

supervisor trained in accordance with

paragraph (e)(1) of this section.

(f) Each certificate holder shall obtain

written confirmation once every 12

consecutive calendar months from each

airport tenant fueling agent that the

training required by paragraph (e) of this

section has been accomplished.

(g) Unless otherwise authorized by the

Administrator, each certificate holder

shall require each tenant fueling agent

to take immediate corrective action

whenever the certificate holder becomes

aware of noncompliance with a

standard required by paragraph (b) of

this section. The certificate holder shall

notify the appropriate FAA Regional

Airports Division Manager immediately

when noncompliance is discovered and

corrective action cannot be

accomplished within a reasonable

period of time.

(h) FAA Advisory Circulars contain

methods and procedures for the

handling and storage of hazardous

substances and materials that are

acceptable to the Administrator.

§ 139.325 Traffic and wind direction

indicators.

In a manner authorized by the

Administrator, each certificate holder

shall provide the following on its

airport:

(a) A wind cone that provides surface

wind direction information visually to

pilots. Supplemental wind cones must

be installed at each runway end or at

least at one point visible to the pilot

while on final approach and prior to

takeoff. If the airport is open for air

carrier operations during hours of

darkness, the wind direction indicators,

including the required supplemental

indicators, must be lighted.

(b) For airports serving any air carrier

operation when there is no control

tower operating, a landing strip and

traffic pattern indicator for each runway

with a right-hand traffic pattern. If there

is no segmented circle, such landing

strip and traffic pattern indicators must

be installed on or near the end of the

runway.

(c) FAA Advisory Circulars contain

methods and standards for the

installation, lighting and maintenance of

wind cones and segmented circles that

are acceptable to the Administrator.

§ 139.327 Airport emergency plan.

(a) In a manner authorized by the

Administrator, each certificate holder

shall develop and maintain an airport

emergency plan designed to minimize

the possibility and extent of personal

injury and property damage on the

airport in an emergency. The plan

shall—

38680 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 120 / Wednesday, June 21, 2000 / Proposed Rules

(1) Include procedures for prompt

response to all of the emergencies listed

in paragraph (b) of this section,

including a communications network;

and

(2) Sufficient detail to provide

adequate guidance to each person who

must implement it; and

(3) To extent practicable, provide for

emergency response for the largest air

carrier aircraft that the airport

reasonably can be expected to serve.

(b) The plan required by this section

must contain instructions for response

to—

(1) Aircraft incidents and accidents;

(2) Bomb incidents, including

designated parking areas for the aircraft

involved;

(3) Structural fires;

(4) Fires at fuel farms or fuel storage

areas;

(5) Natural disaster;

(6) Hazardous materials/dangerous

goods incidents;

(7) Sabotage, hijack incidents, and

other unlawful interference with

operations;

(8) Failure of power for movement

area lighting; and

(9) Water rescue situations, as

appropriate.

(c) The plan required by this section

must address or include—

(1) To the extent practicable,

provisions for medical services

including transportation and medical

assistance for the maximum number of

persons that can be carried on the

largest air carrier aircraft that the airport

reasonably can be expected to serve;

(2) The name, location, telephone

number, and emergency capability of

each hospital and other medical facility,

and the business address and telephone

number of medical personnel on the

airport or in the communities it serves,

agreeing to provide medical assistance

or transportation;

(3) The name, location, and telephone

number of each rescue squad,

ambulance service, military installation,

and government agency on the airport or

in the communities it serves, that agrees

to provide medical assistance or

transportation;

(4) An inventory of surface vehicles

and aircraft that the facilities, agencies,

and personnel included in the plan

under paragraphs (c)(2) and (c)(3) of this

section will provide to transport injured

and deceased persons to locations on

the airport and in the communities it

serves;

(5) Each hangar or other building on

the airport or in the communities it

serves that will be used to accommodate

uninjured, injured, and deceased

persons;

(6) Crowd control, specifying the

name and location of each safety or

security agency that agrees to provide

assistance for the control of crowds in

the event of an emergency on the

airport; and

(7) The removal of disabled aircraft

including to the extent practical the

name, location and telephone numbers

of agencies with aircraft removal

responsibilities or capabilities.

(d) The plan required by this section

must provide for—

(1) The marshalling, transportation,

and care of ambulatory injured and

uninjured accident survivors;

(2) The removal of disabled aircraft;

(3) Emergency alarm or notification

systems; and

(4) Coordination of airport and control

tower functions relating to emergency

actions, as appropriate.

