U.S. Department of 

Transportation 

FEDERAL AVIATION 

ADMINISTRATION 

Washington, DC 20591 

FINAL REGULATORY EVALUATION,

REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY DETERMINATION, 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE IMPACT ASSESSMENT, 

AND UNFUNDED MANDATES ASSESSMENT 

FINAL RULE 

TITLE 14 CFR PARTS 121, 139 

CERTIFICATION OF AIRPORTS 

Office of Aviation Policy and Plans, 

George A. Euring, Jr. 

November 21, 2001 
TABLE OF CONTENTS

Executive Summary ........................................................................................................ 1 

I. Introduction........................................................................................................... 4 

II. Background .......................................................................................................... 8 

III. Summary of the Final Rule ................................................................................. 14 

IV. Benefits of the Proposed and Final Rule ............................................................ 23 

V. Cost Estimates for the Proposed and Final Rules .............................................. 35 

VI. Benefits and Costs Comparison ......................................................................... 64 

VII. Final Regulatory Flexibility Determination .......................................................... 66 

VIII. International Trade Impact Assessment ............................................................. 73 

IX. Unfunded Mandates Assessment....................................................................... 73 

Appendices ................................................................................................................... 75 

III-1 Final Rule Class I Airports, March 2001 

III-2 Final Rule Class II Airports, March 2001 

III-3 Final Rule Class III Airports, March 2001 

III-4 Final Rule Class IV Airports, March 2001 

i 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

On June 6, 2000, the FAA published a Notice of Proposed Rule Making (NPRM), 

entitled Certification of Airports, Docket No. FAA-2000-7479. The NPRM proposed to 

revise of Chapter 14 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 139 and part 121. The 

original comment period was for 120 days, but was extended at the request of 

commenters to November 3, 2000. 

The NPRM was accompanied by the economic analysis that was entitled: 

INITIAL REGULATORY EVALUATION, REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY 

DETERMINATION, INTERNATIONAL TRADE IMPACT ASSESSMENT, AND 

UNFUNDED MANDATES ASSESSMENT, FOR NOTICE OF PROPOSED 

RULEMAKING, TITLE 14 CFR PARTS 121, 139, CERTIFICATION OF 

AIRPORTS. 

March 9, 2000 

This document updates the draft Regulatory Evaluation on the basis of the 

comments received and modifications to the rule made by the FAA. With the exception 

of Chapter V, the format of this Final Regulatory Evaluation is largely the same as the 

Initial Regulatory Evaluation. Chapter V discusses the cost estimates that are based 

upon those in the original draft evaluation and in response to the comments received. 

This regulatory evaluation examines the economic impacts of this rule that will 

affect all civilian airports currently certificated under part 139 (approximately 560 

airports), those currently not certificated airports that serve scheduled air carrier 

operations conducted in 10 – 30 passenger seat aircraft (about 40 airports), and 

approximately 90 Department of Defense airports currently certificated under part 139. 

1
In addition the final rule addresses National Transportation Board (NTSB) 

recommendations and petitions for rulemaking noted in the NPRM. 

A section of 14 CFR part 121 will also be amended to conform with final changes 

to airport certification requirements as proposed in the NPRM. 

Changes in the final rule principally involve the revision of existing Airport 

Certification Manuals (ACM’s), the preparation of new ACM’s, or the conversion of 

existing Airport Certification Specifications into ACM’s as well as the addition of a new 

class of airports (Class III) and a reorganization of existing certificated airports into 

Classes I, II, and IV. Most of the cost of this final rule is associated with the final 

improvements to safety and operational requirements, one of which is the expansion of 

aircraft rescue and firefighting (ARFF) services. These services are expected to 

mitigate accidents at airports receiving 10 to 30 seat aircraft scheduled service at 

airports not currently certificated and at other airports where ARFF coverage is currently 

not required for this size of aircraft. 

The present value of the total cost of the final rule over a ten year period is 

approximately $74.5 million which includes training, additional emergency response 

protection, wild life management, and an updated Airport Certification Manual that better 

reflects current-best practices. 

The expected benefit of this final rule is enhanced aviation safety, particularly 

with respect to airports serving scheduled passenger service in aircraft with 10 to 30 

seats. The cost of two accidents of a 30-seat scheduled passenger aircraft could more 

than cover the total cost of this final rule. Other benefits of this final rule include multiple 

2
provisions for snow and ice control, wildlife management, and training, to name a few, 

that are included in the revision of part 139. 

3
I. Introduction 

Prior to the changes to this rule, airports that desired to serve large air carrier 

aircraft (more than 30 seats) had to obtain an Airport Operating Certificate (AOC) by 

complying with certain safety requirements. The AOC permitted an airport to serve 

large air carriers. These requirements covered 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 requirements. 

The FAA previously issued two types of AOC's depending on the type of air 

carrier operations an airport served. Airports that served scheduled operations of large 

air carrier aircraft (more than 30 seats) were issued an AOC, commonly referred to as a 

“Full Certificate." As these airports regularly served large air carrier operations, they 

had to fully comply with all part 139 requirements. Of the approximately 560 certificated 

civil airports, approximately 430 airports held a Full Certificate. Airports serving only 

unscheduled operations of large air carrier aircraft required a Limited Airport Operating 

Certificate (LAOC), known as a “Limited Certificate.” Approximately 130 airports held a 

Limited Certificate. Air carrier operations in large aircraft were so infrequent at these 

facilities that consequently they were only required to comply with portions of part 139. 

For example, existing § 139.213 required airports with a Limited Certificate to comply 

with only certain pavement, lighting, marking, and emergency response requirements. 

Airports that had a Limited Certificate were typically located in remote communities or 

supported seasonal activities, such as skiing during winter months. 

4
This final rule comprehensively revises the airport certification process by 

establishing four new classes of airports including airports serving scheduled air carrier 

operations in aircraft with no less than 9 seats but no more than 30 seats (small air 

carrier aircraft) in the airport certification program to ensure that these airports meet a 

minimum level of safety. Airports serving small air carrier aircraft and desiring to be 

certificated under part 139 will be required to develop and implement an Airport 

Certification Manual (ACM), and to comply with certain safety and operational 

requirements as determined by the FAA and the airport operator. Variations in airport 

layout, operations, and air carrier service will require FAA to tailor compliance 

procedures for each airport through the ACM to ensure that they are the least costly and 

burdensome but still provide an improved level of safety. While airport operators that 

choose to be certificated under part 139 will be required to document procedures for 

complying with part 139 and to comply with certain safety and operational requirements, 

the tailoring process will permit them some flexibility in complying with the more 

burdensome requirements. 

In addition to serving large, unscheduled air carrier aircraft, approximately 120 of 

the 130 airports that held a LAOC, proposed Class II airports, also served scheduled 

small air carrier aircraft. To address these additional operations, this final rule will 

require these 120 airports, if they desire an AOC, to extend coverage of existing safety 

measures and comply with additional safety requirements. 

This final rule will further require the approximately 560 civilian airports that 

currently hold a Full or Limited Certificate (proposed Class I, II, and IV airports) to 

continue to comply with the revised part 139 requirements including their certification 

5
manuals. Approximately 45 of these airports (Proposed Class I and II airports) also 

could be required to implement certain safety measures on a more frequent basis to 

cover any small air carrier operations that do not occur concurrently with large air carrier 

aircraft operations. 

This final rule clarifies that airports operated by the United States government, 

including the Department of Defense (DOD), are not subject to part 139. Consequently, 

approximately 90 DOD airports currently certificated under part 139 will no longer need 

to be certificated under part 139. 

As proposed, the final rule will provide for only one type of certificate, an AOC, 

and will no longer require two types of certification manuals. Instead, airport certificate 

holders will be required to adopt and implement an ACM, regardless of the size and 

type of air carrier operations. 

All airports certificated under this final rule will be issued a new AOC. This will 

not require currently certificated airports to reapply for an Airport-Operating Certificate, 

but submit a revised ACM as appropriate. The FAA will convert existing certificates. 

However, airports that will be classified as Class III airports will need to apply for an 

AOC, as specified in § 139.103. 

The FAA has revised the current part 139 to clarify and update several 

requirements to better reflect current industry practices and technology. The FAA 

believes these revisions will generally require an already certificated airport to only take 

administrative action. 

Final changes to the existing regulation include updates or clarifications of: 

• Recordkeeping requirements; 

6
• Personnel training requirements; 

• Hazardous material storage requirements, specifically fuel dispensing and 

storage safety procedures; 

• Aircraft rescue and firefighting (ARFF) training and hazardous material 

response requirements; and 

• Emergency plan requirements. 

7
II. BACKGROUND 

A. Introduction 

Since 1970, the FAA Administrator has had the statutory authority to issue 

Airport Operating Certificates to airports who desired to be certificated to serve certain 

air carriers and who met minimum safety standards for the operation of those airports. 

This authority is found in Title 49, United States Code (USC) Section 44706, 

(49 USC 44706) Airport Operating Certificates. The FAA has used this authority to 

issue regulations for the certification and operation of certain land airports. These 

requirements are contained in Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, part 139 (14 CFR 

part 139), Certification and Operations: Land Airports Serving Certain Air Carriers, as 

amended. 

Until 1996, the FAA’s authority to certificate airports was limited to airports 

serving air carrier operations with more than 30 seat aircraft. However, a number of 

studies and accidents suggested that airport safety could be improved if the FAA's 

authority to certificate airports was extended to those airports that served scheduled 

operations of small air carrier aircraft. The following sections describe these studies. 

The current rulemaking is partially in response to these studies. 

B. General Accounting Office Report (1987) 

In 1987, the General Accounting Office (GAO) issued a safety report on the 

certification of small airports1. The report concluded that airport safety would be 

enhanced if all airports serving scheduled air carriers were certificated and 

recommended that the FAA include such facilities in its airport certification program. 

1 Aviation Safety: Commuter Airports Should Participate in the Airport Certification

Program, US General Accounting Office, GAO/RCED-88-41, November 1987. 

8
The FAA concurred with the GAO's findings, but determined that its statutory 

authority 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. 

