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 the 

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 the rulemaking 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.

ADDRESSES: You 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 20590-0001.

 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 comments 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 Airport” (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 America1and Sabre

Corporation2submitted questions regarding various provisions in the NPRM they believe 

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

We have reviewed both commenters’ questions and have provided 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 consideration 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

Airlines for America 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

Airport Capacity & Slot-Constrained Hours

1. When does the FAA plan to update its analysis and Initial Regulatory

Evaluation based on more current (2014 or later) data, which, we believe, will result in a 

very different conclusion from the one based on 2008/2009 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 the Regulatory Evaluation.

Documents will be updated for the final rule.

2. How and on what basis would the FAA set future hourly slot caps and/or 

determine any slot retirements?

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).3Since 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. Would the FAA please explain the difference between the “slot-controlled 

hours” definition which includes the hours of 0600 through 2259 at JFK and EWR, which

 

3

80 FR 1285 and 1301.
4

is longer than the day cap hours at JFK and EWR which are between the hours of 0600

and 2159? (See section 93.37(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 not apply in the slot-controlled 2200 hour at 

JFK and EWR.

Slot Allocation & Holdings

4. Can the FAA confirm that 93.39(a) applies in two ways: (1) it provides for the 

initial establishment of a carriers’ slot holdings based on current Orders; and (2) it is also

the seasonal basis for establishing historical slot precedence moving forward?

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

5. Why is there an apparent difference in the allocation methodology under

paragraph 93.41(g), and those under paragraph 93.41(f)? Shouldn’t the factors in 

paragraphs 93.41(f) and (g) be combined and considered at the same time?

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 as 

 

4

80 FR 1286.
5

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

proposal.

7. Does § 93.41(j) require a new slot ID format that is different from the current 5

character slot ID format (which would drive system reprogramming costs) or will the 

existing 5-digit alpha- numeric slot ID structure remain?

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.

Unscheduled Operations

10. Please share detailed analysis that justifies why the FAA is now restricting the

number of unscheduled operations in 93.49 and show how it arrived at the proposed

numbers?

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 difference between the number of unscheduled ops at JFK and

EWR when both have an 81 per hour cap? (See § 93.49(b))

Response: See response to Question 10.

 

5

80 FR 1294-1295.
6

Flight Series & Usage Requirements

12. Regarding the “scheduled series of flights” concept, can the FAA please

explain the apparent conflict between the “scheduled series of flights” definition (§ 93.36)

that precludes changing a slot’s flight number, equipment, arrival/departure time, or

market served, and the preamble statement that “[t]his definition of same series of flights

allows the FAA to see the intent to operate a series of flights but is not intended to

preclude a carrier from changing the flight number, origin/destination, or flight time

(within the same 30-minute slot time period) during the scheduling season.” (preamble

Federal Register pages 1287-1288).

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 would 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 operating a flight with a different flight number, a different

arrival/departure time, a different market, or different aircraft equipment than what was

originally filed qualify as using a slot for purposes of the minimum usage requirements?

 

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. How would holiday cancellations be handled under the NPRM? If a carrier

were to temporarily return unused slots to the FAA on a holiday, would the carrier get

these slots back the following year, when the holiday falls on a different day of the week? 

For example, if a carrier returned December 25 in 2014 (the fourth Thursday of December

2014), would that equate to December 25 in 2015 (the fourth Friday of December 2015)

or to December 24, 2015 (the fourth Thursday of December 2015)?

Response: As proposed, a carrier would not have historic rights to slots it was not 

allocated the previous corresponding scheduling season.7This 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 intent of allowing new entrants a 180-day usage waiver in

§ 93.39(b)(5), considering that a new entrant will receive its allocation approximately 5

months in advance of the season’s start just by virtue of the slot coordination calendar and 

considering that the entire winter season is less than 180 days? For example, initial 

 

7

80 FR 1288.
8

submissions for Winter 2014 were due by May 8th, with initial slot allocations awarded 

by May 29th. The Winter season began on October 26th and concluded on March 28th.

Response: The DOT and the FAA will consider this question and the related questions as 

a comment on the proposal and respond in the final rule. However, the FAA notes that

potential start dates of a waiver and its justification would depend on the circumstances

supporting the request.

a. Does the 180-day usage waiver start from the beginning of the season? If so, could a 

carrier ask for and be awarded slots in one winter season and not start until the subsequent 

winter season?

Response: See response to Question 15.

b. Or, Does the 180-day usage waiver start for the slot allocation date, e.g., within

180 days of the May 29th allocation date for the Winter 2014 season?

