Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 60 / Tuesday, March 30, 2010 / Notices 15765 

1We note at the outset that the requested 

exemption would begin March 1, 2010, although 

the rule does not go into effect until April 29, 2010. 

Dated: March 23, 2010. 

Maura M. Pally, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Professional 

and Cultural Exchanges, Bureau of 

Educational and Cultural Affairs, Department 

of State. 

[FR Doc. 2010–7091 Filed 3–29–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4710–05–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Office of the Secretary 

[Docket No. DOT–OST–2007–0022] 

Request for Comments on Carriers’ 

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 December 30, 2009, the 

Department of Transportation (DOT or 

Department) published a final rule that 

requires, among other things, that U.S. 

carriers adopt contingency plans for 

lengthy tarmac delays that include an 

assurance that a carrier will not 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, with certain 

exceptions for safety, security or Air 

Traffic Control-related reasons. This 

rule becomes effective on April 29, 

2010. Several airlines have requested an 

exemption from these requirements for 

operations at John F. Kennedy 

International Airport (JFK), for seven 

months in 2010 during which runway 

construction is expected to be under 

way at that airport and the rule will 

otherwise be effective, one airline has 

asked that operations at Newark Liberty 

International Airport (EWR) and 

LaGuardia Airport (LGA) be similarly 

exempted for the same time period, and 

another has requested that Philadelphia 

International Airport (PHL) be included 

in any relief granted by the Department. 

The Department is seeking comment on 

the exemption requests to assist it in 

deciding whether it should grant or 

deny these requests. The Department 

will publish a document in the Federal 

Register regarding its decision on the 

exemption requests after it has reviewed 

the comments submitted. 

DATES: Comments should be filed by 

April 9, 2010. Late-filed comments will 

be considered to the extent practicable. 

ADDRESSES: You may file comments 

identified by the docket number DOT– 

OST–2007–0022 by any of the following 

methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 

http://www.regulations.gov and follow 

the online instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• Mail: Docket Management Facility, 

U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 

New Jersey Ave., SE., West Building 

Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 

Washington, DC 20590–0001. 

• Hand Delivery or Courier: West 

Building Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 

1200 New Jersey Ave., SE., between 9 

a.m. and 5 p.m. ET, Monday through 

Friday, except Federal holidays. 

• Fax: (202) 493–2251. 

Instructions: You must include the 

agency name and docket number DOT– 

OST–2007–0022 at the beginning of 

your comment. All comments received 

will be posted without change to 

http://www.regulations.gov, including 

any personal information provided. 

Privacy Act: Anyone is able to search 

the electronic form of all comments 

received in any of our 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.). You may 

review DOT’s complete Privacy Act 

statement in the Federal Register 

published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 

19477–78). 

Docket: For access to the docket to 

read background documents or 

comments received, go to http:// 

www.regulations.gov or to the street 

address listed above. Follow the online 

instructions for accessing the docket. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Livaughn Chapman or Blane A. Workie, 

Office of the Assistant General Counsel 

for Aviation Enforcement and 

Proceedings, U.S. Department of 

Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Ave., 

SE., Washington, DC 20590–0001; 202– 

366–9342 (phone), 202–366–7152 (fax), 

livaughn.chapman@dot.gov or 

blane.workie@dot.gov (e-mail). 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 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 FR 68983. One of these 

provisions, which takes effect April 29, 

2010, requires U.S. 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 

U.S. airport at which they operate 

scheduled and 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-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 safety-related or security-related 

reason (e.g., weather, a directive from an 

appropriate government agency); and (2) 

where Air Traffic Control (ATC) 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 before deplaning 

passengers as determined by the 

carriers, 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. 49 U.S.C. 46301. 

Jet Blue, American, and Delta recently 

requested an exemption from the tarmac 

delay rules for their JFK operations from 

March 1 through December 1, 2010, the 

period of time during which work 

affecting JFK’s Runway 13R/31L (also 

referred to as the ‘‘Bay Runway’’) is 

scheduled to take place, or until work 

on the runway is completed, whichever 

date is earlier.1 On March 1, 2010, 

runway and airfield construction did in 

fact commence at JFK, and will 

temporarily affect operations at that 

airport. Runway 13R/31L, which is the 

longest and most frequently used of the 

four runways at JFK, measures 14,572 

feet in length and handles 

approximately one-third of JFK’s annual 

operations, including approximately 

half of all departures at JFK. The Port 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
15766 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 60 / Tuesday, March 30, 2010 / Notices 

2 Interested persons can read the carriers’ 

exemption requests and comments on these 

requests in their entirety in this docket. 

