Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 223 / Tuesday, November 20, 2007 / Proposed Rules 65233 

are all large air carriers with annual 

operating revenues exceeding $600 

million. Thus, this proposal, if adopted, 

will not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. 

Trade Agreements Act 

This Act prohibits agencies from 

setting standards that create 

unnecessary obstacles to foreign 

commerce of the United States. ASQP 

data are for domestic operations only 

and have no impact on the foreign 

commerce of U.S. carriers. 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

This Act requires agencies to prepare 

a written assessment of the costs, 

benefits, and other effects of a proposed 

or final rule that include a Federal 

mandate likely to result in the 

expenditure by State, local, or tribal 

government. This proposed rule 

imposes no expenditures on State, local 

or tribal governments. 

Executive Order 13132, Federalism 

The Department has analyzed this 

proposed rule under the principles and 

criteria of Executive Order 13132, 

Federalism. We determined that this 

proposed action will not have a 

substantial direct effect on the States, or 

the relationship between the national 

Government and the States, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government, and therefore does 

not have federalism implications. 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

The Department has submitted a copy 

of the new information requirements in 

this proposed rule to the Office of 

Management and Budget for review. 

Based on carrier comments, we are 

estimating a first year increase in 

reporting burden of 900 hours per 

carrier or an industry increase of 18,000 

hours. After the carriers have revised 

their systems, reporting burden should 

be reduced slightly in the future. We 

request that carriers provide estimates of 

what they perceive as increased costs 

and burdens from this proposed action. 

Regulation Identifier Number 

A regulation identifier number (RIN) 

is assigned to each regulatory action 

listed in the Unified Agenda of Federal 

Regulations. The Regulatory Information 

Service Center publishes the Unified 

Agenda each April and October. The 

RIN Number 2139–AA13 contained in 

the heading of this document can be 

used to cross reference this action with 

the Unified Agenda. 

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 234 

Air carriers, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

Accordingly, the U.S. Department of 

Transportation proposes to amend 14 

CFR Chapter II as follows: 

PART 234—[AMENDED] 

1. The authority citation for part 234 

is revised to read as follows: 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 329 Secs. 41708 and 

41709. 

2. Section 234.4 is amended by 

adding paragraphs (a)(22) through 

(a)(29) and revising paragraph (b) to 

read as follows: 

§ 234.4 Reporting of on-time performance. 

(a) * * * 

(22) For gate/air returns, first gatedeparture time at origin airport. 

(23) Total ground time away from gate 

for all gate/air returns at origin airport, 

including cancelled flights—actual 

minutes. 

(24) Total number of gate returns. 

(25) Three letter code of airport where 

diverted flight landed. 

(26) Wheels-on Time at diverted 

airport. 

(27) Gate Arrival Time at diverted 

airport. 

(28) Gate Departure Time at diverted 

airport. 

(29) Wheels-off Time at diverted 

airport. 

(b) When reporting the information 

specified in paragraph (a) of this section 

for diverted flights, a reporting carrier 

shall use the original scheduled flight 

number and the origin and destination 

airport codes except for items cited in 

paragraph (a)(25) of this section. 

* * * * * 

Issued in Washington, DC, on November 

15, 2007. 

M. Clay Moritz, Jr., 

Acting Assistant Director, Office of Airline 

Information, Bureau of Transportation 

Statistics. 

[FR Doc. 07–5759 Filed 11–15–07; 4:15 pm] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Office of the Secretary 

14 CFR Parts 234, 253, 259, and 399 

[Docket No. DOT–OST–2007–0022] 

RIN No. 2105–AD72 

Enhancing Airline Passenger 

Protections 

AGENCY: Office of the Secretary (OST), 

Department of Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Advance Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking (ANPRM). 

