Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

Consumer Rulemaking:

Enhancing Airline Passenger Protections II

Contract No.:

GS-10F-0269K

Order No.:

DTOS59-09-F-10089

Project No.:

1029-000

Submitted To:

Office of the Assistant General Counsel

Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings

U.S. Department of Transportation

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE

West Wing

Washington, DC 20590-0001

Submitted By:

Econometrica, Inc.

4416 East-West Highway

Suite 215

Bethesda, Maryland 20814

&

HDR Decision Economics

Silver Spring, Maryland

April 8, 2011
Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 1029-000/DTOS59-09-F-10089

ii

Econometrica, Inc. April 8, 2011

Table of Contents

Introduction and Summary ......................................................................................................... 1

1. Need for the Rule .................................................................................................................... 2

2. Comments on Rule Requirements Relating to Small Entities............................................ 3

3. Types and Numbers of Affected Small Entities ................................................................... 6

3.1 Small U.S. Air Carriers ..................................................................................................... 6

3.2 Airports.............................................................................................................................. 7

3.3 Travel Agencies and Tour Operators ................................................................................ 8

4. Nature and Impact of the Rule on Affected Small Entities............................................... 10

5. Steps Taken to Minimize the Impact of the Rule on Affected Small Entities................. 12
Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 1029-000/DTOS59-09-F-10089

iii

Econometrica, Inc. April 8, 2011

List of Tables

Table 1 - Number of U.S. Carriers by Size Class, 2009 ................................................................. 6

Table 2 - Passenger Enplanements by Size of Airport, 2009 ......................................................... 8

Table 3 - Travel Agencies and Tour Operators, 2007 .................................................................... 9
Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 1029-000/DTOS59-09-F-10089

Page 1 of 12 Pages

Econometrica, Inc. April 8, 2011

Introduction and Summary

The U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) is issuing a Final Rule to provide airline 

passengers with additional protections in the areas of airline service provision and consumer 

information. Some of the provisions in this Rule build on regulatory requirements adopted as 

part of the Final Rule on Enhancing Airline Passenger Protections (EAPP1), which was 

published in the Federal Register on December 30, 2009. Econometrica and its subcontractor, 

HDR Decision Economics, were tasked with developing a regulatory evaluation and small entity 

impact analysis for the requirements included in this Final Rule (“EAPP2”). 

In the accompanying Final Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA), we provide estimates of the 

benefits and costs for specific Rule provisions that add regulatory requirements in 11 areas:

Area # Description

1 Expansion of tarmac delay contingency plan requirements and extension of 

EAPP1 Final Rule requirements to cover foreign carriers

2 Expanded tarmac delay reporting and application to foreign carriers

3 Establishment of minimum standards for customer service plans (CSPs) and 

extension of EAPP1 Final Rule requirements to cover foreign carriers

4 Application of requirement to post contracts of carriage, tarmac delay 

contingency plans and CSPs on websites to foreign carriers

5 Extension of EAPP1 Final Rule requirements for carriers to respond to consumer 

complaints to cover foreign carriers

6 Changes in denied boarding compensation (DBC) policy

7 Full-fare advertising and prohibition on opt-out provisions

8 Expanded requirements for disclosure of baggage and other optional fees

9 Prohibition on post-purchase price increases

10 Prompt passenger notification of flight status changes

11 Limitations on venue provisions in contracts of carriage.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended, requires Federal agencies to conduct a 

separate analysis of the economic impact of rules on small entities. The Regulatory Flexibility 

Act requires that Federal agencies take small entity’s particular concerns into account when 

developing, writing, publicizing, promulgating, and enforcing regulations. To this end, the Act 

requires that agencies detail how they have met these concerns by including a Regulatory 

Flexibility Analysis (RFA). The Final RFA must include the following five elements:

1. A succinct statement of the need for, and objectives of, the rule.

2. A summary of the significant issues raised by the public comments in response to the 

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA), a summary of the assessment of the 

agency of such issues, and a statement of any changes made in the proposed rule as a 

result of such comments.

