Department of Transportation - Focus on Regulation
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Vol. 76 Monday,
No. 79 April 25, 2011
Part IV
Department of Transportation
14 CFR Parts 244, 250, 253 Et al.
Enhancing Airline Passenger Protections; Final Rule
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES4
VerDate Mar2010 17:57 Apr 22, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4717 Sfmt 4717 E:\FR\FM\25APR4.SGM 25APR423110 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 79 / Monday, April 25, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION taking this action to strengthen the Contingency plans for lengthy tarmac
rights of air travelers in the event of delays; (2) reporting of tarmac delay
Office of the Secretary oversales, flight cancellations and data; (3) customer service plans; (4)
delays, ensure that passengers have contracts of carriage; (5) responding to
14 CFR Parts 244, 250, 253, 259, and accurate and adequate information to consumer problems/complaints (6)
399 make informed decisions when oversales; (7) full fare advertising; (8)
[Docket No. DOT–OST–2010–0140] selecting flights, prohibit unfair and baggage and other ancillary fees; (9)
deceptive practices such as post- post-purchase price increases; (10)
RIN 2105–AD92 purchase price increases and contract of notification to passengers of flight status
carriage choice-of-forum provisions, and changes; (11) choice-of-forum
Enhancing Airline Passenger
to ensure responsiveness to consumer provisions; and (12) peanut allergies. In
Protections
complaints. response to the NPRM, the Department
AGENCY: Office of the Secretary (OST),
DATES: This rule is effective August 23,
received over 2100 comments, the vast
Department of Transportation (DOT). 2011 except for the amendments to 14 majority of which were related to the
ACTION: Final rule. CFR 399.84 which become effective proposal to address peanut allergies in
October 24, 2011. air travel.
SUMMARY: The Department of The Department received comments
Transportation is issuing a final rule to FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
on the NPRM from the following: U.S.
improve the air travel environment for Blane A. Workie, Tim Kelly or Daeleen
carriers and U.S. carrier associations;
consumers by: Increasing the number of Chesley, Office of the Assistant General
foreign air carriers and foreign carrier
carriers that are required to adopt Counsel for Aviation Enforcement and
associations; U.S. and foreign consumer
tarmac delay contingency plans and the Proceedings, U.S. Department of
groups; travel agents and members of
airports at which they must adhere to Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Ave.,
organizations in the travel industry;
the plan’s terms; increasing the number SE., Washington, DC 20590, 202–366–
airports and various airport-related
of carriers that are required to report 9342 (phone), 202–366–7152 (fax),
industry groups; members of Congress;
tarmac delay information to the tim.kelly@dot.gov or
embassies; peanut industry groups and
Department; expanding the group of blane.workie@dot.gov (e-mail).
allergy associations; as well as a number
carriers that are required to adopt, SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: of individual consumers. In addition,
follow, and audit customer service plans the Department received a summary of
and establishing minimum standards for Background
the public discussion on the NPRM
the subjects all carriers must cover in On December 30, 2009, the proposals that occurred on the
such plans; adding carriers to those Department published a final rule in Regulation Room Web site, http://
required to include their contingency which it required certain U.S. air www.regulationroom.org. The
plans and customer service plans on carriers to adopt contingency plans for Regulation Room site is a site where
their websites; increasing the number of lengthy tarmac delays; respond to members of the public can learn about
carriers that must respond to consumer consumer problems; post flight delay and discuss proposed federal
complaints; enhancing protections information on their websites; and regulations and provide feedback to
afforded passengers in oversales adopt, follow, and audit customer agency decision makers. To support this
situations, including increasing the service plans. The rule also defined Administration’s open government
maximum denied boarding chronically delayed flights and deemed initiative, the Department partnered
compensation airlines must pay to them to be an ‘‘unfair and deceptive’’ with Cornell University in this pilot
passengers bumped from flights; practice. The majority of the provisions project to discover the best ways to use
strengthening, codifying and clarifying in that rule took effect on April 29, Web 2.0 and social networking
the Department’s enforcement policies 2010. See 74 FR 68983 (December 30, technologies to increase effective public
concerning air transportation price 2009). involvement in the rulemaking process.
advertising practices; requiring carriers In the preamble to that final rule, the
The Department has carefully
to notify consumers of optional fees Department noted that it planned to
reviewed and considered the comments
related to air transportation and of review additional ways to further
received. The commenters’ positions
increases in baggage fees; prohibiting enhance protections afforded airline
that are germane to the specific issues
post-purchase price increases; requiring passengers and listed a number of
raised in the NPRM and the
carriers to provide passengers timely subject areas that it was considering
Department’s responses are set forth
notice of flight status changes such as addressing in a future rulemaking. On
below, immediately following a
delays and cancellations; and June 8, 2010, the Department published
summary of regulatory provisions and a
prohibiting carriers from imposing a notice of proposed rulemaking
summary of the regulatory analysis.
unfair contract of carriage choice-of- (NPRM), 75 FR 32318, in which it
forum provisions. The Department is addressed the following areas: (1) Summary of Regulatory Provisions
Subject Final rule
Tarmac Delay Contingency Plans ....................... • Requires foreign air carriers operating to or from the U.S. with at least one aircraft with 30
or more passenger seats to adopt and adhere to tarmac delay contingency plans.
• Requires U.S. and foreign air carriers to not permit an international flight to remain on the
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES4
tarmac at a U.S. airport for more than four hours without allowing passengers to deplane
subject to safety, security, and ATC exceptions.
• Expands the airports at which airlines must adhere to the contingency plan terms to include
small hub and non-hub airports, including diversion airports.