C. National Transportation Safety Board Study (1994) 

In November 1994, the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) released its 

findings resulting from a study of commuter airline safety.2 (Note: The term commuter, 

when it appears in this study, refers to the use of this term before March 20, 1997. As 

of March 20, 1997, the term commuter refers to an aircraft or operations conducted in 

an aircraft, which has 9, or less, passenger seats.) 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 was also critical of the FAA for not requiring airports serving small 

air carrier operations to maintain their facilities in the same manner as airports serving 

major air carriers. 

D. DOT/FAA Initiatives 

As discussed above, until recently the FAA’s statutory authority was limited to 

those airports serving air carrier operations using aircraft with more than 30 passenger 

seats. However, this authority was broadened by the Federal Aviation Administration 

Reauthorization Act of 1996. Title 49, U.S.C. 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 

2 Safety Study: Commuter Airline Safety, National Transportation Safety Board,

NTSB/SS-94/02, November, 1994. 

9
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 1994 NTSB study described above that the FAA seek 

authority from Congress to issue certificates to airports serving small air carrier airlines. 

The 1996 amendment to the statute did not mandate the issuance of airport 

certificates to airports serving small air carriers. It only provided general authority 

pursuant to which the FAA may promulgate appropriate regulatory standards. With this 

rule the FAA intends to extend airport regulatory standards to airports now being served 

by air carriers with scheduled passenger operations with 10 to 30 seat aircraft. 

Furthermore, in response to a series of early 1990’s NTSB accident findings, the 

FAA took steps to ensure safety in aviation commerce, by comprehensively revising 

regulations pertaining to air carrier operations, specifically 14 CFR parts 121 and 135, to 

ensure similar safety standards among air carriers of different size. 

Lastly, this final rule will 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 to update 

part 139 requirements. 

10
E. The Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee 

The FAA approached the question of the certification of airports that serve 

scheduled air carrier operations using small air carrier aircraft by requesting the 

assistance of the Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee (ARAC). The ARAC was 

established by the FAA to provide advice and recommendations to the FAA 

Administrator concerning a range of the FAA's rulemaking activity, including air carrier 

operations, airman certification, aircraft certification, airports, security, and noise. 

To assist in the certification of airports serving small 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 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 with scheduled service 

by aircraft having 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 

11
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 smaller 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, a minority disagreed with 

several of the group's recommendations. This minority differed on six regulatory 

requirements, including marking and lighting; aircraft rescue and firefighting; 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 working group. 

12
In February 1997, both the majority and minority views of the working group, and 

those of individual group members, were presented to the FAA. Overall, the working 

group majority recommended that a non-regulatory approach to improve small air 

carrier 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 in light of the limited public funds available to these small airports. 

As requested by the FAA, the working group 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. These 

survey results are also are discussed in this economic analysis associated with this 

rulemaking. 

13
III. SUMMARY OF THE FINAL RULE 

A. Introduction 

This final rule will affect all airports currently certificated under part 139 

(approximately 560 civil airports) and those currently non-certificated airports serving 

scheduled, small air carrier aircraft operations (approximately 40 airports). 

This final rule will comprehensively revise the airport certification process and will 

include airports serving small air carrier aircraft to ensure safety at all certificated 

airports. Airports serving scheduled small air carrier aircraft with 10 or more passenger 

seats (proposed Class III airports) and currently not regulated under part 139, who 

desire a certificate, will be required to develop and implement a Airport Certification 

Manual (ACM), and to comply with certain safety and operational requirements. All 

airports, however, may request relaxation of requirements of the final rule. Variations in 

airport layout, operations, and air carrier service will require FAA to tailor compliance 

procedures for each airport through the ACM to ensure that they are the least costly and 

burdensome but still provide an improved level of safety. While airport operators that 

choose to be certificated under part 139 will be required to document procedures for 

complying with part 139 and to comply with certain safety and operational requirements, 

the tailoring process will permit them some flexibility in complying with the more 

burdensome requirements. 

As noted above, in addition to serving large, unscheduled air carrier aircraft, 

approximately 120 of the 130 airports holding a LAOC (Proposed Class II airports) also 

serve scheduled small air carrier aircraft. To address these additional operations, this 

final rule will require these 120 airports to implement existing safety measures (such as 

14
aircraft rescue and firefighting) on a more frequent basis and comply with additional 

safety requirements. 

This final rule will require the remaining 430 certificated civilian airports 

(Proposed Class I airports) to continue to comply with all existing part 139 requirements. 

In addition, these airports will be required to revise their certification manuals and 

comply with final modifications to existing requirements. Approximately 45 of these 

airports also could be required to implement certain safety measures on a more 

frequent basis to cover any small air carrier operations that do not occur concurrently 

with large air carrier aircraft operations. 

Also, this final rule will clarify that airports operated by the United States 

government, including DOD, are not subject to part 139. 

The FAA believes the current classification of Airport Operating Certificates and 

manuals should be simplified. Instead of differentiating between an AOC and a LAOC 

and creating additional types of Airport Operating Certificates, this final rule will provide 

for only one type of certificate, an AOC, and no longer make a distinction between ACM 

or ACS. All airport certificate holders will be required to adopt and implement an ACM, 

regardless of size and type of air carrier operations. But all certificated airports will be 

divided into classes, as described below. 

Consequently, all airports certificated under this final rule will be issued new 

Airport Operating Certificates. This will not require currently certificated airports to 

reapply for an Airport Operating Certificate. When this final rule is adopted, the FAA will 

convert existing certificates, as appropriate. 

15
 B. Airport Certification Classification 

This change to the certification process will still distinguish between airports that 

serve different sizes or types of air carriers, and establish requirements appropriate for 

each type of airport. Under this final rule, similar airports will be grouped together into 

four new categories, Classes I-IV, and a separate set of requirements is required for 

each new airport class, as follows: 

1. Class I Airport Airports serving all types of scheduled operations of 

large air carrier aircraft, and any other type of air carrier operations, will be known as 

Class I airports. Essentially, all airports with an existing AOC will become Class I 

airports. 

2. Class II Airports Class II airports will 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 will be 

classified as Class II will be airports with an existing LAOC that serve scheduled 

operations by small air carrier aircraft. 

3. Class III Airports Class III airports will be those airports that serve only 

scheduled operations of air carrier aircraft with 10-30 seats. Class III airports will be 

those facilities newly certificated as the result of this rulemaking. 

4. Class IV Airports Class IV airports will be those airports currently with a 

LAOC that serve only unscheduled air carrier operations in aircraft with more than 30 

seats. 

16
 C. Airport Certification Manual (ACM) Requirements By Class 

The FAA currently requires airports to develop an ACM or ACS, depending on 

the type of certification, to detail how the airport will comply with the requirements of 

part 139. As every airport is unique, the final requirements have sufficient flexibility to 

allow the tailoring of the final requirements to the unique circumstances of each airport. 

The FAA sets forth performance-based standards that airports implement, through the 

ACM, in the manner best suited to their facilities. In this manner, the FAA can vary and 

tailor airport requirements to accommodate local conditions. 

Under this final rule, the requirements for manual content will vary among the 

categories, with the most comprehensive manual being required of Class I airports. 

Class I airports will have to comply with more safety requirements than Class II, III, and 

IV airports as they serve more complex and varied air carrier operations. 

D. Airports Affected 

All currently certificated airports will be affected by the final rule. In addition, an 

estimated 37 currently uncertificated airports that serve scheduled operations of small 

air carrier aircraft, will be affected. In the future, any airport operator wishing to serve 

scheduled air carrier service conducted in small air carrier aircraft , or both scheduled 

and unscheduled service of large air carrier aircraft, must be certificated. 

An estimated total of approximately 600 civil airports will be affected by the final 

rule. The total number of certificated airports varies during the course of the year due to 

seasonal activities or fluctuations in air carrier service. 

17
A list of certificated airports by new airport classes, is shown in Appendices III-1 

through III-4. These appendices categorize airports that currently hold an Airport 

Operating Certificate, or will be newly certificated under this final rule, as follows. 

1. Appendix III-1 shows a list of the Class I airports by state. There is an 

estimated total of 436 proposed Class I airports. 

2. Appendix III-2 shows a list of the Class II airports by state. There are an 

estimated total of 112 proposed Class II airports. 

3. Appendix III-3 shows a list of the Class III airports by state. There are an 

estimated total of 37 Class III airports. 

4. Appendix III-4 shows a list of the Class IV airports by state. There are an 

estimated total of 18 proposed Class IV airports. 

E. Comparison of Existing and Final Airport Requirements 

Tables III-1 through III-4 show the existing and final airport certification 

requirements for each final airport class. 

18
Table III-1 Current and Final Requirements for Proposed Class I Airports 

Class I Airports are existing certificated airports holding an Airport Operating 

Certificate that serve scheduled operations of large air carrier aircraft (more than 

30 seats), and any other type of air carrier operation. 

Current Requirements Final Additional Requirements 

1. Personnel provisions A recordkeeping system and new 

personnel training standards 

2. Paved and unpaved surfaces 

3. Safety areas 

4. Marking, lighting and signs 

5. Snow and ice control plan 

6. ARFF New recurrency training, fire 

extinguishing agent and HAZMAT 

response standards, and increase in 

frequency of ARFF coverage (where 

ARFF is not provided for small air 

carrier operations) 

7. HAZMAT handling/ 

Storage 

Air carrier fueling operations, and new 

fuel 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 

12. Obstructions 

13. Navaids 

14. Public protection 

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 

19
Table III-2 Current and Final Requirements for Proposed Class II Airports 

Class II Airports are existing certificated airports holding a Limited Airport 

Operating Certificate that serve scheduled operations using small air carrier 

aircraft (10-30 seat), in addition to serving unscheduled large air carrier aircraft 

(more than 30 passenger seats). 