Authority of New York and New Jersey 

(Port Authority) plans to resurface this 

runway with concrete and widen it to 

accommodate new large aircraft and to 

help prevent ice ingestion. The Port 

Authority also plans to install new 

runway lighting, electrical 

infrastructure, and a new electrical 

feeder system to the runway. 

The construction project is proposed 

to occur in six phases, and will render 

Runway 13R/31L unavailable from 

March 1 to June 30, 2010. The western 

two-thirds of the runway is planned to 

reopen on July 1, but its use will be 

limited under some weather and 

operating conditions, primarily because 

some high-speed runway turnoffs and 

navigational aids (NAVAIDS) will be 

unavailable until later in the 

construction period. On September 15, 

Runway 4L/22R will close until 

September 30 to resurface its 

intersection with Runway 13R/31L. 

Runway 13R/31L and its associated 

NAVAIDS is planned to reopen in its 

entirety and be fully functional in midNovember 2010. 

JetBlue asserts that it is imperative for 

the Department to issue it an exemption 

from the tarmac delay rules because of 

the JFK runway construction to ensure 

that the very purpose of the rule—to 

enhance passenger protections—is not 

undermined by the application of the 

final rule to unforeseen and 

unaddressed circumstances. More 

specifically, JetBlue requests relief from 

14 CFR §§ 259.4(b)(1) and (b)(2), which 

prohibit carriers from permitting an 

aircraft to remain on the tarmac for more 

than 3 hours for domestic flights and for 

more than a set period of time as 

determined by the carrier for 

international flights without providing 

passengers an opportunity to deplane. 

JetBlue reasons that disruptive events, 

such as airport construction, often have 

a significant, domino-like impact upon 

multiple flights because the 

interconnecting resources required for 

each flight—aircraft, flight deck crew 

and flight attendant crew—each may 

compound the problem. JetBlue asserts 

that one late flight may delay three 

additional flights if the resources 

connect differently, and two or more 

late flights JetBlue argues may delay 

several more flights. JetBlue avers that 

once the final rule takes effect on April 

29, 2010, the potential for disruption 

will be further compounded because at 

the three-hour mark, flights must return 

to the gate and offer passengers the 

opportunity to deplane, thereby further 

delaying that flight (if not resulting in a 

cancellation). JetBlue asserts that such 

incidents will have a subsequent ripple 

effect on the following flights that 

require use of the same aircraft, cockpit 

crew or flight attendant crew. 

If the Department grants JetBlue its 

requested exemption, JetBlue states, it 

will inform passengers before boarding 

that significant delays may be 

encountered because of the Bay Runway 

closing, and will ensure that each of its 

aircraft is stocked with sufficient food 

and beverages to accommodate any such 

delay. In addition, JetBlue states that its 

lavatories will be available and its 

LiveTV service will be provided to 

passengers on each aircraft. JetBlue 

avers that it has already taken several 

steps to minimize the impact of this 

closure on its JFK operations, including 

voluntarily and significantly reducing 

planned flight operations and 

implementing guidelines for passenger 

comfort and convenience in such 

situations that are more stringent than 

current law requires. 

Delta supports JetBlue’s request for a 

temporary exemption and further 

requests that identical relief from the 

tarmac delay contingency planning 

provisions be extended to Delta, and to 

other similarly situated carriers at JFK. 

Delta states that it has already trimmed 

its JFK schedule in anticipation of the 

Bay Runway reconstruction, and will 

take all reasonable measures to 

minimize inconvenience to passengers. 

Delta states that it agrees with JetBlue’s 

argument that rigid and inflexible 

application of the new tarmac delay rule 

would have the unintended and 

undesirable effect of exacerbating 

passenger inconvenience and disruption 

by forcing the cancellation of flights that 

could otherwise be operated. Delta avers 

that airline recovery and 

reaccommodation efforts will be further 

hampered by the reduced capacity of 

the airport. Delta states that it is willing 

to abide by the same terms and 

conditions proposed by JetBlue, 

including informing passengers of the 

likelihood of delays, and ensuring that 

it provides adequate food, beverage, and 

sanitary facilities. 