3. A description and an estimate of the number of small entities to which the rule will apply 

or an explanation of why no such estimate is available.
Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 1029-000/DTOS59-09-F-10089

Page 2 of 12 Pages

Econometrica, Inc. April 8, 2011

4. A description of the projected reporting, recordkeeping, and other compliance 

requirements of the rule, including an estimate of the classes of small entities that will be 

subject to the requirement and the type of professional skills necessary for preparation of 

the report or record.

5. A description of the steps the agency has taken to minimize the significant adverse 

economic impact on small entities consistent with the stated objectives of applicable 

statutes, including a statement of the factual, policy, and legal reasons for selecting the 

alternative adopted in the final rule and why each of the other significant alternatives to 

the rule considered by the agency was rejected.

In this Final RFA, we provide the information on each of these five elements:

• In Section 1, we summarize the ways in which the newly adopted regulatory 

requirements will improve the air travel environment for consumers.

• Several trade associations and other groups provided comments in response to the Notice 

of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) on issues relating to small entities. Responses to each 

of these comments are provided in Section 2 below.

• Section 3 provides information on the types and numbers of small U.S. carriers, airports, 

travel agencies, and tour operators.

• A description of the Rule provisions and estimates of the per-firm costs for potentially 

affected small entities to comply with each of the applicable requirements is provided in 

Section 4.

• In Section 5, we summarize the steps that the Department took to minimize the costs of 

complying with these requirements for potentially affected small entities.

1.Need for the Rule

The Final Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) that accompanies the EAPP2 Final Rule indicates 

that the newly adopted regulatory requirements will improve the air travel environment for 

consumers in the following respects:

• Carrier Service: Several of the requirements will standardize or improve aspects of 

service provision for passengers who have already booked flights (such as Requirement 

Areas 9 and 10) and, in the case of tarmac delays (Requirement Area 1), who have 

already boarded the aircraft. In many of these areas, some carriers typically provide the 

level of service required, but others fall short of the potential requirement to a degree that 

the service provided is qualitatively different from that which would be reasonable for 

consumers to expect. Adopting regulations to address these issues will reduce the amount 

of time consumers lose to delays, move some of the time spent waiting to more 
Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 1029-000/DTOS59-09-F-10089

Page 3 of 12 Pages

Econometrica, Inc. April 8, 2011

comfortable situations, and reduce uncertainty associated with air travel. There are also 

benefits to consumers at the time of purchase from limiting the frequency and 

consequences of possible service failures.

• Purchaser Information: Other requirements will improve the extent and presentation of 

information available to consumers who are in the process of making air travel purchase 

decisions. While online search tools provide potential customers with access to much 

more extensive information about carriers, flight times, and prices than was previously 

available, it is often difficult to determine the final price of the purchase being 

contemplated. Adopting additional requirements for the provision of information about 

flight pricing, fees, and likelihood of delays (Requirement Areas 2, 7, and 8) will reduce 

consumer search time and improve the chances that purchase decisions are made with 

sufficient information.

• Passenger Equity: Two types of possible requirements—those dealing with overbooking 

(Requirement Area 6) and limitations on venue provisions in contracts of carriage 

(Requirement Area 11)—primarily address carrier-passenger equity issues. Ensuring 

equitable treatment of involuntarily bumped passengers may reduce potential passenger 

reluctance to purchase consolidator or frequent flyer tickets for trips at busy air travel 

times. Eliminating restrictions on venue may prompt airlines to be more responsive to the 

complaints of unsatisfied passengers and avoid increased litigation exposure.

The Final RIA presents a provision-by-provision discussion of the needs that were identified and 

addressed by regulatory requirements in the Final Rule.

2.Comments on Rule Requirements Relating to Small Entities

Several trade associations and other groups provided comments in response to the NPRM on 

Rule issues relating to small entities. This section summarizes these comments and, where 

applicable, any changes made in response to them.