• Requires U.S. and foreign carriers to coordinate plans with Customs and Border Protection
(CBP) and the Transportation Security Administration (TSA).
VerDate Mar2010 17:57 Apr 22, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\25APR4.SGM 25APR4Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 79 / Monday, April 25, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 23111
Subject Final rule
• Requires notification regarding the status of delays every 30 minutes while aircraft is de-
layed, including reasons for delay if known.
• Requires notification of opportunity to deplane from an aircraft that is at the gate or another
disembarkation area with door open if the opportunity to deplane actually exists.
Tarmac Delay Data ............................................. • Requires all carriers that must adopt tarmac delay contingency plans to file data with the
Department regarding lengthy tarmac delays.
Customer Service Plans ...................................... • Requires foreign air carriers that operate scheduled passenger service to and from the U.S.
with at least one aircraft with 30 or more passenger seats to adopt, follow and audit cus-
tomer service plans.
• Establishes standards for the subjects U.S. and foreign air carriers must cover in customer
service plans. Examples include:
• delivering baggage on time, including reimbursing passengers for any fee charged to
transport a bag if the bag is lost;
• where ticket refunds are due, providing prompt refunds including refund of optional fees
charged to a passenger for services that the passenger was unable to use due to an
oversale situation or flight cancellation; and
• allowing reservations to be held at the quoted fare without payment, or cancelled with-
out penalty, for at least twenty-four hours after the reservation is made if the reserva-
tion is made one week or more prior to a flight’s departure date.
Posting of Customer Service Plans and Tarmac • Requires foreign carriers to post their required contingency plans, customer service plans,
Delay Contingency Plans. and contracts of carriage on their websites as is already required of U.S. carriers.
Response to Consumer Problems ...................... • Expands the pool of carriers that must respond to consumer problems to include foreign air
carriers operating scheduled passenger service to and from the U.S. with at least one air-
craft with 30 or more passenger seats (i.e., monitor the effects of irregular flight operations
on consumers; inform consumers how to file a complaint with the carrier, and provide
substantives responses to consumer complaints within 60 days).
Oversales ............................................................ • Increases the minimum denied boarding compensation limits to $650/$1,300 or 200%/400%
of the one-way fare, whichever is smaller.
• Implements an automatic inflation adjuster for minimum DBC limits every 2 years.
• Clarifies that DBC must be offered to ‘‘zero fare ticket’’ holders (e.g., holders of frequent
flyer award tickets) who are involuntarily bumped.
• Requires that a carrier verbally offer cash/check DBC if the carrier verbally offers a travel
voucher as DBC to passengers who are involuntarily bumped.
• Requires that a carrier inform passengers solicited to volunteer for denied boarding about
all material restrictions on the use of transportation vouchers offered in lieu of cash.
Full Fare Advertising ........................................... • Enforces the full fare advertising rule as written (i.e., ads which state a price must state the
full price to be paid). Carriers currently may exclude government taxes/fees imposed on a
per-passenger basis.
• Clarifies the rule’s applicability to ticket agents.
• Prohibits carriers and ticket agents from advertising fares that are not the full fare and im-
pose stringent notice requirements in connection with the advertisement of ‘‘each-way’’ fares
available for purchase only on a roundtrip basis.
• Prohibits opt-out provisions in ads for air transportation.
Baggage and Other Fees and Related Code- • Requires U.S. and foreign air carriers to disclose changes in bag fees/allowances on their
Share Issues. homepage for three months, to include information regarding the free baggage allowance.
• Requires carriers (U.S. and foreign) and ticket agents to include on e-ticket confirmations in-
formation about the free baggage allowance and applicable fees for the first and second
checked bag and carry-on but allows ticket agents, unlike carriers, to do so through a
hyperlink.
• Requires carriers (U.S. and foreign) and ticket agents to inform passengers on the first
screen on which the ticket agent or carrier offers a fare quotation for a specific itinerary se-
lected by a consumer that additional airline fees for baggage may apply and where con-
sumers can go to see these baggage fees.
• Requires U.S. and foreign air carriers to disclose all fees for optional services to consumers
through a prominent link on their homepage.
• Requires that the same baggage allowances and fees apply throughout a passenger’s jour-
ney.
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES4
• Requires the marketing carrier to disclose on its website any difference between its optional
services and fees and those of the carrier operating the flight. Disclosure may be made
through a hyperlink to the operating carriers’ websites that detail the operating carriers’ fees
for optional services, or to a page on its website that lists the differences in policies among
code-share partners.
VerDate Mar2010 17:57 Apr 22, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\25APR4.SGM 25APR423112 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 79 / Monday, April 25, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
Subject Final rule
Post-Purchase Price Increases ........................... • Bans the practice of post-purchase price increases in air transportation or air tours unless
the increase is due to an increase in government-imposed taxes or fees and only if the pas-
senger was provided full disclosure of the potential for the increase and affirmatively agreed
to the potential for such an increase prior to purchase.
Flight Status Changes ......................................... • Requires U.S. and foreign air carriers operating scheduled passenger service with any air-
craft with 30 or more seats to promptly notify consumers through whatever means is avail-
able to the carrier for passengers who subscribe to the carrier’s flight status notification
services, in the boarding gate area, on a carrier’s telephone reservation system and on its
website of delays of 30 minutes or more, cancellations and diversions within 30 minutes of
the carrier becoming aware of a change in the status of a flight.
Choice-of-Forum Provisions ................................ • Prohibits U.S. and foreign air carriers from limiting a passenger’s forum to pursue litigation
to a particular inconvenient venue.
