1 Slot Management and Transparency for LaGuardia Airport, John F. Kennedy
International Airport, and Newark Liberty International Airport; Clarification

RIN 2120

- AJ89

[Docket No. FAA

- 2014

- 1073 ]

SUMMARY: This document responds to requests for clarification of certain provisions

found in the notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) published on January 8, 2015 . In th e

NPRM , the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) and the FAA proposed to replace
the Orders limiting scheduled operations at John F. Kennedy International Airport (JFK)

and Newark Liberty International Airport (EWR), and limiting scheduled and
unscheduled operations at LaGuardia Airport (LGA). The Orders are scheduled to expire

when th e rule making is final and in effect, but not later than October 29, 2016. The
proposed rule is intended to provide a longer

- term and comprehensive approach to slot
management at JFK, EWR, and LGA.

DATES: Send comments on or before May 8, 2015.

ADDR ESSES: Y ou may send comments identified by docket number FAA

- 2014

- 1073
using any of the following methods:

 Federal eRulemaking Portal : Go to http://www.regulations.gov and follow the
online instructions for sending your comments electronically.

 Mail : Send comments to Docket Operations, M

- 30; U.S. Department of
Transportation (DOT), 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Room W12

- 140, West
Building Ground Floor, Washington, DC 205 90

- 0001.

 Hand Delivery or Courier : Take comments to Docket Operations in Room W12

- 140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE.,2 Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except
Federal holidays.

 Fax : Fax comm ents to Docket Operations at 202

- 493

- 2251.

Background

On January 8, 2015, the DOT and the FAA published an NPRM entitled “Slot
Management and Transparency for LaGuardia Airport, John F. Kennedy International
Airport, and Newark Liberty International Airpor t ” (80 FR 1274). On March 9, 2015, the
DOT and the FAA published a notice extending the comment period for the NPRM to
May 8, 2015, and announcing the availability of further information pertaining to the rule

in the docket (80 FR 12355 ).

By letters posted to the public docket, Airlines for America 1 and Sabr e
Corporation 2 submitted q uestions regarding various provisions in the NPRM they believe

need further clarification before meaningful comments can be submitted to the docket

.
We have reviewed both commen ters’ questions and have provide d responses as
appropriate. However, the DOT and the FAA note that several of the questions submitted
exceed requesting clarification of a particular aspect of the proposal. Rather, the
following questions were found to be conclusory ; advance a particular perspective
, opinion or argument ; suggest the agencies should adopt an alternative or revised
approach on a particular issue ; or otherwise extraneous to gaining an understanding of the
proposal and will be reserved for con sideration as a comment in the development of a

final rule :

1 Docket No. FAA

- 2014

- 1073

- 0023. 2 Docket No. FAA

- 2014

- 1073

- 0028.3 A irlines for A merica questions 6, 8, 9, 13, 17(a), 18, 20, 21, 22, 23 , 24 ;

Sabre Corporation questions 2(a)

- (g), 3, 4, 7, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16, 19.

Request for clarification: Airlines for America

A ir po r t C apac i ty & S l o t

- C o nst r a i ned Hou r s

1

. When d o es t h e F A A p lan t o u pd ate its a n alysis a n d I n i t ial R e gu la t o ry

E v al u at i o n b ased o n m o re cu rrent ( 2 0 1 4 o r lat e r ) d at a , w h ic h
, we bel i e v e, will re s u lt in a

v ery di f ferent c o n c l u si o n fr o m the o n e b a s ed o n 2 0 0 8 / 2 0 0 9 data?

Response: Consistent with the Administrative Procedure Act and Executive

Order 12866
, the DOT and the FAA will consider any written data, views or arguments
submitted by commenters regarding the proposal and t he Regulatory E valuation

.
Documents will be updated for the final rule.

2

. H o w a n d o n what basis w ou ld t h e F A A s e t f u ture h o u r ly s l o t ca p s an d/ o r

de t e r m i n e a n y s l o t retir e m en t s?

Response: The proposed hourly slot limits are discussed in Section III.A. of the
preamble and would be codified at 14 CFR 93.37(b). 3 Since this question does not seek
clarification of the proposal as published, the DOT and the FAA will consider this
question as a comment on the proposal

.

