
[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 11 (Wednesday, January 16, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 3311-3317]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-00848]



 ========================================================================
 Rules and Regulations
                                                 Federal Register
 ________________________________________________________________________
 
 This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains regulatory documents 
 having general applicability and legal effect, most of which are keyed 
 to and codified in the Code of Federal Regulations, which is published 
 under 50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.
 
 The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by the Superintendent of Documents. 
 Prices of new books are listed in the first FEDERAL REGISTER issue of each 
 week.
 
 ========================================================================
 

  Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 11 / Wednesday, January 16, 2013 / 
Rules and Regulations  

[[Page 3311]]



DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 139

[Docket No.: FAA-2010-0247; Amdt. No. 139-27]
RIN 2120-AJ70


Safety Enhancements, Certification of Airports

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This rulemaking amends regulations pertaining to certification 
of airports to clarify that the applicability of these regulations is 
based only on passenger seats in passenger-carrying operations as 
determined by either the regulations or the aircraft type certificate. 
This final rule also adds a new section that prohibits fraudulent or 
intentionally false statements concerning an airport operating 
certificate. Finally, this final rule adopts administrative changes for 
internal consistency, or to codify existing industry practice. These 
changes are necessary to clarify the applicability language, and ensure 
the reliability of records maintained by a certificate holder and 
reviewed by the FAA. Lastly, this final rule changes the definition of 
joint-use airport to correspond with statutory authority.

DATES: Effective March 18, 2013.

ADDRESSES: For information on where to obtain copies of rulemaking 
documents and other information related to this final rule, see ``How 
To Obtain Additional Information'' in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION 
section of this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical questions concerning 
this action, contact Kenneth Langert, Office of Airports Safety and 
Standards, Airport Safety and Operations Division (AAS-300), Federal 
Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 
20591; telephone (202) 493-4529; e-mail Kenneth.Langert@faa.gov. For 
legal questions concerning this action, contact Sabrina Jawed, AGC-240, 
Office of the Chief Counsel, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 
Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone (202) 267-
3073; fax (202) 267-7971; email Sabrina.Jawed@faa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety is found in 
Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, section 106 describes 
the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation 
Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority.
    This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in 
subtitle VII, part A, subpart III, section 44706, ``Airport Operating 
Certificates''. Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with 
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing 
regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator 
finds necessary for safety in air commerce, including issuing airport 
operating certificates that contain terms the Administrator finds 
necessary to ensure safety in air transportation. This regulation is 
within the scope of that authority because it would (i) enhance safety 
in airport operations by clarifying the applicability of part 139, and 
(ii) explicitly prohibit fraudulent or intentionally false statements 
in a certificate application or record required to be maintained by the 
certificate holder.

I. Overview of Final Rule

    This final rule will:
     Clarify that the applicability of part 139 is based only 
on passenger seats in passenger-carrying operations, as determined by 
either the regulations or the aircraft type certificate (Sec.  139.1);
     Add a new Sec.  139.115 that prohibits fraudulent or 
intentionally false statements concerning an airport operating 
certificate (AOC);
     Amend language in Sec.  139.303 and Sec.  139.329 for 
consistency, or to codify existing industry practice; and
     Amend the definition of joint-use airport in Sec.  139.5 
to correspond with statutory authority.

II. Summary of the Costs and Benefits of the Final Rule

    Although the FAA cannot quantify the benefits of this final rule, 
the FAA believes that the benefits will exceed the minimal 
unquantifiable costs imposed by this final rule because this final rule 
will provide consistent rule language and accurate reporting.