Current Requirements Final Additional Requirements 

1. Personnel provisions New requirement for recordkeeping system 

and personnel training 

2. Paved and unpaved 

surfaces 

3. Safety areas 

4. Marking, lighting and signs 

5. New requirement for snow and ice control 

plan 

6. ARFF New ARFF standards (per § 139.315-.319) 

7. HAZMAT handling/storage New HAZMAT handling/storage standard 

(per § 139.321) 

8. Traffic/wind indicators New traffic/wind indicators standard(per 

§ 139.323) 

9. New requirement for AEP (no triennial 

exercise required) 

10. Self-inspections New self-inspection standard (per § 139.327) 

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 New notification standard 

(per § 139.339) 

17. New requirement for construction/ 

unserviceable areas 

20
Table III-3 Current and Final Requirements for Class III Airports 

 Class III Airports will be newly certificated under this rule, and will serve 

scheduled operations of small air carrier aircraft (10-30 seats). These airports 

can not serve scheduled or unscheduled operations of large air carrier aircraft 

(more than 30 seats). 

Current Requirements Final Additional 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 

21
Table III-4 Current and Final Requirements for Class IV Airports 

Final Class IV Airports are existing certificated airports holding a Limited Airport 

Operating Certificate that serve unscheduled operations of large air carrier 

aircraft (more than 30 seats). These airports can not serve scheduled large, or 

scheduled small (10-30 seats) air carrier aircraft. 

Current Requirements Final Additional Requirements 

1. New requirement for a recordkeeping 

system and personnel training 

2. Paved and unpaved surfaces 

3. Safety areas 

4. Marking, lighting and signs 

5. ARFF (negotiated standard) New requirement to comply with ARFF 

per Subpart D 

6. HAZMAT handling/storage New HAZMAT handling/storage standard 

(per § 139.321) 

7. Traffic/wind indicators New traffic/wind indicators standard (per 

§ 139.323) 

8. New requirement for an AEP (triennial 

exercise not required) 

9. Self-inspections (Negotiated 

standard) 

New self-inspection standard (per 

§ 139.327) 

10. Airport condition reporting New notification standard (per § 139.339) 

22
IV. BENEFITS OF THE FINAL RULE 

A. Introduction 

The expected benefit of this final rule is improved aviation safety resulting in 

reduced fatalities, injuries, and property damage at airports with scheduled air carrier 

operations, particularly operations in aircraft designed for10 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 has now established 

standards for these airports. The agency has made these standards sufficiently flexible 

to be tailored to each airport, while providing the maximum possible safety 

improvements. 

B. General Discussion Of Expected Benefits 

This final rule affects all currently certificated airports and the estimated 37 

additional airports that may choose to obtain certificates. Accordingly, benefits are 

expected to accrue at all four final classes of certificated airports. Several different 

types of safety improvements are expected. These involve: 

1. Prevention of accidents or collisions because of non-standard and/or 

inadequate signs and traffic and wind direction indicators; 

2. Mitigation of accidents by improvements to runway safety areas at certain 

airports; 

3. Mitigation of accidents by extending ARFF services to additional air carrier 

operations; 

23
4. Prevention and mitigation of fires at airport fuel farms; 

5. Prevention and mitigation of accidents caused by snow and ice 

accumulation, and 

6. Prevention and mitigation of wildlife hazards. 

As will be discussed in the following section, while airport accidents that the rule 

is intended to prevent or mitigate do occur, they have been rare and random events. 

This was particularly true of small air carrier aircraft, in large part, because they have 

comprised a small portion of commercial air passenger activity. However, small air 

carrier airline activity is growing and is projected to continue to grow at much higher 

rates than major airlines. For example, small-air-carrier revenue passenger miles are 

projected to increase an average of 7.5 percent per year, for the next several years, 

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 passenger seats, the potential benefit 

of lives saved and property damage avoided is as much as $99 million. If it prevents an 

accident associated with the collision of two such aircraft, the benefit will double to as 

much as $198 million. Potential safety improvements are not limited to situations 

involving small air carrier aircraft, but encompass larger aircraft and facilities at the 

airports that also use smaller aircraft. 

Therefore, the FAA concludes that the expected benefits of the rule justify the 

costs as described in the succeeding sections. 

24
 C. Specific Discussion of Expected Benefits 

1. Markings, Signs and Lighting, and Traffic and Wind Indicators 

Increased safety will result from the requirement of this final rule for uniform 

standards of installations of runway and taxiway markings, signs and lighting, and for 

traffic and wind direction indicators. All classes of certificated airports will need to 

comply with these requirements. Although most airports affected by the rule currently 

meet these standards, a few (approximately 9) will need to be upgraded. The FAA 

believes this will make a significant contribution to safety, for example, by helping to 

reduce the persistent problem of runway incursions. 

2. Runway Safety Areas 

A second example of a safety benefit expected as a result of this final rule relates 

to runway safety areas. On May 8, 1999, a SAAB 340 overran a runway at New York’s 

John F. Kennedy International Airport. However, the airport had recently installed 

arresting material in order to comply with part 139 safety area requirements and the 

airplane stopped 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 new safety area was installed, resulted in an SAS DC10 running into the bay, resulting in passenger injuries and extensive airplane damage. 

This final rule will impose the safety areas requirements of part 139 on Class III 

airports for the first time. These airports have been encouraged to install safety areas 

for over 10 years, and many have done so. Although the final rule will not mandate 

immediate installation of these safety facilities at any class of airports, the FAA believes 

25
that, over time, the eventual installation or improvement of safety areas at certificated 

airports will result in safer airports. 

3. Emergency Response Services and Equipment 

Another important safety benefit of this final rule is more widespread availability 

of emergency response services and equipment. There is evidence that such 

equipment can save lives and reduce injuries. Perhaps the clearest example of that 

was an accident that occurred at Los Angeles International Airport on February 1, 1991. 

This tragedy involved the collision of a US AIR 737-300 and a Skywest Metro on runway 

24L. The crew and 10 passengers on the Metro were killed as were some of the crew 

and 20 passengers on the 737-300. However, the part 139-required emergency 

response equipment was credited in the NTSB investigation for saving lives. 

The following are other examples where the actions of emergency response 

services and equipment mitigated accident damage: 

• Lawton – Ft Sill Regional Airport (5/24/1988). An Embraer Bandeirante in air 

carrier service lost an engine on takeoff. Immediately after takeoff, the aircraft 

began losing altitude, struck the ground, and came to rest 1,600 feet from the 

runway. Passengers and rescue personnel removed the pilot and one 

passenger from the airplane, and ARFF personnel extinguished the post crash 

fire. 

• Miami International Airport (12/1/1998). A fire broke out while a Boeing 747-

200F was being refueled. Responding ARFF personnel extinguished the fire. 

• Bradley International Airport (1/21/1998). An ATR 42-300 experienced an engine 

fire during the landing rollout. Responding ARFF personnel extinguished the fire. 

26
• Nashville International Airport 7/8/1996. A Boeing 737-200 aborted takeoff after 

the left engine ingested a bird, and came to rest beyond the runway. 

Responding ARFF personnel extinguished a fire that erupted in the right brake 

assembly. 

• Miami International Airport (10/23/1995). A Boeing 747-121 experienced an 

uncontained failure of No. 4 engine during takeoff roll. The takeoff was rejected 

and the airplane was stopped on the remaining runway. Responding ARFF 

personnel extinguished a fire that subsequently erupted in the failed engine. 

• Philadelphia International Airport (8/17/1995). A SAAB SF-340-A experienced a 

fire near the left engine while waiting to take off. Responding ARFF personnel 

extinguished the fire. 

• Greater Peoria Memorial Airport (7/17/1991). An ATR-42-300 experienced a 

failure of the left engine followed by engine fire while on final approach. The pilot 

made a normal landing and conducted an evacuation on the runway. 

Responding ARFF personnel extinguished the fire. 

These examples may give the impression that ARFF personnel and equipment 

are the only emergency response provided by the certificate holder. However, this is 

not the case. Although ARFF services are the most immediate help available, they are 

but one element of required accident mitigation measures. These measures provide a 

comprehensive response to aircraft accidents, and other emergencies, and are 

dependent on one another. For example, required alarm and communication systems 

ensure that both ARFF and airport personnel are notified promptly of an accident, and 

alert other necessary emergency service providers in the local community (i.e., 

27
paramedic, police, ambulance service and hospitals.) Similarly, accident mitigation 

measures ensure other needed emergency services are provided, including security 

and crowd control, removal of disabled aircraft and other debris from movement areas, 

transportation and facilities for uninjured and injured persons, and storage of deceased 

persons. All of these measures ensure that a certificate holder provides for a 

comprehensive emergency response that mitigates the loss of passenger lives and 

property, prevents injury to responding personnel, and protects air carrier aircraft and 

the public from unsafe conditions. 

A major safety provision of the final rule is that it will require the availability of 

emergency response services and equipment, including ARFF equipment at every 

landing and takeoff of scheduled air carrier aircraft with 10 to 30 seats. This capability 

is required now for air carrier operators with more than 30 seats, and, as discussed 

earlier, there is evidence that lives have been saved and injuries prevented or reduced 

as a result. In some cases, this protection may not currently be available for small 

aircraft operations at airports served by large aircraft. For example, the accident that 

occurred at Quincy, Illinois (A proposed Class I Airport) on November 19, 1996 might 

have been mitigated had ARFF been on site at the arrival of a small air carrier aircraft. 

This accident involved the collision of a United Express Beech 1900C (a small air 

carrier aircraft) and a Beech King Air (a general aviation aircraft) during the ground 

operations of the two aircraft -- mistakenly operating simultaneously on the same 

runway. At the time of the accident, there were no large air carrier aircraft operations in 

progress or imminent, and, consequently, the airport operator was not required to 

provide emergency response services, and they were not on the site. When required, 

28
emergency response services, including ARFF, were provided by the Quincy Fire 

Department, whose personnel would come to the airport from an offsite location to staff 

emergency equipment during the operations of large air carrier aircraft. All 10 

passengers and 2 crew members aboard the United Express Beech 1900C and the two 

occupants aboard the King Air were killed as a result of post crash fires. The NTSB 

found that the speed with which the fire enveloped the King Air, and the intensity of the 

fire, precluded the survivability of the occupants. However, the occupants of the Beech 

1900C did have the opportunity to escape, but could not open external doors that might 

have been damaged. The NTSB concluded that...”if on-airport ARFF protection had 

been required for this operation at Quincy Airport, lives might have been saved.” (NTSB 

Aircraft Accident Report—Runway Collision United Express Flight 5925 and Beechcraft 

King Air A90-Quincy Municipal Airport, Illinois-November 19, 1996 –NTSB AAR-97/04, 

P.51.) 

