65230 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 223 / Tuesday, November 20, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Office of the Secretary 

14 CFR Part 234 

[Docket No. OST 2007–28522] 

RIN 2139–AA13 

Revision of Airline Service Quality 

Performance Reports and Disclosure 

Requirements 

AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of 

Transportation (DOT) is proposing to 

collect additional data elements when 

flights are cancelled, diverted, or 

experience gate returns. The additional 

proposed data elements would fill in 

data gaps giving the Department, the 

industry, and the public a more accurate 

portrayal of on-ground delays after 

flights depart the gate but prior to the 

time they take off and after flights land 

but before they reach the gate. 

DATES: Written comments should be 

submitted on or before January 22, 2008. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

identified by DOT Docket ID Number 

OST 2007–28522 by any of the 

following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 

http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

online instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• Mail: Docket Management Facility: 

U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 

New Jersey Avenue, 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 Avenue, SE., between 

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

Friday, except Federal holidays. 

• Fax: 202–493–2251. 

Instructions: Identify docket number, 

OST 2007–28522, at the beginning of 

your comments, and send two copies. 

To receive confirmation that DOT 

received your comments, include a selfaddressed stamped postcard. Internet 

users may access all comments received 

by DOT at http://www.regulations.gov. 

All comments are posted electronically 

without charge or edits, including any 

personal information provided. 

Privacy Act: Anyone is able to search 

the electronic form of all comments 

received into 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:// 

DocketInfo.dot.gov. 

Docket: For access to the docket to 

read background documents or 

comments received, go to http:// 

www.regulations.gov. or the street 

address listed above. Follow the online 

instructions for accessing the dockets. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Bernie Stankus, Office of Airline 

Information, RTS–42, Research and 

Innovative Technology Administration, 

Bureau of Transportation Statistics, 

Telephone Number (202) 366–4387, Fax 

Number (202) 366–3383 or e-mail 

bernard.stankus@dot.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: DOT 

invites air carriers and other interested 

persons to participate in this rulemaking 

by submitting written comments or 

views. The most helpful comments 

reference a specific portion of the 

proposal, explain the reason for any 

recommended change, and include 

supporting data. 

Background 

The Department’s rule requiring 

airlines that account for at least one 

percent of the domestic scheduled 

passenger revenues to submit service 

quality performance reports, 14 CFR 

part 234, was first issued on September 

9, 1987 (52 FR 34071). At that time, 

close to 40 percent of all flights were 

either late or cancelled. On-time 

performance reporting created a marketbased incentive for carriers to improve 

their service and scheduling practices. 

The immediate result of this action was 

an improvement in carriers’ on-time 

performance. For the remainder of 1987, 

the industry had an on-time arrival rate 

of over 74 percent. 

In 1995, the Department added 

additional data elements to the 

reporting system to enable the Federal 

Aviation Administration (FAA) to 

identify choke points within the air 

traffic control system (60 FR 66722, 

December 26, 1995). Aircraft tail 

number, wheels-off time and wheels-on 

time gave the FAA information 

concerning aircraft routings through the 

air traffic control system and detailed 

data on tarmac and airborne delays. In 

addition, the department required air 

carriers to report delays related to 

mechanical problems. 

In 1999 and 2000, airline delays 

increased dramatically with the increase 

in airline operations. Consumer 

complaints concerning flight delays 

increased by 18% from 1999 to 2000. 

Section 227 of the Aviation Investment 

and Reform Act for the 21st Century 

(Air-21; See Pub. L. 106–181, 114 Stat. 

61) called upon the Secretary of 

Transportation to disclose to the public 

the causes of delayed and cancelled 

flights. On July 25, 2000, the 

Department’s Office of Inspector 

General (IG) issued a report Air Carrier 

Flight Delays and Cancellations (Report 

Number CR 2000–112). In its report, the 

IG recommended that DOT provide 

consumers, on a monthly basis, 

information about the major causes of 

flight delays and cancellations. During 

this period, the Air Transport 

Association of America also petitioned 

the Department to report the causes of 

delays and cancellations. In August 

2000, an Air Carrier On-time Reporting 

Advisory Committee was established to 

make recommendations on causal 

reporting. The committee recommended 

four delay causes—Air Carrier, Extreme 

Weather, National Aviation System, and 

Late Arriving Aircraft. After notice and 

comment on the matter, in November 

2002, the Department adopted a final 

rule that required carriers to report the 

causes of delays in these four categories, 

along with a fifth category, Security. (67 

FR 70535, November 25, 2002.) 