Airports Council International-North America (ACI-NA), pp. 3-4

ACI-NA opposes DOT’s proposal to exclude “smaller carriers” from the requirement to provide 

this information:

These airlines serve more than 300 small and non-hub airports and, as stated earlier, the 

impact of delays and cancellations at smaller airports can have a greater adverse effect on 

the ability to make connections at the hubs and are more disruptive to passengers. To the 

passenger, the effects of delays are the same no matter which airline actually operates the 

flight. We question how DOT could justify not requiring airlines to provide this 

important information for passengers at approximately 70 percent of U.S. airports that 

exclusively are served by smaller aircraft.

The Rule does require small carriers that provide scheduled or nonscheduled passenger service 

with at least one aircraft originally designed to have 30 or more seats to comply with the 
Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 1029-000/DTOS59-09-F-10089

Page 4 of 12 Pages

Econometrica, Inc. April 8, 2011

applicable provisions of the Rule. However, the Department has determined that requiring 

carriers which provide scheduled passenger or nonscheduled service exclusively with aircraft 

originally designed to have fewer than 30 seats would not provide appreciable benefits to 

consumers, relative to the cost of requiring these carriers to comply with the applicable 

provisions of the Rule. Similarly, the Department has determined that requiring carriers to 

coordinate tarmac contingency plans with airports that board fewer than 10,000 passengers 

annually would not provide appreciable benefits to consumers, relative to the cost of requiring 

these carriers to comply with the applicable provisions of the Rule.

American Society of Travel Agents (ASTA), p. 15

ASTA states that the Customer Service Plan rules and standards should apply equally to foreign 

air carriers and that there should be no exceptions based on aircraft size: 

The scope issue raised in connection with foreign carrier compliance with the Customer 

Service Plans and other standards comes down to whether there is a rational basis for 

denying to travelers on foreign airlines the protections being mandated for US citizen 

airlines. We can think of none. And, again, original aircraft design for seat capacity 

should not be a factor. Consumer protection should not depend on such obscure and, 

from a consumer standpoint, unknowable facts about aircraft design. Simplicity in the 

scope of the rules will yield rewards for everyone in the form of avoided mistakes and, 

ultimately, be less costly to administer than a tiered and complex set of rules that vary by 

whether an airline has a single plane designed to fly with less or more than 30 seats.

The Rule requires covered U.S. and foreign carriers to comply with new requirements relating to 

customer service plans. However, the ASTA comment does not correctly characterize the sizebased standard for determining whether a carrier is covered under these provisions. The Rule 

requirements are applicable to scheduled service flights operated by all U.S. and foreign carriers 

that provide such service with at least one aircraft originally designed to have 30 or more seats. 

The Department has determined that requiring carriers which provide scheduled passenger 

service exclusively with aircraft originally designed to have fewer than 30 seats would not 

provide appreciable benefits to consumers, relative to the cost of requiring these carriers to 

comply with the applicable provisions of the Rule.

Air Transport Association of Canada (ATAC), p. 2

ATAC does not believe that smaller carriers should have to provide reports to the Bureau of 

Transportation Statistics (BTS) on tarmac delays of 3 hours or more:

ATAC believes that requiring smaller air carriers, who lack the administrative resources that 

larger carriers generally have, to submit and retain Tarmac Delay Data is inappropriate and 

not justifiable by the added information to consumers in the small markets that such aircraft 

(<60 seat) serve.

In Section 4 below, we estimate that there will be about 15 tarmac delays annually involving 

aircraft operated by small carriers that would have to be reported to the BTS under the Rule 
Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 1029-000/DTOS59-09-F-10089

Page 5 of 12 Pages

Econometrica, Inc. April 8, 2011

requirements. The data presented in Section 3 indicate that there are 12 small U.S. carriers in this 

category, 3 of which are wholly-owned subsidiaries of larger carriers.1

National Air Carrier Association (NACA), p. 5

The NACA comments indicated that its members were concerned about what DOT hopes to 

derive from smaller passenger carriers (those with 25 or fewer aircraft) reporting on-time data 

even if the data required would be less than what is in Part 234. 