III. Background

A. Summary of NPRM

    Part 139 prescribes the minimum standards for maintaining and 
operating the physical airport environment. The FAA issues AOCs under 
part 139 to certain airports serving commercial passenger-carrying 
operations based on the type of commercial operations and size of 
aircraft served. As of December 31, 2012, 544 of the four classes of 
airports (I, II, III, and IV) defined in part 139 hold FAA-issued AOCs.
    On February 1, 2011, the FAA published a notice of proposed 
rulemaking (NPRM) on Safety Enhancements Part 139, Certification of 
Airports (76 FR 5510). In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to amend the 
airport certification standards in part 139 by:
    (1) Clarifying the applicability of part 139,
    (2) Explicitly prohibiting fraudulent or intentionally false 
statements in a certificate application or record required to be 
maintained,
    (3) Requiring a Surface Movement Guidance Control System (SMGCS) 
plan if the certificate holder conducts low-visibility operations,
    (4) Establishing minimum standards for training of personnel who 
access the airport non-movement area, and
    (5) Requiring certificate holders to conduct pavement surface 
evaluations to ensure reliability of runway surfaces in wet weather 
conditions.
    The comment period closed on April 4, 2011. On April 13, 2011, the 
FAA reopened the comment period until May 13, 2011, (76 FR 20570) 
because we learned that a number of airport operators were not aware 
that low-visibility approaches and departures had been approved for 
their airports. The FAA notified, by letter, those airports with 
approved low-visibility departures, and reopened the comment

[[Page 3312]]

period to allow time for affected airports to receive notice from the 
FAA, review this NPRM, and adequately assess, prepare, and submit 
comments on the possible impact of this NPRM.
    On June 3, 2011, the FAA again reopened the comment period until 
July 5, 2011, (76 FR 32105) because several industry groups requested 
the full economic evaluation the FAA developed for this rule. The FAA 
posted the full economic evaluation in the docket to allow industry 
time to review it, and adequately assess, prepare, and submit comments 
on the possible impact of this NPRM.

B. Summary of Comments

    The FAA received 49 comment documents in response to the NPRM from 
the following commenters: Alaska DOT &PF American Association of 
Airport Executives (AAAE); Airports Council International--North 
America (ACI-NA); Air Line Pilots Association, International (ALPA); 
Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA); Broward County Aviation 
Department; Burlington International Airport; City of Atlanta 
Department of Aviation; City of Prescott; Clark County Department of 
Aviation; Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport; Denver International 
Airport; Experimental Aircraft Association (EAA); Fairbanks 
International Airport; Glynn County Airport Commission; Houston Airport 
System; Ithaca Tompkins Regional Airport; Kent County Department of 
Aeronautics; Lafayette Airport Commission; Los Angeles World Airport; 
Louisville Regional Airport Authority; Manchester-Boston Regional 
Airport; Maryland Aviation Administration; Mid Ohio Valley Airport; 
Municipal Airport Authority of the City of Fargo; Myrtle Beach 
International Airport; National Air Transportation Association (NATA); 
Omni Air International; Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport; Port 
of Seattle; Portland International Airport; Rapid City Regional 
Airport; Salt Lake City International; Sarasota Manatee Airport 
Authority; Sioux Falls Regional Airport; Southwest Airlines; St. 
Petersburg-Clearwater International Airport; The Columbus Regional 
Airport Authority; The Port Authority of New York & New Jersey; Western 
Reserve Port Authority; and nine individuals. All of the commenters 
generally recommended changes to the proposal.

C. Differences Between the NPRM and the Final Rule

    The table below shows the main topics covered by the proposals in 
the NPRM (indicated by a ``YES'') and whether or not the proposal for 
that topic is in this final rule (indicated by either a ``YES'' or a 
``NO'').

------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Safety enhancements part 139            NPRM           Final rule
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Applicability of Part 139...........  YES.............  YES.
Certification and Falsification.....  YES.............  YES.
Surface Movement Guidance Control     YES.............  NO.
 System (SMGCS).
Non-Movement Area Safety Training...  YES.............  NO.
Runway Pavement Surface Evaluation..  YES.............  NO.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to the above, the FAA is adopting administrative 
changes and amending the definition of joint-use airport, as discussed 
below. The administrative changes will not require part 139 AOC holders 
to change their current operational practices.