The occurrence in late 2006 and early 

2007 of significantly long on-ground 

delays, particularly those involving 

flights that departed the gate but were 

delayed taking off and those that had 

landed but were delayed in reaching a 

gate, commonly referred to as ‘‘tarmac 

delays,’’ once again focused public 

attention on the Department’s collection 

of Airline Service Quality Performance 

Reports under part 234. In reviewing the 

currently available data, we find that the 

Department can determine the extent of 

tarmac delays for most flights. However, 

these data cannot be used to capture 

tarmac delays in all instances since the 

reporting requirements were never 

intended for such a purpose. In this 

regard, when first adopted, the intent of 

part 234’s reporting requirements was to 

obtain and provide to the public data 

involving on-time departures and 

arrivals, while later revisions to the rule 

were concerned with taxi times and the 

causes of flight delays. Currently, the 

Department cannot calculate tarmac 

delays for canceled or diverted flights. 

For example, on February 14, 2007, 

during snowstorms in the Northeast, 

many flights departed the boarding gates 

only to spend many hours on the tarmac 

being de-iced and waiting for the 

weather to clear. When the weather 

failed to clear sufficiently, flights were 

cancelled. Under current reporting 

rules, if a flight is canceled, only that 

fact is required to be reported. Air 

carriers are not required to report the 

time of departure from a gate for 

canceled flights. Thus, under current 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 223 / Tuesday, November 20, 2007 / Proposed Rules 65231 

reporting rules, air carriers do not 

provide information that enables the 

Department to determine whether a 

flight, that is ultimately canceled, 

experienced a tarmac delay and the 

extent of that delay. Similar data gaps 

exist for flights that are diverted to 

alternate airports, as was demonstrated 

by massive flight diversions that 

occurred in the Southwestern United 

States in late 2006 as a result of bad 

weather. Under the current reporting 

regulations, on-time reporting ceases 

when a flight is diverted from its 

scheduled routing. The carrier reports 

the scheduled departure and arrival 

times and the actual gate departure and 

wheels-off times. However, no 

information is reported on the arrival at 

the airport to which a flight is diverted 

or the departure from that alternate 

airport, and no information is reported 

on whether or not that flight ultimately 

arrived at its scheduled destination 

airport and, if it did, its time of arrival 

at that airport. 

Moreover, in our review of the 

available data, we discovered that 

carriers were not uniformly reporting 

gate-departure times (i.e. when a flight 

that had departed a gate returned to the 

gate and subsequently departed the gate 

again for take-off). Some carriers 

reported the initial gate-departure time 

while others reported the ‘‘second’’ gatedeparture time. There are advantages 

and disadvantages with both reporting 

methods. 

By receiving data on only the first 

gate-departure time, the Department 

knows the time interval from when the 

aircraft initially departed the gate and 

when the aircraft ultimately departed 

the airport (wheels-off time). However, 

there are times when a carrier is 

credited with an on-time departure, 

when in reality the aircraft returned to 

the gate only to depart well after its 

originally-scheduled departure time. In 

such instances, the taxi-out time (and 

tarmac delay time) for the aircraft is also 

miscalculated, because the time the 

aircraft was parked at the gate awaiting 

its second gate departure, a time when 

passengers are often deplaned, would be 

counted in the taxi-out/tarmac delay 

time. 

On the other hand, while reporting 

data on only the second gate-departure 

time might be seen as a more accurate 

assessment of delay in departure, this 

information would fail to capture the 

duration of any tarmac delay that 

occurred after the first gate departure, 

thereby disguising the true 

inconvenience to passengers on that 

flight. 

Public Meeting 

On June 20, 2007, the Bureau of 

Transportation Statistics (BTS)/Research 

and Innovative Technology 

Administration hosted a public meeting 

to discuss data gaps and inconsistencies 

in the reporting of on-time data. A 

summary of the public meeting is 

available in Docket No. OST 2007–

28522. The airlines present at the 

meeting and the Air Transport 

Association (ATA), which represents 11 

airlines that submit on-time data, fully 

supported the objectives of filling data 

gaps and improving the utility of ontime data. American Airlines 

recommended that any change to the 

reporting regulations ensure that: (1) 

The information is reported consistently 

by all carriers; (2) the potential for 

misinterpretation of the data is limited; 

and (3) the reporting burden on the air 

carriers is limited. ATA proposed that 

carriers report the last gate-departure 

time in the normal data field for gatedeparture time and create a new field 

where the carriers would report the 

initial gate-departure time when there is 

a return-to-gate situation. ATA also 

proposed that BTS create another field 

for total time on tarmac for multiple gate 

departures. 

Various consumer groups expressed 

the opinion that the current system was 

providing misleading information by 

understating tarmac delays. The 

Aviation Consumer Action Project 

(ACAP) stated that the delay statistics 

are so incomplete or inaccurate as to be 

misleading or deceptive to the public. 