We don’t believe any valuable information would be learned from reports from smaller 

carriers and would prefer DOT not require reports from these carriers. One compromise, 

however, may be requiring reports if a certain number of tarmac delays are incurred in a 

given month – perhaps 10 more. This could represent a statistically significant number 

for a smaller carrier. Forcing smaller carriers to submit data for a delay or two a month is 

a waste of the carriers’ limited resources and would provide little information to DOT.

The Final Rule does require carriers with 25 or fewer aircraft to report a limited amount of data 

on flights that experience a 3-hour tarmac delay. However, the estimated costs per carrier for 

complying with this requirement are very low, as noted below in Section 5.

Regional Airline Association (RAA), pp. 14 and 15

The RAA comments question the NPRM proposals relating to changes in the denied boarding 

compensation (DBC) policy:

As RAA pointed out two years ago when the Department last raised DBC limits, 

“[r]egional airlines must adjust to the fact that their aircraft are the first to be put on 

ground holds and the last to be released, resulting in cancellations down line.” (RAA 

comments in Docket DOT-OST-2001-9325, dated January 22, 2008, at 2) The 

Department’s decision two years ago to double the potential compensation for denied 

boarding while at the same time imposing those DBC amounts on aircraft with 30-60 

seats was a double whammy on regional carriers, which are the only carriers that serve 

many small and mid-size communities. That decision reversed the Civil Aeronautics 

Board’s (CAB) recognition that exemption of aircraft up to 60 seats was warranted by the 

“disproportionate size of the penalty relative to the typical short-haul fare” and because 

“the viability of the small-aircraft segment of the industry, which competes most directly 

with ground transportation, depends partly on its ability to minimize its costs, respond 

flexibly to consumer demand and maintain high load factors.”

RAA strongly objects to extension of the DBC rule to aircraft with fewer than 30 seats, 

for many of the reasons advanced in our January 22, 2008 comments in Docket DOTOST-2001-9325.16 Whether the Department extends the rule to flights with smaller 

aircraft, it must allow carriers to continue to analyze booking trends and permit 

“overselling” as a means of preserving service to small communities. Eliminating the 

 1 While an analysis of the impact on small foreign carriers is beyond the scope of this final RFA, the 2009 BTS T100 data indicate that there is only one foreign carrier that operates passenger service to and from the United States 

exclusively with aircraft that have from 30 to 60 seats, This carrier is projected to have no more than a single 

reportable tarmac delay during the entire 10-year period from 2012 through 2021.
Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 1029-000/DTOS59-09-F-10089

Page 6 of 12 Pages

Econometrica, Inc. April 8, 2011

ability of carriers to oversell flights with smaller aircraft would threaten service to 

smaller communities as carriers would be unable to take the economic risk of operating 

with empty seats. Moreover, the risk of denied boardings on such aircraft is relatively 

low, since while regional carriers attempt to maintain high load factors, their load factors 

consistently lag behind those of carriers operating larger aircraft, suggesting that they are 

less likely overall to cause denied boardings.

The EAPP2 Rule provisions relating to DBC are applicable to all flights on aircraft with 30 or 

more seats but permits carriers to continue to oversell these flights. The Department determined 

that there would not be appreciable benefits to consumers from extending the applicability of the 

DBC requirements to cover flights on aircraft with fewer than 30 seats.

3.Types and Numbers of Affected Small Entities

This section describes the types and numbers of small entities in industry sectors that will be 

affected by the EAPP2 Rule provisions.

