Nprm

57370

Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 207 / Friday, October 25, 2019 / Proposed Rules

regulation should not be finalized. AMS
intends to conduct outreach with the
California table grape industry
stakeholders and consider whether
changes will be proposed in the future.
Accordingly, the proposed rule to
remove varietal exemptions from the
Order and import regulation published
in the Federal Register on June 23,
2017, (82 FR 28589) is hereby
withdrawn.
List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 925
Grapes, Marketing agreements,
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 601–674.

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 944
Avocados, Food grades and standards,
Grapefruit, Grapes, Imports, Kiwifruit,
Limes, Olives, Oranges.
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 601–674.
Dated: October 21, 2019.
Bruce Summers,
Administrator, Agricultural Marketing
Service.
[FR Doc. 2019–23236 Filed 10–24–19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410–02–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Office of the Secretary
14 CFR Parts 244 and 259
[Docket No. DOT–OST–2019–0144]
RIN 2105–AE47

Tarmac Delay Rule
Office of the Secretary (OST),
Department of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM).
AGENCY:

This rulemaking would
modify U.S. and foreign air carrier
obligations with respect to tarmac
delays and conform carrier obligations
with respect to departure delays with
the changes made to the FAA Extension,
Safety, and Security Act of 2016. This
rulemaking would also make changes to
the notification requirements regarding
the status of the tarmac delay and the
opportunity to deplane as well as carrier
tarmac delay reporting and record
retention requirements.
DATES: Comments should be filed by
December 24, 2019. Late-filed comments
will be considered to the extent
practicable.
ADDRESSES: You may file comments
identified by the docket number DOT–
OST–2019–9144 by any of the following
methods:
SUMMARY:

VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:53 Oct 24, 2019

Jkt 250001

• 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 9:00
a.m. and 5:00 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–2019–0144 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 and
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:
Ryan Patanaphan, Senior Trial Attorney
or Blane A. Workie, Assistant General
Counsel, Office of Aviation Enforcement
and Proceedings, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Ave.
SE, Washington, DC 20590, 202–366–
9342, 202–366–7152 (fax),
[email protected] or
[email protected] (email).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

domestic flights and four hours for
international flights without providing
passengers the option to deplane subject
to exceptions for safety, security, and
Air Traffic Control related reasons.
Carriers’ plans must also contain
assurances such as assurances that
carriers will provide adequate food and
drinking water within two hours of the
aircraft being delayed on the tarmac,
provide notifications regarding the
status of the delay and the opportunity
to deplane if the opportunity to deplane
exists, maintain operable lavatories and,
if necessary, provide medical attention.

Current Tarmac Delay Requirements
On April 25, 2011, the Department
published the ‘‘Enhancing Airline
Passenger Protections’’ rule to improve
the air travel environment for
passengers.1 Under this rule, carriers are
required to adopt and adhere to tarmac
delay contingency plans. DOT’s
regulations require that these plans
contain assurances that covered carriers
will not allow aircraft to remain on the
tarmac for more than three hours for

Need for a Rulemaking
Section 2308 of the FAA Extension,
Safety, and Security Act of 2016, Public
Law 114–190 (FAA Extension Act)
requires the Department to issue
regulations and take other actions
necessary to carry out the amendments
made by Section 2308. These
amendments include new language
requiring air carriers to begin to return
an aircraft to a suitable disembarkation
point no later than 3 or 4 hours after the
main aircraft door is closed for
departure. In response, the Department’s
Office of Aviation Enforcement and
Proceedings (Enforcement Office) issued
an ‘‘Enforcement Policy on Extended
Tarmac Delays’’ (Enforcement Policy) 2
on November 22, 2016. The
Enforcement Policy states that, as a
matter of prosecutorial discretion, the
Department will not take enforcement
action against U.S. and foreign air
carriers with respect to departure delays
if U.S. and foreign air carriers begin to
return the aircraft to a gate or another
suitable disembarkation point no later
than three hours for domestic flights
and no later than four hours for
international flights after the main
aircraft door has closed in preparation
for departure. The Enforcement Policy
further provides that the process of
beginning to return to the gate or a
suitable disembarkation point varies
based on whether the aircraft is in a
carrier-controlled part of the airport or
a non-carrier-controlled part of the
airport. The Enforcement Policy is
intended to be a temporary fix until the
Department issues a final rule that
specifically addresses lengthy tarmac
delays pursuant to the FAA Extension
Act.
In October 2017, the Department
published a Notification of Regulatory
Review (82 FR 4570, October 2, 2017),
seeking public input on existing rules
and other agency actions that are good
candidates for repeal, replacement,

1 Enhancing Airline Passenger Protections Rule,
76 FR 23110, Apr. 25, 2011.

2 https://www.transportation.gov/airconsumer/
enforcement-policy-extended-tarmac-delays.

PO 00000

Frm 00002

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

E:\FR\FM\25OCP1.SGM

25OCP1

Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 207 / Friday, October 25, 2019 / Proposed Rules
suspension, or modification.3 DOT
received comments from various
regulated entities regarding the
Department’s tarmac delay rule.4
Further, on January 30, 2019, the
Department issued a notice inviting the
public to identify and provide input on
existing guidance documents that are
good candidates for repeal, replacement,
or modification.5 American Airlines and
jointly A4A and IATA filed comments
related to the 2016 Enforcement Policy.
The Department has reviewed these
comments and is proposing certain
changes to the tarmac delay rule,
primarily a new exception for departure
delays to conform the regulations to the
FAA Extension Act, provide greater
flexibility to airlines, and alleviate
concerns about the existing rule’s
potential effects on cancellations. DOT
is also proposing several changes to
reporting requirements and other carrier
obligations with respect to tarmac
delays. The proposals are described in
more detail below. The Department
plans to consider the comments
received on the tarmac delay rule that
are not addressed in this proposal at a
later time.
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
1. Departure Delay Exception
On July 15, 2016, the FAA Extension
Act was signed. Section 2308 of the
FAA Extension Act amends 49 U.S.C.
42301 by changing the standard for
when tarmac delay violations occur
with respect to departing flights. The
FAA Extension Act requires the
Department to issue regulations and
take other actions necessary to carry out
section 2308. Under section 2308 of the
FAA Extension Act, a tarmac delay
occurs when passengers are on board an
aircraft on the tarmac (A) awaiting
takeoff after the main aircraft door is
closed in preparation for departure, or
(B) awaiting deplaning after the aircraft
has landed. Under that Act, an excessive
tarmac delay is a tarmac delay that is
more than three hours long for domestic
flights or more than four hours long for
international flights. Previously, an
excessive tarmac delay was defined in
3 https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=DOTOST-2017-0069-0001.
4 The Department received comments from
Airlines For America (A4A), United Airlines,
International Air Transport Association (IATA),
Kuwait Airways, National Air Carrier Association
(NACA), Etihad Airways, Association of Asian
Pacific Airlines (AAPA), Lufthansa Group, Qantas,
El Al, WestJet, Airlines Association of Southern
Africa, and Air France/KLM related to the tarmac
delay rule. In addition, the Department met with
A4A and various U.S. airlines to hear their views
of the tarmac delay rule.
5 https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=DOTOST-2017-0069-2855.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:53 Oct 24, 2019