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, based 

on current emergency response requirements, is very small; however, many incidents 

occur where the perceived risk of an accident was great enough that ARFF units were 

alerted. The FAA has tracked those incidents at currently certificated airports, and 

notes that over 1,200 such occurrences took place during an 18-month period. 

These incidents, of course, took place at airports where emergency response 

services and equipment are currently available and usually involved large aircraft. 

Nevertheless, the FAA concludes that a proportionate number of similar incidents occur 

involving small air carrier aircraft when and where ARFF is not available. Thus, the FAA 

29
concludes that the provision of ARFF at all certificated airports is necessary to ensure 

safety in air transportation. 

An important aspect of this final rule is that the amount of additional ARFF 

protection that will be required at each Class I, II, or III airport will be individually 

evaluated and determined for each airport. This evaluation will take all relevant factors 

into account, such as the number of air carrier operations, available nearby fire fighting 

services, cost to airport operators, affordability, etc. The goal is, however, to ensure 

that an appropriate level of ARFF service is available for each airport operation by small 

air carrier aircraft with 10 to 30 passenger seats. 

4. Fuel Storage Fires 

An expected benefit of the final rule is the prevention/mitigation of fuel storage 

fires. The final rule requires all classes of airports to address such 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 in a fuel farm fire about 1.8 miles from the main terminal and burned 

for 48 hours, destroying about 3 million gallons of fuel. Flight operations of a major air 

carrier were disrupted for lack of fuel and the carrier estimated total damage to have 

reached between $15 and $20 million. 

Airport firefighters and the Denver Fire Department promptly responded to the 

fire and attacked it immediately. However, because the firefighters were unable to 

maintain a continuous flow of foam on the fire, it reignited and quickly intensified. 

Airport and local firefighters did not have, nor could they have been expected to have, a 

sufficient supply of foam concentrate to fight a full fire of such magnitude. The Denver 

30
fire burned for about 48 hours before being extinguished by a coordinated attack using 

resources and materials brought in from long distances. 

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 for dealing with one. The FAA believes that a 

requirement to have effective contingency plans could have resulted in the fire being 

extinguished much sooner, resulting in considerably less damage. 

This final rule will require several improvements to the already existing 

requirement for airport emergency plans. Final Class II, III, and IV certificated airports 

will be required to develop and implement such plans, and all classes will be required to 

include provisions for responding to fuel farm fires. The costs of this final rule 

requirement are low—a few hundred dollars, annually, total for all airports. Although the 

risk of fire is always present at fuel facilities, required precautions make the probability 

of a fire very low. The probability is not zero, however, as demonstrated by the 1990 

Denver fire. The FAA concludes that this low-cost provision of the final rule has a high 

probability of significantly mitigating damage if a fire comparable to Denver’s occurs in 

the future. 

5. Snow and Ice Control 

Another safety benefit is expected from improved snow and ice control, which will 

reduce the potential for the following kind of accidents. On March 17, 1993, a BAC-BAJetstream 3101 was making a night instrument approach to the Raleigh County 

Memorial Airport in Beckley, West Virginia, a proposed Class II airport. Because the 

31
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 final rule will require Class II and III airports to develop snow and ice control 

plans. Although some of these airports already have individually-developed procedures 

for snow and ice removal, this final rule will 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 will significantly help prevent the kind of 

accident discussed above. 

6. Wildlife Hazard Management 

Finally, benefits are expected at all classes of certificated airports as a result of 

final actions to reduce wildlife hazards (bird strikes and other damaging collisions with 

wildlife). A FAA study of civil aircraft wildlife strikes in the US (“Wildlife Strikes to Civil 

Aircraft in the United States, 1990 – 1999”) found a significant and growing hazard of 

wildlife contact with aircraft in the vicinity of airports. The study determined that 92 

percent of all wildlife strikes occur while arriving or departing from an airport. Birds were 

involved in 97 percent of the reported strikes, mammals (primarily deer and coyotes) in 

3 percent and reptiles, such as turtles, in less than 1 percent. The number of annual 

reported strikes increased 181 percent from 1990 to in 1999, and, according to the FAA 

report, is now causing about $391 million per year in direct costs. 

The report further found that there were 4,528 wildlife-aircraft strikes reported 

during the period 1991-1997 that had an adverse effect on the aircraft and/or flight. The 

report estimated that the report rate was about 20 percent of what actually occurred. 

32
Based on its findings, the report concludes that airport managers need to be aware of 

the wildlife hazards on their airports and take appropriate actions, under the guidance of 

professional biologists trained in wildlife damage management, to minimize the 

problems. 

The expected benefit of this section of this final rule is that wildlife strikes will be 

reduced in air carrier operations. Some operators of proposed Class II and III airports 

will be required to conduct wildlife hazard assessments, as well as formulate and 

implement wildlife hazard management plans for their airports. This final requirement 

will be responsive to the findings of the FAA study and will bring consistency across all 

airports with scheduled air carrier operations with aircraft having 10 or more passenger 

seats. It is intended to make airport certificate holders more aware of effective 

measures that can be taken to reduce the risk of wildlife strikes. Ultimately, it is 

expected to actually reduce the number of strikes that will otherwise occur. 

The FAA is unable to quantify the annual benefit that may result from this 

component of the final rule. The FAA report does estimate that wildlife strikes, at the 

present time, result in 471,867 hours per year of aircraft down time, $255 million per 

year in direct monetary losses, and $136 million per year in associated costs. The FAA 

believes that this final rule will significantly reduce these losses. 

Two examples of problems related to wildlife were an Embraer 120RT, that hit 

two deer while landing at Yeager Airport (CRW) (a proposed Class I Airport) at 

Charleston, WV and the crash of a Learjet owned by Jerry Jones that hit two deer on a 

runway at Troy, AL (a general aviation airport). 

33
According to the NTSB Aviation/Incident Database Report (NYC01LA054, 

12/06/2000): 

On December 6, 2000, at 2038 Eastern Standard Time, an 

Embraer 120RT, N504AS, operating as Atlantic Southeast Airways flight 

71, was substantially damaged when it collided with deer, just after 

landing at Yeager Airport (CRW), Charleston, West Virginia. The 3-

person crew and 15 passengers were uninjured, and 1 passenger 

received serious injuries. The accident occurred at night, while visual 

meteorological conditions prevailed. An instrument flight rules flight plan 

was filed for the flight, between The William B. Hartsfield Atlanta 

International Airport (ATL), Atlanta, Georgia, and Yeager Airport. The 

scheduled passenger flight was conducted under 14 CFR Part 121. 

According to the captain, within seconds of landing on Runway 23, the 

airplane struck two deer. The flight attendant then contacted the cockpit 

crew, and informed them that there was an injured passenger. After 

parking at the gate, a walk-around inspection revealed that the tip of a 

propeller blade from the number 2 engine had separated, and had 

punctured the airplane's fuselage. According to a Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA) inspector, one of the deer was hit by the nose 

landing gear, and the other deer was hit by the right engine propeller. The 

separated blade tip was about 4 inches long and 3 inches wide. It had 

entered the cabin just aft of frame 21, between stringers 14R and 15R. 

The passenger was sitting in seat 3C. 

34
According to the Avweb News Wire of 18-January-2001 and NTSB ATL01FA021: 

Two pilots employed by Dallas Cowboys owner Jerry Jones were 

seriously hurt Sunday (January 14, 2001) when their Learjet crashed after 

hitting two deer on a runway in Troy, AL. The jet’s thrust reversers 

apparently were damaged by the impact with the deer, and it overran the 

5,000-foot runway, flipped, and burst into flames on an embankment. The 

pilots, who were alone on board, were pulled out of the burning wreckage 

by witnesses who rushed to their aid. The two pilots, Max McVicker, 31 of 

Irving, Texas, and Eddie Collins, 51, of Jacksonville, AR, remain 

hospitalized. 

These two accidents illustrate the fact that a serious wildlife accident can 

occur in any type of airplane at any type of airport. Therefore, it is important to 

prevent this type of accident. 

35
CHAPTER V – COST ESTIMATES FOR THE FINAL RULE 

A. Introduction 

The cost estimates for the final rule are based on those presented in the initial 

regulatory evaluation (IRE) for the NPRM adjusted for the changes resulting from an 

updated count of airports and from comments received on the NPRM. The 

documentation of the earlier cost estimates, data sources, and methodology per section 

of the NPRM are fully discussed in the IRE. This section presents the changes in the 

IRE cost estimates, the reason for those changes, and the resulting total cost estimate 

for the final rule. 

While changes were made throughout part 139, most costs are the result of 

changes to ARFF requirements. These changes require all certificated airports to 

provide ARFF coverage. In addition, the final rule clarifies the procedures that airports 

must follow to apply for an ARFF exemption beyond the tailoring through the ACM and, 

if granted, what the exemption would probably require. The cost-estimation approach 

taken herein assumes that all airports fully comply with the rule requirement and does 

not assume that exemptions are granted. The FAA also extended the time period 

required to submit a new or revised ACM. A time extension does not change the cost of 

the requirement and since the extension does not extend beyond a year, the time 

extension does not effect the present value cost of future compliance. Thus while both 

these changes, in addition to the tailoring of requirements through the ACM, are likely to 

reduce the compliance burden, the FAA takes the conservative position that neither 

change reduces the expected cost of the rule. 

36
The IRE cost estimates updated for the final rule reflect the different count of 

effected airports. For every airport class the estimated number of airports in that class 

changed from that specified in the IRE. The criterion that Class III airports provide 

scheduled passenger service only for aircraft with 10 to 30 seats and the fluid nature of 

this service to communities resulted in airports added to and deleted from this Class. 

The IRE estimated the average cost of compliance per requirement for each of 

the proposed four airport classes. The reason the FAA used an average cost per rule 

provision by airport class is that each of the approximately 700 affected airports is 

unique in geography, facilities, and service provided. Based on the few comments 

received regarding the IRE, the average cost methodology apparently provided 

reasonable estimates for nearly all airports with the notable exception of the proposed 

Class III airports. 

