u.s. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Office of the Secretary 

[Docket No. DOT-OST-2007-0022] 

Billing Code No. 4910-9X 

Denial of Airlines' Temporary Exemption Requests from DOT's Tarmac Delay Rules for 

JFK, EWR, LGA and PHL Operations 

AGENCY: Office of the Secretary (OST), Department of Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: On March 30, 2010, the Department published a notice in the Federal Register 

seeking comment on separate requests by five airlines for a temporary exemption from a 

requirement that U.S. carriers adopt contingency plans for lengthy tarmac delays. These plans 

must include an assurance that a carrier will not permit an aircraft to remain on the tannac for 

more than three hours in the case of domestic flights and for more than a set number of hours as 

determined by a carrier in the case of international flights without providing passengers an 

opportunity to deplane, with certain exceptions for safety, security, or Air Traffic Control (ATC) 

related reasons. The requests cover operations at John F. Kennedy International Airport (JFK), 

Newark Liberty International Airport (EWR), LaGuardia Airport (LGA), and Philadelphia 

International Airport (PHL). The carriers contend that without the requested exemption covering 

seven months in 2010 during which runway construction is expected to be underway at JFK, 

large numbers of flights will have to be canceled at the New York area airports and affected 

passengers will face significant inconveniences and delays before being re-accommodated. The 

Department received approximately 135 comments on these exemption requests, primarily from 
- 2 -

individual consumers. After fully considering the comments submitted, the Department is issuing 

this notice to announce its decision denying each of these exemption requests as not being in the 

public interest since the concerns raised by the carriers can be resolved through more careful 

flight scheduling. The notice also points out that if totally unexpected situations occur 

appropriate prosecutorial discretion can be applied with respect to potential enforcement action. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Livaughn Chapman or Blane A. Workie, 

Office of the Assistant General Counsel for Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings, US. 

Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Ave., S.E., Washington, DC 20590-0001; 202-

366-9342 (phone), 202-366-7152 (fax), livaughn.chapmanialdot. gov or blane. workieialdot. gov 

( e-mail). 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On December 30, 2009, the Department published a final rule titled "Enhancing Airline 

Passenger Protections" that sets forth numerous measures geared toward strengthening 

protections afforded to air travelers. 74 Fed. Reg. 68983. One ofthese provisions, which takes 

effect April 29, 2010, requires US. certificated and commuter air carriers that operate scheduled 

passenger service or public charter service using any aircraft with a design capacity of 30 or 

more passenger seats to adopt, implement, and adhere to contingency plans for lengthy tarmac 

delays at each large and medium hub US. airport at which they operate scheduled or public 

charter air service. For domestic flights, the rule requires covered U.S. carriers to provide 

assurance that they will not permit an aircraft to remain on the tarmac for more than three hours, 

with two safety/security and an ATC-related exceptions: (1) where the pilot-in-command 

determines that an aircraft cannot leave its position on the tarmac to deplane passengers due to a 
- 3 -

safety-related or security-related reason (e.g. weather, a directive from an appropriate 

government agency); and (2) where A TC advises the pilot-in-command that returning to the gate 

or another disembarkation point elsewhere in order to deplane passengers would significantly 

disrupt airport operations. For international flights departing from or arriving at a U.S. airport, 

the rule requires covered U.S. carriers to provide assurance that the carriers will not permit an 

aircraft to remain on the tarmac for more than a set number of hours, as determined by the 

carriers, before deplaning passengers, with the same safety, security, and ATC exceptions. 14 

CFR §§ 259.4(b)(1) and (b )(2). For all flights, carriers must provide adequate food and water no 

later than two hours after the aircraft leaves the gate (in the case of a departure) or touches down 

(in the case of an arrival) if the aircraft remains on the tarmac, unless the pilot-in-command 

determines that safety or security requirements preclude such service. Carriers must also ensure 

that lavatory facilities are operable and medical attention is provided if needed while the aircraft 

remains on the tarmac. Pursuant to 49 U.S.c. § 46301, violations of 14 CFR Part 259 subject a 

carrier to civil penalties of up to $27,500 per violation. 