Jkt 250001

49 U.S.C. 42301 as a tarmac delay that
lasts for a length of time as determined
by the Department.
In its amended form, 49 U.S.C. 42301
provides that a tarmac delay ends for an
arriving and departing flight when a
passenger has the option to deplane an
aircraft and return to the airport
terminal; however, for a departing flight,
under amended section 42301, it is not
a violation of the assurance to permit an
aircraft to remain on the tarmac for more
than three hours for domestic flights
and more than four hours for
international flights if the air carrier
begins to return the aircraft to a suitable
disembarkation point to deplane
passengers by those times. Unlike the
amended statute, DOT’s current
regulation prohibits a carrier from
allowing an aircraft to remain on the
tarmac for more than three hours for
domestic flights and four hours for
international flights without providing
passengers the opportunity to deplane
and applies this standard to both
departing and arriving flights without
consideration of the time the carrier
begins to return the aircraft to a suitable
disembarkation point for departing
flights.
In the Enforcement Policy, the
Department has stated that, if the
aircraft is in an area of the airport
property that is not under the carrier’s
control, the aircraft has begun the
process of returning to a suitable
disembarkation point when permission
is granted by the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA) control tower,
airport authority, or other relevant
authority directing the aircraft’s
operations while it is on the tarmac.
However, if the aircraft is in an area of
the airport property that is under the
carrier’s control, an aircraft has begun to
return to a suitable disembarkation
point when the pilot begins
maneuvering the aircraft to the
disembarkation point.
DOT is proposing to amend its tarmac
delay regulation to reflect its
Enforcement Policy, with slight
modifications. To determine when the
carrier begins to return to a suitable
disembarkation point, we are proposing
that if the aircraft is in an area that is
not under the carrier’s control, then the
aircraft has begun to return to a suitable
disembarkation point when a request is
made to the Federal Aviation
Administration control tower, airport
authority, or other relevant authority
directing the aircraft’s operations, rather
than when permission is granted as set
forth in the Enforcement Policy. This
revision would ensure that carriers are
not held responsible for delays
attributed to third parties and beyond

PO 00000

Frm 00003

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

57371

the carriers’ control. However, similar to
the Enforcement Policy, under this
proposed rule, if the aircraft is in an
area of the airport property that is under
the carrier’s control, an aircraft would
be considered to have begun to return to
a suitable disembarkation point when
the pilot begins maneuvering the aircraft
to the disembarkation point. The
Department seeks comment on this
proposed standard and whether there
are other appropriate standards the
Department should consider.
In addition, this rulemaking takes into
account circumstances when a carrier
has closed the main aircraft door for
departure but the aircraft has not left the
gate. Under the Enforcement Policy, the
tarmac delay clock for departing flights
begins when the main aircraft door has
closed, even if the aircraft remains at the
gate and the carrier asserts that an
opportunity to deplane still exists. This
rulemaking proposes that a tarmac delay
on a departing flight begins when the
main aircraft door is closed, which
generally means that passengers on
board the flight no longer have the
opportunity to deplane. If a carrier can
show that passengers on board the
aircraft have the opportunity to deplane
from an aircraft, even while the aircraft
doors are closed, then, under the
proposal, the tarmac delay clock has not
started and will not start until
passengers no longer have the
opportunity to deplane. Absent a
showing that passengers have the
opportunity to deplane while the
aircraft is at the gate with the doors
closed, there would be a presumption
that passengers do not have an
opportunity to deplane. This approach
allows carriers some flexibility in
determining when a tarmac delay
begins, while adhering to the standard
prescribed by the statute. DOT seeks
comment on this approach to
determining when a tarmac delay begins
during departing flights.
DOT believes that adopting the
departure delay exception as described
in the Enforcement Policy—that a
departing flight is not considered to be
in violation of the assurance not to
permit an aircraft to remain on the
tarmac for more than 3 hours for
domestic flights and more than 4 hours
for international flights so long as the air
carrier begins to return the aircraft to a
suitable disembarkation point—would
provide covered carriers some relief in
situations when they may be unable to
reduce the length of a tarmac delay for
circumstances beyond their control.
While in most cases a carrier would
violate the current tarmac delay
regulation if the carrier has not provided
passengers the opportunity to deplane

E:\FR\FM\25OCP1.SGM

25OCP1

57372

Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 207 / Friday, October 25, 2019 / Proposed Rules

by either the three or four-hour mark,
the proposed inclusion of the departure
delay exception offers carriers more
flexibility and reduces the number of
tarmac delays that are subject to
enforcement. This would reduce the
burden of the tarmac delay regulation
on carriers in situations that they may
be unable to control, while still
maintaining important consumer
protections.
Also, the proposal specifies that the
exception applies when carriers begin to
return to a suitable disembarkation
point in order to deplane passengers. If
a flight begins to return to a suitable
disembarkation point but does not
provide passengers an opportunity to
deplane, absent one of the safety,
security, or air traffic control (ATC)
exceptions provided in the regulation,
the flight would not be considered to
have begun to return to a suitable
disembarkation point to provide
passengers an opportunity to deplane,
and the tarmac delay clock would
continue to run. For example, an aircraft
that begins the process to return to the
gate or another suitable disembarkation
point for a mechanical-related problem
would have the tarmac delay time
continue accruing for the flight if the
purpose of the return was not to provide
passengers an opportunity to deplane
and passengers were not provided the
option to deplane.
We note that even though the
requirements in 49 U.S.C. 42301, which
were amended by the FAA Extension
Act, only apply to U.S. carriers, DOT
chose to apply its Enforcement Policy to
both U.S. and foreign air carriers, under
DOT’s authority to prohibit unfair and
deceptive practices in 49 U.S.C. 41712.
We are also proposing to apply the
requirements in the proposed rule to
both U.S. and foreign air carriers to
streamline the tarmac delay
requirements and decrease confusion in
the airport environment. DOT seeks
comment on this approach.
DOT is not proposing to change
carrier obligations with respect to
tarmac delays for arriving flights.
Section 2308 of the FAA Extension Act
states that the departure delay standard
applies to departing flights, and, as
such, DOT proposes to require carriers
to modify their Contingency Plan for
Lengthy Tarmac Delays to include
specific assurances related to such
flights.
With regard to diverting flights, this
proposal would provide that diversions
are treated as arriving flights up to the
point that an opportunity to deplane is
provided to passengers. Once an
opportunity to deplane is provided, the
diversion is treated as a departing flight

VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:53 Oct 24, 2019

Jkt 250001

and after that point, the departure delay
exception applies if carriers begin to
return to a suitable disembarkation
point in order to deplane passengers.
DOT seeks comment on this treatment
of diverting flights.
2. Reporting Requirements
DOT proposes to revise the tarmac
delay reporting requirements in 14 CFR
part 244. Currently, reporting carriers 6
are required to file BTS Form 234 ‘‘OnTime Flight Performance Report’’ on a
monthly basis for all scheduled
passenger domestic flights that they
market under their code to or from any
U.S. large, medium, small, or non-hub
airport. The report includes information
on domestic scheduled passenger flights
that experience tarmac delays at U.S.
airports. Reporting carriers are also
required to file BTS Form 244 ‘‘Tarmac
Delay Report’’ on a monthly basis to
report information on passenger flights
that they operate that experience
lengthy tarmac delays, including
domestic scheduled passenger flights
that experience lengthy tarmac delays at
medium, small, or non-hub U.S. airports
to the extent the carriers do not already
report on-time performance data
voluntarily for these airports under 14
CFR 234.7.7 This has resulted in
duplicative reporting.
Today, reporting carriers are required
to submit tarmac delay information for
scheduled domestic flights that they
operate at medium, small, or non-hub
U.S. airports both through Form 234 and
Form 244. Also, tarmac delays on
scheduled domestic flights marketed but
not operated by a reporting carrier are
being reported twice: The reporting
carrier reports the flight using BTS Form
234, and the non-reporting carrier
reports the same flight using BTS Form
6 ‘‘Reporting carrier’’ for air transportation taking
place on or after January 1, 2018, means an air
carrier certificated under 49 U.S.C. 41102 that
accounted for at least 0.5 percent of domestic
scheduled-passenger revenues in the most recently
reported 12-month period as defined by the
Department’s Office of Airline Information, and as
reported to the Department pursuant to part 241 of
this chapter. Reporting carriers will be identified
periodically in accounting and reporting directives
issued by the Office of Airline Information. 14 CFR
234.2.
7 Reporting carriers are not required to file BTS
Form 244 to report information on scheduled flights
that experience lengthy tarmac delays at large hub
U.S. airports because when DOT issued its rule for
carriers to file BTS Form 244, that information was
already required to be reported for domestic
scheduled flights at large hub airports through BTS
Form 234. Since then, the requirement for reporting
carriers to provide on-time performance data using
BTS Form 234 has been expanded to cover medium,
small and non-hub airports. Also, the reporting of
on-time performance data for scheduled domestic
flights at medium, small, or non-hub U.S. airports
on BTS Form 234 is mandatory and no longer
voluntary for reporting carriers.

PO 00000

Frm 00004

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

244. This rulemaking would provide
that tarmac delays on scheduled
domestic passenger flights need no
longer be reported by reporting carriers
under 14 CFR part 244, provided that
such flights are reported under 14 CFR
part 234. Also, the proposed rule
changes reporting requirements to
relieve non-reporting carriers of the
obligation of filing BTS Form 244 for
scheduled domestic flights if such
flights are already reported by the
reporting carrier to the Department
using BTS Form 234. This change
would reduce the burden on nonreporting carriers that operate flights
held out by reporting carriers. U.S. air
carriers covered under 14 CFR part 234
would still be required to file BTS Form
244 for tarmac delays occurring on
international and public charter flights,
and on flights not otherwise reported
under 14 CFR part 234 (e.g., extra
section flights). Non-reporting U.S.
carriers that operate flights that are not
held out by reporting carriers would
still be required to file BTS Form 244 for
tarmac delays on domestic and
international flights. The Department
requests comment on the above
reporting changes, including whether
and how reporting requirements in 14
CFR parts 234 and 244 can be further
consolidated.
With respect to international flights,
carriers are currently required to file a
report under 14 CFR part 244 for tarmac
delays of more than three hours. Under
this proposed rule, the requirement to
report would only be triggered if the
tarmac delay rises to the level of an
‘‘excessive tarmac delay,’’ defined as a
tarmac delay of more than three hours
for a domestic flight and more than four
hours for an international flight. This
would reduce the number of instances
in which a carrier is required to report
to the Department a tarmac delay on an
international flight. The Department
solicits comment on this approach.
3. Record Retention
DOT proposes to eliminate the tarmac
delay record retention requirement in 14
CFR 259.4(e) and replace it with a
reporting requirement. The current rule
requires that U.S. and foreign air
carriers with a tarmac delay contingency
plan retain for two years specific
information related to a tarmac delay.
The specific information includes,
among other information, the length and
cause of the delay and an explanation of
the actions taken to minimize passenger
hardship. Under 49 U.S.C. 42301(h),
U.S. carriers are also required to submit
a written description of each excessive
tarmac delay, which may include the
information required to be retained

E:\FR\FM\25OCP1.SGM

25OCP1

Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 207 / Friday, October 25, 2019 / Proposed Rules
under 14 CFR 259.4(e). Because the
Department receives a written
description of lengthy tarmac delays
from U.S. carriers as mandated by
statute, maintaining the record retention
requirement for U.S. carriers is
duplicative and of limited or no public
benefit. As such, the Department
proposes to change the record retention
requirement in 14 CFR 259.4(e) to a
reporting requirement, thereby
eliminating the requirement to retain
certain information for two years.
The new reporting requirement would
include the same information currently
required to be retained under the
current § 259.4(e), and would also
satisfy U.S. carrier obligations under 49
U.S.C. 42301(h). To comply with the
mandate in 49 U.S.C. 42301(h) for U.S.
carriers to submit to the Department a
written description of a flight that
experiences an excessive tarmac delay
and its resolution, U.S. carriers
generally provide the Department with
the same information that they are
required to retain under § 259.4(e): The
name of the operating carrier, the flight
number, the origin and destination
airports, the location of the delay, the
length of the tarmac delay, and an
explanation of the incident, including
the cause of the delay and actions taken
to minimize passenger hardship. This
NPRM proposes that the same
information be provided to the
Department by U.S. and foreign air
carriers under 14 CFR 259.4. Although
49 U.S.C. 42301(h) applies only to U.S.
carriers, the Department is proposing to
apply the same requirement to foreign
air carriers pursuant to the Department’s
authority under 49 U.S.C. 41712.
Accordingly, under the proposal, U.S.
and foreign air carriers would file one
written description of each excessive
tarmac delay incident to the
Department. As explained earlier, the
airlines would no longer be required to
retain for two years the records listed in
14 CFR 259.4(e). For both U.S. and
foreign air carriers, the new reports
would be due within 30 days of the date
an excessive tarmac delay occurs, which
is consistent with the time frame reports
are due for U.S. carriers under 49 U.S.C.
42301(h). The Department requests
comment on the above reporting and
record retention changes, including the
type of information to be required for
reporting.
4. Other Exceptions to Tarmac Delay
Requirements
Under the Department’s existing
tarmac delay rule, carriers must not
allow an aircraft to remain on the
tarmac for more than three hours for
domestic flights and more than four

VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:53 Oct 24, 2019

Jkt 250001

hours for international flights before
allowing passengers to deplane from an
aircraft, except when the pilot-incommand determines that there is a
safety-related or security-related reason
why the aircraft cannot leave its
position on the tarmac to deplane
passengers, or when air traffic control
advises that returning to a suitable
disembarkation point to deplane
passengers would significantly disrupt
airport operations. Under 49 U.S.C.
42301, a passenger must have the option
to deplane an aircraft and return to the
airport terminal when there is a lengthy
tarmac delay except when the pilot in
command determines that permitting a
passenger to deplane would jeopardize
passenger safety or security, or when air
traffic control advises that returning to
a suitable disembarkation point to
deplane passengers would significantly
disrupt airport operations. Title 49
U.S.C. 42301 also references a suitable
disembarkation point when discussing
deplaning passengers following a
lengthy tarmac delay.
This rulemaking proposes to amend
the safety and security exceptions to the
tarmac delay rule to codify the
exceptions in 49 U.S.C. 42301. Under
this proposal, a safety or security
exception occurs when the pilot-incommand determines that deplaning
passengers at a suitable disembarkation
point would jeopardize passenger safety
or security, or when there is a safetyrelated or security-related reason why
the aircraft cannot leave its position on
the tarmac to deplane passengers. A
suitable disembarkation point is defined
as a location at an airport where
passengers have the ability to deplane
from an aircraft. The Department’s
Enforcement Office already considers
the exceptions provided in 49 U.S.C.
42301 and the Department’s tarmac
delay rule to determine whether a
violation has occurred. As such, the
Department does not anticipate that this
change in language would impact
carriers or consumers. Consistent with
the statute and prior practice, under this
proposal, a safety or security exception
would apply when passengers are at a
suitable disembarkation point to
deplane but are unable to do so for an
unavoidable safety-related reason such
as lightning. If, however, the passengers
are at a suitable disembarkation point
such as a remote hardstand to deplane
but are unable to do so because of lack
of buses or stairs, the safety or security
exception would not apply.
As this rulemaking would not have an
effect on the safety or security
exceptions articulated in the rule and
the statute, this NPRM would not
negatively impact safety.

PO 00000

Frm 00005

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

57373

5. Other Carrier Obligations
This rulemaking would clarify carrier
obligations with respect to the provision
of food and water. Currently, carriers
must provide adequate food and potable
water no later than two hours after the
aircraft leaves the gate (in the case of a
departure) or touches down (in the case
of an arrival) if the aircraft remains on
the tarmac, unless the pilot-in-command
determines that safety or security
considerations preclude such service.
Because the obligation to provide food
and water is triggered two hours after
the aircraft leaves the gate, there are two
separate start times for carriers’ tarmac
delay responsibilities. More specifically,
for the purposes of calculating the
length of a tarmac delay, a tarmac delay
starts after the main aircraft door has
closed in preparation for departure,
which generally means that passengers
on board the aircraft no longer have the
opportunity to deplane. On the other
hand, carriers’ obligation to provide
food and water occurs within two hours
of the aircraft leaving the gate. The two
start times are not always in alignment.
For example, if an aircraft remains at the
gate for one hour and passengers do not
have the opportunity to deplane, and
then the aircraft leaves the gate, the
flight crew must maintain two separate
timers, one to monitor the time of the
tarmac delay, and the other to monitor
the time since the aircraft left the gate
to determine when food and water must
be provided. This proposed rule would
standardize carrier obligations such that
the food and water timer would begin at
the same time a tarmac delay begins.
The proposed rule would also clarify
that the food and water obligation only
applies to situations in which the
aircraft remains on the ground, both
during departure and after touch-down.
The proposed rule would also change
carrier obligations with respect to
notifying passengers when they have an
opportunity to deplane. Currently,
carriers must provide notification to
passengers that they have the
opportunity to deplane from an aircraft
if the opportunity to deplane exists. The
first notification must be made
beginning 30 minutes after the
scheduled departure time and every 30
minutes thereafter while the
opportunity to deplane exists. This
proposed rule would eliminate the
carrier’s obligation to provide additional
notifications every 30 minutes, thereby
reducing the burden on carrier staff,
while maintaining passengers’ access to
information. Carriers would be obligated
to make a notification when an
opportunity to deplane exists (and each
time such an opportunity recurs, if, for

E:\FR\FM\25OCP1.SGM

25OCP1

57374

Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 207 / Friday, October 25, 2019 / Proposed Rules

example, an aircraft returns to the gate
after taxiing).
This rulemaking also proposes to
eliminate the requirement that carriers
provide notifications regarding the
status and cause of the delay every 30
minutes to passengers on board an
aircraft. The Department believes that
the current rule, specifically the
required frequency of notifications,
provides no or limited value to
passengers. It may even be harmful to
passengers for carriers to provide
frequent updates when the flight crew
have no new updates to share with
passengers and/or when passengers may
be attempting to sleep during late night
delays. The Department seeks comment
on the elimination of this requirement.
Regulatory Notices
A. Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory
Planning and Review) and DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures
This action has been determined to be
nonsignificant under Executive Order
12866 (‘‘Regulatory Planning and
Review’’) as supplemented by Executive
Order 13563 (‘‘Improving Regulation
and Regulatory Review’’). Accordingly,
the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) has not reviewed it under that
Order. It is also not significant under the
Department of Transportation’s
Regulatory Policies and Procedures.
Nearly all the provisions in this
proposed rule are deregulatory in
nature, which would generate cost
savings, or clarifications, which would
result in no economic impact. Minimal
costs may be associated with three
provisions consisting of a requirement
for carriers to: (1) Report the length of
the excessive tarmac delay if the length
is not otherwise represented by the data
listed under 14 CFR 244.3(a); (2) collect
a new data point for the start time of a
tarmac delay for enforcement purposes
for departing flights, which would be
the time the main aircraft door closes;
and (3) collect a new data point for the
time carriers begin to return the aircraft
to a suitable disembarkation point to
deplane passengers on departing flights.
The primary purpose of this proposed
rule is to implement changes to the FAA
Extension Act regarding carrier
obligations during an excessive tarmac
delay. In general, we expect the rule to
generate cost savings and benefits to
carriers and consumers due primarily to
the new standard for departure delays.
This rulemaking also includes
provisions to make conforming changes
to carrier tarmac delay reporting and
record keeping requirements. The
changes to record retention and
reporting requirements would reduce

VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:53 Oct 24, 2019

Jkt 250001

the burden on carriers. However, these
cost savings and benefits are minimal
and difficult to quantify as annual
tarmac delays are becoming relatively
rare since the implementation of the
2009 Tarmac Delay rule. In particular,
domestic tarmac delays have already
been reduced to 193 in 2017 from 1,642
in 2007, or 2.2 delays dropping to 0.3
delays per 10,000 flights. Details are
provided in the preliminary regulatory
evaluation which is available in the
docket.
B. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)
This NPRM has been analyzed in
accordance with the principles and
criteria contained in Executive Order
13132 (‘‘Federalism’’). This NPRM 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. States are already
preempted from regulating in this area
by the Airline Deregulation Act, 49
U.S.C. 41713. Therefore, the
consultation and funding requirements
of Executive Order 13132 do not apply.
C. Executive Order 13084
This NPRM has been analyzed in
accordance with the principles and
criteria contained in Executive Order
13084 (‘‘Consultation and Coordination
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. A
direct air carrier or foreign air carrier is
a small business if it provides air
transportation only with small aircraft
(i.e., aircraft with up to 60 seats/18,000
pound payload capacity). See 14 CFR
399.73. Nearly all the provisions in this
proposed rule are deregulatory in nature
(which would generate cost savings) or
clarifications (which would result in no
economic impact). This NPRM’s
proposals are expected to result in cost

