With the contingency plan incorporated in the contract of carriage, passengers would be able to sue in court for damages if a carrier failed to adhere to its plan. Carriers would also be required to make their complete contracts of carriage (including contingency plans) available on their Web sites. Further, carriers would be required to retain for two years the following information about any onground delay that either triggers their contingency plans or lasts at least four hours: (1) The length of the onground delay, (2) the cause of the delay, and (3) the actions taken to minimize hardships for passengers, including the provision of food and water, the maintenance of lavatories, and medical assistance. The regulation would specify that the Department would consider failure to do any of the following to be an unfair and deceptive practice within the meaning of 49 U.S.C. 41712 and subject to enforcement action: (1) Adopt a contingency plan and incorporate it in the contract of carriage, (2) implement the plan as written, (3) make the plan available on line, or (4) retain information about every onground delay that either triggers the contingency plan or lasts at least four hours.

We believe that requiring the retention of records for tarmac delays that last at least four hours would enhance the Department's ability to monitor, analyze, and address the problems associated with long delays. We have chosen four hours as the threshold in order to foster consistency for purposes of analysis, given that carriers are likely to make disparate time choices for their own contingency plans. (We do not intend to suggest, nor are we proposing to adopt, a specific amount of time during or after which carriers must allow passengers to deplane. Rather, we expect each carrier to craft its own standard on this issue.) We invite comment on whether four hours is an appropriate delay duration for triggering this new recordkeeping requirement.

We are also not proposing at this time to have the Department review and approve carriers' contingency plans. We believe the better approach to be to allow the carriers to set the terms of their plans and rely on the legal system and our enforcement powers to ensure that the terms are followed. If this
[[Page 65235]]

approach proves inadequate, we can always revise it.

We invite interested persons to comment on this proposal. What costs would it impose on the carriers? Would it have any negative consequences? Is it likely to succeed in protecting passengers from the conditions described above? If not, why not? What additional or different measures should we consider adopting? Would incorporation of the contingency plan in the contract of carriage give consumers adequate notice of what might happen in the event of a long delay on the tarmac? When prolonged delays occur, would these measures succeed in reducing the resultant uncertainty and discomfort for passengers? Should the types of carriers covered by the regulation be expanded or limited? What would be the cost or benefit of narrowing or expanding coverage? Should the requirement of coordinating the plan with airport authorities apply to all primary airports (i.e., commercial service airports that enplane more than 10,000 passengers annually) rather than only to medium hub airports (primary airports that enplane between 0.25 and 1 percent of total U.S. passengers) and large hub airports (primary airports that enplane at least 1 percent of total U.S. passengers)? 2. Require Carriers To Respond to Consumer Problems

We seek comment on adopting a new regulation, 14 CFR part 259, that among other things would require every certificated and commuter carrier that operates domestic scheduled passenger service using any aircraft with more than 30 passenger seats to respond to mounting consumer problems in the following ways:

We invite interested persons to comment on this proposal. What costs would it impose on the carriers? Would it have any negative consequences? Should we require carriers to accept complaints via phone, letter and email, or should the choice of complaint channels be left to each carrier? Would these procedures result in carriers' devoting adequate attention to the needs of passengers? If not, what additional or different measures would achieve this result? What specific responsibilities should the designated employee have? Is it reasonable to expect a carrier to provide a response within 30 days of receipt of a complaint? Should the types of carriers covered by the regulation be expanded or limited? What would be the cost or benefit of narrowing or expanding coverage?
3. Declare the Operation of Flights That Remain Chronically Delayed To Be an Unfair and Deceptive Practice and an Unfair Method of Competition

We seek comment on amending 14 CFR 399.81 so that it sets forth the Department's enforcement posture on chronically delayed flights. First, the new text would define a chronically delayed flight as a flight by a covered carrier that operates at least 45 times in a calendar quarter and arrives more than 15 minutes late more than 70 percent of the time. We propose to define a covered carrier as a carrier that reports on time performance data to the Department pursuant to 14 CFR part 234, i.e., a certificated U.S. carrier that accounted for at least 1% of domestic scheduled passenger revenue in the 12 months ending March 31. Second, the new text would specify that the Department considers a chronically delayed flight to be an unfair and deceptive practice and an unfair method of competition within the meaning of 49 U.S.C. 41712 if it is not corrected in a timely manneri.e., during the second calendar quarter following the one in which the flight is first chronically delayed.

