32318 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 109 / Tuesday, June 8, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

The FAA’s authority to issue rules 

regarding aviation safety is found in 

Title 49 of the United States Code. 

Subtitle I, section 106 describes the 

authority of the FAA Administrator. 

Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, 

describes in more detail the scope of the 

agency’s authority. 

This rulemaking is promulgated 

under the authority described in subtitle 

VII, part A, subpart I, section 40103. 

Under that section, the FAA is charged 

with prescribing regulations to assign 

the use of the airspace necessary to 

ensure the safety of aircraft and the 

efficient use of airspace. This regulation 

is within the scope of that authority as 

it would remove a colored Federal 

airway in Alaska. 

Environmental Review 

This proposal will be subject to an 

environmental analysis in accordance 

with FAA Order 1050.1E, 

‘‘Environmental Impacts: Policies and 

Procedures,’’ prior to any FAA final 

regulatory action. 

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71 

Airspace, Incorporation by reference, 

Navigation (air). 

The Proposed Amendment 

In consideration of the foregoing, the 

Federal Aviation Administration 

proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as 

follows: 

PART 71—DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, 

B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR 

TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND 

REPORTING POINTS 

1. The authority citation for part 71 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113, 

40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959– 

1963 Comp., p. 389. 

§ 71.1 [Amended] 

2. The incorporation by reference in 

14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.9T, 

Airspace Designations and Reporting 

Points, signed August 27, 2009, and 

effective September 15, 2009, is 

amended as follows: 

Paragraph 6009(a)—Green Federal Airways. 

* * * * * 

G–4 [Removed] 

Issued in Washington, DC, May 27, 2010. 

Kenneth McElroy, 

Acting Manager, Airspace and Rules Group. 

[FR Doc. 2010–13609 Filed 6–7–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Office of the Secretary 

14 CFR Parts 234, 244, 250, 253, 259, 

and 399 

[Docket No. DOT–OST–2010–0140] 

RIN No. 2105–AD92 

Enhancing Airline Passenger 

Protections 

AGENCY: Office of the Secretary (OST), 

Department of Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

(NPRM). 

SUMMARY: The Department of 

Transportation is proposing to improve 

the air travel environment for 

consumers by: increasing the number of 

carriers that are required to adopt 

tarmac delay contingency plans and the 

airports at which they must adhere to 

the plan’s terms; increasing the number 

of carriers that are required to report 

tarmac delay information to the 

Department; expanding the group of 

carriers that are required to adopt, 

follow, and audit customer service plans 

and establishing minimum standards for 

the subjects all carriers must cover in 

such plans; requiring carriers to include 

their contingency plans and customer 

service plans in their contracts of 

carriage; increasing the number of 

carriers that must respond to consumer 

complaints; enhancing protections 

afforded passengers in oversales 

situations, including increasing the 

maximum denied boarding 

compensation airlines must pay to 

passengers bumped from flights; 

strengthening, codifying and clarifying 

the Department’s enforcement policies 

concerning air transportation price 

advertising practices; requiring carriers 

to notify consumers of optional fees 

related to air transportation and of 

increases in baggage fees; prohibiting 

post-purchase price increases; requiring 

carriers to provide passengers timely 

notice of flight status changes such as 

delays and cancellations; and 

prohibiting carriers from imposing 

unfair contract of carriage choice-offorum provisions. The Department is 

proposing to take this action to 

strengthen the rights of air travelers in 

the event of oversales, flight 

cancellations and long delays, and to 

ensure that passengers have accurate 

and adequate information to make 

informed decisions when selecting 

flights. In addition, the Department is 

considering several measures, including 

banning the serving of peanuts on 

commercial airlines, to provide greater 

access to air travel for the significant 

number of individuals with peanut 

allergies. 

DATES: Comments should be filed by 

August 9, 2010. Late-filed comments 

will be considered to the extent 

practicable. 

ADDRESSES: You may file comments 

identified by the docket number DOT– 

OST–2010–0140 by any of the following 

methods: 

• 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., 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 

a.m. and 5 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–2010–XXXX 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, a 

business, a 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 or 

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: 

Daeleen Chesley 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, 202–366– 

9342 (phone), 202–366–7152 (fax), 

daeleen.chesley@dot.gov or 

blane.workie@dot.gov (e-mail). 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Pilot Project on Open Government and 

the Rulemaking Process 

On January 21st, 2009, President 

Obama issued a Memorandum on 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 109 / Tuesday, June 8, 2010 / Proposed Rules 32319 

Transparency and Open Government in 

which he described how ‘‘public 

engagement enhances the Government’s 

effectiveness and improves the quality 

of its decisions’’ and how ‘‘knowledge is 

widely dispersed in society, and public 

officials benefit from having access to 

that dispersed knowledge.’’ To support 

the President’s open government 

initiative, DOT plans to continue its 

partnership with the Cornell 

eRulemaking Initiative (CeRI) in a pilot 

project, Regulation Room, to discover 

the best ways of using Web 2.0 and 

social networking technologies to: (1) 

Alert the public, including those who 

sometimes may not be aware of 

rulemaking proposals, such as 

individuals, public interest groups, 

small businesses, and local government 

entities, that rulemaking is occurring in 

areas of interest to them; (2) increase 

public understanding of each proposed 

rule and the rulemaking process; and (3) 

help the public formulate more effective 

individual and collaborative input to 

DOT. We anticipate, over the course of 

several rulemaking initiatives, that CeRI 

will use different Web technologies and 

approaches to enhance public 

understanding and participation, work 

with DOT to evaluate the advantages 

and disadvantages of these techniques, 

and report their findings and 

conclusions on the most effective use of 

social networking technologies in this 

area. 

DOT and the Obama Administration 

are striving to increase effective public 

involvement in the rulemaking process 

and strongly encourage all parties 

interested in this rulemaking to visit the 

Regulation Room Web site, http:// 

www.regulationroom.org, to learn about 

the rule and the rulemaking process, to 

discuss the issues in the rule with other 

persons and groups, and to participate 

in drafting comments that will be 

submitted to DOT. A Summary of the 

discussion that occurs on the Regulation 

Room site and participants will have the 

chance to review a draft and suggest 

changes before the Summary is 

submitted. Participants who want to 

further develop ideas contained in the 

Summary, or raise additional points, 

will have the opportunity to 

collaboratively draft joint comments 

that will be also be submitted to the 

rulemaking docket before the comment 

period closes. 