3.1 Small U.S. Air Carriers

The Rule requirements for reporting tarmac delays, changes in the DBC policy, enhancements to 

EAPP1 Final Rule requirements for CSPs, full-fare advertising, and fee disclosure will apply to a 

number of small domestic carriers that provide passenger service using at least one aircraft with 

between 30 and 60 seats. In addition, the full-fare advertising and fee disclosure requirements 

will also apply to carriers providing passenger service exclusively with planes that have fewer 

than 30 seats. The Final RIA estimates the numbers of carriers in each of these groups as 

follows:

Table 1 - Number of U.S. Carriers by Size Class, 2009

Group

Seat 

Criterion

Total in 

2009 T-100*

Charteronly**Scheduled 

Service

Contract 

Carriers Other

Large > 60 49 16 33 15 18

Small 30 - 60 12 0 12 6 6

Very Small < 30 38 10 28 1 27

Total 99 26 73 22 51

Note: 17 large carriers and 1 small carrier are reporting carriers.

*Excludes carriers that were no longer operating independently by the end of 2010.

**Six charters offered some scheduled service in 2009; all are very small Alaska or sightseeing tour carriers.

DOT defines small carriers based on the standard published in 14 CFR 399.73: 

For the purposes of the Department’s implementation of chapter 6 of title 5, 

United State Code (Regulatory Flexibility Act), a direct air carrier or foreign air 

carrier is a small business if it provides air transportation only with small aircraft 
Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 1029-000/DTOS59-09-F-10089

Page 7 of 12 Pages

Econometrica, Inc. April 8, 2011

as defined in §298.3 of this chapter (up to 60 seats/18,000 pound payload 

capacity).

A maximum of 47 independently-owned small U.S. carriers provide scheduled passenger 

service exclusively with aircraft that seat no more than 60 passengers.2 These small U.S. 

carriers will have to comply with the new requirements pertaining to full-fare advertising,

disclosure of baggage and other fees, and prohibition on post-purchase price increases. Of 

these 47 small U.S. carriers, 9 provide scheduled passenger service with at least one aircraft 

with between 30 and 60 seats but none larger than 60 seats. These nine carriers will also have 

to comply with the new requirements relating to denied boarding compensation (DBC) and 

lengthy tarmac delays.

Of the 26 U.S. carriers that carry passengers primarily on nonscheduled (charter) flights, rather 

than on scheduled service flights, 10 do so exclusively with aircraft that have fewer than 30 

seats.

Small foreign carriers that provide scheduled passenger service with at least one aircraft with 

between 30 and 60 seats will also have to comply with additional requirements relating to 

tarmac contingency plans, customer service plans, and responding to consumer complaints.

Small domestic carriers are already required to comply with these requirements under the 

EAPP1 Final Rule.

3.2 Airports

Under one Rule provision in Requirement Area 1, covered carriers will be required to coordinate 

their tarmac contingency plans with small hub and non-hub airports (EAPP1 already requires 

coordination of these plans with large and medium hubs). The Department has decided not to 

require carrier coordination of these plans with commercial airports that have fewer than 10,000 

passenger enplanements annually.

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) categorizes airports based on the number of 

passengers departing annually (“enplanements”):

 2 Three of the twelve small carriers shown in Table 1 are wholly-owned subsidiaries of larger carriers. Table 1 

divides carriers into “small” and “very small” groups because some Rule provisions apply only to carriers that 

operate at least one aircraft originally designed with 30 or more seats. However, carriers in both of these groups are 

potentially affected small entities for purposes of the Regulatory Flexibility Analysis.
Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 1029-000/DTOS59-09-F-10089

Page 8 of 12 Pages

Econometrica, Inc. April 8, 2011

Table 2 - Passenger Enplanements by Size of Airport, 2009

Category

Minimum %

or # of 

Passengers

# of 

Airports

Passengers 

(millions) % of Total

Average # of 

Passengers/ 

Airport 

Large Hub >1% of total 29 491.7 69.3% 17.0 million

Medium Hub

>0.25% of 

total 37 138.0 19.4% 3.7 million

Small Hub

>0.05% of 

total 69 56.7 8.0% 821,000

Non-Hub >10,000/year 250 22.9 3.2% 91,000

Other Commercial >2,500/year 180 0.9 0.1% 5,000

Total 565 710.1 100.0% 1.3 million

Source: BTS T-100 Segment Database, 2009.