Response: See response to Question 15.

16. What is the purpose of requiring interim reporting in § 93.44(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 FAA do with the interim report, and how will it use that

information?

Response: See response to Question 16.

Slot Transactions

17. Alternative 1 for the secondary market mechanism does not include

§ 93.45(c), (d), or (e) or equivalents, whereas Alternatives 2-5 include § 93.45(c), (d), and

(e). Why are these paragraphs missing from Alternative 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. Sections 93.45(c), (d), and (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.

17b. Is Alternative 1 meant to be unrestricted secondary trading as is allowed

today at DCA?

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 what purpose would the FAA use the information called for in § 93.45(h)?

In what format must this information be provided, and would it be subject to FOIA?

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, consistent 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 approved. 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 after the transaction is approved. If so, what is a 

reasonable period of time?9

DOT Review

25. How much time would the FAA have to provide the final terms of a

secondary market transaction to DOT for public interest review, since the proposed 14-

day DOT consideration window under 93.47(b)(1) does not start until DOT has received

the transaction?

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 secondary 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 transactions that are exempt from DOT review. We request comment on 

this issue.

26. Please further clarify the FAA process for informing DOT of small 

transactions when 93.47(a) appears to exempt these transactions from review?

Response: As noted above, the 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 categories 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. How does DOT intend to learn of and aggregate multiple transactions for 

review as contemplated in § 93.47(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 aggregation in § 93.47(a) intended to apply to transactions that would

otherwise be covered by § 93.46?

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. How does DOT define “unfair methods of competition” in the context of slot

transactions?

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 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, or exclude competition. DOT 

requests comment on the use of these and other criteria to address competitive concerns.

30. How does DOT define “public interest principles” in the context of slot

transactions and upon what criteria would DOT make a decision as to whether a 

transaction is or is not in the public interest?

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 competitive market forces and on actual and potential competition; avoiding airline 
13

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, developing, 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 

effective 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. How does DOT define “anti-competitive behavior” in the context of slot

transactions?

Response: As stated in the NPRM, DOT would consider behavior to be anticompetitive if it were to significantly change the market structure at one of the slotcontrolled 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, or exclude competition. DOT requests comment on the use of 

these and other criteria to address competitive concerns.

32. How are DOT’s reviews and decisions concerning competition different than

DOJ’s reviews and decisions; what specific criteria would DOT use that are not used by

DOJ?

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

laws or principles as potentially constituting unfair methods of competition under 
14

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 parties.

Request for Clarification: Sabre Corporation

Series of Flights

1. Actual operated times often vary from the scheduled times for flights. For 

example flight ZZZ0100 might be scheduled to depart at 10:57 but might actually get out

from the gate at 11:07. For purposes of determining a series for slot utilization should

we use the scheduled time or the actual operated time?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. What format will airlines use to hand back slots? Since no flights should be

assigned to the slots being handed back will this require a special format with Slot IDs?

Response: The FAA did not propose 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 noted in its comments that these should not be implied to represent any 

real airline’s actual flights or slots.
15

depending on what information was initially provided to the FAA by the carrier. The 

FAA expects that practice to continue.

6. With the fragmentation that could occur with the proposed rules how will

historic slots for the upcoming season be communicated to airlines?

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. Will the Slot IDs be the same as what was used the previous year?

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. Will airlines continue to be required to report their slot utilization to the FAA

by fixed deadlines?

Response: The proposed § 93.44 includes deadlines for submitting slot usage 

reports.

10. What format will be used to report slot utilization? Will it be the same

format which is currently used? Will the format of the interim slot utilization report be

different from the final one?
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. What format will be used for airlines to send transaction requests and

receive transaction approvals/disapprovals?

12

Response: The proposal specifies information that must be included in 

transaction requests and has not specified a required format. 

17. What will be the time frame in advance of the season for transaction requests?

Will we be able to request changes for W17 slots in January 2016?

Response: The implementation period for a final rule has 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 proposal and respond in the final rule.

18. How will we manage the equivalent of SCRs, SIRs, SALs and SHLS where

flight numbers are not yet assigned to slots?

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 under the proposed rules the WSG procedures are indicated for slot transactions. The 

WSG procedures are related to the IATA SSIM Chapter 6 formats.
17

Proposed Rules Effective Date

20. Will the proposed rules also be in effect for W16 slots?

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. Will the management of slots for W16 need to be done with the proposed

rules in advance of October 2016?

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 and 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, while the DOT and the FAA concur 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 for 
18

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.

The 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. The 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.