Note that Regulation Room is not an 

official DOT Web site, and so 

participating in discussion on that site 

is not the same as commenting in the 

rulemaking docket. The Summary of 

discussion and any joint comments 

prepared collaboratively on the site will 

become comments in the docket when 

they are submitted to DOT by CeRI. At 

any time during the comment period, 

anyone using Regulation Room can also 

submit individual views to the 

rulemaking docket through the federal 

rulemaking portal Regulations.gov, or by 

any of the other methods identified at 

the beginning of this Notice. For 

questions about this project, please 

contact Brett Jortland in the DOT Office 

of General Counsel at 202–421–9216 or 

brett.jortland@dot.gov. 

Summary of Preliminary Regulatory 

Analysis 

The preliminary regulatory analysis 

suggests that the benefits of the 

proposed requirements exceed its costs, 

even without considering nonquantifiable benefits. This analysis, 

outlined in the table below, finds that 

the expected net present value of the 

rule for 10 years at a 7% discount rate 

is estimated to be $61.6 million. At a 

3% discount rate, the expected net 

present value of the rule is estimated to 

be $75.7 million. 

Present value 

(millions) 

Total Quantified Benefits: 

10 Years, 7% discounting .......................................................................................................................................................... $87.6 

10 Years, 3% discounting .......................................................................................................................................................... 104.2 

Total Quantified Costs: 

10 Years, 7% discounting .......................................................................................................................................................... 26.0 

10 Years, 3% discounting .......................................................................................................................................................... 28.5 

Net Benefits: 

10 Years, 7% discounting .......................................................................................................................................................... 61.6 

10 Years, 3% discounting .......................................................................................................................................................... 75.7 

A comparison of the estimated benefits 

and costs for each of the 11 proposed 

requirements is provided in the 

Regulatory Analysis and Notices 

section, along with information on 

additional benefits and costs for which 

quantitative estimates could not be 

developed. 

Background 

On December 8, 2008, the Department 

published a Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking (NPRM) on enhancing 

airline passenger protections. See 73 FR 

74586 (December 8, 2008). After 

reviewing and considering the 

comments on the NPRM, on December 

30, 2009, the Department published a 

final rule in which the Department 

required certain U.S. air carriers to 

adopt contingency plans for lengthy 

tarmac delays; respond to consumer 

problems; post flight delay information 

on their Web sites; and adopt, follow, 

and audit customer service plans. The 

rule also defined chronically delayed 

flights and deemed them to be an 

‘‘unfair and deceptive’’ practice. That 

rule took effect on April 29, 2010. See 

74 FR 68983 (December 30, 2009). 

In the preamble to the final rule, the 

Department noted that it planned to 

review additional ways to further 

enhance protections afforded airline 

passengers and listed a number of 

subject areas that it was considering 

addressing in a future rulemaking. The 

areas specifically mentioned as being 

under consideration were as follows: (1) 

DOT review and approval of 

contingency plans for lengthy tarmac 

delays ; (2) reporting of tarmac delay 

data; (3) standards for customer service 

plans; (4) notification to passengers of 

flight status changes; (5) inflation 

adjustment for denied boarding 

compensation; (6) alternative 

transportation for passengers on 

canceled flights; (7) opt-out provisions 

where certain optional services are preselected for consumers at an additional 

cost (e.g., travel insurance, seat 

selection); (8) contract of carriage venue 

designation provisions; (9) baggage fees 

disclosure; (10) full fare advertising; and 

(11) responses to complaints about 

charter service. This NPRM addresses 

most of those issues, as well as other 

matters that we believe are necessary to 

ensure fair treatment of passengers. We 

have described each proposal in this 

NPRM in detail below and invite all 

interested persons to comment. 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
32320 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 109 / Tuesday, June 8, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

1. Tarmac Delay Contingency Plans 

The Department’s final rule entitled 

‘‘Enhancing Airline Passenger 

Protections,’’ which was published in 

the Federal Register on December 30, 

2009 (74 FR 68983), requires, among 

other things, that U.S. carriers adopt 

tarmac delay contingency plans that 

include, at a minimum, the following: 

(1) An assurance that, for domestic 

flights, the U.S. carrier will not permit 

an aircraft at a medium or large hubairport to remain on the tarmac for more 

than three hours unless the pilot-incommand determines there is a safetyrelated or security-related impediment 

to deplaning passengers, or Air Traffic 

Control advises the pilot-in-command 

that returning to the gate or permitting 

passengers to disembark elsewhere 

would significantly disrupt airport 

operations; (2) for international flights 

that depart from or arrive at a U.S. 

airport, an assurance that the U.S. 

carrier will not permit an aircraft to 

remain on the tarmac for more than a set 

number of hours, as determined by the 

carrier in its plan, before allowing 

passengers to deplane, unless the pilotin-command determines there is a 

safety-related or security-related reason 

precluding the aircraft from doing so, or 

Air Traffic Control advises the pilot-incommand that returning to the gate or 

permitting passengers to disembark 

elsewhere would significantly disrupt 

airport operations; (3) for all flights, an 

assurance that the U.S. carrier will 

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 

requirements preclude such service; (4) 

for all flights, an assurance of operable 

lavatory facilities, as well as adequate 

medical attention if needed, while the 

aircraft remains on the tarmac; (5) an 

assurance of sufficient resources to 

implement the plan; and (6) an 

assurance that the plan has been 

coordinated with airport authorities at 

all medium and large hub airports that 

the U.S. carrier serves, including 

medium and large hub diversion 

airports. The final rule also requires 

U.S. carriers to retain for two years the 

following information on any tarmac 

delay that lasts at least three hours: the 

length of the delay, the specific cause of 

the delay, and the steps taken to 

minimize hardships for passengers 

(including providing food and water, 

maintaining lavatories, and providing 

medical assistance); whether the flight 

ultimately took off (in the case of a 

departure delay or diversion) or 

returned to the gate; and an explanation 

for any tarmac delay that exceeded three 

hours, including why the aircraft did 

not return to the gate by the three-hour 

mark. 

This NPRM proposes to strengthen 

the protections for consumers by 

making substantive changes in four 

areas: Requiring foreign air carriers to 

adopt tarmac delay contingency plans, 

increasing the number of airports at 

which carriers must adhere to their 

plans to include U.S. small and non-hub 

airports, requiring carriers to coordinate 

their tarmac delay contingency plans 

with all U.S. airports they serve, and 

requiring carriers to communicate with 

passengers during tarmac delays. More 

specifically, the NPRM proposes to 

require any foreign air carrier that 

operates scheduled passenger or public 

charter service to and from the U.S. 

using any aircraft originally designed to 

have a passenger capacity of 30 or more 

passenger seats to adopt a tarmac delay 

contingency plan that includes 

minimum assurances identical to those 

currently required of U.S. carriers for 

the latter’s international flights. As 

proposed, it would apply to all of a 

foreign carrier’s flights to and from the 

U.S., including those involving aircraft 

with fewer than 30 seats if a carrier 

operates any aircraft originally designed 

to have a passenger capacity of 30 or 

more seats to or from the U.S. The 

NPRM also proposes to require that U.S. 

and foreign air carriers coordinate their 

contingency plans with all airports they 

serve (small and non-hub airports as 

well as the medium and large hub 

airports covered by the existing rule) 

and with the Transportation Security 

Administration (TSA) and U.S. Customs 

and Border Protection (CBP) for any 

U.S. airport that the carrier regularly 

uses for its international flights, 

including diversion airports. 