Summary of Regulatory Analysis costs, even without considering non- period at a 7% discount rate is $14.3
quantifiable benefits. This analysis, million. At a 3% discount rate, the
The regulatory analysis shows that the outlined in the table below, has present value of monetized net benefits
monetized benefits of the proposed determined that the present value of is estimated to be $20.3 million.
requirements exceed their monetized monetized net benefits for a 10 year
Present value
(millions)
Monetized Benefits .................................................................. 10 Years, 7% discounting ....................................................... $45.0
10 Years, 3% discounting ....................................................... 53.5
Monetized Costs ...................................................................... 10 Years, 7% discounting ....................................................... 30.7
10 Years, 3% discounting ....................................................... 33.2
Monetized Net Benefits ........................................................... 10 Years, 7% discounting ....................................................... 14.3
10 Years, 3% discounting ....................................................... 20.3
A comparison of the monetized benefits so, the cost burdens and benefits of particularly with respect to diverted
and costs for each of the final doing so. For example, we proposed to flights. For example, they argue that an
requirements is provided in the include foreign carriers that operate airport authority is most likely to know
Regulatory Analysis and Notices aircraft originally designed to have a the areas in the airport where
section, set forth below, along with passenger capacity of 30 or more seats international passengers can be allowed
information on additional benefits and to and from the U.S., but we invited to deplane without resulting in U.S.
costs for which quantitative estimates interested persons to comment on Customs and Border Protection (CBP) or
could not be developed. whether, in the event that we adopt a Transportation Security Administration
rule requiring foreign carriers to have (TSA) concerns. Commenters also note
Comments and Responses
contingency plans, we should limit its that requiring only carriers to have a
1. Tarmac Delay Contingency Plans applicability to foreign air carriers that contingency plan unreasonably places
operate large aircraft to and from the the burden of the operations of the
A. Entities Covered
U.S.—i.e., aircraft originally designed to entire air transport industry on carriers.
The NPRM: The NPRM proposed to have a maximum passenger capacity of Consumer groups are also in favor of
require any foreign air carrier that more than 60 seats. We also asked requiring airports to adopt contingency
operates scheduled passenger or public whether the requirement to adopt plans. Of the airport and airport
charter service to and from the U.S. tarmac delay contingency plans should industry commenters, Dallas/Fort Worth
using any aircraft originally designed to apply not only to U.S. and foreign air Airport generally supports requiring
have a passenger capacity of 30 or more carriers but also to U.S. airports. We U.S. airports to adopt a tarmac delay
passenger seats to adopt and comply requested that proponents and contingency plan but notes that U.S.
with a tarmac delay contingency plan opponents of these or other alternative airports do not have direct contact with
for their flights to and from the U.S. that proposals provide arguments in support airline passengers when they are on the
includes minimum assurances identical of their positions. aircraft and have no control over
to those currently required of U.S. Comments: A number of U.S. and deplaning. Airports Council
carriers. As proposed, it would apply to foreign airlines and airline associations International (ACI) supports the airlines’
all of a foreign carrier’s flights to and support requiring airports to develop plans being coordinated with airports
from a covered U.S. airport, including their own contingency plans to address but does not support requiring airports
those involving aircraft with fewer than lengthy tarmac delays but generally to adopt separate plans. ACI believes
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES4
30 seats if a carrier operates any aircraft agree that these plans should be limited that separate airport and airline
originally designed to have a passenger to coordinating with airlines and contingency plans could result in
capacity of 30 or more seats to or from government agencies and assisting confusion and states that it is committed
the U.S. airlines during tarmac delays. Some of to supporting airlines in the
We sought comment on whether the these commenters note that airports are development of their plans.
requirement to have a contingency plan in the best position to address the With regard to the adoption of a
should be narrowed or expanded, and if logistics associated with lengthy delays, tarmac delay contingency plan by
VerDate Mar2010 17:57 Apr 22, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\25APR4.SGM 25APR4Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 79 / Monday, April 25, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 23113
foreign carriers, the views of foreign and from the United States, not merely after the December 26, 2010, blizzard
carrier associations and carriers differed on flights operated by U.S. airlines. highlights the need to extend the rule to
significantly from those of other Among the consumer group those carriers.
commenters. In general, the foreign commenters, the Consumer Travel In order to address commenters’
carriers and foreign carrier association Alliance (CTA) supports the expansion concerns that certain European laws (or
commenters object to the proposal that of the tarmac delay rules to foreign laws of other countries) may conflict
they adopt tarmac delay contingency carriers, as does the Association for with this regulation, we want to clarify
plans as unnecessary and note that the Airline Passenger Rights (AAPR), that the requirement to adopt and follow
same issues with tarmac delays do not National Business Travel Association a plan applies only to tarmac delay
arise as often with international flights (NBTA), Flyersrights.org, Consumers events that occur at a covered U.S.