(e) The plan required by this section

shall contain procedures for notifying

the facilities, agencies, and personnel

who have responsibilities under the

plan of the location of an aircraft

accident, the number of persons

involved in that accident, or any other

information necessary to carry out their

responsibilities, as soon as that

information is available.

(f) The plan required by this section

shall contain provisions, to the extent

practicable, for the rescue of aircraft

accident victims from significant bodies

of water or marsh lands adjacent to the

airport which are crossed by the

approach and departure flight paths of

air carriers. A body of water or marsh

land is significant if the area exceeds

one-quarter square mile and cannot be

traversed by conventional land rescue

vehicles. To the extent practicable, the

plan shall provide for rescue vehicles

with a combined capacity for handling

the maximum number of persons that

can be carried on board the largest air

carrier aircraft that the airport

reasonably can be expected to serve.

(g) Each certificate holder shall—

(1) Coordinate its plan with law

enforcement agencies, rescue and

firefighting agencies, medical personnel

and organizations, the principal tenants

at the airport, and all other persons who

have responsibilities under the plan;

(2) To the extent practicable, provide

for participation by all facilities,

agencies, and personnel specified in

paragraph (g)(1) of this section in the

development of the plan;

(3) Ensure that all airport personnel

having duties and responsibilities under

the plan are familiar with their

assignments and are properly trained;

and

(4) At least once every 12 consecutive

calendar months, review the plan with

all of the parties with whom the plan is

coordinated as specified in paragraph

(g)(1) of this section, to ensure that all

parties know their responsibilities and

that all of the information in the plan is

current.

(h) Each holder of a Class I airport

operating certificate shall hold a fullscale airport emergency plan exercise at

least once every 36 consecutive calendar

months.

(i) FAA Advisory Circulars contain

methods and procedures for the

development of an airport emergency

plan that are acceptable to the

Administrator.

(j) The emergency plan required by

this section shall be submitted by each

holder of a Class II, III, or IV airport

operating certificate no later than 12

consecutive calendar months after [the

effective date of the final rule.]

§ 139.329 Self-inspection program.

(a) In a manner authorized by the

Administrator, each certificate holder,

or designee, shall inspect the airport to

assure compliance with this subpart—

(1) Daily, except as otherwise required

by the airport certification manual;

(2) When required by any unusual

condition such as construction activities

or meteorological conditions that may

affect safe air carrier operations; and

(3) Immediately after an accident or

incident.

(b) Each certificate holder shall

provide the following:

(1) Equipment for use in conducting

safety inspections of the airport;

(2) Procedures, facilities, and

equipment for reliable and rapid

dissemination of information between

airport personnel and its air carriers;

(3) Procedures to ensure that qualified

inspection personnel perform the

inspections, as specified under

§ 139.303; and are trained annually in

least the following areas:

(i) Airport familiarization.

(ii) Airport emergency plan.

(iii) Notice to Airmen (NOTAM)

notification procedures.

(iv) Ground vehicle operations.

(v) Discrepancy reporting procedures.

(vi) Airport marking, lighting and sign

systems; and

(4) A reporting system to ensure

prompt correction of unsafe airport

conditions noted during the inspection,

including wildlife strikes.

(c) Each certificate holder shall

prepare and keep for at least 6

consecutive calendar months, and make

available for inspection by the

Administrator on request, a record of

each inspection prescribed by this

section, showing the conditions found

and all corrective actions taken.

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 120 / Wednesday, June 21, 2000 / Proposed Rules 38681

(d) FAA Advisory Circulars contain

methods and procedures for the conduct

of airport self-inspections that are

acceptable to the Administrator.

§ 139.331 Ground vehicles.

In a manner authorized by the

Administrator, each certificate holder

shall—

(a) Limit access to movement areas

and safety areas only to those ground

vehicles necessary for airport

operations;

(b) Establish and implement

procedures for the safe and orderly

access to, and operation on, the

movement area and safety areas by

ground vehicles, including provisions

identifying the consequences of

noncompliance with the procedures by

an employee, tenant, or contractor;

(c) When an air traffic control tower

is in operation, ensure that each ground

vehicle operating on the movement area

is controlled by one of the following:

(1) Two-way radio communications

between each vehicle and the tower;

(2) An escort vehicle with two-way

radio communications with the tower to

accompany any vehicle without a radio;

or

(3) Measures authorized by the

Administrator for controlling vehicles,

such as signs, signals, or guards, when

it is not operationally practical to have

two-way radio communications with the

vehicle or an escort vehicle;

(d) When an air traffic control tower

is not in operation, provide adequate

procedures to control ground vehicles

on the movement area through

prearranged signs or signals;

(e) Ensure that each employee, tenant,

or contractor who operates a ground

vehicle on any portion of the airport

that has access to the movement area is

familiar with the airport’s procedures

for the operation of ground vehicles and

the consequences of noncompliance;

and

(f) On request by the Administrator,

make available for inspection any record

of accidents or incidents on the

movement areas involving air carrier

aircraft and/or ground vehicles.