Under the proposed rule, the tarmac 

delay contingency plans would cover 

operations at each U.S. large hub 

airport, medium hub airport, small hub 

airport and non-hub U.S. airport. 

Further, the NPRM proposes to require 

that U.S. and foreign air carriers update 

passengers every 30 minutes during a 

tarmac delay regarding the status of 

their flight and the reasons for the 

tarmac delay. The regulation would 

specify that the Department would 

consider failure to comply with any of 

the assurances that are required by this 

rule to be contained in a carrier’s tarmac 

delay contingency plan to be an unfair 

and deceptive practice within the 

meaning of 49 U.S.C. 41712 and subject 

to enforcement action. 

We are proposing these regulations 

because the Department believes that it 

is important to ensure that passengers 

on all international flights to and from 

the United States are afforded protection 

from unreasonably lengthy tarmac 

delays. As is the case under the existing 

rule for international flights of covered 

U.S. carriers, at this time, we intend to 

allow foreign carriers to develop and 

implement a contingency plan for 

lengthy tarmac delays that has more 

flexible requirements than those that 

apply to domestic flights with regard to 

the time limit to deplane passengers. 

Also, as in our initial rulemaking to 

enhance airline passenger protections, 

this limit will allow exceptions for 

considerations of safety, security and for 

instances in which Air Traffic Control 

advises the pilot-in-command that 

returning to the gate or permitting 

passengers to disembark elsewhere 

would significantly disrupt airport 

operations. It is worth noting that there 

are ongoing questions as to whether 

mandating a specific time frame for 

deplaning passengers on international 

flights is in the best interest of the 

public; a number of arguments have 

been presented for not imposing such a 

limit. Most international flights operate 

less frequently than most domestic 

flights, potentially resulting in much 

greater harm to consumers if carriers 

cancel these international flights (e.g., 

passengers are less likely to be 

accommodated on an alternate flight in 

a reasonable period of time). We ask 

interested persons to comment on 

whether any final rule that we may 

adopt should include a uniform 

standard for the time interval after 

which U.S. or foreign air carriers would 

be required to allow passengers on 

international flights to deplane. 

Commenters who support the adoption 

of a uniform standard should propose 

specific amounts of time and state why 

they believe these intervals to be 

appropriate. 

We also seek comment on the cost 

burdens and benefits should the 

requirement to have a contingency plan 

be narrowed or expanded. For example, 

while we are proposing here to include 

foreign carriers that operate aircraft 

originally designed to have a passenger 

capacity of 30 or more seats to and from 

the U.S., we invite interested persons to 

comment on whether, in the event that 

we adopt a rule requiring foreign 

carriers to have contingency plans, we 

should limit its applicability to foreign 

air carriers that operate large aircraft to 

and from the U.S.—i.e., aircraft 

originally designed to have a maximum 

passenger capacity of more than 60 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 109 / Tuesday, June 8, 2010 / Proposed Rules 32321 

seats. We also seek comment on 

whether we should expand coverage of 

the requirement to adopt tarmac delay 

contingency plans so that the obligation 

to adopt such a plan and adhere to its 

terms is not only the responsibility of 

the operating carrier but also the carrier 

under whose code the service is 

marketed if different. In addition, 

should coverage be further expanded to 

require U.S. airports to adopt tarmac 

delay contingency plans? Proponents of 

these or other alternative proposals 

should provide arguments and evidence 

in support of their position, as should 

opponents. 

In the initial rulemaking to enhance 

airline passenger protections, we 

decided to implement a rule requiring 

certain U.S. carriers to coordinate their 

contingency plans with large-hub and 

medium-hub airports, as well as 

diversion airports that the carrier serves. 

Those airports are the only ones covered 

by the current rule. We are proposing to 

extend this requirement to small and 

non-hub airports and to require all 

covered carriers (U.S. and foreign) to 

coordinate their plans with each U.S. 

large hub airport, medium hub airport, 

small hub airport and non-hub U.S. 

airport that they serve as well as TSA 

and CBP. The Department believes that 

the same issues and discomfort to 

passengers during an extended tarmac 

delay are likely to occur regardless of 

airport size or layout. We also strongly 

believe that it is essential that airlines 

involve airports and appropriate Federal 

agencies in developing their plans to 

enable them to effectively meet the 

needs of passengers. As such, we are 

proposing to extend this rule to require 

covered carriers to coordinate their 

plans with each U.S. large hub airport, 

medium hub airport, small hub airport 

and non-hub U.S. airport to which they 

regularly operate scheduled passenger 

or public charter service. 

As recommended by the Tarmac 

Delay Task Force, we are also proposing 

to require carriers to include CBP and 

TSA in their coordination efforts for any 

U.S. diversion airport which they 

regularly use. We believe this proposal 

is necessary, as it has come to the 

Department’s attention on more than 

one occasion passengers on 

international flights were held on 

diverted aircraft for extended periods of 

time because there was no means to 

process those passengers and allow 

them access to terminal facilities. The 

Department of Homeland Security has 

advised this Department that, subject to 

coordination with CBP regional 

directors, passengers on diverted 

international flights may be permitted 

into closed terminal areas without CBP 

screening. We invite interested persons 

to comment on this proposal. What 

costs and benefits would result from 

this requirement? Is it workable to 

include small and non-hub airports 

served by a carrier? Should the rule be 

expanded to include other commercial 

U.S. airports (i.e., those with less than 

10,000 annual enplanements)? We are 

soliciting comments from airlines, 

airports and other industry entities on 

whether there are any special 

operational concerns affecting such 

airports. 

The Department has also given 

consideration to passengers’ frustration 

with lack of communication by carrier 

personnel about the reasons a flight is 

experiencing a long tarmac delay. It 

does not seem unreasonable or unduly 

burdensome to require carriers to 

address this issue and verbally inform 

passengers as to the flight’s operational 

status on a regular basis during a 

lengthy tarmac delay. As such, the 

Department is proposing a rule 

requiring carriers to announce to 

passengers on covered flights every 30 

minutes the reasons for the delay, and/ 

or the operational status of the flight. 