as they do with domestic flights. The Union and Aviation Consumer Action airport. The rule should not conflict
International Air Carrier Association Project (ACAP). The American Society with EU Regulation 261/2004, the EU
(IACA) states that EU Regulation 261/ of Travel Agents (ASTA) also supports rule on compensation and assistance to
2004 is an EU passenger rights provision extending the tarmac delay contingency be provided to passengers in the event
to which EU carriers are subject on all plan provisions to foreign carriers and of denied boarding, flight cancellation
their flights, including flights that states that the rule should cover all or long flight delays. The types of
depart from U.S. airports, and that the aircraft types. assistance required under the EU rule
Department’s proposals could conflict Among the airports and airport are for the most part services that would
with EU laws. The International Air industry commenters, ACI supports not be available on board an aircraft
Transport Association (IATA) generally requiring foreign air carriers to adopt during a tarmac delay, e.g. phone calls,
supports the principle of contingency plans that include minimum assurances a hotel room, transportation between the
plans, but believes such plans should be as required of U.S. airlines and strongly airport and the hotel room, and
developed individually by each carrier supports extending the rule to foreign rerouting on another flight. The context
according to its specific operations and air carriers operating aircraft with 30 or of the food and beverage requirement in
conditions as opposed to having terms more seats. The American Association regulation 261/2004 suggests that these
set by the government. The Arab Air of Airport Executives (AAAE) agrees services are to be provided in the airport
Carrier Association (AACA) and the that foreign carriers should comply with terminal during a normal (i.e., non-
Latin American and Caribbean Air specified contingency plans in order to tarmac) flight delay before passengers
Transport Association (ALTA) concur provide equal and fair competition. The have been boarded. As such, although
with IATA, as do many foreign carriers. New York State Consumer Protection EU 261/2004 applies to EU carriers
The Air Transport Users Council (AUC) Board supports requiring foreign departing from or traveling to an EU
and a number of European carriers point carriers to adopt tarmac delay member state and to non-EU carriers
out, similar to IACA, that many of the contingency plans that provide for departing from an EU member state
provisions in the NPRM are covered passengers to receive the same basic airport, we see no conflict between that
under EU legislation. The National necessities that U.S. carriers are rule and this one. On a tarmac delay at
Airlines Council of Canada (NACC) required to provide. a U.S. airport, EU and non-EU carriers
supports the need for contingency plans DOT Response: After fully can comply with all provisions of both
in the event of irregular operations but considering the comments received, the rules.
states that they should be developed in Department has decided not to With regard to charter flights, we
the interest of enhanced customer promulgate a requirement that airports agree with Monarch Airlines and TUI
service rather than being mandated by adopt contingency plans addressing Travel that an exception should exist for
government regulation. TUI Travel notes lengthy tarmac delays. The Department foreign-originating charters that operate
that EU carriers must comply with EU is aware that many airports are to and from the United States but do not
regulations and asks that carriers voluntarily working with U.S. carriers to pick up any U.S. originating passengers.
originating outside the U.S. be excluded develop policies and procedures to Consequently, carriers will not be
from the tarmac delay contingency plan address lengthy tarmac delays and to required to adopt a tarmac delay
rule. Monarch Airlines commented that cooperate with U.S. carriers in the contingency plan as long as their
an exception to any requirement should coordination of the carriers’ contingency operations fall within these parameters.
exist for flights that do not pick up plans as required of U.S. airlines by the This is consistent with 14 CFR 382.7(d)
passengers in the United States. first tarmac delay rule. As such, it is not of the DOT rule on air travel by
U.S. carrier associations such as the necessary to regulate in this area at this passengers with disabilities and with
Air Transport Association of America time. the minimal regulation of these flights
(ATA) and National Air Carrier However, the Department thinks it is by the Department’s public charter rule
Association (NACA) indicated their reasonable and necessary to require in 14 CFR part 380.
support for requiring foreign air carriers foreign carriers that operate scheduled
passenger or public charter service to B. Time Frame for Deplaning Passengers
to meet the same standards as U.S.
and from the U.S. to adopt and adhere on International Flights
carriers for adopting tarmac delay
contingency plans. Of the U.S. carriers to tarmac delay contingency plans. The NPRM: Under the proposed rule,
that commented, Spirit Airlines International air travel is a large and a covered foreign air carrier would be
supports extending the rule to foreign increasingly significant market sector, required to include in its tarmac delay
carriers, while Virgin America states and customers who use non-U.S. contingency plan an assurance that it
that DOT should not adopt any of the airlines deserve no less protection from will not permit an aircraft to remain on
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES4
proposals related to tarmac delays. lengthy tarmac delays at U.S. airports the tarmac at a U.S. airport for more
Most of the comments received from than do customers of U.S. airlines. We than a set number of hours as
individuals on this issue noted that a also wish to be consistent with the determined by the carrier in its plan
requirement to develop a tarmac delay application of our rules. The lengthy before allowing passengers the
contingency plan should be extended to tarmac delays experienced by a number opportunity to deplane. The proposal
foreign carriers because it is important of foreign carriers at John F. Kennedy included appropriate safety, security,
to protect consumers on all flights to International Airport (JFK) during and and ATC exceptions. This is already
VerDate Mar2010 17:57 Apr 22, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\25APR4.SGM 25APR423114 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 79 / Monday, April 25, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
required of U.S. carriers for their • International flights operate less DOT Response: As noted above, the
international flights under the frequently and a cancellation could Department is expanding its
Department’s existing rule. As for result in missed connections with requirement to adopt a tarmac delay
domestic flights, U.S. carriers are serious consequences for passengers; contingency plan to foreign carriers, as
required to provide an assurance that • Returning to the gate and/or a flight we believe that it is important to ensure
they will not permit an aircraft to cancellation may result in the crew that passengers on these carriers are also
remain on the tarmac for more than ‘‘timing-out’’ and many foreign carriers afforded protection from unreasonably
three hours without deplaning do not have U.S.-based crews, which lengthy tarmac delays. With regard to a
passengers subject to the same safety, could result in a delay of 24 hours or required time period for deplaning
security and ATC exceptions. In the more; passengers on international flights
NPRM, we noted that there are ongoing • International flights have limited operated by U.S. or foreign carriers, we
questions as to whether mandating a windows of opportunity to depart due are requiring that these carriers provide
specific time frame for deplaning to gate constraints at foreign airports; an assurance that they will not permit
passengers on international flights as • Larger aircraft used for international an aircraft to remain on the tarmac at a
currently exists for domestic flights is in flights take much longer to enplane and U.S. airport for more than four hours
the best interest of the public. We asked deplane (up to 40 minutes), which can without providing passengers an
for comments on whether any final rule cause even further delay; opportunity to deplane. As in our initial
that we may adopt should set a uniform • International flights are often better rulemaking to enhance airline passenger
standard for the time interval after equipped to meet passenger needs on-
protections, this new requirement will
which U.S. or foreign air carriers would board the aircraft; and
allow exceptions for safety and security
be required to allow passengers on • Long-haul and ultra-long haul
operations can make up time while in considerations and in instances where
international flights to deplane rather Air Traffic Control advises the pilot-in-
than allowing the carriers to set their the air.