In contrast to the average cost estimates for the NPRM, most of the regulatoryevaluation comments received were airport specific. The FAA followed two approaches 

to modifying the estimated cost for the final rule whenever the FAA agreed with a 

commenter’s cost estimate. Given the limited number of comments received from 

Class I and II airports, especially considering the total number of Class I and II airports, 

the FAA largely accepted and adjusted the estimated costs only for the individual airport 

referenced in these comments. After reviewing the comments received regarding 

Class III airports, the FAA generally accepted and revised the estimated compliance 

cost for all of these airports. Some comments were received from airports that might 

want to qualify as a Class III airport. The FAA did not incorporate these commenters’ 

37
estimates because the airports currently do not have the necessary scheduled service 

and the estimates were generally substantially higher than the other estimates received. 

While the cost estimate changes were relatively minor for Class I, II, and IV 

airports, the cost estimates changed significantly for Class III airports. Nearly all of the 

change to Class III airports can be attributed to the FAA assumption regarding existing 

airport personnel availability to implement the rule requirements. For Class III airports, 

the FAA response to comments and a minor adjustment in the count of airports resulted 

in an increase of the initial/capital mitigation costs for all Class III airports from 

$1,236,928 to $2,098,360 and a significant increase in annual recurring mitigation costs 

for all Class III airports of $971,842 to $4,153,005. This significant change, plus the 

other cost adjustments result in an increase in the ten-year present-value total cost of 

the final rule from $45,351,102 to $74,467,688. 

The remainder of this chapter discusses the changes to the NPRM cost 

estimates by risk-reduction and mitigation cost categories for Class I, II, and IV airports 

and by Class III airports. Tables V-I and V-II completely account for all of the changes 

in costs for Class I, II, and IV airports and provide final cost estimates for each of these 

airport classes. Both tables have two column entries identifying initial and recurring 

costs for Class I, II, and IV airports. In addition the rows identify significant elements of 

the NPRM, cost adjustments, and final rule total costs. For Class III airports, the FAA 

not only changed the cost estimates, but also attempted to provide airport specific cost 

estimates based on limited available data. The FAA believes these cost estimates 

provide a reasonable overall cost picture for these airports. Class III airport specific 

cost estimates are required to provide a transparent set of accounts which could then 

38
be an input into a separate analysis of the potential impact of this rule on air service to 

Class III airports. 

B. Risk Reduction Costs by Class I, II, and IV Airports 

1. Derivation of Class I Airports Risk Reduction Costs – Final Rule 

Introduction 

The FAA identified 432 Class I airports in the IRE. These airports ranged in size 

from the very largest airports, such as Hartsfield International in Atlanta, Georgia; 

O’Hare International in Chicago, Illinois; and Los Angeles International in Los Angeles, 

California, to much smaller airports such as, Cortez Municipal in Cortez, Colorado; 

Hulman Regional in Terre Haute, Indiana; and Pierre Regional in Pierre, South Dakota. 

FAA used an average cost per requirement per airport to develop the estimated 

compliance cost of the proposed rule for class I airports. Of the four classes of airports, 

the FAA expected that Class I airports would have the widest variation around the 

average cost estimate. Variation in expected average compliance cost is natural given 

the large number of Class I airports, the many different sizes and facilities of these 

airports, the different geographic locations, and air carrier service provided. 

From the estimated 432Class I airports, FAA received just five comments 

regarding the economic evaluation and only three of these comments provided 

alternative estimates. Given the limited number of comments, the FAA takes the 

position that the estimated compliance costs for Class I airports are reasonably 

accurate. However, FAA also accepts reasonable airport compliance estimates and 

replaced the IRE average cost estimate with the commenter’s estimate where 

appropriate. 

39
The derivation of risk reduction costs for Class I airports is fully accounted for in 

Table V-1. While the estimated average cost per airport is considered generically 

accurate for Class I airports, two adjustments were made to the cost estimates 

published in the IRE. First, the IRE total cost estimate is adjusted for the change in the 

number of Class I airports. Second, the cost estimate is then adjusted to reflect 

quantified estimates from comments received. Finally Table V - 1 provides the 

resulting risk reduction cost estimates of the final rule for Class I Airports. These 

adjustments are explained in the following discussion. 

NPRM 

The left-hand column on Table V-1 details the items that were used to adjust the 

IRE costs to obtain the cost estimates for the final rule. In Table V–1, the first row under 

NPRM, the number of Class I airports (432) from the IRE is reproduced. The second 

row identifies the total risk-reduction initial cost estimate of $225,677 and the total 

recurring cost estimate of $996,192 for Class I airports reported in the IRE for the 

proposed rule. Dividing the total costs by the number of Class I airports results in an 

average per airport cost of $522 for initial costs and $2,306 for annual recurring costs. 

Adjustments: 

1. For the Number of Airports 

As the number of Class I airports increased from 432 airports in the IRD to 436 

airports in the final rule, the estimated initial and recurring costs are increased 

accordingly. Multiplying the final count of airports (436) by the average costs per airport 

of $522 (initial cost) and $2,306 (recurring cost) resulted in this interim adjustment. The 

40
change in the number of Class I airports resulted in a cost adjusted for the additional 

Class I Airports of $227,767 for initial Costs and $1,005,416 for recurring costs. 

2. For Comments 

The NPRM cost adjusted for additional airports was then further refined to 

account for comments received. Only one Class I airport provided a comment with an 

alternative risk reduction cost estimate and this estimate was airport specific. For this 

airport, the estimate contained in the comments was substituted in place of the average 

cost estimate. 

Final Rule Total Cost 

The adjustments for the change in the number of Class I airports and for the 

incorporation of the commenter’s estimates result in an estimated final rule total cost for 

risk reduction costs for Class I Airports of $232,244 for initial costs and $1,008,110 for 

recurring costs. 

2. Derivation of Class II Airports Risk Reduction Costs – Final Rule 

Introduction 

The FAA identified 121 Class II airports in the IRE. While the differences in 

Class II airports are not as broad as those for Class I Airports, there still remains a wide 

size range of the Class II airports. The FAA received two economic comments from the 

121 Class II airports. Just as in the case of Class I airports, given the limited number of 

comments, the FAA takes the position that the estimated compliance costs for Class II 

airports are relatively accurate. However, the FAA also accepts reasonable airport 

compliance estimates and replaced the IRE average cost estimate with the 

41
commenter’s estimate where appropriate. The same process to adjust the IRE 

estimates used above for Class I airports is repeated and discussed below. 

The derivation of risk reduction costs for Class II airports is fully accounted for in 

Table V-1. While the average cost per airport is considered generically accurate for 

these airports, two adjustments were made to the cost estimates published in the initial 

economic evaluation. First, the total cost estimate is adjusted for the change in the 

number of Class II airports. Second, the cost estimate is adjusted to reflect quantified 

estimates from comments received. Finally Table V - 1 provides the resulting risk 

reduction costs estimates of the final rule for Class II airports. These adjustments are 

explained as follows. 

NPRM 

The left-hand column on Table V-1 details the items that were used to adjust the 

IRE costs of the NPRM to obtain the cost estimates for the final rule. In the first row 

under the column entitled NPRM, the IRE number of Class II airports (121) is 

reproduced. The second row identifies total risk-reduction initial cost estimate of 

$331,377 and total recurring cost estimate of $184,053 for Class II airports as reported 

in the IRE for the proposed rule. Dividing these total costs by the number of Class II 

airports results in an average per airport cost of $2,739 for initial costs and $1,521 for 

annual recurring costs. 

Adjustments: 

1. For the Number of Airports 

As the estimated number of Class II airports decreased from 121 to 113 airports, 

the estimated initial and recurring costs are decreased accordingly. This interim 

42
adjustment was done by multiplying the final count of Class II airports (113) by the 

average costs per airport of $2,739 (initial cost) and $1,521 (recurring cost). The 

reduction in the number of Class II airports reduced the cost adjusted for additional 

Class II airports to $309,468 for initial costs and $171,884 for recurring costs. 

2. For Comments 

The NPRM cost adjusted for additional airports was then further refined to 

account for comments received. Only one Class II airport provided a comment with an 

alternative risk reduction cost estimate and this estimate was airport specific. For this 

airport, the estimated contained in the comments was substituted for the average cost 

estimate. 

Final Rule Total Cost 

The adjustments for the change in the number of Class II airports and for the 

incorporation of the commenter’s estimates result in an estimated risk reduction cost for 

Class II Airports of $325,729 for initial costs and $198,920 for recurring costs. 

3. Derivation of Class IV Airports Risk Reduction Costs – Final Rule 

Only one comment was received from a Class IV airport which supported the 

proposal. As in the case of Class I and II airports, FAA takes the position that the 

estimated compliance costs for Class IV Airports are relatively accurate. FAA did adjust 

the estimated risk reduction costs for Class IV airports because the number of these 

airports increased from 15 to 18. Both the initial capital cost and the recurring cost 

increased by the addition of three airports multiplied by the associated average cost. 

43
The estimated final rule cost for Class IV airports risk reduction for initial capital 

cost increased from $13,422 to $16,106 and for recurring costs from $5,595 to $6,714 

(see Table V-1). 

C. Mitigation Costs Class I, II, and IV Airports 

The methodology to estimate the mitigation costs of the rule for Class I, II, and IV 

airports follows that discussed above for Risk Assessment Costs. As noted above, 

given the limited number of comments regarding the IRE estimates, the FAA takes the 

position that the IRE mitigation cost estimates are reasonably accurate. The mitigation 

cost estimate for the final rule begins with the IRE estimated mitigation costs. The FAA 

made two general adjustments to the IRE costs. First, the IRE mitigation cost estimates 

for each class of airports is adjusted to account for a different number of airports in each 

class. Secondly, the FAA incorporates commenters’ airport specific mitigation cost 

estimates. While the FAA accepts and incorporates the five Class I and II Airport 

mitigation cost estimates, the FAA believes that the IRE average cost is reasonably 

accurate and thus, changes the mitigation cost to fully reflect the Class I and II 

comments only for these five airports. As a result of the adjustments to the IRE 

mitigation cost estimates, the mitigation costs for the final rule are increased by slightly 

less than 15 percent above that of the IRE. 