3

. W o u ld t h e F A A p lea s e e xp l ain t h e d if f e r ence b e t w e e n t h e “ sl o t

- c o n tr o l l ed

ho u r s ” defi n iti o n which inc lud es t h e h o u rs o f 0 6 0 0 t h r o ug h 2 2 5 9 at J F K a n d EW R
, which

3 80 FR 1285 and 1301.4

is l o ng er th an the day cap h o u rs at J FK and E W R w h i c h are b e t w e en the h o u r s o f 0 6 0 0

and 2 1 5 9 ? ( See s ec t i o n 9 3

. 3 7 (b))

Response: At JFK and EWR, the number of slots would be subject to hourly and

half

- hourly limits from 0600 through 2259. Between 0600 and 2159 at these airports , an

additional daily limit would apply to the total number of slots allocated in that overall
time period . The additional daily limit would no t apply in the slot

- controlled 2200 hour at

JFK and EWR

.

S l ot Al l o c a t i on & Ho l d i n g s

4

. Can t h e F A A c o n fi r m t h at 9 3 .3 9 (a) a pp lies in t wo w a y s : ( 1 ) it p r o v i d es f o r the

in i t i al es t a b l i sh m ent o f a car r ier s ’ sl o t h o l d i ng s based o n cu rrent Orde r s; and ( 2 ) it is al s o

t h e s e a s o n al b asis f

o r es t a b lish in g his t o r ical sl o t p re c edence mo v i n g f o rwar d ?

Response: Yes. Please refer to Section III.B. of the preamble. 4

5

. Why is there an a pp are n t di f ference in the al l o c a ti o n m e t h o d o l o g y u nd er

p ara g r a p h 93

. 41 (g), a n d t h o se u nd er p ara g ra p h 93

. 41 ( f)? S h o u l dn ’t the f a ct o rs in

p ara g ra ph s 9 3

. 4 1 ( f

) a n d ( g ) b e c o m b i n ed and c o n si d ered at the sa m e t i m e?

Response: Section III.B

. of the preamble proposes the factors in § 93.41(f) as the
primary factors that would be considered, while the factors in §93.41(g) would be
considered as necessary in the event multiple operators submit comparable requests.

Since the remainder of this question does not seek clarification of the proposal a s

4 80 FR 1286.5

published, the DOT and the FAA will consider this question as a comment on the
proposal

.

7

. D o es § 9 3

. 4 1 (j) r e qu i re a n e w s l o t I D f o r m at that is d if

f e r ent f r o m t h e c u rr e n t 5

c h a r act e r sl o t I D f

o r m at ( which w o u ld dr i v e s y s t em r e p r o g ra m m i n g c o sts) o r w ill the

e xis t i n g 5

- d i g it al ph a

- nu m eric s l o t ID structu r e r e m ai n ?

Response: The FAA would expect to continue to use the existing 5

- digit alpha

numeric slot ID structure used under the current FAA Orders

. We request comment on

this issue.

Uns c hedu l ed Ope r at i ons

10

. P lea s e sh a re detai l ed an a l y sis t h at j u s tifies why the F A A is n o w re s tricting t h e

n u m b er o f un sche du led o p er a ti o n s in 93

. 4 9 a n d s h o w ho w it arr i ve d at t h e p r o p o sed

n u m b ers?

Response: As explained in the preamble, the proposed limits for unscheduled
operations at JFK and EWR generally correlate to actual hourly unscheduled operations
conducted historically at these airports respectively

. 5 Supplementary information on
historical unscheduled flights at these airports has been placed in the docket.

11

. Why is there a d if

f e r ence b e t w e e n t h e nu m b e r o f u n s che du led o p s at J FK a n d

E WR w h en b o th h a v e an 8 1 per h o u r ca p ? ( See § 9 3

. 4 9 (b))

Response: See response to Question 10.