§ 139.333 Obstructions.

In a manner authorized by the

Administrator, each certificate holder

shall ensure that each object in each

area within its authority which exceeds

any of the heights or penetrates the

imaginary surfaces described in part 77

of this chapter is either removed,

marked, or lighted. However, removal,

marking, and lighting are not required if

they are determined to be unnecessary

by an FAA aeronautical study. FAA

Advisory Circulars contain methods and

procedures for the lighting of

obstructions that are acceptable to the

Administrator.

§ 139.335 Protection of navaids.

In a manner authorized by the

Administrator, each certificate holder

shall—

(a) Prevent the construction of

facilities on its airport that, as

determined by the Administrator, would

derogate the operation of an electronic

or visual navaid and air traffic control

facilities on the airport;

(b) Protect, or if the owner is other

than the certificate holder, assist in

protecting, all navaids on its airport

against vandalism and theft; and

(c) Prevent, insofar as it is within the

airport’s authority, interruption of

visual and electronic signals of navaids.

§ 139.337 Public protection.

(a) In a manner authorized by the

Administrator, each certificate holder

shall provide—

(1) Safeguards to prevent inadvertent

entry to the movement area by

unauthorized persons or vehicles; and

(2) Reasonable protection of persons

and property from aircraft blast.

(b) Fencing meeting the requirements

of part 107 of this chapter in areas

subject to part 107 of this chapter is

acceptable for meeting the requirements

of paragraph (a)(1) of this section.

§ 139.339 Wildlife hazard management.

(a) In accordance with its airport

certification manual and the

requirements of this section, each

certificate holder shall take immediate

action to alleviate wildlife hazards

whenever they are detected.

(b) In a manner authorized by the

Administrator, each certificate holder

shall ensure that a wildlife hazard

assessment is conducted when any of

the following events occurs on or near

the airport:

(1) An air carrier aircraft experiences

a multiple bird strike or engine

ingestion.

(2) An air carrier aircraft experiences

a damaging collision with wildlife other

than birds.

(3) Wildlife of a size or in numbers

capable of causing an event described in

paragraph (b)(1) or (2) of this section has

access to any airport flight pattern or

aircraft movement area.

(c) The assessment required in

paragraph (b) of this section shall be

conducted by a wildlife damage

management biologist that has at least a

Bachelor of Science degree in wildlife

biology, wildlife management or related

field and professional training and/or

experience in wildlife hazard

management at airports, or an

individual working under the direct

supervision of the such an individual.

The assessment shall contain at least the

following:

(1) An analysis of the events or

circumstances which prompted the

assessment.

(2) Identification of the wildlife

species observed, and their numbers,

locations, local movements, and daily

and seasonal occurrences.

(3) Identification and location of

features on and near the airport that

attract wildlife.

(4) A description of wildlife hazard to

air carrier operations.

(5) Recommended actions for

reducing identified wildlife hazards to

air carries operations.

(d) The assessment shall be submitted

to the Administrator for approval and

determination of the need for a wildlife

hazard management plan. In reaching

this determination, the Administrator

will consider:

(1) The wildlife hazard assessment

required under paragraph (b) of this

section.

(2) Actions recommended in the

wildlife hazards assessment to reduce

wildlife hazards.

(3) The aeronautical activity at the

airport.

(4) The views of the certificate holder.

(5) The views of the airport users.

(6) Any other known factors relating

to the wildlife hazard of which the

Administrator is aware.

(e) When the Administrator

determines that a wildlife hazard

management plan is needed, the

certificate holder shall formulate and

implement a plan using the wildlife

hazard assessment as a basis. The plan

shall:

(1) Provide measures to alleviate or

eliminate wildlife hazards to air carrier

operations;

(2) Be submitted to, and approved by,

the Administrator prior to

implementation; and

(3) As authorized by the

Administrator, become a part of the

Airport Certification Manual.

(f) The plan shall include at least the

following:

(1) A list of the individuals having

authority and responsibility for

implementing each aspect of the plan.