Some carriers, such as Air New command that returning to the gate or
own tarmac delay time limit for such permitting passengers to disembark
flights. We also asked commenters who Zealand, support a 3 hour time limit,
but note that consideration should be elsewhere would significantly disrupt
support the adoption of a uniform airport operations. We decided to
standard to propose specific time limits given to crew restrictions and gate
allocations, or situations where impose a uniform time limit for
and state why they believe these deplaning passengers on international
intervals to be appropriate. resolution of the delay is less than an
hour away and deplaning would further flights rather than allowing carriers to
Comments: Of the U.S. carriers and establish their own tarmac delay time
carrier associations that commented, delay the flight. Qantas also supports
the 3 hour limit in principle, but thinks limits because we believe the
ATA objects to a hard time limit on consistency in standard will provide
tarmac delays for international flights. such an assurance is limited by the
carrier’s ability to control the passengers with clearer expectations as
NACA supports requiring foreign air to when they would be allowed off
carriers to meet the same standards as circumstances. Of the travel agents and
other industry group commenters that aircraft in the event of a tarmac delay.
U.S. carriers for adopting tarmac delay A uniform standard will also make it
contingency plans. commented on this issue, ASTA agrees
that a specific standard for international clearer to the other stakeholders such as
In general, the non-U.S. carriers and
flights is important but supports a four airports of the need to assist airlines in
carrier associations object to the
hour rather than three hour rule. deplaning passengers on international
proposal as unnecessary, asserting that
Among the consumer commenters, flights before the four hour mark.
the same problems with tarmac delays
the Association for Airline Passenger Further, the Department believes that a
do not exist with international flights as
with domestic flights. For example, Rights (AAPR) and Flyersrights.org uniform time limit will reduce or
Condor Flugdienst Airlines (Condor) strongly advocate for a maximum prevent lengthy tarmac delay incidents
states that it sees no reason to enforce permissible tarmac delay of three hours such as those that occurred at JFK
a mandatory deplaning requirement for for international flights. Flyersrights.org during and after the December 26, 2010,
a problem that occurs only very rarely. urges that tarmac delays of over three blizzard and the resulting impact on
Many of these carriers also comment hours not be permitted for international passengers traveling on those flights.
that a ‘‘one size fits all’’ approach is not flights and notes that the ‘‘health and We decided to impose a four hour
practical and note that there are large inconvenience problems’’ are the same time limit for lengthy tarmac delays on
differences between domestic and regardless of whether the flight is international flights as opposed to the
international operations, and between domestic or international. Consumer three hour limit that applies to lengthy
long-haul and short-haul operations. Action, along with Consumer tarmac delays on domestic flights for a
IATA and IACA object to a uniform time Federation of America, the National number of reasons. First, because
limit entitling passengers to deplane. Consumers League, Public Citizen, and international flights are of much longer
IACA states that the proposal may U.S. PIRG support the extensive duration on average than domestic
conflict with EU passenger rights comments filed by Flyersrights.org. flights, it is possible that delays may not
requirements since EU carriers must Some individual commenters also have as negative an impact on
follow EU requirements on all their expressed concern about lengthy tarmac international passengers as they were
flights, including flights that depart delays on international flights and already planning on spending a
from U.S. airports. The Association of advocated for a uniform time limit for significant amount of time in the aircraft
European Airlines (AEA) and foreign deplaning passengers. Of the and some of the time spent on the
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES4
airlines’ comments are similar to commenters on ‘‘Regulation Room,’’ tarmac can be made up while in the air.
IATA’s. Many object to the proposal to almost half noted, generally, that the We also reviewed the contingency plans
require carriers to set a time limit to Department should apply a uniform for the U.S. carriers as they are already
deplane due to various operational federal time limit on tarmac delays to all required to establish their own tarmac
concerns. Specifically, a number of flights and airlines, regardless of aircraft delay time limits for international
foreign industry groups and airlines size, airport size, and whether the flight flights, and found that most of these
noted the following: is domestic or international. carriers have chosen to set a four hour
VerDate Mar2010 17:57 Apr 22, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\25APR4.SGM 25APR4Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 79 / Monday, April 25, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 23115
time limit for deplaning passengers from Comments: With regard to the to provide advice and assistance as
their international flights that provision for adequate food and water, required, but thinks the extent of this
experience a tarmac delay. In addition, ATA notes that generally aircraft used requirement needs clarification. South
we are persuaded by comments of the for international flights are able to African Airways expresses similar
different environment in which comfortably accommodate passengers concerns as Qantas and notes that the
international flights operate and the onboard for longer periods of time, with NPRM is not clear regarding what
need to provide greater leeway for food service and entertainment options comprises medical attention within the
international flights than we allow for often available given the type of meaning of the proposal. South African
domestic flights. For these reasons, we equipment used and the expected length Airways states that while its in-flight
have decided to impose a four hour time of these flights. Among the foreign air crewmembers have basic first-aid
limit for deplaning passengers on carriers that commented, Condor capabilities, the carrier relies on
international flights and not allow U.S. Airlines notes that when a longer delay consultations with remote medical-care
and foreign carriers to establish their becomes inevitable, Condor has snacks contractors and other passengers with
own longer tarmac delay time limits for and drinks available for passengers. medical training to provide good-
international flights. Similarly, Qatar Airways notes that the Samaritan assistance. South African
As clarified in the first rule to logistics of the ultra long-haul flights explains that it sees no practical way to
enhance airline passenger protections, operated to and from the U.S. already ensure medical attention during tarmac
an international flight for purposes of require that Qatar Airways provide extra delays that exceeds this basic assistance.