PO 00000

Frm 00006

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

savings or benefits that are minimal and
difficult to quantify. A small number of
tarmac delays occur on flights operated
by small entities, and the impact on the
small entities is expected to be minimal.
Accordingly, the Department does not
believe that the NPRM would have a
significant impact on a substantial
number of small entities. However, we
invite comment on the potential impact
of this rulemaking on small entities.
E. Paperwork Reduction Act
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act
(44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) (PRA), no
person is required to respond to a
collection of information unless it
displays a valid OMB control number.
This NPRM proposes a revision to the
existing information collection burdens
under OMB control number 2105–0561.
Under the PRA, before an agency seeks
OMB approval for a proposed collection
of information, it must first publish a
document in the Federal Register
providing 60-day notice to the public to
allow for comment. The Department
invites interested parties to comment on
the information collection requirements
contained in this document. As
prescribed by the PRA, the requirement
will not go into effect until OMB has
approved them after a 30-day notice is
issued and the Department has
published a notice announcing the
effective date of the revised information
collection requirements.
This NPRM proposes to modify
existing information collection
requirements under OMB control
number 2105–0561. This NPRM
proposes changes to two parts of the
Department’s regulations: 14 CFR part
244 (reporting tarmac delay data) and
part 259, specifically § 259.4(e)
(retention of records related to tarmac
delays). It would eliminate reports for
tarmac delays between 3 and 4 hours on
international flights, eliminate
duplicative reporting of domestic
tarmac delays that are already reported
under 14 CFR part 234, and change a
record retention requirement in 14 CFR
259.4(e) into a descriptive tarmac delay
reporting requirement.
For each of the information
collections proposed for 14 CFR part
244 and 14 CFR 259.4, the title, a
description of the respondents, and an
estimate of the burdens are set forth
below:
1. Requirement that carriers report
certain tarmac delay data to BTS for
tarmac delays exceeding 3 hours (for
domestic flights) and exceeding 4 hours
(for international flights) on a monthly
basis.
Title: Reporting Tarmac Delay Data to
BTS for Tarmac Delays Exceeding 3

E:\FR\FM\25OCP1.SGM

25OCP1

Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 207 / Friday, October 25, 2019 / Proposed Rules
Hours (for Domestic Flights) and 4
Hours (for International Flights).
Respondents: U.S. carriers that
operate scheduled passenger service or
public charter service using any aircraft
with 30 or more seats, and foreign air
carriers that operate scheduled
passenger or public charter service to
and from the United States using any
aircraft with 30 or more seats.
Number of Respondents: 61 U.S. and
70 foreign carriers (estimated). Due to
the changes proposed by this NPRM, it
is expected that in nearly all cases,
tarmac delays that would be reportable
under 14 CFR part 244 would be on
international flights, as nearly all tarmac
delays on domestic flights would be
reported under 14 CFR part 234.8 Based
on data submitted by airlines to BTS
from 2014 to 2018, we expect the
NPRM’s proposals to result in an
average of 37 tarmac delays on
international flights to be reported
through BTS Form 244 in a given year.
Estimated Annual Burden on
Respondents: Based on 2014–2018 data,
the NPRM’s proposals would result in 0
to 18 reports being filed under 14 CFR
part 244 by U.S. air carriers each year,
and 0 to 7 reports being filed under 14
CFR part 244 by foreign air carriers each
year. This range reflects the lowest and
highest number of reportable tarmac
delays on international flights
experienced by U.S. and foreign air
carriers during the 2014–2018 period.
At 30 minutes of burden per report
filed, this proposal would result in a
burden of between 0.0 hours and 9.0
hours for each U.S. carrier, and between
0.0 and 3.5 hours for foreign air carriers.
Estimated Total Annual Burden: As
the proposals in this NPRM would
result in an estimated 37 reports filed
under 14 CFR part 244 each year, the
total annual burden would be 1110
minutes (18.5 hours). This reflects a
reduction in existing burdens that
would result from the NPRM’s
proposals, including (1) elimination of
reports for tarmac delays between 3 and
4 hours on international flights, and (2)
elimination of duplicative reporting for
domestic tarmac delays that are already
reported under 14 CFR part 234. The
NPRM’s proposal to require an
additional data point for certain tarmac
delay reports (when the length of the
tarmac delay is not reflected in the
required data points reported on BTS
8 The NPRM would not affect the reporting of
tarmac delays on domestic flights if those flights are
not already reported under 14 CFR part 234 (i.e.
those flights that are neither held out or operated
by carriers that file reports under 14 CFR part 234);
however, such tarmac delays are generally
uncommon.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:53 Oct 24, 2019

Jkt 250001

Form 244) would not result in any
measurable effect on burden.
2. Eliminating Tarmac Delay Record
Retention Requirement and Adding a
New Descriptive Reporting Requirement
for Foreign Air Carriers.
Title: Changing Tarmac Delay Record
Retention Requirement into a
Descriptive Reporting Requirement That
Complies with 49 U.S.C. 42301(h).
Respondents: U.S. carriers that
operate scheduled passenger service or
public charter service using any aircraft
with 30 or more seats, and foreign air
carriers that operate scheduled
passenger or public charter service to
and from the United States using any
aircraft with 30 or more seats.
Number of Respondents: 61 U.S. air
carriers and 70 foreign air carriers
(estimated). Based on reports submitted
by carriers to BTS between 2014 and
2018, we expect an average of 148
reportable tarmac delays to occur in a
given year, with 128 operated by U.S.
air carriers and 20 by foreign air
carriers. Based on the NPRM’s
proposals, carriers would no longer
need to retain for two years the records
related to these tarmac delays. Instead,
carriers would be required to file a
report with a written description of the
tarmac delay incident to the
Department’s Aviation Consumer
Protection Division. Because U.S.
carriers already file such reports
pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 42301(h), U.S.
carriers would not encounter any
additional reporting burdens under the
NPRM’s proposed changes to 14 CFR
259.4, and would experience a net
burden decrease as a result of the
proposed elimination of the record
retention requirement. Only the 20
tarmac delays operated by foreign air
carriers would result in new reports
being filed under 14 CFR 259.4.
Estimated Annual Burden on
Respondents: We expect the burden on
carriers to file descriptive tarmac delay
reports is 2 hours per report for U.S.
carriers and 4 hours per report for
foreign carriers. As the NPRM only
results in a new reporting burden for
foreign air carriers, the expected burden
per respondent is between 0 and 7
reports per year (based on the highest
annual number of tarmac delays
experienced by a single foreign carrier
between 2014 and 2018), or 0.0 to 28.0
hours of burden per respondent. There
will be no new burdens on U.S. air
carriers under this information
collection, due to U.S. air carriers’
existing reporting requirement under 49
U.S.C. 42301(h).
Estimated Total Annual Burden: This
information collection would result in
an estimated annual burden of 20