IV. Discussion of Final Rule and Comments

A. Applicability of Part 139 (Sec.  139.1)

    Currently, Sec.  139.1(a)(1) states that an airport must be 
certificated under part 139 to host scheduled passenger carrying 
operations of an air carrier operating aircraft designed for more than 
nine passenger seats, as determined by the aircraft type certificate 
issued by a competent civil aviation authority. The current wording of 
Sec.  139.1 has created confusion regarding the operation of a 
particular aircraft type, the Cessna 208B Caravan (the ``Caravan''). 
The standard high-density airline configuration for the Caravan 
features four rows of 1-2 seating behind the two seats in the cockpit. 
The Caravan is certificated as a single-pilot aircraft, but has two 
pilot seats. In non-revenue service, the second pilot seat may be 
occupied by a passenger. However, in scheduled passenger-carrying 
operations, Sec.  135.113 prohibits passengers from occupying the 
second pilot seat, which means there are not more than nine passenger 
seats during those operations.
    In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to clarify Sec.  139.1 to state that 
the applicability of part 139 is based only on passenger seats in 
passenger-carrying operations as determined by either the regulations 
under which the operation is conducted or the aircraft type 
certificate.
    No comments specifically objected to the proposal to clarify the 
applicability of part 139. The final rule adopts the language as 
proposed.

B. Certification and Falsification (Sec.  139.115)

    The FAA proposed a new Sec.  139.115 that would prohibit fraudulent 
or intentionally false statements on an application for a certificate 
or other records required to be kept.
    All comments regarding this section supported the FAA's proposal. 
To ensure the reliability of records maintained by a certificate holder 
and reviewed by the FAA, the FAA is adding a new Sec.  139.115 that 
prohibits:
    (1) The making of any fraudulent or intentionally false statement 
on an application for a certificate;
    (2) The making of any fraudulent or intentionally false statement 
on any record or report required by the FAA; and
    (3) The reproduction or alteration, for a fraudulent purpose, of 
any FAA certificate or approval.
    The final rule allows the FAA to suspend or revoke an AOC if an 
owner, operator, or other person acting on behalf of the certificate 
holder violates any of these prohibitions. The FAA may also suspend or 
revoke any other FAA certificate issued to the person committing the 
act. This requirement is similar to the falsification prohibitions in 
14 CFR parts 43, 61, 65, and 67.

C. SMGCS (Sec.  139.203)

    The FAA proposed to amend Sec.  139.203 to require that airport 
certification manuals contain a SMGCS plan for airports approved for 
operations below 1,200 feet runway visual range. A SMGCS plan would 
facilitate the safe movement of aircraft and vehicles on the airport by 
establishing more rigorous control procedures and requiring enhanced 
visual aids. Additionally, the ability to conduct low visibility 
operations allows a certificate holder to stay open during poor weather 
conditions, thus reducing flight delays and cancellations.
    The basis for approving low-visibility operations for each runway 
would be incorporated in the certificate holder's SMGCS plan. Only 
certificate holders that conduct low-visibility operations would be 
required to develop and implement a SMGCS plan. These plans would vary 
among airports because of local conditions, and would be subject to FAA 
approval.
    Twelve commenters stated that either the cost calculations in our 
proposal were not realistic, or the amount of time in low-visibility 
conditions did not warrant the investment. Additionally, several 
comments contended that the burden to airports would not be beneficial, 
and would require a large

[[Page 3313]]

infrastructure investment. Based on comments and further cost analysis, 
this section of the rule is not currently cost beneficial to implement 
and the FAA is withdrawing the SMGCS proposal. However, the FAA may 
propose rulemaking in the future if it is determined to be necessary.