this requirement is a nonstop flight catering and potable/bottled water to The National Airlines Council of
segment that departs from the United allow for extra time beyond that Canada (NACC) states that many airlines
States and lands in another country, or scheduled during which its customers are not in a position to provide adequate
vice-versa, exclusive of non-traffic and crew may have to spend in the medical attention as airlines are not
technical stops. For example, if a U.S. aircraft. Qatar explains that it already medical organizations and in-flight staff
carrier operates a direct flight Chicago- ensures that its customers are regularly in not medical staff. As such, it believes
New York-Frankfurt, with some offered water and soft drinks by cabin that such assistance is up to local
Chicago-originating passengers destined crew. Qantas indicates that it too authorities to provide.
provides passengers access to potable Among consumer groups and
for New York and others destined for
water and refreshments during tarmac individual commenters, the AAPR urges
Frankfurt, and the aircraft experiences a
delays but does not consider it the Department to require the tarmac
tarmac delay in Chicago, then we would
reasonable to impose a mandatory delay contingency plans of U.S. and
consider the tarmac delay to be on a
requirement to provide food to all foreign air carriers contain minimum
domestic flight. This is because
passengers after two hours in all cases, guidelines for accommodating
Chicago-New York is a domestic flight
as the commencement of a meal service passengers with disabilities. The New
segment even though the final York State Consumer Protection Board
may lead to further delays and missed
destination of the flight is Frankfurt, states that foreign carriers should be
opportunities for departure. The carrier
Germany. If, on the other hand, the required to adopt a plan that provides
also thinks that the term ‘‘adequate food’’
aircraft only stops for refueling or a for passengers to receive the same basic
is too broad and open to different
crew change in New York and the flight necessities that U.S. carriers are
interpretations. South African Airways
carries no Chicago-New York traffic and required to provide, i.e., adequate food
wants the Department to understand
no Frankfurt-bound passengers enplane and water, operable lavatories, and
that foreign airlines have significantly
in New York, then we would consider less flexibility than U.S. airlines to store medical attention if needed. By and
the tarmac delay in Chicago to be a extra catering items onboard. In the large, individual commenters also
tarmac delay on an international flight. absence of evidence that lengthy delays support the Department imposing
C. Provision for Adequate Food and are a problem for passengers traveling identical requirements for foreign and
Water, Operable Lavatories, and on foreign airlines, the airline believes U.S. carriers. Of those that commented
Medical Attention if Needed the Department is not justified in on Regulation Room, they generally
imposing the costs associated with these support the Department requiring
The NPRM: As proposed in the requirements. airlines to provide working bathrooms,
NPRM, the tarmac delay contingency Regarding assurance of operable water, beverages, snacks and, in some
plans adopted by foreign air carriers for lavatory facilities, a number of carriers cases, meals on delayed flights. A few
international flights that depart from or noted that this is a reasonable commenters also mention the need for
arrive at a U.S. airport would need to requirement and that they have working adequate temperature control and the
include: (1) An assurance that the lavatories and toilet serviceability is ability to walk around an aircraft during
carrier will provide adequate food and maintained at the highest levels. a delay in order to stretch and use the
potable water no later than two hours However, one carrier expressed concern restroom.
after the aircraft leaves the gate in the about unforeseen maintenance issues. DOT Response: The Department
case of departure or touches down in With regard to providing medical continues to believe that passengers
the case of an arrival if the aircraft attention, Condor states that its flight stuck on an aircraft during lengthy
remains on the tarmac, unless the pilot- attendants are capable of providing tarmac delays deserve to be provided
in-command determines that safety or basic first aid when needed and have some type of food, potable water,
security considerations preclude such access to remote medical advice for operable lavatories, and if necessary,
service; (2) an assurance of operable more serious medical emergencies. medical care. It appears from the
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES4
lavatory facilities while the aircraft Similarly, Qatar Airways notes that its comments that most carriers already
remains on the tarmac; and (3) an cabin crews are highly trained in first have procedures to provide food and
assurance of adequate medical attention aid. Qantas Airlines believes that it is water during long tarmac delays, and
if needed while the aircraft remains on reasonable to require carriers to seek ensure that their lavatory facilities are
the tarmac. These requirements already medical assistance for any onboard operable while the aircraft remains on
apply to U.S. carriers under the current emergency and states that it engages the the tarmac. The concern expressed by
rule. services of an external medical provider South African Airways about storage
VerDate Mar2010 17:57 Apr 22, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\25APR4.SGM 25APR423116 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 79 / Monday, April 25, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
space for extra catering items seems to operational concerns affecting such Of the consumer and consumer group
be based on a misconception that airports. commenters, CTA supports the
extensive supplies are needed. There Comments: Of the U.S. carriers and expansion of the tarmac-delay rules to
also appears to be confusion as to what carrier association commenters, ATA smaller airports. AAPR and
the Department means by the term supports expanding the number of Flyersrights.org fully support increasing
‘‘adequate food.’’ The Department would airports where carriers must coordinate the number of covered airports to
consider snack foods such as granola plans to include small hub and non-hub include small hub and non-hub airports.
bars that carriers typically provide on airports. The Regional Airline NBTA also supports these provisions.
