The Federal Aviation Administration proposed a $170,000 civil penalty against Charles M. Schulz Sonoma County Airport in Santa Rosa, California, saying the airport failed to meet aircraft rescue and firefighting requirements and wildlife inspection rules on two passenger flights in March 2025. The agency announced the proposed penalty on Nov. 12, 2026, putting fresh pressure on an airport that had already drawn attention over its emergency staffing.
The FAA said the airport did not provide the aircraft rescue and firefighting personnel and vehicles required by its FAA-approved Airport Certification Manual for the two flights, and did not tell the airline that the coverage was missing. For one of the flights, the agency also said the runway was not inspected for deer and other wildlife before the first flight of the day. The airport now has 30 days after receiving the FAA’s enforcement letter to respond, and the final amount could change.
That response window matters because proposed FAA penalties are often settled or reduced after an airport answers back. The case is also likely to turn on whether the airport can show it met the staffing standard another way, rather than by immediately building a fully staffed county fire station. Airport officials have said the airport was safe and met federal staffing standards, while also asking county supervisors to approve two more emergency response positions.
The dispute did not start this week. A whistleblower complaint on June 28, 2025 led to an investigation into whether the airport had enough fire and rescue staff for aircraft emergencies, and during a surprise inspection on Aug. 6, 2025, the crew missed the three-minute response requirement in a timed runway drill by 1 minute and 26 seconds before passing on a second attempt. A consultant hired in 2024 had warned that the many duties assigned to operations staff across the airfield could lead to missed response times, and airport officials have said a fully staffed county fire station at the airport would take about four years to build and cost more than $4 million.
The FAA has not said whether more enforcement is planned, and the airport has not released a public response to the proposed penalty. What happens next is straightforward: the airport must answer the letter, and that reply will help determine whether the $170,000 figure stands, drops, or is resolved some other way.