PO 00000

Frm 00007

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

57375

reports, or 80 hours. This reflects a
reduction in burden for U.S. carriers
based on the elimination of the record
retention burden required by 14 CFR
259.4(e).
The Department invites interested
persons to submit comments on any
aspect of each of these information
collections, including the following: (1)
The necessity and utility of the
information collection, (2) the accuracy
of the estimate of the burden, (3) ways
to enhance the quality, utility, and
clarity of the information to be
collected, and (4) ways to minimize the
burden of collection without reducing
the quality of the collected information.
Comments submitted in response to this
NPRM will be summarized or included,
or both, in the request for OMB approval
of these information collections.
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 NPRM.
G. National Environmental Policy Act
The Department has analyzed the
environmental impacts of this proposed
action pursuant to the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42
U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and has determined
that it is categorically excluded
pursuant to DOT Order 5610.1C,
Procedures for Considering
Environmental Impacts (44 FR 56420,
Oct. 1, 1979). Categorical exclusions are
actions identified in an agency’s NEPA
implementing procedures that do not
normally have a significant impact on
the environment and therefore do not
require either an environmental
assessment (EA) or environmental
impact statement (EIS). See 40 CFR
1508.4. In analyzing the applicability of
a categorical exclusion, the agency must
also consider whether extraordinary
circumstances are present that would
warrant the preparation of an EA or EIS.
Id. Paragraph 4(c)(6)(i) of DOT Order
5610.1C provides that ‘‘actions relating
to consumer protection, including
regulations’’ are categorically excluded.
The purpose of this rulemaking is
primarily to amend the definition of
excessive tarmac delay. The Department
does not anticipate any environmental
impacts, and there are no extraordinary
circumstances present in connection
with this rulemaking.
List of Subjects
14 CFR Part 244
Administrative practice and
procedure, Airports, Consumer
protection.

E:\FR\FM\25OCP1.SGM

25OCP1

57376

Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 207 / Friday, October 25, 2019 / Proposed Rules
to the reporting requirements of this
part.
(2) For U.S. air carriers that submit
Airline Service Quality Performance
Reports under 14 CFR part 234, their
scheduled domestic flights are not
flights subject to the reporting
requirements of this part to the extent
part 234 reports are submitted for those
flights.
■ 4. Revise § 244.3 to read as follows:

14 CFR Part 259
Air carriers, Consumer protection,
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
For the reasons stated in the
preamble, DOT proposes to amend 14
CFR chapter II, subchapter A, as
follows:
PART 244—REPORTING TARMAC
DELAY DATA
1. Revise the authority citation for part
244 to read as follows:

■

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 40101(a)(4),
40101(a)(9), 40113(a), 41702, 41712, and
42301.

2. Amend § 244.1 by removing the
definition of ‘‘Arrival time’’, adding
definitions for ‘‘Excessive tarmac delay’’
and ‘‘Gate arrival time’’ in alphabetical
order, and revising the definition for
‘‘Tarmac delay’’ to read as follows:

■

§ 244.1

Definitions.

*

*
*
*
*
Excessive tarmac delay means a
tarmac delay of more than three hours
for a domestic flight and more than four
hours for an international flight.
*
*
*
*
*
Gate arrival time is the instant when
the pilot sets the aircraft parking brake
after arriving at the airport gate or
passenger unloading area. If the parking
brake is not set, record the time for the
opening of the passenger door. Also, for
purposes of § 244.3 carriers using a
Docking Guidance System (DGS) may
record the official ‘‘gate-arrival time’’
when the aircraft is stopped at the
appropriate parking mark.
*
*
*
*
*
Tarmac delay means the period of
time when an aircraft is on the ground
with passengers and the passengers
have no opportunity to deplane.
■ 3. Revise § 244.2 to read as follows:
§ 244.2

Applicability.

(a) Covered operations. Except as
provided in paragraph (b) of this
section, this part applies to U.S.
certificated air carriers, U.S. commuter
air carriers and foreign air carriers that
operate passenger service to or from a
U.S. airport with at least one aircraft
that has an original manufacturer’s
design capacity of 30 or more seats.
Covered carriers must report all
passenger operations that experience an
excessive tarmac delay at a U.S. airport.
(b) Exceptions. (1) For foreign air
carriers that operate charter flights from
foreign airports to U.S. airports, and
return to foreign airports, and do not
pick up any new passengers in the U.S.,
the charter flights are not flights subject

VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:53 Oct 24, 2019

Jkt 250001

§ 244.3

Reporting of tarmac delay data.

(a) Each covered carrier shall file BTS
Form 244 ‘‘Tarmac Delay Report’’ with
the Office of Airline Information of the
Department’s Bureau of Transportation
Statistics setting forth the information
for each of its covered flights that
experienced an excessive tarmac delay
at a U.S. airport, including diverted
flights and cancelled flights on which
the passengers were boarded and then
deplaned before the cancellation. The
reports are due within 15 days after the
end of any month during which the
carrier experienced the excessive tarmac
delay. The reports shall be made in the
form and manner set forth in accounting
and reporting directives issued by the
Director, Office of Airline Information,
and shall contain the following
information:
(1) Carrier code.
(2) Flight number.
(3) Departure airport (three letter
code).
(4) Arrival airport (three letter code).
(5) Date of flight operation (year/
month/day).
(6) Gate departure time (actual) in
local time.
(7) Wheels-off time (actual) in local
time.
(8) Wheels-on time (actual) in local
time.
(9) Gate arrival time (actual) in local
time.
(10) Aircraft tail number.
(11) Total ground time away from gate
for all gate return/fly return at origin
airports including cancelled flights.
(12) Longest time away from gate for
gate return or canceled flight.
(13) Three letter code of airport where
flight diverted.
(14) Wheels-on time at diverted
airport.
(15) Total time away from gate at
diverted airport.
(16) Longest time away from gate at
diverted airport.
(17) Wheels-off time at diverted
airport.
(b) Covered carriers that experience
an excessive tarmac delay at a U.S.
airport and are filing a form under this
section must also report the length of
the excessive tarmac delay to the Office

PO 00000

Frm 00008

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

of Airline Information of the
Department’s Bureau of Transportation
Statistics, if the length of the excessive
tarmac delay experienced is not
otherwise represented by the data points
listed in paragraph (a) of this section
(e.g., the pilot sets the aircraft parking
brake after arriving at the passenger
unloading area, but passengers are not
provided an opportunity to deplane at
that time).
(c) The same information required by
paragraphs (a)(13) through (17) of this
section must be provided for each
subsequent diverted airport landing.
PART 259—ENHANCED
PROTECTIONS FOR AIRLINE
PASSENGERS
5. The authority citation for part 259
is revised to read as follows:

■

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 40101(a)(4),
40101(a)(9), 40113(a), 41702, 41712, and
42301.
■

6. Revise § 259.2 to read as follows:

§ 259.2

Applicability.