We do not anticipate that a carrier’s 

flight crews will know every nuance of 

the reason for the delay, but we do 

expect them to inform passengers of the 

reasons of which they are aware and to 

make reasonable attempts to acquire 

information about the reason(s) for that 

delay. We also invite comment on 

whether carriers should be required to 

announce that passengers may deplane 

from an aircraft that is at the gate or 

other disembarkation area with the door 

open. The Department’s Office of 

Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings 

has previously explained that a tarmac 

delay begins when passengers no longer 

have an option to get off of the aircraft, 

which usually occurs when the doors of 

the aircraft are closed, and encouraged 

carriers to announce to passengers on 

flights that remain at the gate with the 

doors open that the passengers are 

allowed off the aircraft if that is the case. 

However, such an announcement is not 

explicitly required in the existing rule. 

We seek comment on the benefit to 

consumers of mandating such 

announcements. Commenters, including 

carriers and carrier associations, should 

also address any costs and/or 

operational concerns related to 

implementing a rule requiring such 

announcements. 

2. Tarmac Delay Data 

We are proposing to require all 

carriers that must comply with 14 CFR 

259.4, which requires carriers to adopt 

contingency plans for lengthy tarmac 

delays, file tarmac delay data with the 

Department to the extent they are not 

already required to file such data 

pursuant to 14 CFR part 234. Incidents 

of lengthy tarmac delays have captured 

much public attention in recent years 

and have been the focus of considerable 

Department attention as well. On 

October 1, 2008, the Department’s 

Bureau of Transportation Statistics 

(BTS) began collecting more detailed 

tarmac delay information from all U.S. 

carriers that file the ‘‘On-Time Flight 

Performance Report’’ (BTS Form 234) 

under 14 CFR part 234, ‘‘reporting 

carriers’’. The data do not, however, 

provide a complete picture of tarmac 

delays, as the reporting carriers only 

submit data concerning their scheduled 

domestic flights as a function of their 

being required to report on-time 

performance data. These reporting 

carriers currently constitute the 16 

largest U.S. carriers by scheduledservice passenger revenue, plus two 

carriers that voluntarily file the report. 

In addition, smaller U.S. carriers which 

are subject to the Department’s 

contingency plan rule that was effective 

April 29, 2010, do not currently submit 

any tarmac delay data to the Department 

and foreign air carriers which we are 

proposing in this NPRM adopt tarmac 

delay contingency plans also do not 

submit tarmac delay data to the 

Department. 

While a single incident of tarmac 

delay may be attributed to one or more 

causes, such as air traffic congestion, 

weather related delays, mechanical 

problems, and/or flight dispatching 

logistic failures, we believe that an 

initial and essential step toward finding 

solutions for the tarmac delay problem, 

whether by government regulations and/ 

or through voluntary actions by the 

airlines, and monitoring the effect on 

consumers of lengthy tarmac delays, is 

to obtain more complete data on these 

incidents. Therefore, we are tentatively 

of the opinion that we should expand 

the pool of carriers that must file 

information with the Department 

regarding tarmac delays to U.S. carriers 

and foreign carriers that operate any 

aircraft originally designed with a 

passenger capacity of 30 or more 

passenger seats with respect to their 

operations at U.S. airports. The more 

complete picture of lengthy tarmac 

delays afforded by these new data will 

help establish a vital platform for the 

Department’s future rulemaking and 

policy decision-making, for FAA airport 

and air traffic control infrastructure and 

technology modification and 

improvement, and for system operating 

improvements and reform by the airline 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
32322 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 109 / Tuesday, June 8, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

industry. Furthermore, the result of 

such analysis will provide the 

Department, the industry, and the 

public more precise data with which to 

compare tarmac delay incidents by 

carrier, by airport, and by specific time 

frame. 

This rule as proposed would apply to 

all U.S. carriers that are covered by the 

Department’s existing rule requiring 

tarmac delay contingency plans, as well 

as foreign carriers that we are proposing, 

in this NPRM, be required to adopt 

tarmac delay contingency plans (see 

proposed changes to 14 CFR 259.4). 

Thus, this proposal would cover tarmac 

delays at U.S. airports by all U.S. 

certificated and commuter carriers that 

operate any aircraft originally designed 

to have a passenger capacity of 30 or 

more seats. It also would cover tarmac 

delays at U.S. airports by all foreign 

carriers that operate passenger service to 

and from the U.S. using any aircraft 

originally designed to have a passenger 

capacity of 30 or more seats. We seek 

comment on whether we should limit 

the requirement to file tarmac delay data 

to U.S. and foreign air carriers that 

operate large aircraft to and from the 

U.S.—i.e., aircraft originally designed to 

have a maximum passenger capacity of 

more than 60 seats. Commenters should 

explain why they favor such a limitation 

and suggest alternate approaches to 

capturing tarmac delay data. 

We note that using just one qualifying 

aircraft (i.e., originally designed to have 

a passenger capacity of 30 or more 

passenger seats) will cause all of a U.S. 

carrier’s flights to be covered by this 

rule. The same is true of a foreign 

carrier’s flights that originate or 

terminate at a U.S. airport. For example, 

if a foreign carrier operates any aircraft 

to or from the U.S. that was originally 

designed to have a passenger capacity of 

30 or more seats, all of its flight taking 

off or landing at a U.S. airport, 

regardless of size of aircraft and seating 

capacity, will be subject to the reporting 

requirements of the proposed rule. 

We are mindful of the costs associated 

with submitting data to the Department, 

especially in light of the relatively 

limited resources of smaller carriers and 

the relatively fewer flights to and from 

the U.S. by foreign carriers and we do 

not intend with this proposal to impose 

a comprehensive on-time reporting 

scheme, as exists for the largest U.S. 

carriers now covered by Part 234. With 

this concern in mind, using the Part 234 

requirements as a model, we have 

narrowed the data fields we propose to 

be reported to those we believe are 

necessary for us to extract necessary 

tarmac delay information. In addition, 

we propose to require these tarmac 

delay data to be reported each month 

only with respect to tarmac delays of 3 

hours or more. 

We recognize that carriers subject to 

our new contingency plan rule that 

went into effect April 29, 2010, are 

required to retain for two years certain 

information regarding tarmac delays of 

3 hours or more. We note that the 

reporting requirement proposed in this 

notice is separate and distinct from that 

information retention requirement, with 

a different purpose. Where that rule is 

focused on carrier compliance with 

consumer protection-related 

requirements and requires only that 

carriers retain the information for a 

limited period of time, we propose here 

that carriers report monthly a set of data 

regarding tarmac delays that will 

provide the Department more complete 

information on lengthy tarmac delays 

throughout the air transportation system 

in the U.S. The Department plans to 

publish a summary of this information 

in its Air Travel Consumer Report, a 

monthly publication product of the 

Department of Transportation’s Office of 

Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings 

that is designed to assist consumers 

with information on the quality of 

services provided by airlines. We 

welcome suggestions from the public 

and the industry on whether there are 

other means to further reduce the 

carriers’ burden yet still effectively 

achieve the goal of this proposal. 