We invite interested persons to comment on this proposal. What costs, if any, would it impose on carriers? Would it have any negative consequences? Does it strike the appropriate balance between passengers' need to have the best possible information about the real arrival time of a flight and the carriers' inability to control the weather and certain other factors that can contribute to delays? Commenters who think that it does not strike the appropriate balance should explain why and provide alternate proposals.

We tentatively consider that in setting the threshold for a chronically late flight as high as 70 percent and in allowing up to six months for the carrier to adjust its schedule, its operations, or both so that the flight comes below this threshold, we would not be creating undue burdens for carriers. When a carrier publishes a schedule, it assumes the obligation to adhere to it insofar as is feasible. Consumers buy transportation in reliance on a carrier's published schedule, and they have a right to expect that the carrier both intends to arrive at the promised time and can do so in most cases. Consumers' reliance on chronically inaccurate schedules works to their detriment both personally and professionally. Furthermore, a carrier's publication of a schedule that it does not achieve most of the time can harm its competitors. This in turn further harms consumers by reducing the number of travel options from which they can choose.

Commenters who think that the proposed standards would not result in an improvement of ontime performance should explain why and suggest alternate approaches. We also solicit comment on whether the definition of a chronically delayed flight should be expanded to include international scheduled passenger service to and from the United States operated by U.S. and foreign air carriers.
4. Require Carriers To Publish Delay Data on Their Web Sites

We seek comment on amending 14 CFR 234.11 to require airlines that report ontime performance to the Department pursuant to 14 CFR part 234 (i.e., certificated U.S. carriers that account for at least 1% of the domestic scheduled passenger revenue) and online reservation services to include on their Web sites, at a point before the passenger selects a flight for purchase, the following information for each listed flight about its performance during the previous month:

We invite interested persons to comment on this proposal. What costs would it impose on carriers and online reservation services? Would it have any negative consequences?

Would it help consumers make betterinformed choices when booking flights? Would it increase carriers' incentives to correct problem flights through adjustments to their schedules or their operations, or both? What other information, if any, should this regulation require? [[Page 65236]]

Would requiring carriers to post ontime flight performance information on their Web site give passengers adequate notice before booking about the likelihood of a flight's arriving on time? Should we require airline Web sites and reservation agents to disclose ontime flight information to consumers at the time of booking, without being asked? What would be the benefit or cost of such a requirement? Should any disclosure requirement be limited to flights that are chronically delayed or cancelled?

Should this regulation cover all online reservation services or only those of a certain size? If the latter, what threshold would be appropriate (in terms of revenue or number of employees)? Should the regulation cover more types of carriers? What would be the cost or benefit of expanding coverage?
5. Require Carriers To Publish Complaint Data on Their Web Sites

We seek comment on adopting a new regulation, 14 CFR part 259, that would also require certificated and commuter carriers that operate domestic scheduled passenger service using any aircraft with more than 30 passenger seats to publish complaint data on their Web sites. Each carrier would have to disclose the number of consumer complaints it has received within a defined time frame concerning subjects such as tarmac delays, missed connections, and the failure to provide amenities to passengers affected by a delayed or canceled flight. We ask interested persons to comment on this proposal. What costs would it impose on carriers? Would it have any negative consequences? Should we prescribe a uniform location for all carriers' Web sites, or should we leave this decision to the carriers? If the former, where should the data be posted? What complaint subjects should be covered by this requirement, and what time period would be appropriate? Would the proposed regulation help consumers make betterinformed choices when booking flights? Would it increase carriers' incentives to avoid the problems that elicit complaints? Should the types of carriers covered by the regulation be increased or decreased? What would be the cost or benefit of narrowing or expanding coverage?
6. Require Carriers To Report OnTime Performance of International Flights

We seek comment on amending 14 CFR 234.4 and 234.11 to require carriers that report ontime performance to the Department pursuant to 14 CFR part 234 (i.e., certificated U.S. carriers that account for at least 1% of the domestic scheduled passenger revenue) and the largest foreign carriers to report ontime performance for international flights to and from the United States. Our publication of these data would give consumers information about ontime performance to use in choosing international flights. We invite interested persons to comment on this proposal. What costs would it impose on the carriers? Would it have any negative consequences? Would the benefits of making this information available to the public outweigh the burdens that this requirement would impose on carriers that provide international service? How should we determine whether a foreign carrier is large (e.g., by total revenue, by number of flights to and from the U.S.)? Should we devise a size threshold for foreign carriers similar to the current 1% threshold for U.S. carriers?
7. Require Carriers To Audit Their Adherence to Their Customer Service Plans