This part applies to all the flights of
a certificated or commuter air carrier if
the carrier operates scheduled passenger
service or public charter service using
any aircraft originally designed to have
a passenger capacity of 30 or more seats,
and to all flights to and from the U.S.
of a foreign air carrier if the carrier
operates scheduled passenger service or
public charter service to and from the
U.S. using any aircraft originally
designed to have a passenger capacity of
30 or more seats, except as otherwise
provided in this part. This part does not
apply to foreign air carrier charters that
operate to and from the United States if
no new passengers are picked up in the
United States. Section 259.4 does not
apply to a flight that diverts to the
United States when the flight is
operated by a foreign air carrier and
scheduled to operate between two
foreign points.
■ 7. Amend § 259.3 by adding
definitions for ‘‘Main aircraft door’’ and
‘‘Suitable disembarkation point’’ in
alphabetical order and revising the
definition of ‘‘Tarmac delay’’ to read as
follows:
§ 259.3

Definitions.

*

*
*
*
*
Main aircraft door means the door
used for boarding. In situations in
which there are multiple doors that can
be used for boarding, the last door
closed is considered the main aircraft
door.
*
*
*
*
*
Suitable disembarkation point means
a location at an airport where

E:\FR\FM\25OCP1.SGM

25OCP1

Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 207 / Friday, October 25, 2019 / Proposed Rules
passengers have the ability to deplane
from an aircraft.
Tarmac delay means the period of
time when an aircraft is on the ground
with passengers and the passengers
have no opportunity to deplane.
■ 8. Revise § 259.4 to read as follows:
§ 259.4 Contingency Plan for Lengthy
Tarmac Delays.

(a) Adoption of plan. Each covered
carrier, as defined by § 259.3, shall
adopt a Contingency Plan for Lengthy
Tarmac Delays for its scheduled and
public charter flights at each U.S. large
hub airport, medium hub airport, small
hub airport, and non-hub airport at
which it operates or markets such air
service and shall adhere to its plan’s
terms.
(b) Contents of plan. Each
Contingency Plan for Lengthy Tarmac
Delays shall include, at a minimum,
assurances that the covered carrier shall
comply with the requirements set forth
in paragraph (c) of this section.
(c) Requirements. Covered carriers
must comply with the following
requirements:
(1) For all domestic flights, each
covered U.S. air carrier shall provide a
passenger on a flight experiencing a
tarmac delay at a U.S. airport the
opportunity to deplane before the
tarmac delay exceeds three hours in
duration, subject to the exceptions in
paragraph (c)(3) of this section;
(2) For all international flights, each
covered carrier shall provide a
passenger on a flight experiencing a
tarmac delay at a U.S. airport the
opportunity to deplane before the
tarmac delay exceeds four hours in
duration, subject to the exceptions in
paragraph (c)(3) of this section;
(3) A covered U.S. carrier that
experiences a tarmac delay at a U.S.
airport must comply with paragraphs
(c)(1) and (2) of this section, and a
covered foreign air carrier must comply
with paragraph (c)(2) of this section,
unless:
(i) For departing flights, the flight
begins to return to a suitable
disembarkation point no later than three
hours (for domestic flights) or four
hours (for international flights) after the
main aircraft door is closed in order to
deplane passengers. If the aircraft is in
an area that is not under the carrier’s
control, the aircraft has begun to return
to a suitable disembarkation point when
a request is made to the Federal
Aviation Administration control tower,
airport authority, or other relevant
authority directing the aircraft’s
operations. If the aircraft is in an area
that is under the carrier’s control, the
aircraft has begun to return to a suitable

VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:53 Oct 24, 2019

Jkt 250001

disembarkation point when the pilot
begins maneuvering the aircraft to a
suitable disembarkation point;
(ii) The pilot-in-command determines
that deplaning passengers at a suitable
disembarkation point would jeopardize
passenger safety or security, or there is
a safety-related or security-related
reason why the aircraft cannot leave its
position on the tarmac to deplane
passengers; or
(iii) Air traffic control advises the
pilot-in-command that returning to a
suitable disembarkation point to
deplane passengers would significantly
disrupt airport operations;
(4) For all flights if the aircraft
remains on the tarmac, each covered
carrier must provide adequate food and
potable water no later than two hours
after the main aircraft door is closed (in
the case of a departure) or touches down
(in the case of an arrival), unless the
pilot-in-command determines that
safety or security considerations
preclude such service;
(5) For all flights, each covered carrier
must ensure operable lavatory facilities,
as well as adequate medical attention if
needed, during a tarmac delay;
(6) For all flights, when the
opportunity to deplane exists at a
suitable disembarkation point, each
covered carrier must notify the
passengers on board the aircraft that
they have the opportunity to deplane;
(7) Each covered carrier must ensure
that it has sufficient resources to
implement its Contingency Plan for
Lengthy Tarmac Delays, as set forth in
paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section;
and
(8) Each covered carrier must ensure
that its Contingency Plan for Lengthy
Tarmac Delays, as set forth in
paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section,
has been coordinated with the following
entities:
(i) Airport authorities (including
terminal facility operators where
applicable) at each U.S. large hub
airport, medium hub airport, small hub
airport, and non-hub airport that the
carrier serves, as well as its regular U.S.
diversion airports;
(ii) U.S. Customs and Border
Protection (CBP) at each large U.S. hub
airport, medium hub airport, small hub
airport, and non-hub airport that is
regularly used for that carrier’s
international flights, including regular
U.S. diversion airports; and
(iii) The Transportation Security
Administration (TSA) at each U.S. large
hub airport, medium hub airport, small
hub airport, and non-hub airport that
the carrier serves, including regular U.S.
diversion airports.

PO 00000

Frm 00009

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

57377

(d) Diversions. For purposes of this
section, a diverted flight is treated as an
arriving flight up to the point that an
opportunity to deplane is provided to
passengers. Once an opportunity to
deplane is provided, the diversion is
treated as a departing flight, and after
that point, the departure delay
exception in paragraph (c)(3)(i) of this
section applies if the carrier begins to
return to a suitable disembarkation
point in order to deplane passengers.
(e) Code-share responsibility. The
tarmac delay contingency plan of the
carrier under whose code the service is
marketed governs, if different from the
operating carrier, unless the marketing
carrier specifies in its contract of
carriage that the operating carrier’s plan
governs.
(f) Amendment of plan. At any time,
a carrier may amend its Contingency
Plan for Lengthy Tarmac Delays to
decrease the time for aircraft to remain
on the tarmac for domestic flights
covered in paragraph (c)(1) of this
section, for aircraft to remain on the
tarmac for international flights covered
in paragraph (c)(2) of this section, for
aircraft to begin to return to a suitable
disembarkation point covered in
paragraph (c)(3)(i) of this section, and
for providing food and water covered in
paragraph (c)(4) of this section. A carrier
may also amend its plan to increase
these intervals (up to the limits in this
part), in which case the amended plan
shall apply only to departures that are
first offered for sale after the plan’s
amendment.
(g) Written reports. (1) Each covered
operating carrier subject to this part
shall submit to the Aviation Consumer
Protection Division of the U.S.
Department of Transportation a written
description of each of the flights it
operates that experiences a tarmac delay
of more than three hours (on domestic
flights) and more than four hours (on
international flights) at a U.S. airport no
later than 30 days after the tarmac delay
occurs.
(2) The written description referenced
in paragraph (g)(1) of this section shall
include, at a minimum, the following
information:
(i) The name of the operating carrier,
the name of the marketing carrier if the
operating carrier is not the marketing
carrier, and the flight number;
(ii) The originally scheduled origin
and destination airports of the flight;
(iii) The airport at which the tarmac
delay occurred and the date it occurred;
(iv) The length of the tarmac delay
that occurred; and
(v) An explanation of the incident,
including the precise cause of the
tarmac delay, the actions taken to