SUMMARY: The Department of 

Transportation (DOT or Department) is 

seeking comment on whether it should 

adopt a rule to enhance airline 

passenger protections in the following 

seven ways: require carriers to adopt 

contingency plans for lengthy tarmac 

delays and incorporate them in their 

contracts of carriage, require carriers to 

respond to consumer problems, deem 

operating a chronically delayed flight to 

be unfair and deceptive, require carriers 

to publish delay data, require carriers to 

publish complaint data, require on-time 

performance reporting for international 

flights, and require carriers to audit 

their compliance with their customer 

service plans. We are proposing that 

most of these measures cover 

certificated or commuter air carriers that 

operate domestic scheduled passenger 

service using any aircraft with more 

than 30 passenger seats. We are 

proposing that one measure cover the 

largest U.S. and foreign carriers and that 

two other measures cover the largest 

U.S. carriers. 

DATES: Comments should be filed by 

January 22, 2008. 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 or the Regulatory 

Identification Number (RIN) for the 

rulemaking 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, 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with PROPOSALS
65234 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 223 / Tuesday, November 20, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

1A certificated air carrier is a U.S. direct air 

carrier that holds a certificate issued under 49 

U.S.C. 41102 to operate passenger and/or cargo and 

mail service or that holds an exemption to conduct 

direct passenger operations under 49 U.S.C. 41102. 

Air taxi operators or and commuter air carriers 

operating under 14 CFR part 298 are not certificated 

air carriers. Some carriers that would otherwise be 

eligible for air taxi or commuter status have opted 

to be certificated. A commuter air carrier is an air 

taxi operator that carries passengers on at least five 

round trips per week on at least one route between 

two or more points according to published flight 

schedules. See 14 CFR 298.2. An on-demand air 

taxi is an air taxi operator that carries passengers 

or property and is not a commuter air carrier as 

defined in 14 CFR part 298. 

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), or you may visit http:// 

DocketsInfo.dot.gov. 

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: 

Betsy L. Wolf 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, 202–366–9342, 202–366–7152 

(fax), betsy.wolf@dot.gov or 

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

Beginning in December of 2006 and 

continuing through the early spring, 

weather problems kept more than a few 

aircraft sitting for hours on airport 

tarmacs. Many passengers were 

stranded on these aircraft for periods of 

three hours, six hours, and in some 

cases even longer. At the request of the 

Secretary of Transportation, the 

Department’s Office of the Inspector 

General has reviewed and reported on 

these incidents, focusing its report on 

how the carriers can improve passenger 

comfort and convenience during these 

extremely long delays on the ground. 

Another significant issue for 

passengers is the high incidence of less 

extreme flight delays. In the first seven 

months of this year, only 72.23 percent 

of flights arrived on time, a lower 

percentage for this period than in any of 

the past 12 years. 

The industry and interested observers 

have attributed both the marathon 

tarmac waits and the epidemic of flight 

delays to a number of factors in addition 

to the weather. Some posit that because 

carriers are now flying full planes and 

have no excess capacity in their systems 

and thus no margin for error in the 

event of problematic weather, revenue 

concerns mandate that they delay a 

flight until it can take off, even for hours 

if necessary, rather than cancel it. Some 

fault the air traffic control system and 

the airports for acting too slowly to 

relieve capacity and operational 

constraints. Some attribute the overload 

problem to the widespread replacement 

of larger aircraft with smaller regional 

jets scheduled at higher frequencies and 

call for the Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA) to require carriers 

to trim their schedules. Others point to 

the steep rise in the use of private jets. 

Some of the capacity and operational 

constraints that have undoubtedly 

contributed to tarmac delays and other 

flight delays are being addressed by the 

FAA and certain airports in other 

contexts. In the meantime, however, this 

Department is seeking comment on 

several measures to address passengers’

concerns. 49 U.S.C. 41712, in concert 

with 49 U.S.C. 40101(a)(4) and 

40101(a)(9) and also 49 U.S.C. 41702, 

gives us the authority and the 

responsibility to protect consumers from 

unfair and deceptive practices and 

ensure safe and adequate service in air 

transportation. We are therefore seeking 

comment on eight potential solutions, 

described below, intended to ameliorate 

some of the problems facing passengers 

without creating undue burdens for the 

carriers. We also invite commenters to 

suggest other consumer protection 

measures that might help alleviate the 

problems that passengers face. 