5 80 FR 1294

- 1295.6

Fl ig h t Se ri e s & Usage Re qu ir e me n ts

12

. Rega rd i n g t h e “s che du led s eries o f fli gh t s ” c o n ce p t, c a n the FA A p lea s e

e xp l ain t h e a pp are n t c o n fl i ct b e t w e e n the “ sch e du led s e ries o f fli gh t s ” d ef i n iti o n ( § 9 3

. 3 6 )

that p reclu d e s ch ang i n g a sl o t’s fl igh t numb er, eq u i pm ent, arr i v a l / d e p art u re t i m e, o r

m a r k e t se r v e d
, a n d the p rea m b le sta te m ent that “[t ]h is defi n iti o n o f s a m e s e r ies o f fli gh ts

al l o ws t h e F A A t o see t h e i n t e n t t o o p era t e a series o f fli gh ts bu t is n o t i n t en d ed t o

p r eclu d e a car r ier fr o m ch ang i n g t h e fl igh t nu m b er, o ri g i n / d e st i n ati o n , o r fli gh t ti m e
( with i n t h e s a m e 3 0

- m i nu t e s l o t ti m e per i o d ) du ri n g t h e sche du l in g s e a s o n .” ( p r e a m b le

F e d eral R egist e r pa g es 1 2 8 7

- 1 2 8 8 ).

Response: The assertion regarding an apparent conflict between the proposed
definition and preamble will be considered as a comment and addressed in the final rule.
However, the FAA notes that, as proposed, “scheduled series of flights” would mean “at

least 5 operations on the same day

- of

- week that represent substantially the same
scheduled service. These operations generally w ould be at the same time within a specific

30

- minute period, have the same flight number, serve the same market, and be distributed
regularly throughout the season. ” 6

a. Will o p e rati n g a fl igh t with a d i fferent fli gh t n u m b er, a di f ferent

a r riva l / d epa r ture t i m e, a d i fferent m a r k e t, o r d if f e rent ai r cra f

t eq u i pm ent th a n w h at was

o ri g i n al l y fi l ed qu al i fy as u si n g a s l o t f o r purposes o f the m i n i m u m u s a g e re q u ire m e n ts?

6 80 FR 1300.7 Response: The FAA did not request the provision of detailed advance flight
scheduling information in the NPRM beyond what is currently provided ; however, we

seek comment on this issue and will address this in a final rule.

14

. H o w w o u ld h o li d ay ca n cel l ati o n s b e ha nd led und er t h e N P R M ? If a carr i er

w ere to t e m p o ra r i l y return u nu sed s l o ts to t h e F A A o n a h o li d ay, w o u ld t h e carr i er g et

the s e s l o ts b a c k the f

o l l o wing y ear, when the h o li d ay fa l ls o n a d if f erent d a y o f t h e w e e k ?

F o r e x a m p le, if a car r i er retur n ed D e c e m b er 2 5 in 2 0 1 4 ( the f o u rth Th u rs d a y o f D ec e m b er

2 0 1 4 ), w o u ld t h at eq u a t e t o D ec e m b e r 25 in 2015 ( t h e f o u rth F r i d ay o f D ec e m b er 2 0 1 5 )

o r t o D e c e m b er 2 4
, 2 0 1 5 ( the f o u rth Th u rs d a y o f D e c e m b er 2 0 1 5 ) ?

Response : As proposed, a carrier would not have historic rights to slots it was not
allocated the previous corresponding scheduling season. 7 This includes slots that are
returned to the FAA. In the case of holiday returns, “under this proposed rule, a carrier
may give back a slot to the FAA for short periods of time (e.g., the week between

Christmas and New Year ’ s Day) when the slot would not be scheduled. These periods of
time are not included in the usage calculation. The carrier also would not receive historic
precedence for the periods of time when the slot is given back to the FAA.” We request

comment on this issue.

15

. What is the in t ent o f al l o w i n g new e n t r a n ts a 1 8 0

- d ay u sa g e wa i v er in

§ 93

. 39 (b ) ( 5 ) , c o n si d eri n g t h a t a n e w en t ra n t will r ec e i v e i ts al l o cat i o n a pp r o xi m a t e ly 5

m o n t h s in advan c e o f the se a s o n ’s s t art just b y v i rtue o f t h e sl o t c oo r d i n a ti o n cale nd ar a n d

c o n si d eri n g that the e n tire winter s ea s o n is l ess than 1 8 0 d a y s ? For e x a m p le, in i t i al

7 80 FR 1288

.8

s ub m i s s i o n s f

o r Wi n t e r 2 0 1 4 w ere du e b y M a y 8 th, with i n itial s l o t all o c a ti o n s awar d ed

b y M a y 2 9 th. The Wi n t e r sea s o n b egan o n Oc to b er 26 th a n d c o n cl u d e d o n M arch 28 th.

