Commission weighs legislative agenda: seeks statewide standards for hangar fire suppression and fuel systems, discusses industry incentives

The Oklahoma Aerospace and Aeronautics Commission discussed a proposed legislative agenda at its Oct. 9 meeting that would pursue statewide standardization of airport hangar fire‑suppression rules and aviation fuel‑system installation requirements, and explore new incentives for aerospace industry growth.

The discussion was led by Director Ortiz, who told commissioners the items were on the commission’s slate for potential insertion into the next legislative session. “We’ll do what the legislature tells us to do,” Ortiz said when asked about possible changes to the commission’s authorities, adding that the exact outcome depends on how lawmakers draft any bill.

Why it matters: inconsistent local interpretation of fire and building codes has produced varied requirements across Oklahoma, creating uncertainty and cost differentials for hangar developers and airport operators. Ortiz said some jurisdictions interpret codes to require foam suppression for certain hangar sizes, while others require only sprinklers or no suppression, and that ambiguity is slowing hangar development in parts of the state.

Commission discussion and examples: Ortiz described recent projects that illustrate the cost effects of different systems: a roughly 15,000‑square‑foot hangar was bid with a base price of about $2,000,000; adding foam suppression as an alternate raised the bid by about $1,400,000, while adding a sprinkler system increased cost by roughly $150,000. Ortiz and commissioners also discussed insurance problems that can follow foam requirements because accidental foam discharges can be highly damaging.

Commissioners pressed for options. Commissioner Ritz asked whether the commission has authority to set statewide standards rather than leave decisions to local building code adoptions; Ortiz said building codes are adopted locally and that the commission is exploring whether statutory language, an advisory memo, or another approach is appropriate.

Fuel systems and related infrastructure: The commission also discussed standardizing aviation fuel‑system installation requirements. Ortiz said differing interpretations of non‑aviation fuel standards have driven costs—examples included requirements for protective bollards or separate fencing and access that added tens of thousands of dollars to projects. He said staff has begun early conversations with the Oklahoma Corporation Commission about a state aviation fuel standard.

Industry incentives and other agenda items: Staff outlined two possible incentives to attract and grow aerospace firms: (1) incentives to support construction of SCIFs (secure facilities required for classified Department of Defense work), which can cost two to three times a standard commercial building; and (2) incentives to offset costs of Cybersecurity Maturity Model Certification (CMMC), where initial certification and ongoing maintenance can cost small firms tens to hundreds of thousands of dollars. Ortiz said both ideas are under discussion with lawmakers.

Other proposed changes include placing the department’s five‑year airport construction program into statute (Title 3, Sec. 85 was cited as the relevant portion of state law) and advancing policy language from Oklahoma’s Advanced Air Mobility strategic plan on vertiports and integration of emerging aviation technologies.

Outcome: After discussion staff sought approval to proceed developing the agenda language; commissioners voted to approve moving the slate forward for further work and potential drafting for the upcoming session.