On March 4,2010, JetBlue requested an exemption from the requirements not to permit 

an aircraft to remain on the tarmac for more than three hours in the case of domestic flights and 

for more than a set number of hours as determined by a carrier in the case of international flights 

without providing passengers an opportunity to deplane for its JFK operations for the time period 

that operations at JFK are disrupted by the closure of the main runway at that airport, i.e., March 

1 through December 1,2010. JetBlue's request for an exemption during this period was 

followed by a similar request by Delta Air Lines for its JFK operations and a request by 

American Airlines that the Department grant an exemption for all carrier operations at JFK. 

Continental next requested that the Department extend any relief it grants carriers operating at 
- 4 -

JFK to carriers operating at the Newark and LaGuardia Airports. On March 22,2010, US 

Airways also filed a request for a similar exemption for its operations at the Philadelphia Airport. 

The carriers argue collectively that without the requested exemptions large numbers of 

flights will have to be canceled at the New York area airports and affected passengers will have 

to face significant inconveniences and delays before being re-accommodated. The basic 

rationale presented by Continental and US Airways in support of exemptions for their operations 

at Newark, LaGuardia and Philadelphia airports is that the delays and delay mitigation strategies 

at JFK resulting from the runway construction will affect the former airports by causing delays to 

spill over. 

On March 25,2010, the Department published a notice in the Federal Register seeking 

comment on whether it should act on the requests by JetBlue, Delta, American, Continental, and 

US Airways by means of one of the following four measures: (1) deny each exemption request; 

(2) grant one or more of the exemption requests in their entirety; (3) grant a limited temporary 

exemption for operations at one or more of the airports by allowing the three hour limit to be 

raised to four hours during the two specific heavy construction periods (April 29 thru June 30, 

2010, and September 16 thru September 29,2010) planned for JFK's Bay Runway; or (4) deny 

each exemption request, but direct the Aviation Enforcement Office to consider the runway 

closure and unexpected bad weather in deciding whether to pursue an enforcement case against a 

carrier for a lengthy tarmac delay incident that occurs at one or more ofthe airports. The 

comment period closed on April 9, 2010. 

Comments Received 

The Department received approximately 135 comments in response to the notice, 

primarily from individual consumers. Nearly all of the comments from individual consumers 
- 5 -

and advocacy organizations support denying the request. The comments from airlines, airline 

associations and airports are mixed - a few support giving priority or preferential treatment to 

exemption requests for operations at JFK while most assert that all carriers operating at JFK, 

LGA, EWR and possibly PHL should receive equal relief from the tannac delay rule. The 

commenters' specific positions are set forth below. 

In supplementary comments, JetBlue contends that unlike the requests made by 

Continental and US Airways, JetBlue's request is limited to operations at JFK, and is carefully 

limited to the time period that JFK operations will be disrupted by the Bay Runway 

reconstruction. JetBlue argues that Continental and US Airways have "chosen to try to jump on 

the bandwagon and bootstrap what they claim are related situations at LGA, EWR and PHL in an 

attempt to obtain relief' from the three hour rule. Continental states that the Department should 

focus its attention on the closure of the Bay Runway, and requests that the Department select 

Option 2, granting the requests of JetBlue, American and Delta in their entirety, and extending 

the same relief to all New York area airports (i.e., JFK, LGA and EWR). Continental takes no 

position on whether relief should be extended to carriers at PHL. 

JetBlue maintains that Options 3 and 4 do not go far enough in relieving carriers at JFK 

from potential unforeseen and unintended adverse circumstances. JetBlue states that it would not 

dismiss Option 4; however, it argues that Option 4 leaves carriers with uncertainty as to when 

and how the rule will be applied, and leaves the application of the rule to judgment after the fact. 

JetBlue argues further that any exemption issued by the Department should apply to both 

domestic and international flights. JetBlue argues that the three hour rule already exempts 

foreign air carriers, and that it is impractical for a carrier such as JetBlue to use different tannac 

delay limits for its domestic and international flights. JetBlue argues that the only realistic way 
- 6 -

to put U.S. carriers on an equal footing with foreign air carriers is to exempt both domestic and 

international flights while the Bay Runway is closed. 