Response: The DOT and the FAA will consider this question and the related questions as
a comment on the propos al and respond in the final rule. However, the FAA notes that

p otential start dates of a waiver and it s justification would depend on the circumstances
supporting the r equest.

a. D o es t h e 1 8 0

- d a y usa g e w a iv e r s tart f r o m t h e b egi nn i n g o f t h e s e a s o n ? If s o , c ou ld a

carr i e r a s k f

o r and be awa r d ed sl o t s in o n e winter s e a s o n and n o t s t art u n til the su b seq u ent

w i n t er s eas o n ?

Response: See response to Question 15.

b

. Or, D o e s t h e 1 8 0

- d a y usa g e wa i v er start f o r t h e sl o t a ll o cat i o n da t e, e. g ., within

1 8 0 d ays o f t h e M a y 29 th all o c ati o n da t e f o r t h e W i n t er 2 0 1 4 s e as o n ?

Response: See response to Question 15.

16

. W h at is the p u rp o s e o f re q u ir in g interim r ep o r ti n g in § 9 3

. 4 4 (a) ( 1 ) ?

Response: As discussed in the preamble, the interim report would aid in the usage

calculation by potentially identifying slots that may not meet the minimum usage
requirement

. 8 Carriers might cure any potential underutilization before the end of the
reporting period or the slots might be returned earlier to the FAA for possible use by

other carriers. Interim reports would be required approximately two months before the

8 80 FR 1288.9

end of the scheduling season and three months before the final report for the season is

due

.

a. What will the F A A d o with t h e i n t e r i m r e p o r t , and h o w w ill it u s e th a t

i n f o r m a ti o n ?

Response: See response to Question 16.

S l ot Tr ans a c t i ons

17

. A l t e r n ati v e 1 f

o r t h e s e c o n d ary m ark e t m echa n i s m d o es no t i n cl ud e
§ 93

. 45 ( c )
, ( d )
, o r ( e) o r eq u ivalent s , whe r eas A l t e r n ati v es 2

- 5 inc lud e § 93

. 45 (c )
, ( d ), a nd

( e). W h y a r e t h e s e p ara g ra p hs m issi n g f r o m Altern a ti v e 1 ?

Response: Alternative One is similar to what was permitted under the Buy/Sell
Rule (14 CFR part 93, subpart S) and would permit privately negotiated transfers

between carriers. Section s 93

. 45 (c )
, ( d ), a nd ( e) in Alternatives Two through Five would
provide limited exceptions from advance notice provisions in those Alternatives that are

not part of the proposal for Alternative One.

17 b

. Is A l t e r n at i v e 1 m ea n t t o b e un res t ri c t e d s e c o nd ary t r a d i n g as is all o w e d

t o d a y a t D C A ?

Response: Alternative One is similar to what was permitted under the Buy/Sell
Rule (14 CFR part 93, subpart S) and would permit privately negotiated transfers

between carriers.10 19

. For w h a t pu r

p o s e w o u ld t h e F A A u se the i n f o r m ati o n called f

o r in § 9 3

. 4 5 ( h )?

In w h a t f o r m at m u st th i s in f

o r m a t i o n be p r ov i d ed, and w o u ld it be su b j e ct t o F OI A ?

Response: As the FAA stated in section III.D. of the proposed rule :

The FAA acknowledges submitting detailed terms of a transaction could in rare circumstances involve legitimate proprietary or confidential business information. A carrier may request confidential treatment of the request for approval while it is under review. The FAA's general practice has been to not make this type of information public until after approval is granted, consisten t with the Freedom of Information Act. In addition to confidential treatment while the request is under review, the FAA requests comment on whether it should develop a process for confidential treatment of certain information after the transaction is appro ved. If so, under what limited circumstances should this confidential treatment be granted to ensure a transparent secondary market? The FAA also requests comment on whether the transaction terms should not be made publicly available for a period of time a fter the transaction is approved. If so, what is a reasonable period of time? 9

DOT R e vi e w

25

. H o w m u ch ti m e w o u ld the F A A h a v e to p r o v i d e t h e fi n al t e r m s o f a

s e c o nd ary m a

rket tra n sact i o n t o D OT f o r p ub l ic i n t e r e st r e v i e w , si n ce t h e pro p o s ed 1 4

-

d ay D OT c o n si d erati o n win d o w und er 9 3

. 4 7 (b) ( 1 ) d o es n o t start un til D OT h a s r e ce i v ed

t h e tra n sact i o n ?