ACAP objects to the way carriers report 

cancellations and diversions: 

specifically, it objects to the fact that no 

delay minutes are assigned to cancelled 

and diverted flights. Also, ACAP is of 

the view that, rather than requiring 

airlines to track the delay minutes of 

aircraft, the public would better be 

served by knowing the delay suffered by 

each passenger. For instance, a flight 

could arrive 50 minutes late causing 

some passengers to miss connecting 

flights. The overall delay experienced 

by these passengers likely would be 

much greater than the 50 minutes of 

aircraft delay reported to BTS. 

On June 20, 2007, Congresswomen 

Jean Schmidt sent a letter to Secretary 

Mary Peters commending the 

Department’s action to review on-time 

reporting, and recommending that the 

Department collect complete 

information on gate returns, and 

cancelled and diverted flights. 

As a follow up to the public meeting, 

BTS asked the reporting air carriers to 

provide answers to the following 

questions: 

1. For Gate Returns, do you collect or have 

access to: 

The number of times a plane returns to the 

gate? 

The time the plane leaves and returns to 

the gate for each gate departure/return? 

The number of minutes a plane stays on 

the tarmac for all gate returns until the final 

departure or cancellation? 

In the case where a plane takes off and 

returns to the gate, the number of minutes the 

plane stays in the air (i.e., is there a wheelson and wheels-off time)? 

The cause for the gate return(s)? 

2. For Cancelled Flights: 

No additional questions. 

3. For Diverted Flights, do you collect or 

have access to: 

If the plane lands at an alternative airport, 

the airport’s three letter code? 

The number of minutes the plane stays on 

the tarmac at the alternative airport? 

The wheels-on time at the alternative 

airport? 

The cause of the diversion? 

If the passengers are not deplaned, the 

wheels-off time when the flight resumes? 

If the passengers are deplaned, the time the 

plane arrives at the gate? 

Whether the flight continues on to the 

original destination airport? 

If yes, what is the plane’s departure date, 

gate departure time, and wheels-off time? 

For all continuation flights, what are the 

wheels-on and gate arrival time at the 

original destination airport? 

The answers of those carriers that 

responded to the questions lead us 

tentatively to conclude that the 

requested data can be collected with a 

couple of exceptions. Some carriers 

apparently do not currently retain 

information on how long an aircraft sits 

on the tarmac before the flight is 

ultimately cancelled. Other carriers 

apparently do not currently record the 

cause of gate returns or flight diversions. 

Nevertheless, the general opinion 

expressed by those carriers responding 

is that with some reprogramming to the 

individual carriers’ internal systems, all 

the data could be collected and 

retrieved. ATA responded by proposing 

the addition of five data elements: 

(1) Gate Departure Time—first time 

out at origin airport. 

(2) Total ground time away from gate 

for all gate/air returns at origin airport, 

including cancelled flights—actual 

minutes. 

(3) Average ground time away from 

gate for all gate/air returns at origin 

airport, including cancelled flights—

actual minutes. 

(4) Total ground time away from gate 

at divert and destination airport(s)—

actual minutes. 

(5) Average ground time away from 

gate at divert and destination 

airport(s)—actual minutes. 

ATA requested that any changes to 

the reporting requirements be made at 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with PROPOSALS
65232 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 223 / Tuesday, November 20, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

the same time and that the 

implementation of the changes become 

effective no sooner than 6 months after 

the Department issues a new 

Accounting and Reporting Directive on 

the new reporting system. ATA also 

offered to participate in an industry 

working group comprised of DOT and 

interested carrier officials, much like the 

group that successfully collaborated on 

the reporting of the causes of delay. 

Need for Improved Reporting and 

Disclosure 

The Department believes that the 

Airline Service Quality Performance 

reporting system needs to be revised in 

order to provide consumers with a 

complete picture of tarmac delays. The 

current system also does not provide 

information on whether diverted flights 

ultimately reach their intended 

destination. The Department proposes 

to make the following revisions to its 

reports required pursuant to Part 234: 

Current Data Fields 

1. For gate/air returns and 

cancellations—carriers would report the 

last gate departure as the Gate Departure 

Time (Actual). 

2. For diverted flights that ultimately 

reach their destination, carrier would 

report: 

• Gate Arrival Time (Actual) at 

destination airport. 

• Difference in Minutes Between 

Official Airline Guide (OAG) and 

Scheduled Arrival Time. 

• Actual Gate to Gate Time in 

Minutes. 

• Arrival Delay Difference in Minutes 

Between Actual Arrival Time and 

Computer Reservation System (CRS) 

Scheduled Arrival Time. 

