V.G. Airports
Section 121.590 requires that no air carrier or pilot conducting
operations under part 121 may operate an airplane into a land airport
in the U.S.(or territory, etc.) unless the airport is certificated
under 14 CFR part 139. Section 135.229 states that no certificate
holder may use any airport unless it is adequate for the proposed
operations.
Part 139 prescribes regulations governing the certification and
operation of all land airports that are served by any scheduled or
nonscheduled passenger air carrier operating airplanes with a seating
capacity of more than 30 passengers. The FAA's authority is limited
by statute (49 U.S.C. 44706(a)) to the 30-passenger-seat dividing
line. The FAA, in conjunction with the Department of Transportation,
has sought legislation that would grant the agency the authority to
certificate any airport that receives scheduled service by a
certificate holder utilizing airplanes designed for 10 or more
passenger seats.
Accordingly, pending Congressional resolution of this issue,
affected commuters are permitted to operate into other than part 139
certificated airports. If the FAA receives expanded authority over
airport certification, it would propose rulemaking standards that are
sufficiently flexible to cover the range of airports presently served
under part 135.
Comments: Nine comments were received on this issue, with the
major concern being that airport legislation currently being
considered may include requirements that some communities may not be
able to afford which would negatively affect air service to these
communities.
The Las Vegas Department of Aviation comments that it has
purchased and upgraded satellite airports in the Las Vegas area to
help relieve the congestion at the McCarran International Airport.
The commenter is concerned that the Clark County Department Of
Aviation, the Grand Canyon Tour Operators, and the Las Vegas
Department of Aviation may not be able to afford additional airport
upgrades. This would cause certificate holders that currently operate
out of the non-certificated outlying airports to move their operations
back to McCarran, thereby increasing traffic congestion and in-flight
delays.
NATA and Commuter Air Technology concur with the FAA proposal to
allow part 135 certificate holders to continue to operate with
existing airport requirements, but are concerned about the airport
expansion program. NATA prefers that no new airport legislation be
adopted and that the proposed regulatory allowance for noncertificated
airports be made permanent.
A comment from Fairchild Aircraft mentions the Essential Air
Service Program enacted by Congress that guarantees air service to
small and medium size communities. Fairchild says that the commuter
industry responded to that program and provided essential air service
to small and medium communities, and that those communities may not
be able to afford the proposed airport expansion program.
Other commenters state that it would not be feasible to upgrade
smaller airports to part 139 standards. One certificate holder states
that of the five airports it serves only one meets part 139 standards;
at the other airports where the certificate holder provides essential
air service "there is no aircraft rescue or fire fighting equipment,
airport guidance signs, airfield inspection procedures, airport staff,
snow and ice control plan, or airfield pavement maintenance...."
The American Association of Airport Executives (AAAE), RAA,
Airports Council International-North America, and the National
Association of State Aviation Officials would like the airport
expansion issue referred to an ARAC committee before seeking federal
legislation, to allow ARAC to develop a cost-effective response to
NTSB recommendations that takes into account the difference between
small airports that serve rural communities and large airports near
major cities.
ALPA believes that the FAA should require commuters to operate
out of part 139 certificated airports in the interest of one level of
safety. ALPA recognizes that some airports in remote sites will not
be capable of complying with all part 139 requirements. However, ALPA
does not believe that an exemption should be provided for aircraft
with passenger-seating capacities of 30 or less. Rather certificate
holders that serve small airports should apply individually for an
exemption or waiver.
Commuter Technology expresses concern that a revised part 139 may
result in the application of airplane operator security regulations of
part 108 and the airport security regulations of part 107 to air
carriers using aircraft with a seating capacity of 30 or fewer seats.
The commenter believes that the ARAC committee that is tasked with
recommending revisions to part 139 should also be tasked with
restricting or eliminating the applicability of part 107 to small
airports. According to the commenter the application of parts 107 and
108 to commuter air carriers and the airports that serve them could
have a radical effect on the economic viability of the air carriers
and airports.
FAA Response: The FAA has assigned a task to the Aviation
Rulemaking Advisory Committee (ARAC) to recommend the requirements in
part 139 that should be applicable to airports covered under any
expanded legislation that would give the FAA authority to certificate
airports serving airplanes with less than 30 passengers. In the
meantime, § 121.590 is adopted as proposed to allow affected commuters
to use noncertificated airports. In making its recommendations ARAC
is to consider accepted industry practices regarding airport safety,
personnel available at these airports, costs associated with meeting
these requirements (e.g. capital, operating, and maintenance costs),
and the types of accidents/incidents that have occurred at these
airports.
In response to the comment on security programs for airports and
operators, no changes to parts 107 and 108 are necessary as a result
of this rule because the requirements of those parts are already
tailored to the size of the airplane.