American agrees with arguments by 

JetBlue and Delta that application of the 

new tarmac delay rule during the JFK 

runway reconstruction project could 

have unintended adverse impacts on 

passengers by causing carriers to cancel 

flights in lieu of incurring large civil 

penalties. American supports the 

exemption requests of both JetBlue and 

Delta, provided that the Department 

extends relief to all carriers operating at 

JFK, rather than limit such relief to 

JetBlue and Delta. American argues that 

any scenario under which some but not 

all carriers at JFK would be subject to 

the tarmac delay rule would be 

unworkable, unfair, and confusing to 

consumers. 

Continental argues that the problems 

caused by the runway closure and 

construction at JFK described by Delta 

and JetBlue in their exemption requests 

are not limited to JFK. Continental states 

that the airports in the New York 

Metropolitan area share the same air 

space and arrival and departure 

corridors. Consequently, Continental 

contends, delays or delay mitigating 

strategies at JFK will adversely affect air 

carriers and passengers at EWR and 

LGA as well. Therefore, Continental 

takes the position that to the extent the 

Department grants Delta and JetBlue 

temporary relief from the tarmac delay 

rules fundamental fairness dictates that 

airlines serving EWR and LGA receive 

the same relief. 

Comments on these carriers’ requests 

have been filed by FlyersRights.org. 

FlyersRights.org opposes each of the 

exemption requests. FlyersRights.org 

argues that those carriers are requesting 

permission to keep their passengers 

stranded for more than three hours on 

taxiways at JFK because airlines have 

overscheduled operations beyond the 

capacity of the JFK runway system 

during this temporary period. 

Flyersrights.org asserts that overscheduling 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. 

Flyersrights.org argues that ATC should 

prohibit airlines from pushing aircraft 

back from gates at congested airports, 

such as JFK, when a lengthy tarmac 

delay is inevitable. Flyersrights.org 

maintains that airlines have had months 

to plan for the reconstruction of the Bay 

Runway, and argues that a grant of the 

exemption requests would set a bad 

precedent.2

Most recently, on March 22, 2010, US 

Airways also filed a request for an 

exemption from the tarmac delay rules. 

US Airways states in its petition that it 

fully supports Continental’s request that 

all carriers serving the three major New 

York City airports be granted relief from 

the tarmac delay rules under the same 

terms and conditions contained in 

JetBlue’s petition, provided that the 

Department grants the same relief for 

Philadelphia’s airport (PHL). US 

Airways argues that PHL should be 

included because PHL shares the same 

airspace with JFK, LGA and EWR, is 

part of the same air traffic control 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 60 / Tuesday, March 30, 2010 / Notices 15767 

1 IHB notes that EJE anticipates filing for 

authority to abandon the Hammond Line. 

2Each OFA must be accompanied by the filing 

fee, which currently is set at $1,500. See 49 CFR 

1002.2(f)(25). 

3Because this is a discontinuance proceeding and 

not an abandonment, trail use/rail banking and 

public use conditions are not appropriate. Likewise, 

no environmental or historical documentation is 

required here under 49 CFR 1105.6(c) and 

1105.8(b), respectively. 

center, and has the same congestion 

challenges as those airports. 

The Department is 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 3-hour 

limit to be raised to 4 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 of the airports. 

We invite interested persons to 

comment on these proposed courses of 

action. What are the potential costs or 

benefits of each measure? Are there 

other alternative measures that the 

Department should consider? How 

likely are the proposed measures to 

succeed in protecting passengers from 

lengthy tarmac delays? Should carriers’ 

requests for an exemption for their JFK 

operations be treated differently than 

the request for an exemption for the 

operations at LGA, EWR and PHL? 

Should any course of action apply to all 

carriers at JFK or only specific carriers 

(e.g., carriers with more significant 

presence at JFK)? Since carriers can 

establish any tarmac delay limits for 

international flights in their contingency 

plans, is there any reason that an 

exemption is needed for such flights? 

Commenters should explain their 

reasons for supporting or not supporting 

a particular measure or method. 

Issued this 25th day of March 2010, at 

Washington, DC. 

Ray LaHood, 

Secretary of Transportation. 