flights to suffice as ‘‘adequate’’ food. Association (RAA) opposes extending The New York State Consumer
Carriers are, of course, free to provide the rule to small-hub and non-hub Protection Board supports expanding
more complete meals to passengers if airports because it believes there is no the rule to all airports, as do many
they so wish. We note that the evidence that doing so is necessary or Regulation Room commenters, some of
requirement to provide food and water beneficial and believes that the cost to whom state that airlines and airports
within two hours would not apply if the expand tarmac delay contingency plans should be required to work together to
pilot-in-command determines that to smaller airports outweighs the develop and implement tarmac delay
safety or security precludes such benefits, as requiring regional and other contingency plans.
service, so the commencement of a meal carriers serving small airports to DOT Response: The Department is
service should not lead to further delays coordinate plans with all such airports adopting the requirement that covered
or missed opportunities for departure as would require significant resources. carriers, both U.S. and foreign, include
feared by at least one commenter. As for In general, non-U.S. carrier and small hub and non-hub airports in their
the requirement to provide medical care carrier association commenters object to tarmac delay contingency plans and
if necessary, the Department’s the proposal as unnecessary and note ensure that the plan has been
expectation is that carriers would have that they have limited presence or coordinated with airport authorities at
the capabilities to provide basic first aid service at these smaller airports. Air those airports. We continue to maintain
assistance on the aircraft and would France and KLM specifically oppose that the same issues and discomfort to
seek further medical assistance as this provision. On the other hand, passengers during an extended tarmac
necessary for any onboard emergency, Alitalia supports the idea of delay are likely to occur regardless of
including disembarking the passenger coordination, but believes the proposal airport size or layout. Similar to the
for treatment if needed with the is extremely burdensome. Singapore expansion of the scope of the
assistance of airport emergency Airlines supports coordinating requirement to adopt contingency plans
personnel. contingency plans with airports to to include foreign carriers, this
handle diverted flights, but states that requirement will protect a greater
D. Coordination With Covered Airports the plans should focus on customer care number of passengers at more airports.
The NPRM: In the initial rulemaking such as swiftly disembarking We are not convinced by commenters’
to enhance airline passenger passengers, returning baggage, concerns that requiring carriers to
protections, we required U.S. carriers to accommodating passengers if necessary coordinate their plans with small hub
have contingency plans for tarmac in hotels or on alternate flights, and and non-hub airports will have a
delays to large-hub and medium-hub ensuring that passengers continue their significant financial impact on carriers.
airports, as well as diversion airports journey. Monarch Air disagrees and U.S. carriers are already required to
that the carrier serves or utilizes. In the states that coordination with airports is coordinate plans with large-hub and
NPRM for the current proceeding, we not necessary, as it would let the airport medium-hub airports and should be
proposed to extend this requirement to determine what is best for the customer. able to tailor existing plans to apply to
small hub and non-hub airports and to Of the travel agent interests that these smaller airports. We recognize that
require all covered carriers (U.S. and commented, ASTA supports expanding the requirement to coordinate
foreign) to coordinate their plans with contingency plan coordination contingency plans with airports is a new
each covered U.S. airport that they serve obligations to include small hub and requirement for foreign carriers, but
or utilize for diversions. In making this non-hub airports. TUI Travel states that expect that it will not be overly
proposal, the Department noted its coordinating contingency plans is not burdensome for foreign carriers as the
belief that the same issues and necessary, as the airport can determine large-hub and medium-hub airports are
discomfort to passengers during an what is in the best interest of the airline familiar with the coordination process
extended tarmac delay are likely to customer and notes restrictions on gate after having worked with the U.S.
occur regardless of airport size or availability that may be determined on carriers on tarmac delay contingency
layout. We also noted our strong belief the day of arrival, so pre-coordination plans this past year. The need for such
that it is essential that airlines involve will reduce operational flexibility. coordination was recently highlighted
airports in developing their plans in Of the airport and airport industry by the events at JFK airport following
order to enable them to effectively meet commenters, Dallas/Fort Worth Airport the December 26, 2010 blizzard. Also,
the needs of passengers. We invited supports requiring carriers to coordinate during the past two years significant
comment on whether it was workable to their contingency plans with all airports amount of work has been done through
require covered carriers coordinate with that they serve and notes that important a project funded by the Federal Aviation
small hub and non-hub airports to airport factors such as terminal capacity, Administration (FAA) to produce a best-
which they regularly operate scheduled equipment, and government services are practice guidance document for
passenger or public charter service. We taken into account during such developing coordinated contingency
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES4
also asked if the rule should be coordination. ACI also supports the plans for tarmac delays at small hub and
expanded to include other commercial need for airlines to coordinate with non-hub airports.