We seek comment on adopting a new regulation that would require certificated and commuter carriers that operate domestic scheduled passenger service using any aircraft with more than 30 passenger seats to audit their adherence to their own customer service plans. This proposal tracks a recommendation from the Department's Inspector General, who found carrier failings in this area. We solicit comment on the costs and benefits of selfaudits, suggestions for appropriate auditing standards, including whether the carriers should be required to hire independent auditors to conduct the audits, and suggestions for how the Department might verify compliance without auditing the airline's practices itself. Further, we solicit comment on whether we should require any covered carrier that does not have a customer service plan in place to adopt one and, if so, what provisions such plans should include. For example, should they include some or all of the provisions of the 12point Airline Service Commitment made by 13 members of the Air Transport Association (which can be found at http://www.airlines.org/customerservice/passengers/Customers_First.htm )?
Also, should we require that carriers incorporate their customer service plans in their contracts of carriage?
Regulatory Notices
A. Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures

This action has been determined to be significant under Executive Order 12866 and the Department of Transportation's Regulatory Policies and Procedures. It has been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget under that Order. A preliminary discussion of the proposed solutions to enhance airline passenger protections without creating undue burdens for the carriers is presented above. We are soliciting comments on the potential costs and benefits of the proposed solutions. On the cost side, we recognize that many of the measures suggested in this ANPRM would impose costs for both implementation and operation on the entities that its proposed requirements would cover. We have asked commenters to answer a variety of questions in order to elicit practical information about the nature and magnitude of these costs. The benefits we seek to achieve entail relieving consumers of the burdens they now face due to lengthy ground delays, chronically delayed flights, and other problems discussed in the ANPRM. The benefits would be achieved by affording consumers significantly more information than they have now about delayed and cancelled flights and about how carriers will respond to their needs in the event of lengthy ground delays. Making this information accessible should not only alleviate consumers' difficulties during long delays but also enable them to make betterinformed choices when booking flights.

B. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)

This Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking has been analyzed in accordance with the principles and criteria contained in Executive Order 13132 (``Federalism''). This notice does not propose any regulation that (1) has substantial direct effects on the States, the relationship between the national government and the States, or the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, (2) imposes substantial direct compliance costs on State and local governments, or (3) preempts state law. Therefore, the consultation and funding requirements of Executive Order 13132 do not apply.

C. Executive Order 13084

This notice has been analyzed in accordance with the principles and criteria contained in Executive Order 13084 (``Consultation and Coordination
[[Page 65237]]
with Indian Tribal Governments''). Because none of the options on which we are seeking comment would significantly or uniquely affect the communities of the Indian tribal governments or impose substantial direct compliance costs on them, the funding and consultation requirements of Executive Order 13084 do not apply.

D. Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires an agency to review regulations to assess their impact on small entities unless the agency determines that a rule is not expected to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The regulatory initiatives discussed in this ANPRM would have some impact on some small entities but we do not believe that it would have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. We invite comment to facilitate our assessment of the potential impact of these initiatives on small entities.

E. Paperwork Reduction Act

The ANPRM proposes several new collections of information that would require approval by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act (49 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) The ANPRM solicits comment on requiring certificated and commuter airlines that operate domestic scheduled passenger service using any aircraft with more than 30 passenger seats to retain for two years the following information about any ground delay that triggers their contingency plan or lasts at least four hours: (1) The length of the delay, (2) the cause of the delay, and (3) actions taken to minimize hardships for passengers. The Department plans to use this information to conduct reviews of incidents involving long delays on the ground and to identify any trends and patterns that may develop. The ANPRM further proposes to require the collection of flight delay data from certain U.S. and foreign air carriers regarding their flights to and from the U.S. and also to require certain U.S. carriers to compile and publish complaint information. We invite comments regarding any aspect of these information collections, including the following: (1) The necessity and utility of the information collection, (2) the estimated burden, (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected, and (4) ways to minimize the collection burden without reducing the quality of the information collected.

F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

The Department has determined that the requirements of Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 do not apply to this notice.

Issued this 15th day of November, 2007, at Washington, DC. Michael W. Reynolds,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Aviation and International Affairs. [FR Doc. 075760 Filed 111507; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 491013P

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT

Betsy L. Wolf or Blane A. Workie, Office of the Assistant General Counsel for Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Ave., SE., Washington, DC 20590, 2023669342, 2023667152 (fax),
betsy.wolf@dot.gov or blane.workie@dot.gov (email).