[FR Doc. 2010–7198 Filed 3–29–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–9X–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Surface Transportation Board 

[STB Docket No. AB–317 (Sub-No. 6X)] 

Indiana Harbor Belt Railroad 

Company—Discontinuance of 

Trackage Rights Exemption—in Lake 

County, IN 

Indiana Harbor Belt Railroad 

Company (IHB) has filed a verified 

notice of exemption under 49 CFR 1152 

Subpart F—Exempt Abandonments and 

Discontinuances of Service and 

Trackage Rights to discontinue its local 

and overhead trackage rights over 

approximately 1.78 miles of Elgin, Joliet 

& Eastern Railway Company’s (EJE) line 

of railroad extending from milepost 

47.88 at Hammond, to milepost 46.10 at 

Hammond (Hammond Line), in Lake 

County, IN.1 The line traverses United 

States Postal Service Zip Code 46320. 

IHB has certified that: (1) No local 

traffic has moved via its trackage rights 

over the line for at least 2 years; (2) any 

IHB overhead traffic can be rerouted 

over other lines; (3) no formal complaint 

filed by a user of IHB rail service on the 

line (or by a state or local government 

entity acting on behalf of such user) 

regarding cessation of service over the 

line either is pending with the Surface 

Transportation Board (Board) or with 

any U.S. District Court or has been 

decided in favor of complainant within 

the 2-year period; and (4) the 

requirements at 49 CFR 1105.12 

(newspaper publication), and 49 CFR 

1152.50(d)(1) (notice to governmental 

agencies) have been met. 

As a condition to this exemption, any 

employee adversely affected by the 

discontinuance of service shall be 

protected under Oregon Short Line R. 

Co.—Abandonment—Goshen, 360 I.C.C. 

91 (1979). To address whether this 

condition adequately protects affected 

employees, a petition for partial 

revocation under 49 U.S.C. 10502(d) 

must be filed. 

Provided no formal expression of 

intent to file an offer of financial 

assistance (OFA) has been received, this 

exemption will be effective on April 29, 

2010, unless stayed pending 

reconsideration. Petitions to stay that do 

not involve environmental issues and 

formal expressions of intent to file an 

OFA for continued rail service under 49 

CFR 1152.27(c)(2) 2 must be filed by 

April 9, 2010.3 Petitions to reopen must 

be filed by April 19, 2010, with: Surface 

Transportation Board, 395 E Street, SW., 

Washington, DC 20423–0001. 

A copy of any petition filed with the 

Board should be sent to IHB’s 

representative: Michael J. Barron, Jr., 

Fletcher & Sippel LLC, 29 North Wacker 

Drive, Suite 920, Chicago, IL 60606– 

2832. 

If the verified notice contains false or 

misleading information, the exemption 

is void ab initio. 

Board decisions and notices are 

available on our website at 

www.stb.dot.gov. 

Decided: March 25, 2010. 

By the Board, Rachel D. Campbell, 

Director, Office of Proceedings. 

Kulunie L. Cannon, 

Clearance Clerk. 

[FR Doc. 2010–7015 Filed 3–29–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4915–15–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Highway Administration 

[FHWA Docket No. FHWA–2010–0027] 

Livability Initiative under Special 

Experimental Project No. 14 

AGENCY: Federal Highway 

Administration (FHWA), DOT. 

ACTION: Notice; request for comments. 

SUMMARY: The FHWA is requesting 

comments on a livability initiative to 

harmonize and coordinate the Federalaid Highway Program with grant-in-aid 

programs administered by the 

Department of Housing and Urban 

Development (HUD) and the 

Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA). Under this initiative, the FHWA 

intends to utilize Special Experimental 

Project No. 14 (SEP–14) to permit, on a 

case-by-case basis, the application of 

HUD requirements on Federal-aid 

highway projects that may otherwise 

conflict with Federal-aid Highway 

Program requirements. One such 

requirement is contained in HUD’s 

Section 3 Program, the goal of which is 

to provide training, employment and 

contracting opportunities to low and 

very low income persons residing 

within the metropolitan area (or 

nonmetropolitan county) in which the 

project is located and businesses that 

substantially employ such persons. The 

purpose of this proposed SEP–14 

experiment is to further the goals of the 

DOT, HUD, and EPA partnership on 

sustainable communities. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before May 14, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: All comments should 

include the docket number that appears 

in the heading of this document and 

may be submitted in the following ways: 

• E-Gov Web site: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. This Web site 

allows the public to enter comments on 

any Federal Register notice issued by 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES