Quiero saber acerca de...

jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES

23264

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 83 / Monday, May 3, 2021 / Rules and Regulations
244 for international tarmac delays of between 3 and 4 hours in duration.
Under the proposal, 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 3 hours for a domestic flight and more than 4 hours for an international flight.
Comments: Commenters generally supported the proposed changes to data reporting requirements. IATA and A4A
also proposed that flights falling under the departure delay exception be excluded from reporting requirements, as the organizations preferred not to have such flights included in the Departments monthly Air Travel Consumer Report. They also proposed excluding such flights from the statutory reporting requirement for U.S. carriers under 49 U.S.C. 42301h. The RAA
disagreed with the NPRM proposal, and expressed the view that non-reporting carriers should be exempt from 14 CFR
part 244 reporting requirements entirely, including when a flight is not reported by a reporting carrier.
Exhaustless, Inc. and FlyersRights opposed the proposal that international tarmac delays of between 3 and 4 hours in duration no longer needed to be reported under 14 CFR part 244, with FlyersRights noting that a competitive market requires informed consumers.
DOT Response: On balance, the Department views the data reporting requirement as serving a useful purpose in providing information to consumers to enable them to make informed decisions. However, the Department found that continuing to require reports for international tarmac delays not exceeding 4 hours would serve limited value to consumers, particularly when the Department does not publish these underlying tarmac delays in the monthly Air Travel Consumer Report.
The data for international tarmac delays between 3 and 4 hours in duration primarily served an academic function, without aiding consumers ability to make informed choices, an element of the Departments consumer protection mission. For this reason, the Department has decided to adopt the proposal that international tarmac delays of 4 hours or less no longer need to be reported under 14 CFR part 244.
Regarding duplicative reporting, the intent of the Department on this subject was to reduce unnecessary reporting that resulted from recent changes to 14
CFR part 234, thereby reducing the reporting burden for both reporting and non-reporting carriers. After reviewing the comments, the Department continues to see no reason to delay moving forward with the proposed
VerDate Sep<11>2014

17:00 Apr 30, 2021

Jkt 253001

changes of eliminating duplicative reporting. The final rule makes minor adjustments and relieves 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. As noted in the NPRM, prior to this rule, tarmac delays on scheduled domestic flights marketed but not operated by a reporting carrier were reported twice: The reporting carrier reported the flight using BTS
Form 234, and the non-reporting carrier reported the same flight using BTS Form 244. The final rule also relieves reporting carriers of the obligation of filing BTS Form 244 for scheduled domestic tarmac delays that occur at small, medium, and non-hub airports, delays which are already reported under 14 CFR part 234. Under the final rule, all covered carriers continue to 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. Nonreporting U.S. carriers that operate flights that are not held out by reporting carriers are still required to file BTS
Form 244 for tarmac delays on domestic and international flights. The Department was not persuaded that non-reporting carriers should be exempt from the part 244 reporting requirement.
On the contrary, such reports may serve even greater value to consumers when they evaluate flight options from smaller, non-reporting carriers, many of which may be less familiar to the traveling public than larger, reporting carriers.
The Department found unpersuasive commenters suggestion that tarmac delays meeting the departure delay exception or another exception be excluded from reporting requirements.
The Department notes that the definition of an excessive tarmac delay under 49 U.S.C. 42301 for U.S.
carriers is unaffected by whether an exception to the tarmac delay incident exists. Such exceptions, if applicable, would mean that the lengthy tarmac delay incident did not violate the law, but the exceptions do not reclassify a tarmac delay as something other than a tarmac delay. The applicability of an exception also does not impact whether a carrier must file a tarmac delay report under 49 U.S.C. 42301h, and in the regulatory context, the Department views the applicability of an exception to impact whether a carrier has violated the tarmac delay rule, but not whether a tarmac delay has occurred. Whether an exception to the tarmac delay
PO 00000

Frm 00028

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

incident applies, the consumer harm of being held on an aircraft for an extended period exists, and information concerning such incidents is important for consumers to make informed decisions.
The Department also notes that, if carriers were permitted to exclude flights meeting a tarmac delay exception from their reporting requirements, the result could be inconsistent reporting practices between carriers determining whether an exception applied, thereby adding subjectivity to the data.
Moreover, reporting carriers would see an increase in the time and resources needed to file their monthly reports under 14 CFR part 234 because the time needed to investigate and sort out tarmac delay exceptions from routine monthly on-time performance reports could be significant based on the amount of time that it currently takes airlines and the Department to make such determinations.
6. Narrative Reporting Requirement The NPRM: The Department proposed to eliminate the tarmac delay record retention requirement in 14 CFR
259.4e and replace it with a reporting requirement. Prior to this final rule, U.S.
and foreign air carriers with a tarmac delay contingency plan were required to retain specific information related to a tarmac delay for two years, including, 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. 42301h, 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 under 14 CFR 259.4e. The Department proposed that the new reporting requirement, which would replace the record retention requirement, would include the same information required to be retained under the existing 259.4e, and would also satisfy U.S.
carrier obligations under 49 U.S.C.
42301h. The Department proposed that 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. 42301h.
Comments: Comments from industry were supportive of the proposal. The AAPA, IATA, and A4A noted that the 30-day timeframe for filing the narrative reports as proposed in the NPRM may be insufficient, particularly when the precise cause of the delay may take longer to determine. The associations felt that carrier personnel may feel uncomfortable certifying to information that may change after the report is filed,
E:FRFM03MYR1.SGM

03MYR1