• Wheels-On Time (actual) at 

destination airport. 

• The Minutes Late for the proper 

Delay Code(s). 

New Data Elements 

Cancellations and Gate/Air Returns 

1. For gate/air returns, first gatedeparture time at origin airport. 

2. Total ground time away from gate 

for all gate/air returns at origin airport, 

including cancelled flights—actual 

minutes. 

3. Average ground time away from 

gate for all gate/air returns at origin 

airport, including cancelled flights—

actual minutes. 

New Data Elements 

Diverted Flights 

1. Three letter code of airport for 

diverted airport(s). 

2. Wheels-on Time at diverted airport. 

3. Gate Arrival Time at diverted 

airport. 

4. Gate Departure Time at diverted 

airport. 

5. Wheels-off Time at diverted airport. 

Technical Directive 

BTS plans to issue a technical 

reporting directive in combination with 

a final rule. In the development of the 

directive, BTS would like to work with 

the air carriers to form a pilot group for 

submitting the new data elements. With 

proper testing, we hope to ensure that 

we would be collecting the required 

data in the most efficient manner 

possible for both BTS and the air 

carriers. 

Tracking Individual Passenger Delay 

We agree with ACAP that the airline 

quality service reports currently 

required to be filed do not capture the 

delays experienced by individual 

passengers when a missed connection, 

cancellation or diversion occurs. With 

the very high passenger loads on 

aircraft, it is becoming increasingly 

more difficult for passengers to rebook 

a flight. The current reporting system 

required under Part 234 was designed, 

however, to track aircraft and airline 

operations. When delays occur there are 

two types of delayed passengers: nondisrupted and disrupted. The nondisrupted passenger completes the flight 

itinerary without suffering a missed 

connection, diversion or cancellation. 

The delay minutes of a non-disrupted 

passenger are relatively easy to 

calculate. 

The disrupted passenger either misses 

a connecting flight, or experiences a 

cancelled or diverted flight. The 

Department does not have the data 

available to accurately assign flight 

delay minutes to disrupted passengers 

as information is lacking on how the 

passenger completed the journey or 

even if the passenger completed their 

journey. Time-sensitive passengers may 

abandon their trip plans and return 

home while others may remain at the 

airport awaiting the next available 

flight. Tracking the movement of 

individual passengers and assigning 

delay minutes to individuals is difficult, 

if not impossible, and could be seen by 

some as an invasion of privacy. We 

believe the cost of tracking individual 

passenger movements would outweigh 

the benefit of assigning a delay time to 

a disrupted passenger. 

Rulemaking Notices and Analyses 

Economic Summary 

Executive Order 12866 

Under Executive Order No. 12866, (58 

FR 51735, October 4, 1993) the Agency 

must determine whether the regulatory 

action is ‘‘significant’’ and therefore 

subject to OMB review and the 

requirements of the Executive Order. 

The Order defines ‘‘significant 

regulatory action’’ as one that is likely 

to result in a rule that may: (1) Have an 

annual effect on the economy of $100 

million or more or adversely affect in a 

material way the economy, a sector of 

the economy, productivity, competition, 

jobs, the environment, public health or 

safety, or State, local, or tribal 

governments or communities; (2) create 

a serious inconsistency or otherwise 

interfere with an action taken or 

planned by another agency; (3) 

materially alter the budgetary impact of 

entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan 

programs or the rights and obligations of 

recipients thereof; or (4) raise novel 

legal or policy issues arising out of legal 

mandates, the President’s priorities, or 

the principles set forth in the Executive 

Order. 

It has been determined that this 

proposed action is a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action’’ [or non-significant if 

OMB agrees] under Executive Order No. 

12866. The proposal has high Executive, 

Congressional and public interest. 

This Executive Order also requires 

each agency to write regulations that are 

simple and easy to understand. To the 

extent possible, this proposed rule 

meets these criteria. 

Cost/Benefits 

Congress has proposed that BTS 

expand the reporting system to capture 

all operational data on gate returns, 

cancelled and diverted flights (see H.R. 

2881, the FAA Reauthorization Act of 

2007). Carriers have commented that the 

cost for programming to provide 

additional data on gate returns, 

cancelled and diverted flights could 

range from $10,000 to $60,000 per 

carrier. Using the high estimate, 

compliance to this rule could cost the 

industry $1.2 million. It is difficult to 

assign a dollar value to the intangible 

benefits derived from the rule. 

Consumers will have more accurate data 

for making their transportation 

selections. The FAA will have complete 

data on all long tarmac delays. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act 

This Act requires agencies to analyze 

the economic impact of regulatory 

changes on small entities. The carriers 

that are required to report ASQP data 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with PROPOSALS
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