American argues that while it does not oppose relief at other airports, such as EWR, 

LGA, and PHL, the Department's first priority should be to address the operational disruption 

that is widely anticipated will result from the runway closure and construction at JFK during the 

peak summer travel period into November. American states that at a minimum, the Department 

should grant a temporary exemption for operations at JFK by raising the three-hour limit to four 

hours for the period April 29, 2010, through November 15,2010. In addition, American 

maintains that the Department should recommend to the Aviation Enforcement Office that it take 

into account the special circumstances at JFK as well as unexpected bad weather in deciding 

whether to pursue a case against a carrier for a lengthy tarmac delay incident at JFK. 

In its supplemental comments, Continental continues to assert that all three New York 

metropolitan airports share airspace and arrival and departure corridors, and delays or delay 

mitigating strategies at JFK will adversely affect air carriers and passengers at EWR and LGA. 

Continental argues that the Department has long treated the New Y orkIN ew Jersey airports as a 

single point, and states that if relief is granted to any carrier at any New York area airport, all 

carriers at all New York area airports should receive the same relief. 

Similarly, US Airways continues to argue that the Philadelphia-New York City airspace 

is an intertwined web, with components that cannot be considered in isolation, and maintains that 

action at one airport creates ripple effects throughout the NY INJ/PHL airspace. US Airways 

supports the grant of waivers to carriers operating at airports in the NY INJ/PHL airspace, but 

argues that waivers must either be granted or denied to all carriers as a whole. US Airways 

argues that granting an exemption to only certain airports or carriers would be contrary to 
- 7 -

accepted existing practice, and would provide an unfair advantage to certain operators at the 

expense of others. US Airways maintains that fundamental fairness dictates that the Department 

treat all carriers equally and provide a level playing field, regardless of the Department's 

decision to grant or deny the requested exemptions. 

United Airlines (United) states that it takes no position on whether the Department should 

grant exemptions from the tarmac delay rule at any or all of the airports for which exemptions 

have been sought. However, United also urges the Department to extend the same relief, if any, 

to all carriers at a given airport, not just to carriers that have formal exemption requests pending. 

United argues that the problems caused by runway closures, particularly when combined with 

adverse weather conditions, will affect all carriers operating at an airport, including those 

operating a limited number of flights, and opposes any selective relief at any given airport. In 

addition, while United maintains that it also takes no position with regard to Option 4, it states 

that if the Department were to adopt this approach, such enforcement policy guidance should not 

be limited to the instant case, but made applicable to any future case where the temporary 

closures of any airport movement area, whether due to ongoing construction or other causes, 

could lead to or exacerbate airside congestion and delays in flight operations, especially during 

adverse weather conditions. 

Spirit Airlines (Spirit) supports a blanket exemption from the tarmac delay rules for all 

carriers operating at JFK, LGA, and EWR. Spirit argues that requiring carriers to comply with 

the new rules during the closure and construction of the Bay Runway likely will exacerbate the 

already difficult situation at JFK by necessitating flight cancellation due to long taxi-out and 

taxi-in times caused by the construction, as well the possibility of flight crew exceeding legally 

permitted crew time and increased operational difficulties for airports. Spirit argues that it and 
- 8 -

other small carriers with few flights will face unique operational challenges because flight 

cancellations by such carriers will make it difficult for passengers to reach their destinations. 

Spirit maintains that, unlike legacy carriers that have many slots and can cut back schedules 

during peak construction periods, Spirit, with only a few flights, is not in a position to scale back 

service. Spirit argues that granting the requested relief will not encourage carriers to ignore the 

intent of the rules, but rather will provide flexibility to carriers in borderline delay situations in 

order to mitigate potential harm to consumers when facing extraordinary adverse conditions 

resulting from runway closure and construction. In addition, Spirit argues that Option 3 would 

not be an effective way to alleviate the problems associated with the runway reconstruction, and 

argues that enforcement should not be left to the discretion of the Aviation Enforcement Office. 

The Air Carrier Association of America (ACAA) asserts that all carriers operating at 

JFK, LGA, EWR, and PHL should receive equal relief from the tarmac delay rule. The ACAA 

argues that if the Department approves tarmac delay exemptions for carriers operating at these 

airports, it should waive the tarmac delay requirements for all carriers at JFK, LGA, EWR, and 

PHL and for all carriers at any other airport where an exemption from the tarmac delay rule is 

granted. In addition, ACAA suggests that the Department also look into the impact that 

significant delays at JFK, LGA, EWR, and PHL will have on other airports in the New York -

Philadelphia area and on airports in other parts of the country. 