Response: As discussed in the preamble, the proposed 14

- day DOT review period
would begin as soon as the FAA provides information regarding the transaction to DOT

for review. The FAA anticipates that in most cases the agency would complete a
preliminary review of se condary market transactions within three business days of

9 80 FR 1290.11

receiving transactions from carriers. The purpose of the preliminary review is to
determine whether or not the submission is complete and if the submission falls within
the categories of transaction s that are exempt from DOT review. We r equest comment on

this issue.

26

. P lea s e f

u rther cla r ify t h e F AA p r o ce s s f o r i n f o r m i n g D OT o f s m all

t ra n s act i o n s w h en 93

. 4 7 (a) appears to exempt these transactions from review?

Response: As noted above, t he FAA would conduct a preliminary review to
determine if the submission is complete and if the transaction is exempt from DOT
review as noted under proposed § 93.47(a). The FAA would provide to DOT information

on those transactions that do not fall within the categori es of transactions that are exempt

from review. DOT requests comment on the description of transactions that may be
excluded from review and the proposed timeframe for the review.

27

. H o w d o es D O T i n t end t o l e arn o f and a gg reg a te m u lt i p le t ra n sact i o n s f o r

r e v i ew as c o n t e m p la t ed in § 9 3 .4 7 (a ) ?

Response: As discussed in the preamble, the purpose of the three

- year review
period is to ensure that carriers do not enter into multiple small transactions with the
purpose of evading review. 10 Multiple transactions within a three

- year period could be
reviewed if they constitute a pattern and raise competitive or public interest concerns.
DOT requests comment on this review.

10 80 FR 1293.12 28

. Is the ag g reg a ti o n in § 93

. 47 ( a ) i n t e nd ed to a pp ly t o t ra n s a ct i o n s t h at w o u l d

o the r wise b e c o v ered b y § 9 3

. 4 6 ?

Response: No. Operating slots in the manner described in § 93.46 would not be
considered a slot transfer subject to review under § 93.47.

29

. H o w d o es D O T d efi n e “ un f air m e t h o d s o f c o m p e tit i o n ” in t h e c o n t e x t o f s l o t

tra n sacti o n s ?

Response: As stated in the NPRM, DOT considers conduct that violates anti

- trust
laws or principles as potentially constituting unfair methods of competition. Such
methods could include standalone slot transactions that would significantl y change the

market structure at one of the slot

- controlled airports, allow unreasonable industry
concentration, permit one or two airlines to excessively dominate a market, or create an
environment that would facilitate monopoly powers or practices that w ould tend to cause
a carrier to unreasonably raise fares, reduce services, or exclude competition. DOT
requests comment on the use of these and other criteria to address competitive concerns.

30

. H o w d o es D O T d efi n e “ pu b l i c i n t e re s t p ri n ci p le s ” in the c o n t e x t o f s l o t

tra n sact i on s and u p o n what c ri t eria w o u ld D OT m ake a d ecis i o n as to whet h er a

tra n s act i o n is o r is n o t in t h e pub lic i n t e res t ?

Response: As stated in the NPRM, DOT considers to be in the public interest
those factors set forth in 49 U.S.C. 40101(a), which include: keeping available a variety
of adequate, economic, efficient, and low

- priced air services; placing maximum reliance
on competiti ve market forces and on actual and potential competition; avoiding airline13

industry conditions that would tend to allow at least one air carrier unreasonably to
increase prices, reduce services, or exclude competition in air transportation;
encouraging, de veloping, and maintaining an air transportation system relying on actual
and potential competition; encouraging entry into air transportation markets by new and
existing air carriers and the continued strengthening of small air carriers to ensure a more

ef fective and competitive airline industry; and ensuring that consumers in all regions of
the United States, including those in small communities and rural and remote areas, have
access to affordable, regularly

- scheduled air service.