E:\FR\FM\25OCP1.SGM

25OCP1

57378

Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 207 / Friday, October 25, 2019 / Proposed Rules

minimize hardships for passengers
(including the provision of food and
water, the maintenance and servicing of
lavatories, and medical assistance), and
the resolution of the incident.
(3) The written description referenced
in paragraph (g)(1) of this section shall
be accompanied by a signed
certification statement that reads as
follows:
I, (Name) and (Title), of (Air Carrier
Name), certify that the enclosed report
is, to the best of my knowledge and
belief, true and correct.
Date:
Signature:
Name (Please Print or Type):
(4) A U.S. air carrier that submits a
report in accordance with paragraph (g)
of this section is in compliance with the
reporting mandate for U.S. air carriers in
49 U.S.C. 42301(h) with respect to the
excessive tarmac delay reported.
(h) Unfair and deceptive practice. A
carrier’s failure to comply with the
assurances required by this part and
contained in its Contingency Plan for
Lengthy Tarmac Delays will be
considered to be an unfair and
deceptive practice within the meaning
of 49 U.S.C. 41712 that is subject to
enforcement action by the Department.
Issued this 15th day of October, 2019, in
Washington, DC.
Elaine L. Chao,
Secretary of Transportation.
[FR Doc. 2019–22973 Filed 10–24–19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–9X–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
50 CFR Part 622
[Docket No. 191018–0066]
RIN 0648–BI33

Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of
Mexico, and South Atlantic; SnapperGrouper Fishery of the South Atlantic
Region; Regulatory Amendment 26
National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
ACTION: Proposed rule; request for
comments.
AGENCY:

NMFS proposes to implement
recreational sector management
measures described in Vision Blueprint
Recreational Regulatory Amendment 26
(Regulatory Amendment 26) to the
Fishery Management Plan for the
Snapper-Grouper Fishery of the South

SUMMARY:

VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:53 Oct 24, 2019

Jkt 250001

Atlantic Region (Snapper-Grouper
FMP), as prepared and submitted by the
South Atlantic Fishery Management
Council (Council). For the recreational
sector, this proposed rule would remove
the minimum size limits for queen
snapper, silk snapper, and blackfin
snapper, reduce the minimum size limit
for gray triggerfish in the exclusive
economic zone (EEZ) off the east coast
of Florida, and modify the 20-fish
snapper-grouper aggregate bag limit.
The purpose of this proposed rule is to
minimize regulatory discards to the
extent practicable, improve regulatory
compliance among fishers, and increase
consistency among regulations.
DATES: Written comments on the
proposed rule must be received by
November 25, 2019.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments
on the proposed rule, identified by
‘‘NOAA–NMFS–2019–0077,’’ by either
of the following methods:
• Electronic submission: Submit all
electronic comments via the Federal eRulemaking Portal. Go to http://
www.regulations.gov/docket?D=NOAANMFS-2019-0077, click the ‘‘Comment
Now!’’ icon, complete the required
fields, and enter or attach your
comments.
• Mail: Submit written comments to
Mary Vara, NMFS Southeast Regional
Office, 263 13th Avenue South, St.
Petersburg, FL 33701.
Instructions: Comments sent by any
other method, to any other address or
individual, or received after the end of
the comment period, may not be
considered by NMFS. All comments
received are a part of the public record
and will generally be posted for public
viewing on www.regulations.gov
without change. All personal identifying
information (e.g., name, address),
confidential business information, or
otherwise sensitive information
submitted voluntarily by the sender will
be publicly accessible. NMFS will
accept anonymous comments (enter
‘‘N/A’’ in required fields if you wish to
remain anonymous).
Electronic copies of Regulatory
Amendment 26 may be obtained from
www.regulations.gov or the Southeast
Regional Office website at https://
www.fisheries.noaa.gov/action/
regulatory-amendment-26-visionblueprint-recreational-measures.
Regulatory Amendment 26 includes an
environmental assessment, a regulatory
impact review, and a Regulatory
Flexibility Act (RFA) analysis.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mary Vara, NMFS Southeast Regional
Office, telephone: 727–824–5305, or
email: [email protected].

PO 00000

Frm 00010

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

The
snapper-grouper fishery in the South
Atlantic region is managed under the
Snapper-Grouper FMP and includes
queen snapper, silk snapper, blackfin
snapper, and gray triggerfish, along with
other snapper-grouper species. The
Snapper-Grouper FMP was prepared by
the Council and is implemented by
NMFS through regulations at 50 CFR
part 622 under the authority of the
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
Conservation and Management Act
(Magnuson-Stevens Act).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background
During a series of stakeholder
meetings in 2014, the Council gathered
input from recreational and commercial
fishers throughout the South Atlantic
region to develop a long-term strategic
plan for managing the snapper-grouper
fishery. Based on that input, the Council
developed the 2016–2020 Vision
Blueprint for the Snapper-Grouper
Fishery (Vision Blueprint). The Vision
Blueprint identified the goals,
objectives, strategies, and actions that
support the Council’s vision for the
snapper-grouper fishery and centers
around four goal areas: Science,
Management, Communication, and
Governance. In 2015, the Council
prioritized action items in the Vision
Blueprint that would be addressed
through amendments to the SnapperGrouper FMP over the next 5 years. As
part of this prioritization, the Council
chose to focus on actions that would
address the seasonality of access to
certain snapper-grouper species and
measures in order to lengthen fishing
seasons and better utilize existing
annual catch limits (ACLs) in the
snapper-grouper fishery. To accomplish
this, the Council began development of
two regulatory amendments to the
Snapper-Grouper FMP to address the
commercial and recreational sectors,
respectively. Regulatory Amendment 26
includes modifications to recreational
sector management measures in the
snapper-grouper fishery based on
stakeholder input. The purpose of the
Council’s actions in Regulatory
Amendment 26 is to reduce regulatory
discards, improve regulatory
compliance among fishers, and increase
consistency among regulations.
Separately, the Council has submitted to
NMFS the Vision Blueprint Commercial
Regulatory Amendment 27 to the
Snapper-Grouper FMP, which would
revise commercial management
measures in the snapper-grouper
fishery, and it is currently in the
rulemaking process.

E:\FR\FM\25OCP1.SGM

25OCP1