Table V - 2 fully accounts for the derivation of the final rule mitigation costs. The 

table format is identical with Table V -1. 

44
1. Mitigation Costs - Class I Airports 

Introduction 

In the IRE, FAA used an average cost per requirement per airport to develop 

mitigation costs estimates for the proposed Class I airports. Of the four airport classes 

FAA expected that Class I airports mitigation cost would have the widest deviation 

around the average cost estimate. With only three comments providing alternative 

estimates from the estimated 432 airports, FAA takes the position that the IRE 

estimates are reasonably accurate. Despite reasonably accurate IRE estimates, FAA 

cost-adjustment approach taken herein increases the Class I mitigation costs by nearly 

25 percent. Thus FAA believes that the resulting Class I mitigation costs may overstate 

the actual compliance cost. 

The derivation of mitigation costs for Class I airports is fully accounted for in 

Table V-2. While the average cost per airport is considered reasonably accurate for 

Class I Airports, two adjustments were made to the IRE mitigation cost estimates. First, 

the IRE cost estimate is adjusted for the change in the number of Class I airports. 

Second the cost estimate is then adjusted to reflect the quantified alternative estimates 

based on the comments received. Lastly Table V-2 provides the resulting mitigation 

cost estimate for the final rule. 

NPRM 

The left-hand column on Table V-2 details the items that were used to adjust the 

IRE costs of the NPRM to obtain the mitigation cost estimates for the final rule. In the 

first row under NPRM, the IRE number of Class I airports (432) is reproduced. The 

second row identifies Class I Airports initial mitigation cost estimate of $290,040 and 

45
total recurring cost estimate of $2,172,500 as reported in the IRE. Dividing these total 

costs by the number of Class I airports results in an average per airport cost of $671 for 

initial costs and $5,029 for recurring costs. 

Adjustments: 

1. For the Number of Airports 

The estimated number of Class I airports increased from 432 to 436 airports; the 

estimated initial and recurring costs are increased accordingly. Multiplying the final 

count of 436 Class I airports by the average costs per airport of $671 (initial cost) and 

$5,029 (recurring cost) performed this interim adjustment. This adjustment increased 

the NPRM cost adjusted for additional Class I airports to $292,726 for initial costs and 

$2,192,616 for recurring costs. 

2. For Comments 

The NPRM cost adjusted for additional airports was then further refined to 

account for comments received. Only three Class I airports provided a comment with 

an alternative risk reduction cost estimate and these estimates were airport specific. A 

two step procedure removes the average cost estimate for these airports and then adds 

the specific costs identified in the comments to the total. The average cost for three 

Class I airports were first subtracted from the NPRM cost adjusted for additional Class I 

airports discussed above. Finally, the total alternative estimates for the three airports of 

$70,000 for the initial costs and $511,316 for recurring costs of the final Rule is added. 

Final Rule Total Cost 

The adjustments for the change in the number of Class I airports and for the 

incorporation of the commenters’ alternative estimates result in an estimated final rule 

46
total cost for mitigation costs for Class I airports of $360,711 for initial costs and 

$2,688,847 for recurring costs. 

2. Mitigation Costs - Class II Airports 

Introduction 

The FAA identified 121 Class II airports in the IRE. While the differences in 

Class II airports are not as broad as those for Class I Airports, there still remains a wide 

size range of the Class II Airports. The FAA received two economic comments from the 

121 Class II Airports. Just as in the case of Class I Airports, given the limited number of 

comments, the FAA takes the position that the estimated compliance costs for Class II 

Airports are relatively accurate. However, the FAA also accepts reasonable airport 

compliance estimates and replaced the IRE average cost estimate with the 

commenters’ estimate where appropriate. The same process to adjust the IRE 

estimates used above for Class I airports is repeated and discussed below. 

The derivation of risk reduction costs for Class II airports is fully accounted for in 

Table V-2. While the average cost per airport is considered reasonably accurate for 

these airports, two adjustments were made to the cost estimates published in the initial 

economic evaluation. First, the total cost estimate is adjusted for the change in the 

number of Class II airports. Second, the cost estimate is adjusted to reflect quantified 

estimates from comments received. Finally Table V-2 provides the resulting risk 

reduction costs estimates of the final rule for Class II airports. These adjustments are 

explained as follows. 

47
NPRM 

The left-hand column on Table V-2 details the items that were used to adjust the 

IRE costs of the NPRM to obtain the mitigation cost estimates for the final rule. In the 

first row under NPRM, the IRE number of Class II airports (121 airports) are 

reproduced. The second row identifies IRE mitigation initial cost estimate of $707,520 

and recurring cost estimate of $1,448,512 for Class II airports. Dividing these costs by 

the number of Class II airports results in an average per airport cost of $5,847 for initial 

costs and $11,971 for recurring costs. 

Adjustments: 

1. For the Number of Airports 

As the estimated number of Class II airports decreased from 121 airports to 113 

airports, the estimated initial and recurring costs are decreased accordingly. This 

interim adjustment multiplies the final count of Class II of (113 airports) airports by the 

average costs per airport of $5,847 (initial cost) and $11,971 (recurring cost). The 

reduction in the number of Class II airports reduced the NPRM Cost Adjusted for the 

number of airports to $660,742 for initial mitigation costs and $1,352,743 for recurring 

mitigation costs. 

2. For Comments 

No Class II airports provided comments on the IRE initial mitigation costs. 

Therefore, the initial costs as adjusted for the number of airports of $660,742 is the 

estimated Class II mitigation cost for the rule. 

Two Class II airports provided comments on recurring mitigation costs. A two 

step procedure removes the average cost estimate for these airports and then adds the 

48
specific comments to the total. The average cost for two Class II airports were first 

subtracted from the NPRM cost adjusted for the reduced number of Class II airports as 

discussed above. Finally, the total of the two alternative estimates of $224,760 for 

recurring costs of the final rule is added. 

Final Rule Total Cost 

The adjustments for the change in the number of Class II airports and for the 

incorporation of the commenters’ alternative estimates result in an estimated final rule 

total cost for mitigation costs for Class II airports of $660,742 for initial costs and 

$1,553,560 for recurring costs. 

1.3 Mitigation Costs - Class IV Airports 

Only one comment was received from a Class IV airport and this airport operator 

supported the proposal. As in the case of Class I and II Airports, the FAA takes the 

position that the estimated compliance costs for Class IV Airports are relatively 

accurate. The FAA did adjust the estimated mitigation costs for Class IV airports 

because the number of these airports increased from 15 to 18. Both the initial capital 

cost and the recurring cost increased by the addition of three airports multiplied by the 

associated average cost. 

The estimated final rule cost for Class IV airports initial mitigation cost increased 

from $13,440 to $16,128 and for annual recurring costs from $8,064 to $9,677 (see 

Table V - 2). 

49
D. Class III Airports Costs

 Introduction 

For the final rule the compliance costs for Class III airports are presented on a 

per airport basis. The estimated compliance cost of this rule for Class III airports are 

the basis for a separate FAA study to be submitted separately as a Report to Congress 

as required by 49 USC 44706(c) on the expected economic impact of the rule on air 

service to Class III airports. The FAA did not have sufficient data to accurately estimate 

costs at each Class III airport, but combined average airport costs and commenters’ 

cost estimates to provide a modified generic cost for each Class III airport. Thus, every 

requirement of the rule is expected to result in additional costs for Class III airports. 

These costs are conservative (i.e. on the high side) because they do not take into 

account alternative means of compliance which are designed to accommodate local 

conditions. Nor do these costs include assistance that may be provided to the airport by 

airport grant programs such as the Airport Improvement Program (AIP) or air carrier 

subsidy programs such as the Essential Air Service Program (EAS). 

The methodology to develop the expected additional cost resulting from the 

requirements of this rule is explained in the IRE. The FAA requested comments, but 

received comments from only nine Class III airports. Without comments to the contrary, 

the FAA believes the estimates provided in the IRE are reasonably accurate. Except for 

the cases where the FAA has prior knowledge, or an airport provided an alternative 

estimate, these are generic cost estimates, not onsite estimates. 

50
 Comments Received 

Despite the relatively small number of proposed Class III airports, the FAA 

received the most comments regarding the IRE analysis regarding these airports. Of 

the estimated NPRM total of 38 Class III airports, nine Class III airports commented on 

economic aspects of the NPRM. Of these responses, five provided numerical estimates 

accepted by FAA. In addition, the States of Maine, Michigan, Montana, and Vermont 

commented in support of airports in their states. Vermont commented on a proposed 

Class II airport, however, this airport may eventually become a Class III airport. 

The most common theme of these comments was that the airports and or the air 

carriers utilizing the airport could not afford the costs of the proposed ARFF 

requirements. A related common theme was that the airports personnel were all fully 

employed with their existing duties and could not assume additional ARFF duties. 

Therefore, even though the rule allows cross utilization of employees, these comments 

indicate that it would not be possible for the airport to spare an existing employee for 

additional ARFF duties. Since FAA had assumed that one airport person could assist in 

providing ARFF duties, the IRE estimated ARFF mitigation costs were substantially 

below the expected compliance costs as provided by these commenters. 

Tables V - 3, V - 4, and V- 5 account for the estimated Class III airports 

incremental risk reduction and mitigation costs as a result of full compliance with the 

rule. Each column identifies the section of the rule that will result in additional cost for 

Class III airports. The row entries identify individual Class III airports. Thus reading 

across each airport row, each expected incremental cost per part 139 requirements 

specified for that airport. The total expected cost per airport for each part 139 

51
requirement identified in each table is listed in the far right column. Lastly, the totals per 

part 139 requirement are listed in the bottom row of each table. A more detailed 

discussion of Class III airport expected compliance cost is discussed below. 