Commenters should bear in mind the 

Department’s responsibility to strike the 

proper balance between protecting 

consumers and affording carriers as 

much leeway as possible to choose their 

responses to the rapid developments 

that confront them in the marketplace. 

1. Require Contingency Plans for 

Lengthy Tarmac Delays and Incorporate 

Them in Their Contracts of Carriage 

We seek comment on amending 14 

CFR part 253 to require any certificated 

or commuter air carrier 1 that operates 

domestic scheduled passenger service 

using any aircraft with more than 30 

passenger seats to develop a 

contingency plan for long ground delays 

on the tarmac for all of its flights 

(including those that use aircraft with 

30 or fewer seats) and to incorporate 

this plan in its contract of carriage. 

Among other things, each such plan 

would have to include the following: 

• The maximum tarmac delay that the 

carrier will permit, 

• The amount of time on the tarmac 

that triggers the plan’s terms, 

• Assurance of adequate food, water, 

and lavatory facilities, and medical 

attention if needed while the aircraft 

remains on the tarmac, 

• Assurance of sufficient resources to 

implement the plan, and 

• Assurance that the plan has been 

coordinated with airport authorities at 

medium and large hub airports. 

With the contingency plan 

incorporated in the contract of carriage, 

passengers would be able to sue in court 

for damages if a carrier failed to adhere 

to its plan. Carriers would also be 

required to make their complete 

contracts of carriage (including 

contingency plans) available on their 

Web sites. Further, carriers would be 

required to retain for two years the 

following information about any onground delay that either triggers their 

contingency plans or lasts at least four 

hours: (1) The length of the on-ground 

delay, (2) the cause of the delay, and (3) 

the actions taken to minimize hardships 

for passengers, including the provision 

of food and water, the maintenance of 

lavatories, and medical assistance. The 

regulation would specify that the 

Department would consider failure to 

do any of the following to be an unfair 

and deceptive practice within the 

meaning of 49 U.S.C. 41712 and subject 

to enforcement action: (1) Adopt a 

contingency plan and incorporate it in 

the contract of carriage, (2) implement 

the plan as written, (3) make the plan 

available on line, or (4) retain 

information about every on-ground 

delay that either triggers the 

contingency plan or lasts at least four 

hours. 

We believe that requiring the 

retention of records for tarmac delays 

that last at least four hours would 

enhance the Department’s ability to 

monitor, analyze, and address the 

problems associated with long delays. 

We have chosen four hours as the 

threshold in order to foster consistency 

for purposes of analysis, given that 

carriers are likely to make disparate 

time choices for their own contingency 

plans. (We do not intend to suggest, nor 

are we proposing to adopt, a specific 

amount of time during or after which 

carriers must allow passengers to 

deplane. Rather, we expect each carrier 

to craft its own standard on this issue.) 

We invite comment on whether four 

hours is an appropriate delay duration 

for triggering this new recordkeeping 

requirement. 

We are also not proposing at this time 

to have the Department review and 

approve carriers’ contingency plans. We 

believe the better approach to be to 

allow the carriers to set the terms of 

their plans and rely on the legal system 

and our enforcement powers to ensure 

that the terms are followed. If this 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 223 / Tuesday, November 20, 2007 / Proposed Rules 65235 

approach proves inadequate, we can 

always revise it. 

We invite interested persons to 

comment on this proposal. What costs 

would it impose on the carriers? Would 

it have any negative consequences? Is it 

likely to succeed in protecting 

passengers from the conditions 

described above? If not, why not? What 

additional or different measures should 

we consider adopting? Would 

incorporation of the contingency plan in 

the contract of carriage give consumers 

adequate notice of what might happen 

in the event of a long delay on the 

tarmac? When prolonged delays occur, 

would these measures succeed in 

reducing the resultant uncertainty and 

discomfort for passengers? Should the 

types of carriers covered by the 

regulation be expanded or limited? 

What would be the cost or benefit of 

narrowing or expanding coverage? 

Should the requirement of coordinating 

the plan with airport authorities apply 

to all primary airports (i.e., commercial 

service airports that enplane more than 

10,000 passengers annually) rather than 

only to medium hub airports (primary 

airports that enplane between 0.25 and 

1 percent of total U.S. passengers) and 

large hub airports (primary airports that 

enplane at least 1 percent of total U.S. 

passengers)? 

2. Require Carriers To Respond to 

Consumer Problems 

We seek comment on adopting a new 

regulation, 14 CFR part 259, that among 

other things would require every 

certificated and commuter carrier that 

operates domestic scheduled passenger 

service using any aircraft with more 

than 30 passenger seats to respond to 

mounting consumer problems in the 

following ways: 

• At its system operations center and 

at each airport dispatch center, 

designate an employee who is 

responsible for monitoring the effects of 

flight delays, flight cancellations, and 

lengthy tarmac delays on passengers 

and who has input on decisions such as 

which flights are cancelled and which 

are subject to the longest delays, 

• On its Web site, on all e-ticket 

confirmations, and, upon request, at 

each ticket counter and gate, make 

information available on filing a 

complaint with the carrier (name of 

person or office, address, and telephone 

number), and 

• Send a response to each consumer 

complaint it receives within 30 days of 

receiving the complaint. 

We invite interested persons to 

comment on this proposal. What costs 

would it impose on the carriers? Would 

it have any negative consequences? 

Should we require carriers to accept 

complaints via phone, letter and e-mail, 

or should the choice of complaint 

channels be left to each carrier? Would 

these procedures result in carriers’

devoting adequate attention to the needs 

of passengers? If not, what additional or 

different measures would achieve this 

result? What specific responsibilities 

should the designated employee have? 

Is it reasonable to expect a carrier to 

provide a response within 30 days of 

receipt of a complaint? Should the types 

of carriers covered by the regulation be 

expanded or limited? What would be 

the cost or benefit of narrowing or 

expanding coverage? 

3. Declare the Operation of Flights That 

Remain Chronically Delayed To Be an 

Unfair and Deceptive Practice and an 

Unfair Method of Competition 

We seek comment on amending 14 

CFR 399.81 so that it sets forth the 

Department’s enforcement posture on 

chronically delayed flights. First, the 

new text would define a chronically 

delayed flight as a flight by a covered 

carrier that operates at least 45 times in 

a calendar quarter and arrives more than 

15 minutes late more than 70 percent of 

the time. We propose to define a 

covered carrier as a carrier that reports 

on-time performance data to the 

Department pursuant to 14 CFR part 

234,—i.e., a certificated U.S. carrier that 

accounted for at least 1% of domestic 

scheduled passenger revenue in the 12 

months ending March 31. Second, the 

new text would specify that the 

Department considers a chronically 

delayed flight to be an unfair and 

deceptive practice and an unfair method 

of competition within the meaning of 49 

U.S.C. 41712 if it is not corrected in a 

timely manner—i.e., during the second 

calendar quarter following the one in 

which the flight is first chronically 

delayed. 

We invite interested persons to 

comment on this proposal. What costs, 

if any, would it impose on carriers? 

Would it have any negative 

consequences? Does it strike the 

appropriate balance between 

passengers’ need to have the best 

possible information about the real 

arrival time of a flight and the carriers’

inability to control the weather and 

certain other factors that can contribute 

to delays? Commenters who think that 

it does not strike the appropriate 

balance should explain why and 

provide alternate proposals. 

We tentatively consider that in setting 

the threshold for a chronically late flight 

as high as 70 percent and in allowing up 

to six months for the carrier to adjust its 

schedule, its operations, or both so that 

the flight comes below this threshold, 

we would not be creating undue 

burdens for carriers. When a carrier 

publishes a schedule, it assumes the 

obligation to adhere to it insofar as is 

feasible. Consumers buy transportation 

in reliance on a carrier’s published 

schedule, and they have a right to 

expect that the carrier both intends to 

arrive at the promised time and can do 

so in most cases. Consumers’ reliance 

on chronically inaccurate schedules 

works to their detriment both personally 

and professionally. Furthermore, a 

carrier’s publication of a schedule that 

it does not achieve most of the time can 

harm its competitors. This in turn 

further harms consumers by reducing 

the number of travel options from which 

they can choose. 

Commenters who think that the 

proposed standards would not result in 

an improvement of on-time performance 

should explain why and suggest 

alternate approaches. We also solicit 

comment on whether the definition of a 

chronically delayed flight should be 

expanded to include international 

scheduled passenger service to and from 

the United States operated by U.S. and 

foreign air carriers. 

4. Require Carriers To Publish Delay 

Data on Their Web Sites 

We seek comment on amending 14 

CFR 234.11 to require airlines that 

report on-time performance to the 

Department pursuant to 14 CFR part 234 

(i.e., certificated U.S. carriers that 

account for at least 1% of the domestic 

scheduled passenger revenue) and 

online reservation services to include on 

their Web sites, at a point before the 

passenger selects a flight for purchase, 

the following information for each listed 

flight about its performance during the 

previous month: 

• The percentage of arrivals that were 

on time, 

• The percentage of arrivals that were 

more than 30 minutes late, 

• Special highlighting if the flight 

was late more than 50 percent of the 

time, and 

• The percentage of cancellations. 

We invite interested persons to 

comment on this proposal. What costs 

would it impose on carriers and online 

reservation services? Would it have any 

negative consequences? 

Would it help consumers make betterinformed choices when booking flights? 

Would it increase carriers’ incentives to 

correct problem flights through 

adjustments to their schedules or their 

operations, or both? What other 

information, if any, should this 

regulation require? 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with PROPOSALS
65236 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 223 / Tuesday, November 20, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

Would requiring carriers to post ontime flight performance information on 

their Web site give passengers adequate 

notice before booking about the 

likelihood of a flight’s arriving on time? 

Should we require airline Web sites and 

reservation agents to disclose on-time 

flight information to consumers at the 

time of booking, without being asked? 

What would be the benefit or cost of 

such a requirement? Should any 

disclosure requirement be limited to 

flights that are chronically delayed or 

cancelled? 

Should this regulation cover all online reservation services or only those of 

a certain size? If the latter, what 

threshold would be appropriate (in 

terms of revenue or number of 

employees)? Should the regulation 

cover more types of carriers? What 

would be the cost or benefit of 

expanding coverage? 

5. Require Carriers To Publish 

Complaint Data on Their Web Sites 

We seek comment on adopting a new 

regulation, 14 CFR part 259, that would 

also require certificated and commuter 

carriers that operate domestic scheduled 

passenger service using any aircraft with 

more than 30 passenger seats to publish 

complaint data on their Web sites. Each 

carrier would have to disclose the 

number of consumer complaints it has 

received within a defined time frame 

concerning subjects such as tarmac 

delays, missed connections, and the 

failure to provide amenities to 

passengers affected by a delayed or 

canceled flight. We ask interested 

persons to comment on this proposal. 

What costs would it impose on carriers? 

Would it have any negative 

consequences? Should we prescribe a 

uniform location for all carriers’ Web 

sites, or should we leave this decision 

to the carriers? If the former, where 

should the data be posted? What 

complaint subjects should be covered by 

this requirement, and what time period 

would be appropriate? Would the 

proposed regulation help consumers 

make better-informed choices when 

booking flights? Would it increase 

carriers’ incentives to avoid the 

problems that elicit complaints? Should 

the types of carriers covered by the 

regulation be increased or decreased? 

What would be the cost or benefit of 

narrowing or expanding coverage? 

6. Require Carriers To Report On-Time 

Performance of International Flights 

We seek comment on amending 14 

CFR 234.4 and 234.11 to require carriers 

that report on-time performance to the 

Department pursuant to 14 CFR part 234 

(i.e., certificated U.S. carriers that 

account for at least 1% of the domestic 

scheduled passenger revenue) and the 

largest foreign carriers to report on-time 

performance for international flights to 

and from the United States. Our 

publication of these data would give 

consumers information about on-time 

performance to use in choosing 

international flights. We invite 

interested persons to comment on this 

proposal. What costs would it impose 

on the carriers? Would it have any 

negative consequences? Would the 

benefits of making this information 

available to the public outweigh the 

burdens that this requirement would 

impose on carriers that provide 

international service? How should we 

determine whether a foreign carrier is 

large (e.g., by total revenue, by number 

of flights to and from the U.S.)? Should 

we devise a size threshold for foreign 

carriers similar to the current 1% 

threshold for U.S. carriers? 