The Port Authority supports Option 4, stating that the Department should deny the 

blanket requests and that the Aviation Enforcement Office should consider the runway closure 

together with the unexpected circumstances such as weather conditions that would preclude full 

use of the remaining JFK runways in deciding whether to pursue an enforcement case against a 

given carrier. The Port Authority states that because airline schedules have already been reduced 
- 9 -

and use-or-Iose penalties for schedule reductions at JFK have been suspended by the FAA with 

the support of the Port Authority, important passenger protections should not be waived on a 

wholesale basis because of the Bay Runway reconstruction. 

Comments were also submitted by the City of Philadelphia (Philadelphia), the owner and 

operator ofPHL. Philadelphia agrees with Continental's comment that delays and delay 

mitigation strategies at one New York Area airport adversely affect and inconvenience air 

carriers and passengers at other New York Area airports. Philadelphia states that at certain 

times, the efficiency of aircraft operations at PHL is closely tied to that of those at EWR, JFK, 

and LGA. Philadelphia argues that exemption from the application of the tarmac delays rules for 

carriers at only one selected major airport within the New York Air Route Traffic Control Center 

(New York ARTCC) would be fundamentally unfair and provide a competitive and operational 

advantage for operations at those selected points. Philadelphia states that each of the airports are 

subjected to the same airspace, shared departure and arrival routes and common control by the 

New York ARTCC, and their interdependence of operations dictates that they be treated in a 

similar and fair manner. Philadelphia states that it does not wish to opine on the four options 

proposed by the Department, but believes that equal treatment of airports and the carriers 

operating at these airports should be paramount in the Department's ultimate decision. 

Philadelphia argues that, should the Department grant the individual or collective requests of 

carriers for exemptions from the tarmac delays rules at JFK, EWR and LGA, fundamental 

fairness and the public interest dictate that carriers operating at PHL be similarly exempted. 

Comments were also submitted to the Department by U.S. Senators Barbara Boxer and 

Olympia J. Snowe. In a joint submission, they argue that granting the requested exemptions is 

unnecessary and would undermine important consumer protections for the flying pUblic. They 
- 10-

further contend that the exemption requested by these airlines would render the rule ineffective 

and maintain an unacceptable status quo. They state that, while the requested exemption may 

appear to be targeted toward the closure of JFK's main runway, allowing an exemption would 

create a dangerous precedent. They reason that construction and other disruptions at airports 

frequently cause minor delays throughout America's airports, and that nothing exceptional or 

unexpected exists about this particular case that warrants a blanket exemption. They maintain 

that, in the ordinary course, airlines modify flight schedules to account for construction and other 

disruptions, and this time should be no different. They argue that it has been clear for a decade 

that airlines refuse to hold themselves accountable to the voluntary standards they agreed to and 

that Federal action to compel airlines to recognize passengers' rights is not only long overdue, 

but the only means available to ensure these rights are protected. 

In additional comments, FlyersRights.org argues that the petitioning airlines are trying to 

nullify the three hour rule so they can continue to over-schedule flights at congested airports 

without risk of penalty. FlyersRights.org argues that the petitioning carriers are seeking 

regulatory relief from the consequences of their chronic over-scheduling of daily flights in 

excess of runway capacity. The organization states that when airport capacity is temporarily 

reduced due to runway construction, carrier schedules must be reduced and carriers must use 

larger aircraft to make up the difference for the reduction in the frequency of flights. 

FlyersRights.org maintains that over-scheduling exists because the FAA has not required the 

airlines serving JFK to reduce their scheduled operations at that airport to avoid multi-hour 

departure delays before takeoff during the Bay Runway reconstruction period, and that a grant of 

the exemption requests would set a bad precedent. FlyersRights.org argues that the Department 

has existing regulatory authority to consider mitigating factors in deciding whether to pursue an 
- 11 -

enforcement case where a violation of the three hour rule exists, and to negotiate the amount of 

any civil penalty. Therefore, FlyersRights.org argues no exemptions should be granted. 