Risk Reduction Costs 

Table V-3 shows the estimated one-time/capital risk reduction costs and Table V4 shows the recurring risk reduction cost estimates. For both tables, the column entries 

are broadly divided by Certification, Airport Certification Manual, and Operations 

Subparts. For each of these subparts, the section of part 139 which may require 

additional compliance cost is specified. Thus, the structure of these tables permits easy 

reference for the estimated airport cost of each section of the final rule. 

Generally, the cost estimates for the final rule are the IRE average cost estimate 

adjusted to be Class III airport specific. When available, FAA substituted the estimated 

costs for an individual airport as provided in the comments provided by that airport. FAA 

expects that some of the cost estimates provided will exceed the actual compliance 

cost. For instance, FAA accepted the Bar Harbor Airport (BHB) snow and ice control 

operational expense of $5,000, even though FAA estimated this expense to be no more 

than $180 per airport (Table V - 4). FAA estimate is for the preparation of a snow plan, 

which generally will start as a documentation of what the airport is currently doing in 

terms of snow removal. The results of the snow plan may require expense, possibly 

considerable expense, however, it is not possible to determine this amount until the 

snow plan is prepared. BHB’s estimate assumed that the snow plan was completed 

and provided an estimate for supplies and equipment that would be needed for actually 

52
providing snow and ice control. Thus, FAA incorporated some high, but not 

unreasonable, alternative estimates so as not to under-estimate the cost of the rule. 

The one significant change from the IRE risk-reduction cost estimates was for the 

increase in preparation cost of the Airport Certification Manual (ACM). While FAA has 

an advisory circular explaining how to prepare the manual and is willing to work with 

airports in the manual preparation, several commenters indicated that they would have 

a consultant prepare the manual. FAA used the consulting estimate provided in the 

comments for the referenced individual airports. For each of the remaining Class III 

airports, the FAA used a median of the commenters’ estimates of $12,500 for a 

consultant to assist in the preparation of the ACM, even though FAA believes this 

estimated cost will far exceed actual. 

The total cost of the one-time/capital costs of the Class III airport risk reduction 

items is estimated to be $1,514,108, an increase of $811,560 over the IRE estimate. 

This increase reflects cost estimates provided by Class III airport commenters. The 

total annual recurring costs of the Class III airport risk reduction items is estimated to be 

$240,147, a decrease of $3,395 over the NPRM estimate. This decrease is due to a 

reduction of the number of Class III airports from 38 to 37 airports. 

Mitigation Costs 

Most of the increased estimated compliance cost of the final rule is the result of 

an increase in mitigation costs for Class III airports. (See Table V-5). While there are 

modest adjustments to the estimated initial capital cost requirements and to ARFF 

maintenance and supply costs, the single largest adjustment to the IRE estimated cost 

is the increase in ARFF personnel expense. 

53
At Class III airports, the final rule will require ARFF personnel and equipment 

appropriate for the type of aircraft served for scheduled air carrier operations conducted 

in 10 to 30 passenger seat aircraft. Class III airports are expected to be able to afford 

the capital purchase costs of the necessary truck and equipment, especially in light of 

the availability of state and federal grants to assist with these capital expenses. The 

larger expense is that of providing the necessary staffing and training to comply with 

ARFF requirements. Most Commenters disagreed with the assumption in the IRE 

regarding Class III airport ARFF personnel. FAA had assumed that existing airport 

personnel could provide the equivalent of one ARFF staff person. Commenters 

responded that all staff is fully employed with their existing duties. The FAA accepts 

those comments and increased the number of additional ARFF personnel required by 

the rule from one to two for the purposes of estimating costs. 

One additional ARFF staff person, per Class III airport, will increase annual 

compliance costs by nearly a million dollars. There were several exceptions to the 

general condition of two ARFF staff persons per Class III Airport. Three Class III 

Airports (IMP, CGX and VEL) have been identified as having sufficient ARFF resources 

to meet the final rule requirements. FAA recognizes that these commenters estimates 

are likely to be high and expects that actual circumstances, including the tailoring of the 

ACM, to result in actual costs that are lower than are estimated in this document. 

Five Class III airports provided estimates of ARFF personnel costs. These 

airports were Show Low Airport (SOW), Augusta State Airport (AUG), Bar Harbor 

Airport (BHB), Alamagordo Airport (ALM), and Silver City Airport (SVC). 

54
SOW estimated that to provide two ARFF shifts per day with one person per 

crew, including training, would cost $207,500 per year. The FAA accepted this estimate 

because it was based on a one-person crew. 

AUG provided estimates that were designed to provide 18 hours per day ARFF 

coverage and cover staff vacation time, sick time, etc. The airport estimated that this 

would require four, two person crews. The concept of two person firefighting crews is 

entirely reasonable and may be required by some State and local laws. However, the 

final rule does not specify the number of ARFF personnel required, only the type of 

equipment and vessels to be used. Therefore, the AUG estimate for ARFF personnel 

was adjusted by dividing the Airport’s estimate of crewmembers salaries and benefits in 

half. FAA believes that this approximates the costs of four one-person crews. 

BHB estimated that it would need to provide ARFF/EMS (Note: this is from their 

comment) services from 0500 to 2200 hours daily with provisions for late arrivals. (FAA 

note: This is, essentially, a 24-hour operation.) The airport estimated that this would 

require 4 Full-Time and 1 Part-Time ARFF/EMT persons and one Captain. The airport 

estimated that the annual costs, including training for these personnel, would be 

$239,450. In this case, because the airport appeared to be using one-person crews, 

the Airport’s cost estimate was accepted without adjustment. FAA accepts estimates, 

based on the assumption that all Class III airports will only need one ARFF person per 

shift. 

ALM provided a total cost estimate for recurring annual expenses of $250,000. 

The estimate was not broken down and no information was provided about the hours of 

55
coverage to be provided, etc. The FAA accepted this estimate because it is in line with 

the estimates provided by the other similar airports that provided comments. 

SVC estimated that it would cost $113,400 per year for ARFF personnel and 

training. This included the hiring of three people to provide ARFF coverage for seven 

days per week. Based on the assumption that all Class III airports will only need one 

ARFF person per shift, FAA accepted this estimate without adjustment because it 

seemed reasonable compared to FAA’s basic estimate of two people per airport. 

Even though FAA expects that grants will significantly reduce the initial and 

capital mitigation expenses, FAA accepts the, in some cases, substantially higher 

alternative estimates provided by specific Class III airports. For most of the Class III 

airports, the IRE average mitigation cost estimates are the expected compliance cost for 

each airport. 

The estimated total initial/capital cost for Class III Airports Mitigation Costs is 

$2,098,360 (see Table V-5). The estimated annual recurring mitigating expenses are 

estimated to be $4,135,005 (see Table V-5). 

E. Estimated Total Present Value Cost of the NPRM and Final Rules 

The FAA estimates that the ten-year, present value of the total compliance cost 

of this final rule is $74,467,688. The changes to the IRE cost estimate changes were 

relatively minor for initial/capital costs for both the risk reduction and mitigation cost 

requirements of the rule. Nearly all of the increase in the estimated compliance costs 

can be attributed to the expense of needed ARFF personnel for Class III airports. The 

FAA had assumed that the existing Class III airport personnel would provide the 

equivalent of one ARFF staff person. After reviewing the comments, the FAA re56
estimated Class III compliance cost under the assumption that all existing personnel are 

fully occupied with existing duties. 

Table V–6, Estimated Total Incremental Costs of the NPRM and Final Rules, 

documents, by airport class, the NPRM and final rule compliance costs by the two 

subcategories, Risk Reduction and Mitigation Costs. Just as in the IRE FAA recognizes 

that the average cost estimates methodology only approximates the compliance cost of 

the rule. FAA provided a 25 percent upper and lower bound for the IRE cost estimates. 

Even with the significant cost increase for the final rule cost estimate, applying the same 

range estimate to the final rule costs results in a lower bound estimate below the high 

estimate of the IRE. 

With the exception of Class III airports, the ten-year present value cost of the rule 

by airport class is proportionate with the number of airports in each class. The 

approximate present value cost for Class I airports is $26,560,000, for Class II airports 

the cost is $13,290,000 and for Class IV airports the cost is $150,000. For Class III 

airports, the approximate present value cost is $34,470,000. The reason the estimated 

costs are much higher for Class III airports is that with this rule, for the first time, these 

airports are subject to all of part 139 regulations. (See Table V-7 for the Present Value 

Cost by Airport Class by One-Time and Recurring Costs). 

57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
VI. BENEFIT-COST COMPARISON 

Some of the requirements of this final rule that will impose costs, such as 

improved snow and ice control, marking, signing and lighting, and wildlife hazard 

management are intended to prevent accidents. Others, such as emergency 

planning and improved emergency response capability are intended to mitigate 

accidents should they occur. In both cases, the final rule is expected to save 

lives and reduce injuries and property damage. Without this rule FAA believes 

that some of the accidents and many near accidents that have occurred in the 

past are likely to be repeated in the future. 

FAA estimates that the present value of the 10-year cost of this final rule is 

about $74.5 million. This estimate is likely to be high because it is based on 

assumed average costs across all airports in each airport class. In the 

application of this rule, each airport (particularly Class III airports) may already be 

in compliance with this rule, or may receive relief from certain aspects of the rule 

through alternate means of compliance or the exemption process. 

Although FAA did not quantify the benefits of this final rule, for the reasons 

discussed earlier, some useful observations can be made. First, a single 

accident could easily equal, or exceed the estimated total cost of this final rule. A 

single accident involving two 30-seat airplanes with an industry standard load 

factor could result in a loss of as much as $108 million (using $3.0 million to 

represent a fatality avoided). With modern yield management techniques, a fully 

loaded airplane is not uncommon. An accident with a single, fully loaded 30-

passenger airplane, and a crew of three could result in a loss of as much as $99 

65
million. For example, the accident at the Quincy, Illinois Airport is estimated to 

have had a cost of as much as $44 million. In addition, the final rule should 

reduce the risk of, as well as mitigate, fuel storage fires, wildlife strikes, runway 

incursions, and snow /ice related accidents. 