According to the BTS data, there were 180 commercial service airports with between 2,500 and 

10,000 passenger enplanements in 2009; 91 of these were located in Alaska. The 2009 BTS T100 data indicate that there were 240 airports with fewer than 2,500 passengers departing in 

2009; 175 of these were located in Alaska.

Small Business Administration (SBA) size standards define privately-owned airports as small 

businesses if their annual revenues do not exceed $7 million. Publicly-owned airports are

categorized as small entities if they are owned by jurisdictions with fewer than 50,000

inhabitants. Of the 319 small hub and non-hub airports with more than 10,000 passenger 

enplanements in 2009, 50 met this classification, including 1 small hub airport (Burlington 

International Airport in Vermont).3

3.3 Travel Agencies and Tour Operators

While most regulation of the air transportation sector is concerned with carriers and airports, 

other sellers of air transportation must comply with Office of the Secretary of Transportation 

(OST) advertising regulations and guidelines. Along with carriers, travel agencies and tour 

operators are the primary entities that sell tickets for passenger air transportation. These sales 

sometimes are made on a standalone basis and sometimes as part of a package that may include 

accommodations, activities, and ground transportation.

Small travel agents and tour operators will need to comply with the Rule provisions in 

Requirement Area 7 that require display of full fares, including all government fees and taxes, in 

both online and print media advertising of air fares. Small travel agents and tour operators that 

offer online booking will need to comply with certain Rule provisions in Requirement Area 8, 

which require them to provide links to carrier or other sites that disclose baggage and other 

optional fees on flight selection pages and e-tickets. Some small tour operators will also be 

affected by the Rule provisions in Requirement Area 9 that prohibit ticket agents from 

unilaterally increasing the price charged for air travel after the purchase has been completed.

 3 Carriers are not required to coordinate their tarmac contingency plans with airports that have fewer than 10,000 

passengers departing annually, so these smaller airports will not be affected by any of the Rule provisions.
Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 1029-000/DTOS59-09-F-10089

Page 9 of 12 Pages

Econometrica, Inc. April 8, 2011

Four large online travel agencies (OTAs)—Expedia, Orbitz, Priceline, and Travelocity—

reportedly account for 96 percent of all online sales by travel intermediaries in the leisure travel 

market segment.4 However, the travel agent and tour operator sectors consist primarily of small 

businesses with fewer than 20 employees per firm. A significant number of these small entities 

offer online booking of air transportation and travel packages. Offline travel agencies and tour 

operators book these services through global distribution system (GDS) operators and/or directly 

with carriers.

The numbers of large and small firms in these sectors were estimated from 2007 County 

Business Patterns data, as follows:

Table 3 - Travel Agencies and Tour Operators, 2007

Total Firms

Large 

OTAs

Online 

Sales 

Capability

Offline 

Sales Only

20+ 

Employees

<20 

Employees

Travel Agencies 11,803 4 2,003 9,796 626 11,177

Tour Operators 2,687 0 457 2,230 267 2,420

Sources: Bureau of the Census, County Business Patterns, 2007; PhoCusWright, The Role and Value of the 

Global Distribution Systems in Travel Distribution, 2009.

These employment-based thresholds are comparable to, but not identical with, the applicable 

SBA size standards, which designate travel agencies with no more than $3.5 million in annual 

revenues and tour operators with no more than $7.0 million as small businesses.

According to the 2007 Economic Census, there were 11,953 travel agencies operating for at least 

part of the year. The largest 220 of these had revenues in excess of $5 million. There were also 

216 firms with revenues in the $2.5-5 million range. Approximately one-half (108) of these 

firms could be expected to have had revenues that exceeded $3.5 million. Therefore, as many as 

11,625 small firms in this sector will have to comply with the Rule requirements for full-fare 

advertising, disclosure of baggage and optional fees, and prohibitions on opt-outs and unilateral 

post-purchase increases in the price of air travel.