Approximately 125 individuals submitted comments on the carriers' requests for 

exemption. All but two of these consumers oppose the carriers' requests for an exemption from 

the three hour tarmac delay rule. Many consumers who oppose the carriers' requests support the 

position taken by FlyersRights.org, and many argue that the government must step in to protect 

the public because airlines too often mistreat and take advantage of their customers. One 

commenter, who supports the carriers' request for an exemption, argues that management 

science supports not having the tarmac delay rule at all, and that the rule regarding fines for three 

hour tarmac delays may negatively impact the flying pUblic. The commenter suggests that the 

Department revoke the option of imposing a fine from its final ruling. 

Decision 

After carefully taking into account all ofthe information available to us at this time and 

fully considering the comments we received, the Department finds that inadequate justification 

exists for granting JetBlue, Delta, American, Continental, and US Airways the requested 

exemption from the tarmac delay requirements in 14 CFR §§ 259.4(b)(1) and (b)(2) for their 

operations at JFK, LGA, EWR, and PHL airports, during the period of time that work affecting 

JFK's Bay Runway is scheduled to take place, or until work on that runway is complete. In 

these exemption requests, it was incumbent on the petitioners to demonstrate that the requested 

actions are necessary and in the public interest. They have failed to meet this burden and we are 

not convinced that it is in the public interest to grant the carriers the requested exemptions from 

the requirements of 14 CFR §§ 259.4(b)(1) and (b)(2). 
- 12 -

JetBlue maintains in its petition and the other petitioning carriers appear to agree that 

granting relief from 14 CFR § § 259 .4(b)(1) and (b )(2) is critical so that the purpose of the tarmac 

delay rule - enhancing passenger protections - is not undermined by unforeseen circumstances. 

J etBlue argues that a rigid and inflexible application of the rule will cause carriers to cancel 

flights rather than risk substantial penalties to the detriment of passengers who want to reach 

their destinations. 

We find this argument flawed and unpersuasive. JetBlue's argument suggests that it 

would better serve the public interest to hobble the very protections that the tarmac delay rule 

affords consumers by permitting carriers to force passengers to remain on an aircraft for more 

than three hours (as opposed to giving consumers the option to deplane after three hours, or 

permitting them to choose some other form of transportation, or not to travel at all). We strongly 

disagree. We cannot lose sight of the fact that passengers on flights delayed on the tarmac have 

a right to know that they will not be "held hostage" for an unreasonable length of time on the 

tarmac. 

It is also important to note that the Department's F ederal Aviation Administration (FAA) 

predicts that the delays resulting from the runway closure at JFK will be workable, i.e., similar to 

those seen during peak summer months. The FAA expects that flights can be rerouted or 

rescheduled in a way that will allow the other three runways to absorb the extra traffic. Airlines 

have already taken steps to adjust their schedules and operations to help mitigate the expected 

delays and they should further adjust them, if necessary. We believe that the concerns raised by 

the petitioning carriers can be resolved through further adjustment of schedules as appropriate, 

and that the public interest would be better served by keeping the full protections of the tarmac 

delay rule in place. In addition, we note that since 14 CFR § 259.4(b )(2) permits U.S. carriers 
- 13 -

to establish any tannac delay limit for their international flights that they choose, we believe 

there is no substantial reason to grant an exemption from this provision of the rule. Moreover, 

while in the event ofa violation, as always, the Department's Aviation Enforcement Office will 

consider a number of factors including, for example, the hann to consumers caused by the 

violation and the specific impact of the runway closure in detennining whether to pursue an 

enforcement case and the civil penalty it would seek in such an enforcement proceeding, it is 

incumbent on carriers to adjust their schedules to reflect the reality of the runway construction. 

Therefore, based on the foregoing, we find that granting the requested exemption from the 

tannac delay rule is not in the public interest, and we deny the requests of JetBlue, Delta, 

American, Continental, and US Airways, for an exemption from the requirements of 14 CFR §§ 

259.4(b)(I) and (b)(2) for their operations at JFK, LGA, EWR, and PHL airports, during the 

period of time that work affecting JFK's Runway 13R/31 L is scheduled to take place, or until 

work on that runway is complete. 

ISSUED THIS 22 DAY OF APRIL 

ay LaHood 

Secretary ofTra