U.S. airports (i.e., those with less than airports of all sizes and states that it is The benefit of airlines coordinating
10,000 annual enplanements). Finally, committed to supporting airline with airports on contingency plans
we specifically solicited comments from development of contingency plans with becomes particularly clear when there
airlines, airports and other industry accurate and relevant information about are flight diversions. In situations where
entities on whether there are any special the airports the carriers serve. flights must be diverted from their
VerDate Mar2010 17:57 Apr 22, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\25APR4.SGM 25APR4Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 79 / Monday, April 25, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 23117
intended destination airports, it is continue to do so but stresses that British Airways and other carriers assert
imperative that airlines and the airports interagency coordination between CBP that CBP and the airport operator should
that regularly serve as their diversion and TSA as well as coordination be responsible to ensure that passengers
airports have already discussed things between the airports and CBP/TSA is can disembark the aircraft. Cathay
such as locations within the airport needed in order to get diverted Pacific adds that the burden to
where passengers are allowed to wait passengers who so desire off airplanes. coordinate plans should be on all the
when TSA or CBP personnel are not USA3000 suggests that airports may not stakeholders, while Malaysia Airlines
present and the availability of be properly staffed by CBP during does not support coordinating delay
equipment to deplane/bus passengers to irregular operations and urges DOT to contingency plans with CBP and TSA,
the terminal to minimize the hardship review this issue with CBP and local but thinks those agencies should design
to travelers. It is essential that airlines airports. their own plans. Cathay Pacific notes
involve airports in developing their The non-U.S. carrier and carrier that not all airports can handle aircraft
plans to enable them to effectively meet association commenters object in carrying 300+ passengers and states that
the needs of passengers. The rule on general to the proposal as unnecessary. airports not suitable for deplaning
coordination with airports is also being IACA notes that tarmac delays of more international passengers should fall
clarified to ensure that at airports, like than three hours are very rare and outside the scope of the proposed rules.
JFK, where operations such as snow believes the NPRM imposes a Of the travel agents and other
removal and gate use are managed by disproportionate burden on airlines to industry group commenters, ASTA
entities other than the airport authority coordinate plans not only with airports, supports extending the rule to include
(e.g., a carrier, a consortium of carriers, but with federal agencies. IATA coordination with CBP and TSA. NBTA
or a contractor), carriers covered by this supports the need for the United States expresses concern that costs associated
rule must also coordinate with these government to be more responsive to the with requiring coordination with TSA
terminal operators. needs of airline passenger who arrive at and CBP may outweigh the benefits and
airports where TSA and CBP personnel may be passed on to the business
E. Coordination With CBP and TSA are not normally stationed or are not traveler. As such, NBTA thinks DOT
The NPRM: As recommended by the present during off hours, but think it is should develop a clearer picture of cost-
Tarmac Delay Task Force,1 we proposed the responsibility of those agencies to benefits before implementing this
to require carriers to include TSA in work together to put systems in place. provision. TUI believes that it is not
their coordination efforts for any large, The comments of the Association of necessary to coordinate plans with TSA
medium, small, and non-hub U.S. European Airlines (AEA) and many or CBP, and is concerned that this
airports, including U.S. diversion foreign airlines’ are similar to or support would add another layer of planning.
airports which they regularly use. We IATA, while NACA adds that DOT Of the consumer and consumer group
also proposed to require carriers to should work with CBP and other commenters, CTA supports rules being
coordinate with CBP for any U.S. airport government agencies on a memorandum promulgated by CBP and TSA that will
that the carrier regularly uses for its of understanding to address issues allow passengers on inbound
international flights, including regarding extended tarmac delays. The international flights forced to land at a
diversion airports. We proposed these National Airlines Council of Canada diversion airport to be processed, as
measures as it had come to the (NACC) adds that carriers have limited does the AAPR, Flyersrights.org and the
Department’s attention on more than influence over TSA and CBP, so Consumers Union. Dallas/Fort Worth
one occasion that passengers on obligations should be on the U.S. Airport supports requiring carriers to
international flights were held on government to ensure these agencies coordinate plans with CBP and TSA and
diverted aircraft for extended periods of have their own contingency plans in states that plans should be in place to
time because there were reportedly no place. The Arab Air Carrier Association deal with the process of handling
means to process those passengers and (AACA) states that coordinating international passengers and allowing
allow them access to terminal facilities. contingency plans with diversion them access to terminal facilities at
At that time, the U.S. Department of airports as well as TSA and CBP will be small and medium size airports with no
Homeland Security (TSA and CBP are very costly and suggests, along with CBP services. ACI applauds DOT for
part of DHS) had advised this other commenters, that TSA and CBP proposing to expand coordination to
Department that, subject to coordination should design their own contingency TSA and CBP.
with CBP regional directors, passengers plans for any airport that receives DOT Response: After considering all
on diverted international flights may be international flights. the comments, the Department is
Some foreign carriers assert that this adopting the requirement that carriers
permitted into closed/sterile terminal
proposal is flawed because TSA and coordinate plans with CBP and TSA at
areas without CBP screening. In the
CBP can provide only limited assistance large, medium, small, and non-hub
NPRM, we invited interested persons to
at some airports due to limited after- airports that they regularly serve,
comment on this proposal and asked
hours federal inspection capabilities or including at diversion airports they plan
what costs and benefits would result
limited federal personnel available at to utilize. Because tarmac delays are a
from imposing this requirement.
Comments: Of the U.S. carriers and the smaller airports. Carriers also ask particular problem in situations where
carrier associations that commented, how they can ensure that passengers flights must be diverted from their
will remain in one area of the airport or intended destination airports, this rule
ATA states that carriers already
that a sterile area will be available for requires carriers to coordinate their
coordinate with TSA and CBP and will
containing such passengers. British plans with airports that serve as
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES4
1 In January 2008, the Department established a Airways supports the proposal that diversion airports for such operations.
Tarmac Delay Task Force to coordinate and develop passengers on diverted international As recommended by the Tarmac Delay
contingency plans to deal with lengthy delays. The flights be permitted into closed terminal Task Force, it is also important for
Task Force comprising of individuals who areas without CBP screening and notes, carriers to include in their coordination
represented airlines, airports and consumer groups
issued a report that set forth guidelines for airlines,
as do some other foreign carriers, that efforts appropriate government
airports, and other stakeholders to use when these carriers generally do not have a authorities such as Customs and Border
dealing with long ground delays. presence at diversion airports. As such, Protection and the Transportation
VerDate Mar2010 17:57 Apr 22, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\25APR4.SGM 25APR4You can also read