The 2007 Economic Census estimates that there were 2,814 tour operators in business for at least 

part of the year. The largest 55 of these had revenues in excess of $10 million. There were also 

78 firms with estimated revenues in the $5-10 million range. Approximately one-half (39) firms 

of these firms could be expected to have had revenues that exceeded $5 million. Therefore, as 

many as 2,720 small firms in this sector will have to comply with the Rule requirements for fullfare advertising, disclosure of baggage and optional fees, and prohibitions on opt-outs and 

unilateral post-purchase increases in the price of air travel.

Relative to the size-class distinctions used in the final RIA, applying the SBA size standards 

increases the estimated number of small businesses that would be affected by the new 

requirements. However, the estimated costs of compliance with these requirements are very low 

in relation to the average annual revenues of these (relatively larger) travel agencies and tour 

 4 PhoCusWright, The Role and Value of the Global Distribution Systems in Travel Distribution, November 2009.
Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 1029-000/DTOS59-09-F-10089

Page 10 of 12 Pages

Econometrica, Inc. April 8, 2011

operators with 20 or more employees that are categorized as small firms under the SBA size 

standards.

4.Nature and Impact of the Rule on Affected Small Entities

The Rule provisions include a new information collection requirement for domestic carriers that 

operate scheduled or nonscheduled passenger service using any aircraft with more than 30 

passenger seats. These carriers will be required to report to the BTS and retain for 2 years the 

following information about any ground delay that lasts at least 3 hours:

• the length of the delay

• the precise cause of the delay

• the actions taken to minimize hardships for passengers

• whether the flight ultimately took off (in the case of a departure delay or diversion) or 

returned to the gate

• an explanation for any tarmac delay that exceeded 3 hours.

The Department plans to use the information to investigate instances of long delays on the 

ground and to identify any trends and patterns that may develop.

The final RIA estimates that non-reporting U.S. carriers would have had 43 tarmac delays of 3 

hours or more in 2009 under the Rule requirements. Of these, 33 would have been delays 

associated with international flights. Based on their share of passengers reported in the 2009 BTS 

T-100 database, it would be reasonable to estimate that small carriers who do not already have to 

report 3-hour tarmac delays under existing regulatory requirements would have accounted for 15 

of these delays in 2009.

Small carriers are expected to incur costs to comply with Rule provisions in Requirement Areas 

1, 2, 6, 7, and 8. A description of these requirements and per-carrier estimates of compliance 

costs are as follows:

• Requirement Area 1: The Rule will require 12 small U.S. carriers (3 of which are 

wholly-owned subsidiaries of larger carriers) to coordinate their tarmac contingency 

plans with small hub and non-hub airports. Coordinating these plans is estimated to cost 

small U.S. carriers $279 for each small hub airport and $139 for each non-hub airport.

• Requirement Area 2: The final RIA estimates that it will cost non-reporting U.S. carriers 

an average of $1,506 to set up tarmac delay reporting data collection and submission 

systems. Per-report costs are estimated at $276 for each reportable delay.

• Requirement Area 6: The costs of complying with the Rule requirements for DBC 

cannot be separately estimated for small carriers because no firm-size specific 

employment data are available.
Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 1029-000/DTOS59-09-F-10089

Page 11 of 12 Pages

Econometrica, Inc. April 8, 2011

• Requirement Area 7: The final RIA estimates that it will cost small carriers about $2,000 

to display full fares in online price advertising. Average per-carrier costs to revise print 

media advertising are estimated to be $132.

• Requirement Area 8: The final RIA estimates that it will cost small carriers about $2,000 

to provide consumers with the required disclosures of baggage and optional fees. Annual 

costs for updating these disclosures are estimated to be about $400.