D. Training (Sec. Sec.  139.303 & 139.329)

i. Non-Movement Area
    In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to require training for all persons 
authorized to access the non-movement area (with certain exceptions 
noted in the proposal). This training would complement the existing 
training for persons accessing the movement and safety areas, and could 
be combined with the training for persons accessing both the movement 
and non-movement areas.
    Nearly all commenters expressed support for increasing safety. 
However, most commenters contended the proposal was unnecessary because 
airlines and ground servicing providers conduct safety training to 
satisfy the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) 
requirements. They also stated the cost to the industry would be 
burdensome, and would take away time from other duties that produce 
greater safety benefits. Further, they stated the NPRM overstates the 
benefit and underestimates the lifecycle costs by not including costs 
for additional staff or facilities needed for training and record 
keeping. One airport included a cost case study, and other airports 
provided differing cost figures that were helpful in identifying all 
costs involved.
    Based on comments and further analysis, the FAA is withdrawing the 
proposal covering non-movement area safety training. However, the FAA 
may propose rulemaking in the future if it is determined to be 
necessary.
ii. Substituting ``Persons'' for ``Personnel''
    The proposal also included substituting all ``persons'' for all 
``personnel'' in Sec.  139.303(c). We received no comments objecting to 
this change. The FAA adopts this change, and will also substitute all 
``persons'' for ``employee, tenant or contractor'' in Sec. Sec.  
139.329 (b) and (e) for consistency. The FAA has determined this 
language provides greater clarity and is consistent with previous FAA 
interpretations.
iii. Annual Recurrent Training
    Since 2007, the U.S. aviation community has initiated and completed 
significant short-term actions to improve safety at U.S. airports based 
on the FAA's ``Call to Action.'' \1\ As part of the Call to Action, the 
FAA Office of Airport Safety and Standards issued a change to AC 150/
5210-20, Ground Vehicle Operations on Airports, on March 31, 2008. The 
AC change strongly recommended regular recurrent driver training for 
all persons with access to the movement area. This included voluntarily 
conducting recurrent annual movement area driver's training for all 
personnel who enter the movement area. All certificated airports 
voluntarily developed plans to require annual recurrent training for 
all individuals with access to the movement areas. As a result of the 
Call to Action, in 2010 the Office of Airports recorded that all 
airports were requiring recurrent training for non-airport employees 
such as Fixed-Base Operators (FBO) or airline mechanics.\2\ The FAA 
intended to propose a requirement in the NPRM that would make the 
existing industry practice mandatory. Given the universality of the 
training, the FAA has determined that it would be contrary to the 
public interest to initiate a separate rulemaking action just for this 
provision in order to provide an opportunity to comment. The existing 
level of training indicates that as a group certificated airports are 
willing to conduct the training, and that codifying existing industry 
practice adds no further costs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See FAA Fact Sheet at
    www.faa.gov/news/fact_sheets/news_story.cfm?newsId=10133.
    \2\ See FAA Annual Runway Safety Report 2010, at www.faa.gov/airports/runway_safety/news/publications/media/Annual_Runway_Safety_Report_2010.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This final rule now requires annual recurrent training for all 
persons in the movement and safety areas for Classes I through IV 
airports. Regulatory text is being added to Sec.  139.329 to further 
clarify that all persons that have access to, and operate in, movement 
areas and safety areas require initial and recurrent drivers training 
(at least once every 12 consecutive calendar months). Additionally, 
since Class IV airports will be required to comply with this 
regulation, an ``X'' will be added in the Class IV column in Sec.  
139.203(b) manual element number 22.

E. Runway Pavement Surface Evaluation (Sec.  139.305)

    In the NPRM, the FAA proposed amending Sec.  139.305 to require 
airports to establish and implement a runway friction testing program 
for each runway used by jet aircraft. Under the proposal, a certificate 
holder would schedule periodic friction evaluations of each runway that 
accommodates jet aircraft. Components of the program would include a 
testing frequency that takes into consideration the volume and type of 
traffic as well as friction readings from continuous friction measuring 
equipment (CFME) operated by trained personnel. Corrective action would 
be required, as needed.
    Ten commenters questioned whether the cost of the CFME or the tests 
required would provide significant benefit. Five commenters wanted to 
know who would be responsible for qualifying the trainers for the CFME 
operators. The remaining comments raised concerns about:
    (i) Non-jet traffic;
    (ii) The use of the CFME for winter operations;
    (iii) What constitutes acceptable friction levels;
    (iv) What is an acceptable testing frequency;
    (v) Are there any funding sources;
    (vi) What is the implementation time frame; and
    (vii) Consideration of new equipment.
    The FAA also proposed for Sec.  139.305 that airport operators be 
required to locate potential hydroplaning areas as well as measure the 
depth and width of a runway's grooves to check for wear and damage. 
Airports would also establish and implement a program for testing 
performance of grooves and transverse slopes.
    Four commenters stated that the NPRM did not provide enough detail 
for cross-slope inspection requirements. Three commenters felt that 
this issue was already considered in current part 139 regulations. 
Other commenters wanted the FAA to determine inspection specifics and 
acceptance levels. Two commenters thought that this proposal would 
increase costs.
    Based on comments and further analysis, the FAA is withdrawing the 
proposals for Sec.  139.305. The FAA notes that guidance currently 
exists addressing these issues and it will conduct outreach with 
certificate holders. Guidance on runway friction testing frequency and 
friction levels is in Advisory Circular 150/5320-12C Measurement, 
Construction, and Maintenance of Skid-Resistant Pavement Surfaces. 
Guidance on the use of CFME in contaminated conditions for operational 
purposes is found in Advisory Circular 150/5200-30C, Airport Winter 
Safety and Operations. Finally, the FAA notes that current part 139 
requirements require airports to inspect runways for ponding problems. 
However, the FAA may propose rulemaking in the future if it is 
determined to be necessary.