31

. H o w d o es D O T d efi n e “ a n t i

- c o m p e t it i v e beh a v i o r ” in th e c o n t e xt o f sl o t

tra n s act i o n s?

Response: As stated in the NPRM, DOT would consider behavior to be anti

competitive if it were to significantly change the market structure at one of the slot

controlled airports, allow unreasonable industry concentration, permit one or two airlines
to excessively dominate a market, or create an environment that would facilitate
monopoly powers or practices that would tend to cause a carrier to unreasonably raise

fares, reduce services, o r exclude competition. DOT requests comment on the use of
these and other criteria to address competitive concerns.

32

. H o w a r e D OT ’ s r e v i e ws a n d decisi o n s c o n cern in g c omp e t iti o n di f f erent t h an

D OJ ’ s re v i e w s and d ecisi o n s ; w h a t specif i c cri t eria w o u ld D OT u s e that a r e n o t used b y

D OJ?

Response: As stated in the NPRM, DOT considers conduct that violates anti

- trust
laws or principles as potentially constituting unfair methods of competition under14

49 U.S.C. 41712. Additionally, DOT would coordinate, cooperate, and consult with DOJ
throughout the review process, to minimize the burden on the affected parties, avoid
unnecessary duplication, and to utilize Government resources efficiently. DOT seeks
comment on how best to minimize the burden on the affected par tie s.

Request for Clarification: Sabr e Corporation
Series of Flights

1. A c tu a l o p er a ted t i m es o f ten v a r y f

r o m the sc h e d u l ed t i m es f or f li g h t s . For

e x a m p l e f

li g h t ZZZ0 1 00 m i g h t be sc h e d u l ed to d e p art at 1 0 : 57 b u t m i g h t a c tu a l l y g e t o u t

f r om the g a te at 1 1 : 0 7

. For p u rp o s es of d e t er m i n i n g a s eri e s f or s l o t u t i l i z a t i o n s h o u l d

w e u s e the sc h e d u l e d t i m e or t he a c tu a l o p erat e d t i m e? 11

Response: For slot utilization purposes, the FAA would use the scheduled or
planned time of operation. This is the FAA’s historical practice.

5. W h at f o r m at w il l a i rl i n e s u s e to h a nd b a c k s l ots? Si n c e no f li g h ts s h o u l d be

a ss i g n e d to the s l o ts b e i ng h a n d ed b a c k w i l l th i s r e q u i r e a s p e c i al f o r m at w i t h S l ot I D s ?

Response: The FAA did not pr opose a particular format for handing back slots.
The FAA anticipates that the current practice regarding the voluntary return of slots

would continue. Current practice for the voluntary return of slots is that carriers return

slots with sufficient information to identify the operation and the effective date of the

return. This could include the full flight information or the airport, slot ID, and time

11 Throughout its comments, Sabre Corporation used some examples for fictitious airline ZZZ for illustrative purposes only . Sabre no ted in its comments that these should not be implied to represent any real airline’s actual flights or slots.15

d epending on what information was initially provided to the FAA by the carrier. The
FAA expects that practice to continue.

6. W i th the f

r a g m e n ta ti on th a t c o u l d o cc ur w i t h t h e pr o p o s ed r u l es ho w w i l l

h i s t o r i c s l ots f

or the u p c o m i ng s e a s on be c o mm u ni c a t ed t o a i rl i n e s ?

Response: Consistent with current practice, the FAA anticipates communicating
historical slot holdings in advance of any scheduling season. The DOT and the FAA will
consider this question as a comment on the proposal and respond in the final rule

.

8. W il l t h e S l ot IDs be t he s a m e a s w h a t was used t h e p r e v i o u s y e ar?

Response: The FAA would expect to continue to use the existing 5

- digit alpha
numeric slot ID structure used under the current FAA Orders. We request comment on

this issue.