3. Customer Service Plans 

Under the final rule published on 

December 30, 2009, U.S. carriers are 

required to adopt customer service 

plans for their scheduled flights that 

address, at a minimum, the following 

service areas: (1) Offering the lowest fare 

available; (2) notifying consumers of 

known delays, cancellations, and 

diversions; (3) delivering baggage on 

time; (4) allowing reservations to be 

held or cancelled without penalty for a 

defined amount of time; (5) providing 

prompt ticket refunds; (6) properly 

accommodating disabled and specialneeds passengers, including during 

tarmac delays; (7) meeting customers’ 

essential needs during lengthy on-board 

delays; (8) handling ‘‘bumped’’ 

passengers in the case of oversales with 

fairness and consistency; (9) disclosing 

travel itinerary, cancellation policies, 

frequent flyer rules, and aircraft 

configuration; (10) ensuring good 

customer service from code-share 

partners; (11) ensuring responsiveness 

to customer complaints; and (12) 

identifying the services they provide to 

mitigate passenger inconveniences 

resulting from flight cancellations and 

misconnections. The rule also requires 

U.S. carriers to audit their plan annually 

and make the results of their audits 

available for the Department’s review 

upon request. 

This NPRM proposes to increase the 

protections afforded consumers in that 

recent final rule by requiring foreign air 

carriers to adopt, follow, and audit 

customer service plans and establishing 

minimum standards for what must be 

included in the customer service plans 

of all covered carriers (U.S. and foreign). 

We are proposing to cover foreign air 

carriers operating scheduled passenger 

service to and from the U.S. using any 

aircraft originally designed to have a 

passenger capacity of 30 or more 

passenger seats. The rule would apply 

to all flights to and from the U.S. of 

those carriers, including flights 

involving aircraft with fewer than 30 

seats if a carrier operates any aircraft 

with 30 or more passenger seats to and 

from the U.S. We ask interested persons 

to comment on whether the proposed 

requirement for foreign air carriers to 

adopt, follow and audit customer 

service plan should be narrowed in 

some fashion—e.g., should never apply 

to aircraft with fewer than 30 seats? 

Each foreign carrier’s plan would 

have to address the same subjects 

currently required of U.S. carriers in the 

Department’s rule to enhance airline 

passenger protections. We are also 

proposing to require that foreign air 

carriers make the results of their audits 

of their customer service plans available 

for the Department’s review upon 

request for two years following the date 

any audit is completed. A carrier’s 

failure to adopt a customer service plan 

for its scheduled service, adhere to its 

plan’s terms, audit its own adherence to 

its plan annually or make the results of 

its audits available for the Department’s 

review upon request would be 

considered an unfair and deceptive 

practice within the meaning of 49 U.S.C. 

41712 and subject to enforcement 

action. 

A substantial number of air travelers 

fly to and from the United States on 

flights operated by foreign carriers, 

whether through a code-share 

arrangement or by directly arranging for 

that transportation. By requiring foreign 

carriers to adopt plans, audit their own 

compliance, and make the results of 

their audits available for us to review, 

we intend to afford consumers better 

protection on nearly all flights to and 

from the United States, not just those of 

the U.S. carriers to which the rule is 

currently applicable. The Department is 

soliciting comment on the costs and 

benefits associated with this 

requirement. We would like foreign 

carriers to comment on whether similar 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 109 / Tuesday, June 8, 2010 / Proposed Rules 32323 

plans already exist, and if so, how they 

currently implement such plans. 

The Department also proposes to 

require covered carriers’ customer 

service plans meet minimum standards 

to ensure that the carriers’ (U.S. and 

foreign) plans are specific and 

enforceable. The Department is 

concerned that many carriers’ customer 

service plans are not specific enough for 

a consumer to have realistic 

expectations of the types of services a 

carrier will provide under its plan, or 

that some carriers may not be living up 

to their customer service commitments. 

Based on a review of existing customer 

service plans, the Department found 

that some carriers’ plans do contain 

specifics regarding the type of services 

a consumer can expect (e.g., returning 

baggage by a specified time after the 

flight or holding reservations without 

charge for a specific period of time), 

while others carriers’ plans are vaguely 

written making it difficult for a 

consumer to know how a carrier will 

address those subjects or whether a 

carrier has fulfilled its promises. As 

such, the Department believes 

establishing minimum standards for the 

plans will result in consumers being 

better informed and protected. As 

always carriers are free to set higher 

standards than those mandated by the 

Department. We also note that all of the 

subjects for which we are proposing to 

require a standard are already required 

to be included in the customer service 

plans for U.S. carriers (e.g., oversales/ 

denied boarding compensation, 

refunds), which should minimize the 

burden on these carriers to comply with 

the proposed new requirement to 

establish standards for those subjects. In 

addition, when determining what 

minimum standards to apply to these 

plans, the Department reviewed 

customer service plans as currently 

implemented by a number of carriers, 

and chose the services already provided 

by some carriers that appear to be ‘‘best 

practices.’’ 

We seek comment on both the costs 

and benefits of requiring carriers to 

adopt these minimum standards. The 

minimum standards that we are 

proposing are as follows: (1) Offering 

the lowest fare available on the carrier’s 

Web site, at the ticket counter, or when 

a customer calls the carrier’s reservation 

center to inquire about a fare or to make 

a reservation; (2) notifying consumers in 

the boarding gate area, on board aircraft, 

and via a carrier’s telephone reservation 

system and its Web site of known 

delays, cancellations, and diversions; (3) 

delivering baggage on time, including 

making every reasonable effort to return 

mishandled baggage within twenty-four 

hours and compensating passengers for 

reasonable expenses that result due to 

delay in delivery; (4) allowing 

reservations to be held at the quoted fare 

without payment, or cancelled without 

penalty, for at least twenty-four hours 

after the reservation is made; (5) where 

ticket refunds are due, providing 

prompt refunds for credit card 

purchases as required by 14 CFR 374.3 

and 12 CFR part 226, and for cash and 

check purchases within 20 days after 

receiving a complete refund request; (6) 

properly accommodating passengers 

with disabilities as required by 14 CFR 

part 382 and for other special-needs 

passengers as set forth in the carrier’s 

policies and procedures, including 

during lengthy tarmac delays; (7) 

meeting customers’ essential needs 

during lengthy tarmac delays as 

required by 14 CFR 259.4 and as 

provided for in each covered carrier’s 

contingency plan; (8) handling 

‘‘bumped’’ passengers with fairness and 

consistency in the case of oversales as 

required by 14 CFR part 250 and as 

described in each carrier’s policies and 

procedures for determining boarding 

priority; (9) disclosing cancellation 

policies, frequent flyer rules, aircraft 

configuration, and lavatory availability 

on the selling carrier’s Web site, and 

upon request, from the selling carrier’s 

telephone reservations staff; (10) 

notifying consumers in a timely manner 

of changes in their travel itineraries; (11) 

ensuring good customer service from 

code-share partners operating a flight, 

including making reasonable efforts to 

ensure that its code-share partner(s) 

have comparable customer service plans 

or provide comparable customer service 

levels, or have adopted the identified 

carrier’s customer service plan; (12) 

ensuring responsiveness to customer 

complaints as required by 14 CFR 259.7; 

and (13) identifying the services it 

provides to mitigate passenger 

inconveniences resulting from flight 

cancellations and misconnections. 