[[Page 3314]]

F. Definition of Joint Use Airport (Sec.  139.5)

    The FAA is changing the definition of ``joint use airport'' in 
Sec.  139.5 to correspond with the definition provided by Congress in 
the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 (49 U.S.C. 47175 (2012)). 
This change is not subject to notice and comment procedures because it 
meets the Administrative Procedure Act's good cause exception (5 U.S.C. 
553).

V. Regulatory Notices and Analyses

A. Regulatory Evaluation

    Changes to Federal regulations must undergo several economic 
analyses. First, Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct that each 
Federal agency shall propose or adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned 
determination that the benefits of the intended regulation justify its 
costs. Second, the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-354) 
requires agencies to analyze the economic impact of regulatory changes 
on small entities. Third, the Trade Agreements Act (Pub. L. 96-39) 
prohibits agencies from setting standards that create unnecessary 
obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States. In developing 
U.S. standards, this Trade Act requires agencies to consider 
international standards and, where appropriate, that they be the basis 
of U.S. standards. Fourth, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 
(Pub. L. 104-4) requires agencies to prepare a written assessment of 
the costs, benefits, and other effects of proposed or final rules that 
include a Federal mandate likely to result in the expenditure by State, 
local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private 
sector, of $100 million or more annually (adjusted for inflation with 
base year of 1995). This portion of the preamble summarizes the FAA's 
analysis of the economic impacts of this final rule.
    Department of Transportation Order DOT 2100.5 prescribes policies 
and procedures for simplification, analysis, and review of regulations. 
If the expected cost impact is so minimal that a proposed or final rule 
does not warrant a full evaluation, this order permits that a statement 
to that effect and the basis for it to be included in the preamble if a 
full regulatory evaluation of the cost and benefits is not prepared. 
Such a determination has been made for this final rule. The reasoning 
for this determination follows:
    In conducting these analyses, the FAA has determined that this 
final rule:
    (1) Imposes no incremental costs and provides benefits,
    (2) Is not an economically ``significant regulatory action'' as 
defined in section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866,
    (3) Is not significant as defined in DOT's Regulatory Policies and 
Procedures;
    (4) Will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of small entities;
    (5) Will not have a significant effect on international trade; and
    (6) Will not impose an unfunded mandate on state, local, or tribal 
governments, or on the private sector by exceeding the monetary 
threshold identified.
    These analyses are summarized below.
    In response to public comments, the FAA is withdrawing some 
proposed NPRM requirements. This section analyzes the economic impacts 
of the provisions of this final rule.
    This final rule will:
     Clarify that the applicability of part 139 is based only 
on passenger seats in passenger-carrying operations, as determined by 
the regulations or the aircraft type certificate (Sec.  139.1);
     Add a new Sec.  139.115 that prohibits fraudulent or 
intentionally false statements concerning an AOC or other record 
required to be maintained;
     Amend language in Sec. Sec.  139.303 and 138.329 for 
consistency or to codify current industry practice; and
     Amend the definition of joint-use airport in Sec.  139.5 
to correspond with statutory authority.
    The benefits and costs of each of these sections of this final rule 
are discussed below.
i. Applicability of Part 139 (Sec.  139.1)
    This section of this final rule clarifies that the applicability of 
part 139 is based only on passenger seats in passenger-carrying 
operations, as determined by the regulations or the aircraft type 
certificate.
    No quantitative benefits or costs are estimated for this section of 
the final rule because it simply clarifies existing FAA requirements.
ii. Certification and Falsification (Sec.  139.115)
    This section of this final rule is intended to ensure the 
reliability of records maintained by a certificate holder and reviewed 
by the FAA by specifically prohibiting fraudulent or intentionally 
false statements concerning an AOC or other record required to be 
maintained.
    This section of this final rule has positive qualitative benefits 
because it emphasizes the importance of accurate reporting of airport 
data. However, no quantitative benefits are estimated for this section 
of this final rule.
    There are no costs for this section of this final rule because it 
simply formalizes the keeping and reporting of accurate airport data.
    This requirement is similar to the falsification prohibitions in 14 
CFR parts 43, 61, 65, and 67.
iii. Amended Language in Sec. Sec.  139.303 and 139.329
    Currently, there are inconsistencies in the way people are referred 
to in these sections. This final rule will replace all references to 
people with the term persons. Additionally, the FAA will require annual 
recurrent training for all persons in the movement and safety areas and 
include Class IV airports to align with current industry practice.
    The qualitative benefit of this portion of this final rule will be 
to provide consistent language within and between Sec. Sec.  139.303 
and 138.329. However, the FAA cannot provide a quantitative estimate of 
these benefits.
    There are no costs for this portion of this final rule because this 
changed language is consistent with previous FAA interpretations.
    Although the FAA cannot quantify the benefits of this final rule, 
the FAA believes that the benefits will exceed the minimal 
unquantifiable costs imposed by this final rule.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Determination