The 2012 compliance cost for a small carrier operating aircraft with between 30 and 60 seats is 

estimated to be less than $17,000, with about $1,000 in recurring annual costs to maintain 

compliance. The initial compliance cost for a small carrier that exclusively operates aircraft with 

fewer than 30 seats is estimated to be less than $4,500. 

Small carriers already have to comply with extensive reporting, recordkeeping, and compliance 

requirements under current Department regulations. It is reasonable to expect that these carriers 

already have staff members with the professional skills to meet the applicable Rule requirements.

Small privately-owned and municipal airports may incur costs as a result of carrier

implementation of tarmac contingency plans:

• The final RIA estimates that coordinating each tarmac contingency plan with a non-hub 

airport will require 1 hour of carrier personnel time. All but one of the 50 small airports 

affected by this requirement is a non-hub facility. These airports serve an average of 6.6 

carriers that would have to coordinate these plans with airport authorities. However, the 

final RIA does not quantify the costs to airport authorities of having carriers coordinate 

their tarmac contingency plans.

• The final RIA also does not assess the extent, if any, to which airports may incur 

additional costs as a result of planes returning to the gate to comply with tarmac 

contingency plan requirements. However, the affected airports may receive additional 

gate fees in these situations that could exceed the costs of any additional services that 

they must provide to carriers.

Small travel agents and tour operators will be required to comply with applicable Rule provisions 

in Requirement Areas 7 and 8. Some small tour operators are expected to incur additional costs 

to comply with the Rule provisions in Requirement Area 9:

• Requirement Area 7: The final RIA estimates that it will cost small travel agents and 

tour operators with online booking capability an average of $1,000 to display full fares in 

online price advertising. Average per-firm costs to revise print media advertising are 

estimated to be $132.

• Requirement Area 8: The final RIA estimates that it will cost small travel agents and 

tour operators with online booking capability an average of $1,000 to provide consumers 

with the required disclosures of baggage and optional fees. Annual costs for updating 
Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 1029-000/DTOS59-09-F-10089

Page 12 of 12 Pages

Econometrica, Inc. April 8, 2011

these disclosures are estimated to be about $200 for small travel agents and tour 

operators.

• Requirement Area 9: The final RIA estimates that it will cost tour operators with online 

booking capability an average of $1,000 to provide required pre-purchase disclosures 

online. Average per-firm costs for all small tour operators to develop printed prepurchase disclosures are estimated to be $132.

The 2012 compliance cost per firm for small travel agents and tour operators with online 

booking capability is estimated to be less than $3,500, with no more than a few hundred dollars 

in recurring annual costs to maintain compliance. The initial compliance cost per firm for small 

travel agents and tour operators without online booking capability is estimated to be no more 

than a few hundred dollars in 2012. These firms will not incur recurring annual costs to maintain 

compliance.

Small travel agents and tour operators already utilize the services of website programmers and 

graphic designers to prepare online and print media advertising. It is reasonable to expect that 

these employees or contractors have the professional skills to meet the applicable Rule 

requirements.

5.Steps Taken to Minimize the Impact of the Rule on Affected Small 

Entities

In several instances, the Department tailored specific Rule provisions to minimize the impact on 

potentially affected small entities:

Requirement Area 1: Carriers that provide passenger service exclusively with aircraft which 

were originally designed with fewer than 30 seats do not have to comply with the Rule 

requirements for tarmac contingency plans. In addition, the Rule does not require carriers of any 

size to coordinate their plans with airports that enplane fewer than 10,000 passengers annually.

Requirement Area 2: Carriers that provide passenger service exclusively with aircraft which 

were originally designed with fewer than 30 seats do not have to provide information on tarmac 

delays of 3 hours or more to BTS.

Requirement Area 3: Carriers that provide scheduled passenger service exclusively with aircraft 

which were originally designed with fewer than 30 seats do not have to develop, monitor, and 

self-audit compliance with CSPs that meet the Rule requirements.

Requirement Area 6: The DBC requirements in the Rule do not apply to flights on aircraft with 

fewer than 30 seats.