With regard to delivering baggage on 

time, we solicit comment on whether 

we should also include as standards (1) 

that carriers reimburse passengers the 

fee charged to transport a bag if that bag 

is lost or not timely delivered, as well 

as (2) the time when a bag should be 

considered not to have been timely 

delivered (e.g., delivered on same or 

earlier flight than the passenger, 

delivered within 2 hours of the 

passenger’s arrival). With regard to 

providing prompt refunds, we seek 

comment on whether we should also 

include as a standard that carriers 

refund ticketed passengers, including 

those with non-refundable tickets, for 

flights that are canceled or significantly 

delayed if the passenger chooses not to 

travel as a result of the travel disruption. 

The Department’s Aviation Enforcement 

Office has issued notices in the past 

advising airlines that it would be an 

unfair and deceptive practice in 

violation of 49 USC 41712 for a carrier 

to apply its non-refundability provision 

in the event of a significant change in 

scheduled departure or arrival time, 

whether it be due to carrier action or a 

matter out of the carrier’s control, 

including ‘‘acts of god.’’ We request 

comment on the methodology for 

defining a significant delay in the event 

such a standard is adopted. Should the 

Department establish a bright line rule 

that any delay of 3 hours or more is a 

significant delay? Should the 

determination of whether a flight has 

been significantly delayed be based on 

the duration of the flight (e.g., is 3 hours 

a significant delay on flights of two 

hours or less and 4 hours a significant 

delay on flights of more than two 

hours)? 

With respect to notifying passengers 

on board aircraft of delays, we seek 

comment on how often updates should 

be provided and whether we should 

require that passengers be advised when 

they may deplane from aircraft during 

lengthy tarmac delays. For example, we 

have received complaints from 

passengers that their aircraft has 

returned to the gate less than three 

hours after departure for emergency or 

mechanical reasons but they were not 

advised that they could deplane. 

Carriers may feel the 3-hour tarmac 

delay limit has been tolled by such a 

gate return, but passengers feel they 

were not truly afforded the opportunity 

to deplane within the meaning of this 

rule. 

As for the customer service 

commitment to provide prompt refunds 

where ticket refunds are due, we invite 

comment on whether it is necessary to 

include as a standard the requirement 

that when a flight is cancelled carriers 

must refund not only the ticket price but 

also any optional fees charged to a 

passenger for that flight (e.g., baggage 

fees, ‘‘service charges’’ for use of 

frequent flyer miles when the flight is 

canceled by the carrier). Irrespective of 

whether such a standard is included in 

a carrier’s customer service 

commitment, the Department would 

view a carrier’s failure to provide a 

prompt refund to a passenger of the 

ticket price and related optional fees 

when a flight is canceled to be an unfair 

and deceptive practice. We request 

comment as to whether it is workable to 

set minimum standards for any of the 

subjects contained in the customer 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
32324 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 109 / Tuesday, June 8, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

service plans and invite those that 

oppose the notion of the Department 

setting minimum standards for customer 

service plans as unduly burdensome to 

provide evidence of the costs that they 

anticipate. We further invite comment 

or suggestions on the type of standards 

that should be set. 

Although the subjects we are 

proposing that foreign air carriers 

address in their customer service plans 

are identical to those U.S. carriers 

already are required to include in their 

customer service plans, we request 

comment on whether any of these 

subjects would be inappropriate if 

applied to a foreign air carrier. Why or 

why not? Moreover, we seek comment 

on whether the Department should 

require that all airlines address any 

other subject in their customer service 

plans. For example, should mandatory 

disclosure to passengers and other 

interested parties of past delays or 

cancellations of particular flights before 

ticket purchase be a new subject area 

covered in customer service plans? If so, 

what should be the minimum 

timeliness/cancellation standard? In this 

regard, there is already a requirement 

for reporting carriers (i.e., the largest 

U.S. carriers) to post flight delay data on 

their Web sites and for their reservation 

agents to disclose to customers, upon 

request, the on-time performance code 

of a flight. Should more direct and 

mandatory disclosure be required, e.g., 

a required warning before the final 

purchase decision is made regarding 

chronically late or routinely canceled 

flights? We also seek comment on the 

appropriate minimum timeliness/ 

cancellation standard for U.S. carriers 

and foreign air carriers that do not 

report on time performance data to DOT 

if we were to adopt a requirement that 

airlines address notification to 

consumers of past delays or cancellation 

in their customer service plans. 

4. Contracts of Carriage 

The Department is proposing to adopt 

a rule requiring carriers (U.S. and 

foreign) to include their contingency 

plans and customer service plans in 

their contracts of carriage. We first 

proposed this requirement in the notice 

of proposed rulemaking on enhancing 

airline passenger protections which was 

published in the Federal Register on 

December 8, 2008. Ultimately, the 

Department decided not to require such 

incorporation at that time and instead 

strongly encouraged carriers to 

voluntarily incorporate the terms of 

their tarmac delay contingency plans in 

their contracts of carriage, as most major 

carriers had already done with respect 

to their customer service plans. The 

Department did require that each U.S. 

carrier with a Web site post its entire 

contract of carriage on its Web site in 

easily accessible form, including all 

updates to its contract of carriage. The 

Department also indicated that it would 

address this issue in a future rulemaking 

and take into account, among other 

things, whether the voluntary 

incorporation of contingency plan terms 

had resulted in sufficient protections for 

air travelers. 

The Department continues to believe 

that the airlines’ incorporation of their 

contingency plans into their contracts of 

carriage is an important means of 

providing notice to consumers of their 

rights, since that information will then 

be contained in a readily available 

source. Carriers’ contracts of carriage are 

generally posted online and must, by 

Department rule, be available at 

airports. Better informed consumers will 

further improve the Department’s 

enforcement program as consumers are 

more likely to know of and report 

incidents where airlines do not adhere 

to their plans. Better consumer 

information will also create added 

incentive for carriers to adhere to their 

plans. Further, by placing the 

contingency plan terms in the U.S. 

selling carrier’s contract of carriage both 

that carrier and its foreign code share 

partner carrier are responsible in an 

enforcement context for compliance, 

which we view as a beneficial aspect of 

this proposal. We also continue to be 

confident that we have the authority to 

require such incorporation based on our 

broad authority under 49 U.S.C. 41712 

to prohibit unfair and deceptive 

practices, and under 49 U.S.C. 41702 to 

ensure safe and adequate transportation, 

which clearly encompasses the 

regulation of contingency plans. 