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA) establishes ``as a 
principle of regulatory issuance that agencies shall endeavor, 
consistent with the objective of the rule and of applicable statutes, 
to fit regulatory and informational requirements to the scale of the 
business, organizations, and governmental jurisdictions subject to 
regulation.'' To achieve that principle, the RFA requires agencies to 
solicit and consider flexible regulatory proposals and to explain the 
rationale for their actions. The RFA covers a wide-range of small 
entities, including small businesses, not-for-profit organizations and 
small governmental jurisdictions.
    Agencies must perform a review to determine whether a proposed or 
final rule will have a significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of small entities. If the agency determines that it will, the 
agency must prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis as described in 
the Act.
    However, if an agency determines that a proposed or final rule is 
not expected to have a significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of small entities, section 605(b) of the RFA provides that the 
head of the agency

[[Page 3315]]

may so certify and a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required. 
The certification must include a statement providing the factual basis 
for this determination, and the reasoning should be clear.
i. Publicly Owned Airports
    Size standards for small entities are published by the Small 
Business Administration (SBA). The small entity size standard for 
municipalities, including those owning publicly-owned airports, is a 
population less than 50,000 people.
    The population of municipalities owning airports ranges from many 
millions to a few thousand. Many part 139 airport owners are small 
entities. Therefore, this final rule will affect a large number of 
small entities. However, this final rule will not have a significant 
economic impact on any small entity because the final rule imposes no 
incremental costs.
    Therefore, as the acting FAA Administrator, I certify that this 
final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of part 139 airport owners.

C. International Trade Impact Assessment

    The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (Pub. L. 96-39), as amended by the 
Uruguay Round Agreements Act (Pub. L. 103-465), prohibits Federal 
agencies from establishing standards or engaging in related activities 
that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United 
States. Pursuant to these Acts, the establishment of standards is not 
considered an unnecessary obstacle to the foreign commerce of the 
United States, so long as the standard has a legitimate domestic 
objective, such as the protection of safety, and does not operate in a 
manner that excludes imports that meet this objective. The statute also 
requires consideration of international standards and, where 
appropriate, that they be the basis for U.S. standards.
    The FAA has assessed the potential effect of this final rule and 
determined that it will have only a domestic impact and therefore will 
not create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United 
States.

D. Unfunded Mandates Assessment

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-
4) requires each Federal agency to prepare a written statement 
assessing the effects of any Federal mandate in a proposed or final 
agency rule that may result in an expenditure of $100 million or more 
(adjusted annually for inflation) in any one year by State, local, and 
tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector; such a 
mandate is deemed to be a ``significant regulatory action.'' The FAA 
currently uses an inflation-adjusted value of $143.1 million in lieu of 
$100 million. This final rule does not contain such a mandate; 
therefore, the requirements of Title II do not apply.

E. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)) requires 
that the FAA consider the impact of paperwork and other information 
collection burdens imposed on the public. In the NPRM, we provided data 
on the information collection requirements associated with the 
proposals in that document. However, the proposals that created these 
information collection requirements are not in this final rule. 
Therefore, the FAA has determined that there is no new requirement for 
information collection associated with this final rule.

F. International Compatibility and Cooperation

    (1) In keeping with U.S. obligations under the Convention on 
International Civil Aviation, it is FAA policy to conform to 
International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Standards and 
Recommended Practices to the maximum extent practicable. The FAA has 
reviewed the corresponding ICAO Standards and Recommended Practices and 
has identified no differences with these regulations.
    (2) Executive Order 13609, Promoting International Regulatory 
Cooperation, promotes international regulatory cooperation to meet 
shared challenges involving health, safety, labor, security, 
environmental, and other issues and to reduce, eliminate, or prevent 
unnecessary differences in regulatory requirements. The FAA has 
analyzed this action under the policies and agency responsibilities of 
Executive Order 13609, and has determined that this action would have 
no effect on international regulatory cooperation.

G. Environmental Analysis

    FAA Order 1050.1E identifies FAA actions that are categorically 
excluded from preparation of an environmental assessment or 
environmental impact statement under the National Environmental Policy 
Act in the absence of extraordinary circumstances. The FAA has 
determined this rulemaking action qualifies for the categorical 
exclusion identified in Chapter 3, paragraph 312d, and involves no 
extraordinary circumstances.

VI. Executive Order Determinations

A. Executive Order 13132, Federalism

    The FAA has analyzed this final rule under the principles and 
criteria of Executive Order 13132, Federalism. Most airports subject to 
this rule are owned, operated, or regulated by a local government body 
(such as a city or county government), which, in turn, is incorporated 
by or is part of a State. Some airports are operated directly by a 
State.
    This final rule, which modifies an existing regulatory requirement, 
imposes no incremental costs and would not alter the relationship 
between certificate holders and the FAA as established by law. This 
final rule is not a significant regulatory action under the Unfunded 
Mandates Reform Act of 1995. Accordingly, the FAA has determined that 
this action does not have a substantial direct effect on the States. 
This final rule makes administrative amendments to existing regulatory 
requirements for certificate holders. These requirements are under 
existing statutory authority to regulate airports for aviation safety. 
Accordingly, there is no change in either the relationship between the 
Federal Government and the Sates, or the distribution of power among 
the various levels of government.
    The FAA mailed a copy of the NPRM to each State government 
specifically inviting comment on Federalism issues. No comments were 
received.

B. Executive Order 13211, Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy 
Supply Distribution, or Use

    The FAA analyzed this final rule under Executive Order 13211, 
Actions Concerning Regulations that Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 
Distribution, or Use (May 18, 2001). The agency has determined that it 
is not a ``significant energy action'' under the executive order and it 
is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, 
distribution, or use of energy.

VII. How To Obtain Additional Information

A. Rulemaking Documents

    An electronic copy of a rulemaking document may be obtained by 
using the Internet--
    1. Search the Federal eRulemaking Portal (http://www.regulations.gov);
    2. Visit the FAA's Regulations and Policies Web page at http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/; or

[[Page 3316]]

    3. Access the Government Printing Office's Web page at http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys.
    Copies may also be obtained by sending a request (identified by 
notice, amendment, or docket number of this rulemaking) to the Federal 
Aviation Administration, Office of Rulemaking, ARM-1, 800 Independence 
Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591, or by calling (202) 267-9680.

B. Comments Submitted to the Docket

    Comments received may be viewed by going to http://www.regulations.gov and following the online instructions to search the 
docket number for this action. Anyone is able to search the electronic 
form of all comments received into any of the FAA's dockets by the name 
of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if 
submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.).

C. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act

    The Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 
1996 requires FAA to comply with small entity requests for information 
or advice about compliance with statutes and regulations within its 
jurisdiction. A small entity with questions regarding this document, 
may contact its local FAA official, or the person listed under the FOR 
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT heading at the beginning of the preamble. 
To find out more about SBREFA on the Internet, visit http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/rulemaking/sbre_act/.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 139

    Air carriers, Airports, Aviation safety, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements.

The Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation 
Administration amends chapter I of title 14, Code of Federal 
Regulations as follows:

PART 139--CERTIFICATION OF AIRPORTS

0
1. The authority citation for part 139 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701-44702, 44709, 44719.


0
2. Amend Sec.  139.1 by revising paragraph (a) to read as follows:


Sec.  139.1  Applicability.

    (a) This part prescribes rules governing the certification and 
operation of airports in any State of the United States, the District 
of Columbia, or any territory or possession of the United States 
serving any--
    (1) Scheduled passenger-carrying operations of an air carrier 
operating aircraft configured for more than 9 passenger seats, as 
determined by the regulations under which the operation is conducted or 
the aircraft type certificate issued by a competent civil aviation 
authority; and
    (2) Unscheduled passenger-carrying operations of an air carrier 
operating aircraft configured for at least 31 passenger seats, as 
determined by the regulations under which the operation is conducted or 
the aircraft type certificate issued by a competent civil aviation 
authority.
* * * * *

0
3. Amend Sec.  139.5 to revise the definition of the term ``Joint-use 
airport'' to read as follows:


Sec.  139.5  Definitions.

* * * * *
    Joint-use airport means an airport owned by the Department of 
Defense, at which both military and civilian aircraft make shared use 
of the airfield.
* * * * *

0
4. Add Sec.  139.115 to subpart B to read as follows:


Sec.  139.115  Falsification, reproduction, or alteration of 
applications, certificates, reports, or records.

    (a) No person shall make or cause to be made:
    (1) Any fraudulent or intentionally false statement on any 
application for a certificate or approval under this part.
    (2) Any fraudulent or intentionally false entry in any record or 
report that is required to be made, kept, or used to show compliance 
with any requirement under this part.
    (3) Any reproduction, for a fraudulent purpose, of any certificate 
or approval issued under this part.
    (4) Any alteration, for a fraudulent purpose, of any certificate or 
approval issued under this part.
    (b) The commission by any owner, operator, or other person acting 
on behalf of a certificate holder of an act prohibited under paragraph 
(a) of this section is a basis for suspending or revoking any 
certificate or approval issued under this part and held by that 
certificate holder and any other certificate issued under this title 
and held by the person committing the act.


0
5. Amend Sec.  139.203 by revising paragraph (b)(22) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  139.203  Contents of Airport Certification Manual.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Airport certificate class
               Manual elements               -------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Class I          Class II        Class III         Class IV
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
22. Procedures for controlling pedestrians                 X                X                X                X
 and ground vehicles in movement areas and
 safety areas, as required under Sec.
 139.329....................................
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


0
6. Amend Sec.  139.303 by revising the introductory text of paragraph 
(c) to read as follows:


Sec.  139.303  Personnel.

* * * * *
    (c) Train all persons who access movement areas and safety areas 
and perform duties in compliance with the requirements of the Airport 
Certification Manual and the requirements of this part. This training 
must be completed prior to the initial performance of such duties and 
at least once every 12 consecutive calendar months. The curriculum for 
initial and recurrent training must include at least the following 
areas:
* * * * *

0
7. Amend Sec.  139.329 by revising paragraph (b) and paragraph (e) to 
read as follows:


Sec.  139.329  Pedestrians and ground vehicles.

* * * * *
    (b) Establish and implement procedures for the safe and orderly 
access to and operation in movement

[[Page 3317]]

areas and safety areas by pedestrians and ground vehicles, including 
provisions identifying the consequences of noncompliance with the 
procedures by all persons;
* * * * *
    (e) Ensure that all persons are trained on procedures required 
under paragraph (b) of this section prior to the initial performance of 
such duties and at least once every 12 consecutive calendar months, 
including consequences of noncompliance, prior to moving on foot, or 
operating a ground vehicle, in movement areas or safety areas; and
* * * * *

    Issued in Washington, DC, on January 4, 2013.
Michael P. Huerta,
Acting Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2013-00848 Filed 1-15-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