Reporting Slot Utilization

9. W il l a i r li n es c o n t i n u e t o be r e q u i r ed t o re p ort t h e i r sl ot u t i li z at i on t o t h e F A A

b y f i x e d d e a d l i n e s ?

Response: The proposed § 93

. 44 includes deadlines for submitting slot usage

reports.

10. W h at f

o r m at w i l l be u s e d to r e p ort s l ot u t i li z a t i o n ? W i l l i t be t he s a m e

f o r m at w h i c h i s c ur r e n t l y u s e d ? W il l t h e f or m at of t h e i n ter i m s l ot ut i li z at i on r ep ort be

d i ff erent fr o m t h e f

i n a l o n e ?16 Response: The FAA would accept the same usage reporting format options as

under the current Orders for the interim and final reports proposed under § 93.44.

Slot Transactions

14. W h at f

o r m at w i l l b e u s e d f

or a i r l i n e s to s e nd tra ns a c t i on r e q u e s ts a nd

r e c e i v e tr a n s a c t i o n a p pr o v a l s /d i s a p p r o v a l s ? 12

Response: The proposal specifies information that must be included in
transaction requests and has not specified a required format.

17. W h at w i l l b e t he t i m e fr a m e i n a d v a n c e of t h e s e a s on f or t r a n s a c t i on re q u e s t s ?

W i l l we b e a b l e t o r e q u e s t c h a n g es f or W 17 s l ots i n J a n u a r y 2 0 1 6 ?

Response: The implementation period for a final rule ha s not been determined yet
and will depend on the comments received and further analysis of the time necessary to
adjust any operational systems and execute arrangements. The DOT and the FAA will
consider this question as a comment on the prop osal and respond in the final rule.

18. H o w w i l l we m a n a g e the eq u i v a l e n t of S CR s , S IR s , SA Ls a n d S H LS where

f li g ht n u m b e r s are n o t y e t a ss i g n ed t o s l ot s ?

Response: The DOT and the FAA will consider this question as a comment on
the proposal and respond in the final rule. The FAA has not proposed to require a specific
format for transmitting or receiving slot information or messages.

12 Sabre notes that u nder the proposed rules the WSG procedures are indicated for slot transactions. The WSG procedures are related to the IATA SSI M Chapter 6 formats.17

Proposed Rules Effective Date

20. W il l the pro p o s ed r u l es a l s o b e i n e ff e c t f or W 16 s l ot s ?

Response: The effective date of a final rule has not been determined. The DOT

and the FAA will consider this question as a comment on the proposal and respond in the

final rule.

21. W il l the m a n a g e m e n t of s l o t s f or W 16 n e ed to be d o n e w i th the pro p o s ed

r u l es i n a d v a n c e of Oc to b er 2 0 1 6 ?

Response: The effective date of a final rule has not been determined. The DOT

and the FAA will consider this question as a comment on the proposal and respond in the

final rule.

Request for Extension of the Comment Period and Request For Public Meeting

Airlines for America requested that the DOT and the FAA extend the comment
period for the notice of proposed rulemaking an additional 60 days. Airlines for America

also requested that the DOT a nd the FAA hold a public meeting to allow affected
stakeholders to ask clarifying questions and discuss the NPRM.

As discussed in the notice extending the comment period for the NPRM published

at 80 FR 12355 , March 9, 2015, w hile the DOT and the FAA concu r with the petitioner ’ s
previous request for an extension of the comment period for the NPRM, we are not
persuaded that an additional 60 days is necessary to provide comment on this proposal.
The DOT and the FAA find that providing an additional 30 days is sufficient for18

petitioners to analyze the NPRM and provide meaningful comment. The comment period
for the NPRM will close May 8, 2015.

We are not persuaded any further extension of the comment period is warranted
for this rulemaking.

T he DOT and the FAA also carefully considered a previous request to hold a
public meeting

.

In light of the comment period extension
, additional information provided for
review, analysis, and comment in the public docket
, and the responses provided to the
questions in this document
, the DOT and the FAA will not hold a public meeting

. We
encourage all interested persons to submit detailed comments on the NPRM to the

docket. All comments submitted to the docket will be considered by the agency in
developing a final rule. T he submission of comments to the public docket provides the

most transparent means for all interested parties to participate at this stage in the
rulemaking process

.