In the December 30, 2009, final rule 

to enhance airline passenger 

protections, we stated that we intended 

to closely monitor carriers’ responses to 

our efforts in this regard and that we 

would not hesitate to revisit our 

decision in another rulemaking. As it 

appears that many carriers are choosing 

not to place their contingency plans 

and/or customer service plans in their 

contracts of carriage, or have little 

incentive to do so, and because we 

believe the incorporation of airline 

contingency plans in contracts of 

carriage to be in the public interest, we 

are again proposing the implementation 

of this requirement. 

As stated previously, the Department 

recognizes that many passengers travel 

to and from the U.S. on flights operated 

by foreign carriers, and they should 

have adequate passenger protections on 

those flights. As such, we propose to 

include foreign carriers in the 

requirement for airlines to place their 

contingency plans and customer service 

plans in their contracts of carriage. The 

Department is seeking comment on 

whether the incorporation of the 

contingency plans and customer service 

plans in the contract of carriage gives 

consumers adequate notice of what 

might happen in the event of a long 

delay on the tarmac and/or of 

passengers’ rights under carriers’ 

customer service plans. As in the past, 

commenters should also address 

whether and to what extent requiring 

the incorporation of contingency plans 

in carriers’ contracts of carriage might 

weaken existing plans: That is, would 

the requirement encourage carriers to 

exclude certain key terms from their 

plans in order to avoid compromising 

their flexibility to deal with 

circumstances that can be both complex 

and unpredictable? We are also 

soliciting comment on the proposal to 

extend this provision to foreign carriers. 

5. Response to Consumer Problems 

The recently issued final rule on 

enhancing airline passenger protections 

requires U.S. carriers that operate 

scheduled passenger service using any 

aircraft originally designed to have a 

passenger capacity of 30 or more seats 

to designate an employee to monitor the 

effects on passengers of flight delays, 

flight cancellations, and lengthy tarmac 

delays and to have input into decisions 

such as which flights are cancelled and 

which are subject to the longest delays. 

It also requires U.S. carriers to make 

available the mailing address and e-mail 

or Web address of the designated 

department in the airline with which to 

file a complaint about its scheduled 

service and to acknowledge receipt of 

each complaint regarding its scheduled 

service to the complainant within 30 

days of receiving it and to send a 

substantive response to each 

complainant within 60 days of receiving 

it. A complaint is defined as a specific 

written expression of dissatisfaction 

concerning a difficulty or problem 

which the person experienced when 

using or attempting to use an airline’s 

service. 

This proposal would require a foreign 

air carrier that operates scheduled 

passenger service to and from the 

United States using any aircraft 

originally designed to have a passenger 

capacity of 30 or more seats to do the 

same for its flights to and from the U.S. 

We are proposing to extend these 

provisions to foreign carriers as the 

Department believes passengers should 

also be afforded adequate consumer 

protection when issues arise with delays 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 109 / Tuesday, June 8, 2010 / Proposed Rules 32325 

or cancellations on flights to and from 

the U.S. operated by a foreign carrier, 

and should also have an avenue to file 

a complaint with a foreign carrier and 

to expect a timely and substantive 

response to that complaint. We invite 

interested persons to comment on this 

proposal. What costs and/or operational 

concerns would it impose on foreign 

carriers and what are the benefits to 

consumers? In particular, we are 

soliciting comments on any operational 

difficulties U.S. and foreign airlines may 

face in responding to consumer 

complaints received through social 

networking mediums such as Facebook 

or Twitter. Do airlines currently 

communicate to customers and 

prospective customers through social 

networking mediums? 

6. Oversales 

Part 250 establishes the minimum 

standards for the treatment of airline 

passengers holding confirmed 

reservations on certain U.S. and foreign 

carriers who are involuntarily denied 

boarding (‘‘bumped’’) from flights that 

are oversold. In adopting the original 

oversales rule in the 1960s, the Civil 

Aeronautics Board (CAB), the 

Department’s predecessor in aviation 

consumer matters, recognized the 

inherent unfairness to passengers if 

carriers were allowed to sell more 

confirmed seats than were available. To 

balance the inconvenience and financial 

loss to passengers against the potential 

benefits brought about by a controlled 

overbooking system, i.e., achieving 

higher load factors, avoiding the losses 

caused by last-minute cancellations and 

no-shows, enabling more passengers to 

obtain a reservation on the flight of their 

choice, and ultimately reducing fares, 

the CAB prescribed a two-part oversales 

system: Soliciting volunteers first, then 

involuntarily ‘‘bumping’’ passengers if 

there are not enough volunteers, with a 

minimum standard for denied boarding 

compensation (DBC). This system has 

been in effect for almost half a century 

and we believe that its basic structure 

remains sound. 

In this NPRM, we propose to expand 

the rule’s applicability and add, modify 

and clarify certain elements of the rule 

as part of our continuing efforts to 

improve and perfect the system. 

Specifically, we are proposing to make 

five changes to Part 250: (1) Increase the 

minimum DBC limits to take account of 

the increase in the Consumer Price 

Index (CPI) since 1978; (2) implement 

an automatic inflation adjuster for 

minimum DBC limits; (3) clarify that 

DBC must be offered to ‘‘zero fare ticket’’ 

holders who are involuntarily bumped; 

(4) require that a carrier verbally offer 

cash/check DBC if the carrier verbally 

offers a travel voucher as DBC to 

passengers who are involuntarily 

bumped; and (5) require that a carrier 

inform passengers solicited to volunteer 

for denied boarding about its principal 

boarding priority rules applicable to the 

specific flight and all material 

restrictions on the use of that 

transportation. 