Thus, FAA believes that numerous safety benefits will occur from the 

multiple provisions in the final rule. One of these benefits is the reduction of the 

risk of and the mitigation of another accident, such as the one at Quincy, Illinois, 

where potential survivors might have been helped. The FAA believes it is 

necessary to take action that could reduce the potential for such an accident or 

mitigate a reoccurrence of such an accident. Consequently, and in view of the 

moderate costs and potential benefits, the FAA concludes that this final rule is 

cost justified. 

66
VII FINAL REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY ANALYSIS (FRFA) 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA) establishes “as a principle of 

regulatory issuance that agencies shall endeavor, consistent with the objective of the 

rule and of applicable statutes, to fit regulatory and informational requirements to the 

scale of the business, organizations, and governmental jurisdictions subject to 

regulation.” To achieve that principle, the RFA requires agencies to solicit and consider 

flexible regulatory proposals, and to consider the rationale for their actions. The RFA 

covers a wide range of small entities, including small businesses, not-for-profit 

organizations and small governmental jurisdictions. 

Agencies must perform a review to determine whether a proposed or final rule 

will have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities 

(SEIOSNSE). If the determination is that it will have such an impact, the agency must 

prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis as described in the RFA. However, if an agency 

determines that a proposed, or final, rule is not expected to have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small entities, section 605(b) of the RFA provides 

that the head of the agency may so certify and a regulatory flexibility analysis is not 

required. The certification must include a statement providing the factual basis for this 

determination, and the reasoning should be clear. 

This final rule will affect publicly owned airports. When the population of a public 

airport-owning entity is less than 50,000, it is considered a small entity. Based upon the 

above review, FAA concludes that the final rule will have a significant economic impact 

on a substantial number of small entities. Accordingly, the following final regulatory 

flexibility assessment was prepared, as required by the RFA. 

67
Issues To Be Addressed In A Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

The central focus of a final regulatory flexibility analysis (FRFA), like the initial 

regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA), is the requirement that agencies evaluate the 

impact of a rule on small entities and analyze regulatory alternatives that minimize the 

impact when there will be a significant economic impact on a substantial number of 

small entities. 

The requirements, outlined in section 604(a)(1- 5), are listed and discussed 

below: 

1) A succinct statement of the need for, and objectives of, the rule; 

Prior to 1996, the FAA’s statutory authority to certificate airports was limited to 

those airports serving air carrier operations using aircraft with more than 30 passenger 

seats. However, this authority was broadened by the Federal Aviation Administration 

Reauthorization Act of 1996. Title 49 USC 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. 

With this rule, the FAA intends to extend airport regulatory standards to airports 

now being served by air carriers with scheduled passenger operations in aircraft 

designed for at least nine seats but no more than 30 seats. 

The primary objective of this final rule is to ensure safety in air transportation by 

regulating the operation and maintenance of airports serving certain scheduled air 

68
carrier operations. The rule is necessary to reduce the risk of future accidents similar to 

those that have recently occurred, and to mitigate fatalities and injuries if those 

accidents do occur. 

2) A summary of the significant issues raised by the public comments in 

response to the IRFA, a summary of the assessment of the agency of such 

issues, and a statement of any changes made in the proposed rule as a result of 

such comments; 

There were a substantial number of comments from small airports concerned 

about the financial burden that the proposed rule would place on them, particularly the 

personnel costs associated with ARFF requirements. 

In response to public comments, FAA made the following changes to the 

proposed rule in developing the final rule: 

One of the changes is that the sections of the proposed rule that dealt with 

obtaining an exemption from the ARFF requirements have been clarified for the final 

rule. The final rule is more explicit in describing how to apply for an exemption. FAA 

believes that allowing alternate means of compliance to accommodate local conditions 

through the exemption process will result in actual compliance costs that are 

substantially less than those estimated in the final regulatory evaluation because both 

these processes will vary from airport to airport. FAA was not able to quantify the 

resulting reduction in compliance cost. 

The time period to accomplish some requirements, such as the preparation of the 

ACM, was extended, especially for the smaller airports. 

69
3) A description of, and an estimate of the number of, small entities to 

which the rule will apply or an explanation of why no such estimate is available; 

The Small Business Administration (SBA) classifies all airports that are operated 

under the airport ownership of a public entity with 50,000 or less population as small 

entities. 

Using the SBA’s definition of a “small” public entity, there are approximately 200 

small entity airports that will be affected by this rule. Most of the small entities are 

expected to be proposed Class 1 airports (approximately 100 proposed Class I 

airports), with the largest economic impact expected to occur to the proposed Class III 

airports (approximately 25 proposed Class III airports). 

4) A description of the projected reporting, record-keeping, and other 

compliance requirements of the rule, including an estimate of the classes of small 

entities which will be subject to the requirement and the type of professional 

skills necessary for preparation of the report or record; and 

The final rule will create additional reporting or recordkeeping beyond those 

already specified in existing part 139. For each airport, the preparation of this 

documentation may involve the airport manager, operation and maintenance personnel, 

and clerical staff. The FAA estimates the average initial hours to set up a recordkeeping system per small entity will be approximately 70 hours, and expects a 

continuing additional paperwork requirement of about 90 hours annually. 

5) A description of the steps the agency has taken to minimize the 

significant economic impact on small entities consistent with the stated 

objectives of applicable statutes, including a statement of the factual, policy, and 

70
legal reasons for selecting the alternative adopted in the final rule and why each 

one of the other significant alternatives to the rule considered by the agency 

which affect the impact on small entities was rejected. 

The FAA extensively considered several alternatives, described in the Initial 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA), and determined that the alternative chosen for 

the NPRM was the only alternative that was relatively affordable and also achieved the 

safety objectives of the proposed rule. This initial alternative was subjected to public 

scrutiny during the comment period of the NPRM process. The comments received 

were responded to, as described above, and this initial alternative, as modified into the 

final rule is the selected alternative. 

Extended Discussion Of The Rule, Comments On Affordability And Safety 

The last major revision of part 139 occurred in November 1987, and since then, 

industry practices and technology have changed significantly. Subsequently the FAA 

has monitored the effectiveness of part 139 and has taken this opportunity to update 

part 139 requirements. 

The FAA initiated this rulemaking to improve safety at airports serving small air 

carrier operations, fully appreciating the financial limitations of these airports. In 1996, 

Congress authorized FAA to certificate airports serving scheduled air carrier operations 

conducted in 10 to 30 seat aircraft to further ensure safety in air transportation. This 

was the same year that all occupants died in a collision of a United Express Beech 

1900C (under 30 seat air carrier aircraft) and a Beech King Air aircraft (a general 

aviation aircraft). The National Transportation Safety Board concluded that...”if on71
airport ARFF protection had been required for this operation at Quincy Airport, lives 

might have been saved.” 

An industry/FAA evaluation of possible regulatory alternatives for the certification 

of airports serving small air carrier aircraft concluded that there exists a need to require 

at least some minimum level of both risk reduction and accident mitigation measures at 

airports during operations of smaller air carrier airplanes. However, FAA recognizes the 

need to provide some flexibility in the implementation of certain safety measures at 

airports with infrequent air carrier service or where local resources are severely limited. 

Airports in smaller communities do not always have the resources to support their 

airports at the same level as large metropolitan areas without adversely affecting other 

community services and infrastructure. 

A final mitigating factor is the FAA’s statutory authority to exempt certain airports 

from part 139 requirements. In some instances, the cost to comply with certain part 139 

requirements could be too burdensome for some airport operators serving small air 

carrier operations. In such cases, FAA will work with the airport operator in developing 

and tailoring an Airport Certification Manual to achieve safety in air transportation at that 

airport, and will assist the airport operator to obtain Federal funds, as appropriate. Also, 

FAA has the statutory authority to grant exemptions from part 139 requirements that 

would be too costly, burdensome, or impractical, including ARFF requirements. 

There are several avenues available to small-entity airports to mitigate the 

economic impact of this rule. One is that the Airport Improvement Program (AIP) 

funding (often supplemented by state grants) is available for certain capital expenditures 

that may be required by the rule such as fire fighting equipment, airport marking and 

72
signs, to name two. Another avenue is the Essential Air Service (EAS) program. For 

Class III airports that are owned by small communities, serve a limited number of 

passengers, and operate at a loss, it is likely that much of the final actual costs to the 

airport would be passed through to the air carriers. At airports where carriers receive 

EAS subsidies, approximately two-thirds of all Class III airports – the Federal 

government will probably absorb most, if not all of the cost of the rule through increased 

subsidies. 

Summary 

After considering the alternatives for the certification of airports serving small air 

carrier operations and alternatives for updating part 139 (as specified in the IFRA), the 

FAA determined that this rule amending part 139 is necessary to ensure safety in air 

transportation. However, to accommodate variations in airport size and operations, 

FAA may allow alternative means of compliance with part 139 requirements. This will 

allow the most cost effective and flexible method of ensuring safety to be employed at 

all covered airports while providing for the special needs of small entities. 

VIII. INTERNATIONAL TRADE IMPACT ASSESSMENT 

The Trade Agreement Act of 1979 prohibits Federal agencies from engaging in 

any standards or related activities that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign 

commerce of the United States. Legitimate domestic objectives, such as safety, are not 

considered unnecessary obstacles. The statute also requires consideration of 

international standards and where appropriate, that they be the basis for U.S. 

standards. 

73
In accordance with the above statute, the FAA has assessed the potential 

effect of this final rule and determined that the rule’s airport certification requirements 

will have little or no impact on trade for U.S. firms doing business in foreign countries 

and for foreign firms doing business in the United States. 

IX. UNFUNDED MANDATES REFORM ACT 

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (the Act), enacted as Pub. L. 104-4 

on March 22, 1995, is intended, among other things, to curb the practice of imposing 

unfunded Federal mandates on State, local, and tribal governments. 

Title II of the Act requires each Federal agency to prepare a written statement 

assessing the effects of any Federal mandate in a proposed or final agency rule that 

may result in a $100 million or more expenditure (adjusted annually for inflation) in any 

one year by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private 

sector; such a mandate is deemed to be a “significant regulatory action.” 

This final rule does not contain such a mandate. Therefore, the requirements of 

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 do not apply. 

74
Appendices 

75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90