7. Require Carriers To Audit Their 

Adherence to Their Customer Service 

Plans 

We seek comment on adopting a new 

regulation that would require 

certificated and commuter carriers that 

operate domestic scheduled passenger 

service using any aircraft with more 

than 30 passenger seats to audit their 

adherence to their own customer service 

plans. This proposal tracks a 

recommendation from the Department’s 

Inspector General, who found carrier 

failings in this area. We solicit comment 

on the costs and benefits of self-audits, 

suggestions for appropriate auditing 

standards, including whether the 

carriers should be required to hire 

independent auditors to conduct the 

audits, and suggestions for how the 

Department might verify compliance 

without auditing the airline’s practices 

itself. Further, we solicit comment on 

whether we should require any covered 

carrier that does not have a customer 

service plan in place to adopt one and, 

if so, what provisions such plans should 

include. For example, should they 

include some or all of the provisions of 

the 12-point Airline Service 

Commitment made by 13 members of 

the Air Transport Association (which 

can be found at http://www.airlines.org/ 

customerservice/passengers/ 

Customers_First.htm)? Also, should we 

require that carriers incorporate their 

customer service plans in their contracts 

of carriage? 

Regulatory Notices 

A. Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory 

Planning and Review) and DOT 

Regulatory Policies and Procedures 

This action has been determined to be 

significant under Executive Order 12866 

and the Department of Transportation’s 

Regulatory Policies and Procedures. It 

has been reviewed by the Office of 

Management and Budget under that 

Order. A preliminary discussion of the 

proposed solutions to enhance airline 

passenger protections without creating 

undue burdens for the carriers is 

presented above. We are soliciting 

comments on the potential costs and 

benefits of the proposed solutions. On 

the cost side, we recognize that many of 

the measures suggested in this ANPRM 

would impose costs for both 

implementation and operation on the 

entities that its proposed requirements 

would cover. We have asked 

commenters to answer a variety of 

questions in order to elicit practical 

information about the nature and 

magnitude of these costs. The benefits 

we seek to achieve entail relieving 

consumers of the burdens they now face 

due to lengthy ground delays, 

chronically delayed flights, and other 

problems discussed in the ANPRM. The 

benefits would be achieved by affording 

consumers significantly more 

information than they have now about 

delayed and cancelled flights and about 

how carriers will respond to their needs 

in the event of lengthy ground delays. 

Making this information accessible 

should not only alleviate consumers’

difficulties during long delays but also 

enable them to make better-informed 

choices when booking flights. 

B. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism) 

This Advance Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking has been analyzed in 

accordance with the principles and 

criteria contained in Executive Order 

13132 (‘‘Federalism’’). This notice does 

not propose any regulation that (1) has 

substantial direct effects on the States, 

the relationship between the national 

government and the States, or the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government, (2) imposes 

substantial direct compliance costs on 

State and local governments, or (3) 

preempts state law. Therefore, the 

consultation and funding requirements 

of Executive Order 13132 do not apply. 

C. Executive Order 13084 

This notice has been analyzed in 

accordance with the principles and 

criteria contained in Executive Order 

13084 (‘‘Consultation and Coordination 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 223 / Tuesday, November 20, 2007 / Proposed Rules 65237 

with Indian Tribal Governments’’). 

Because none of the options on which 

we are seeking comment would 

significantly or uniquely affect the 

communities of the Indian tribal 

governments or impose substantial 

direct compliance costs on them, the 

funding and consultation requirements 

of Executive Order 13084 do not apply. 

D. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires an agency to 

review regulations to assess their impact 

on small entities unless the agency 

determines that a rule is not expected to 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

The regulatory initiatives discussed in 

this ANPRM would have some impact 

on some small entities but we do not 

believe that it would have a significant 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. We invite comment to facilitate 

our assessment of the potential impact 

of these initiatives on small entities. 