(2) A list prioritizing the following

actions identified in the wildlife hazard

assessment and target dates for their

completing:

(i) Wildlife population management;

(ii) Habitat modification; and

(iii) Land use changes.

(3) Requirements for and, where

applicable, copies of local, State, and

Federal wildlife control permits.

38682 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 120 / Wednesday, June 21, 2000 / Proposed Rules

(4) Identification of resources that the

certificate holder will provide to

implement the plan.

(5) Procedures to be followed during

air carrier operations, that at a minimum

includes:

(i) Designation of personnel

responsible for implementing the

procedures;

(ii) Provisions to conduct physical

inspections of the aircraft movement

areas and other areas critical to

successfully manage known wildlife

hazard before air carrier operations

begin;

(iii) Wildlife hazard control measures;

and

(iv) Ways to effectively communicate

between wildlife control personnel and

any air traffic control tower operating at

the airport.

(6) Describe procedures to review and

evaluate the wildlife hazard

management plan annually or following

an event described in paragraphs (b)(1),

(2) and (3) of this section, including:

(i) The plan’s effectiveness in dealing

with known wildlife hazards on and in

the airport’s vicinity; and

(ii) Aspects of the wildlife hazards, as

described in the wildlife hazard

assessment, that should be reevaluated.

(7) A training program conducted by

qualified wildlife damage management

biologist(s) to provide airport personnel

with the knowledge and skills needed to

successfully carry out the wildlife

hazard management plan required by

paragraph (d) of this section.

(g) At Class II or III airports,

implementation of the wildlife

mitigation procedures shall take into

account the frequency and size of air

carrier aircraft.

(h) FAA Advisory Circulars contain

methods and procedures for wildlife

hazard management at airports that are

acceptable to the Administrator.

§ 139.341 Airport condition reporting.

In a manner authorized by the

Administrator, each certificate holder

shall:

(a) Provide for the collection and

dissemination of airport condition

information to air carriers.

(b) In complying with paragraph (a) of

this section, utilize the NOTAM system,

as appropriate, and other systems and

procedures authorized by the

Administrator.

(c) In complying with paragraph (a) of

this section, provide information on the

following airport conditions that may

affect the safe operations of air carriers:

(1) Construction or maintenance

activity on movement areas, safety

areas, or loading ramps and parking

areas.

(2) Surface irregularities on movement

areas, safety areas, or loading ramps and

parking areas.

(3) Snow, ice, slush, or water on the

movement area or loading ramps and

parking areas.

(4) Snow piled or drifted on or near

movement areas contrary to § 139.313.

(5) Objects on the movement area or

safety areas contrary to § 139.309.

(6) Malfunction of any sign or lighting

system required by § 139.311.

(7) Unresolved wildlife hazards as

identified in accordance with § 139.339.

(8) Non-availability of any rescue and

firefighting capability required in

§ 139.317, § 139.319, or § 139.321.

(9) Any other condition as specified

in the airport certification manual, or

which may otherwise adversely affect

the safe operations of air carriers.

(d) FAA Advisory Circulars contain

methods and procedures for using the

NOTAM system and the dissemination

of airport information that are

acceptable to the Administrator.

§ 139.343 Identifying, marking, and

reporting construction and other

unserviceable areas.

(a) In a manner authorized by the

Administrator, each certificate holder

shall—

(1) Mark and, if appropriate, light in

a manner authorized by the

Administrator—

(i) Each construction area and

unserviceable area which is on or

adjacent to any movement area or any

other area of the airport on which air

carrier aircraft may be operated;

(ii) Each item of construction

equipment and each construction

roadway, which may affect the safe

movement of aircraft on the airport; and

(iii) Any area adjacent to a navaid

that, if traversed, could cause derogation

of the signal or the failure of the navaid;

and

(2) Provide procedures, such as a

review of all appropriate utility plans

prior to construction, for avoiding

damage to existing utilities, cables,

wires, conduits, pipelines, or other

underground facilities.

(b) FAA Advisory Circulars contain

methods and procedures for identifying

and marking construction areas that are

acceptable to the Administrator.

§ 139.345 Noncomplying conditions.

Unless otherwise authorized by the

Administrator, whenever the

requirements of subpart D of this part

cannot be met to the extent that

uncorrected unsafe conditions exist on

the airport, the certificate holder shall

limit air carrier operations to those

portions of the airport not rendered

unsafe by those conditions.

Issued in Washington, DC, on June 2, 2000.

Paul L. Galis,

Acting Associate Administrator for Airports.

[FR Doc. 00–14524 Filed 6–20–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–U