E. Paperwork Reduction Act 

The ANPRM proposes several new 

collections of information that would 

require approval by the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) under 

the Paperwork Reduction Act (49 U.S.C. 

3501 et seq.) The ANPRM solicits 

comment on requiring certificated and 

commuter airlines that operate domestic 

scheduled passenger service using any 

aircraft with more than 30 passenger 

seats to retain for two years the 

following information about any ground 

delay that triggers their contingency 

plan or lasts at least four hours: (1) The 

length of the delay, (2) the cause of the 

delay, and (3) actions taken to minimize 

hardships for passengers. The 

Department plans to use this 

information to conduct reviews of 

incidents involving long delays on the 

ground and to identify any trends and 

patterns that may develop. The ANPRM 

further proposes to require the 

collection of flight delay data from 

certain U.S. and foreign air carriers 

regarding their flights to and from the 

U.S. and also to require certain U.S. 

carriers to compile and publish 

complaint information. We invite 

comments regarding any aspect of these 

information collections, including the 

following: (1) The necessity and utility 

of the information collection, (2) the 

estimated burden, (3) ways to enhance 

the quality, utility, and clarity of the 

information collected, and (4) ways to 

minimize the collection burden without 

reducing the quality of the information 

collected. 

F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

The Department has determined that 

the requirements of Title II of the 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

do not apply to this notice. 

Issued this 15th day of November, 2007, at 

Washington, DC. 

Michael W. Reynolds, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Aviation and 

International Affairs. 

[FR Doc. 07–5760 Filed 11–15–07; 4:15 pm] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Office of the Secretary 

14 CFR Part 250 

[Docket No. DOT–OST–01–9325] 

RIN No. 2105–AD63 

Oversales and Denied Boarding 

Compensation 

AGENCY: Office of the Secretary (OST), 

Department of Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

(NPRM). 

SUMMARY: The Department of 

Transportation (DOT or Department) is 

proposing to amend its rules relating to 

oversales and denied boarding 

compensation to increase the limits on 

the compensation paid to ‘‘bumped’’

passengers, to cover flights by certain 

U.S. and foreign air carriers operated 

with aircraft seating 30 to 60 passengers, 

which are currently exempt from the 

rule, and to make other changes. Such 

changes in the rule, if adopted, would 

be intended to maintain consumer 

protection commensurate with 

developments in the aviation industry. 

DATES: Comments are requested by 

January 22, 2008. Late-filed comments 

will be considered to the extent 

practicable. 

ADDRESSES: You may file comments 

identified by the docket number DOT–

OST–01–9325 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–01–9325 or the Regulatory 

Identification Number (RIN) for the 

rulemaking 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), or you may visit http:// 

DocketsInfo.dot.gov. 

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: Tim 

Kelly, Aviation Consumer Protection 

Division, Office of the General Counsel, 

Department of Transportation, 1200 

New Jersey Ave., SE., Washington, DC 

20590, 202–366–5952 (voice), 202–366–

5944 (fax), tim.kelly@dot.gov (e-mail). 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

Part 250 establishes minimum 

standards for the treatment of airline 

passengers holding confirmed 

reservations on certain U.S. and foreign 

carriers who are involuntarily denied 

boarding (‘‘bumped’’) from their flights 

because they have been oversold. In 

most cases, bumped passengers are 

entitled to compensation. Part 250 

contains limits on the amount of 

compensation that is required to be 

provided to passengers who are bumped 

involuntarily. The rule does not apply 

to flights operated with aircraft with a 

design capacity of 60 or fewer passenger 

seats. 

In adopting the original rule in the 

1960’s, the Civil Aeronautics Board (the 

Department’s predecessor in aviation 

economic regulation) recognized the 

inherent unfairness in carriers selling 

more ‘‘confirmed’’ ticketed reservations 

for a flight than they have seats. 

Therefore, the CAB sought to reduce the 

number of passengers involuntarily 

denied boarding to the smallest 

practicable number without prohibiting 

deliberate overbooking or interfering 

unnecessarily with the carriers’

reservations practices. Air travelers 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with PROPOSALS