The last time the Department revised 

the minimum DBC amounts was in a 

proceeding that began in 2007 and 

concluded in 2008. Prior to that date, 

the DBC limits had not been revised 

since 1978. In that latest proceeding, 

because inflation had eroded the value 

of the $200 and $400 limits that were 

established in 1978, we considered 

various methods for calculating an 

increase in the minimum DBC limits 

(i.e., increasing the limits on denied 

boarding compensation based on the 

consumer price index (CPI) or on the 

increase in fare yields, doubling the 

current limits, eliminating the limits so 

there would be no cap on denied 

boarding compensation payments). We 

settled on a rule under which an eligible 

passenger who encounters a delay of 

over one hour due to the involuntary 

denied boarding is entitled to 

compensation equal to either 100% of 

the passenger’s one-way fare up to $400, 

or 200% of the fare up to $800, 

depending on the length of the delay 

caused by the involuntary denied 

boarding. Since May 2008 when the 

new rule was issued, despite these 

higher DBC amounts, we have seen an 

increase in involuntary denied 

boardings. Load factors are also 

increasing, making it less likely that 

‘‘bumped’’ passengers are being 

conveniently accommodated on other 

flights. We are therefore concerned 

about whether the current rule 

adequately encourages carriers to seek 

volunteers to give up their seats and 

whether the minimum DBC amount 

adequately compensates those 

passengers that are involuntarily 

‘‘bumped’’ from their flights. 

Accordingly, we are proposing to 

revise the minimum DBC amounts to 

more accurately reflect inflation’s effect 

on those amounts since 1978, the last 

year those amounts were raised before 

the most recent rule. We propose to do 

so by using the Consumer Price Index 

for All Urban Consumers (CPI–U), 

rounded to the nearest $25, with the 

base of $200/$400 for the maximum 

DBC amounts in the year 1978. This 

would bring the maximum DBC 

amounts for involuntarily oversold 

passengers to $650/$1,300 as of January 

1, 2010. In addition, we propose to add 

a provision to Part 250 that would 

provide for periodic adjustments to the 

minimum DBC limits using the CPI–U, 

similar to that applied to minimum 

baggage liability limits pursuant to 14 

CFR part 254. We believe these 

amendments will set up the most 

efficient method to ensure that the DBC 

minimum limits, and the monetary 

incentive for carriers to reduce 

involuntary denied boardings, remain 

current. Since the periodic adjustments 

would be the product of a published 

mathematical formula, there would be 

no need to engage in a notice and 

comment rulemaking proceeding for 

each future adjustment. 

We seek comments on whether the 

proposed increase in DBC minimum 

limits is called for and whether any 

such increase based on the CPI–U 

calculation is a reasonable basis for 

updating those limits or whether some 

other amounts would be more 

appropriate to adequately compensate 

passengers for the inconvenience and 

financial loss brought about by 

involuntary denied boarding. If not, by 

how much should the amounts be 

increased, if at all? We also ask for 

comment on whether we should 

completely eliminate minimum 

compensation limits and simply require 

that carriers base DBC to be paid to 

involuntarily bumped passengers on 

100% or 200% of a passenger’s fare, 

without limit, and/or whether the 100% 

and 200% rates need to be increased in 

line with the proposed increase in the 

$400/$800 compensation limits 

proposed above, perhaps to 200% and 

400% of the passenger’s fare, or higher. 

This would account for the fact that the 

actual cost for flying is likely to have 

increased while what is commonly 

referred to as the ‘‘fare’’ may not have 

increased as a result of the carriers’ 

current practice of unbundling fares, 

i.e., charging extra for once-free 

amenities, e.g., checked baggage, food, 

preferred seats, etc. 

We are also proposing to clarify that 

Part 250 applies to passengers who hold 

‘‘zero fare tickets,’’ e.g., passengers who 

‘‘purchased’’ air transportation with 

frequent flyer mileage or airline travel 

vouchers, passengers who travel on socalled ‘‘free’’ companion tickets, or 

passengers who hold a ‘‘consolidator’’ 

ticket that does not display a monetary 

price. For the most part, these ticket 

holders have ‘‘paid’’ only government 

taxes and fees and, perhaps, carrierimposed administrative fees for 

ticketing. In this regard, we propose to 

amend the definition of ‘‘confirmed 

reserved space’’ to specify that zero fare 

ticket holders have the same rights and 

eligibility for DBC as any other 

passenger who used cash, check or 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
32326 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 109 / Tuesday, June 8, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

credit card to purchase his or her 

airfare. Passengers with zero-fare tickets 

earned those tickets in some fashion, 

e.g. by exceeding a particular frequentflyer threshold, agreeing to accept a 

travel voucher as settlement of a 

consumer claim or complaint, etc. 

When these passengers are 

involuntarily denied boarding, they, like 

passengers who paid fully in money for 

the tickets, suffer inconvenience and/or 

financial losses. We propose that the 

basis for determining the amount of 

DBC due a passenger holding a zero fare 

ticket who is involuntarily bumped, i.e., 

the ‘‘passenger’s fare,’’ be the fare of the 

lowest priced ticket available (paid by 

cash, check, or credit card) for a 

comparable class of ticket on the same 

flight. For example, if an involuntarily 

bumped passenger used frequent flyer 

miles to obtain a confirmed, nonrefundable roundtrip coach ticket 

having no restrictions, the basis for 

calculating the DBC amount due to that 

passenger would be the lowest fare that 

was available for a confirmed, roundtrip 

coach ticket on the same flight. Under 

this proposal, a carrier would be 

required to provide the same form of 

DBC to zero-fare passengers as to other 

passengers denied boarding 

involuntarily, i.e. cash or check, or a 

travel voucher of the passenger’s choice 

under the conditions described in 

existing section 250.5(b) if the passenger 

agrees. We seek comment not only on 

whether zero fare ticket holders should 

receive DBC under part 250, but also on 

whether the cash method described 

above for calculating DBC to be paid 

such zero fare ticket holders is 

reasonable and would truly capture 

these passengers’ losses due to being 

bumped involuntarily to the same 

extent as for cash/check/credit ticket 

holders. This proposal is consistent 

with guidance DOT has given to carriers 

in the past. 

A possible alternative to the above 

proposed method of compensation 

would be to allow carriers to 

compensate zero fare ticket holders 

using the same ‘‘currency’’ in which the 

tickets were obtained. For instance, 

under this alternative an involuntarily 

bumped passenger who used frequent 

flyer miles to purchase a ticket would be 

eligible to be compensated with 

mileage, the currency used to obtain 

that flight. Under the current rule, this 

would amount to 100% or 200% of the 

amount of mileage that was used to 

purchase the ticket, plus a cash amount 

if appropriate to account for any taxes, 

fees and administrative costs paid to 

obtain the ticket. Similarly, 

involuntarily bumped passengers who 

used a voucher to purchase a ticket, in 

whole or in part, would be eligible to be 

compensated with a voucher worth 

100% or 200% of the value of their 

original voucher, and an appropriate 

cash payment if a portion of the ticket 

was paid for in that manner. We also 

seek comment on any other alternative 

method of calculating DBC for zero fare 

ticket holders that would best quantify 

the financial loss and inconvenience to 

those passengers. How should the rule 

quantify the value of the remaining 

travel portion (either to the next 

stopover, or if none, to the final 

destination) if the DBC were to be paid 

with frequent flyer miles? 

Another area that we believe needs 

further improvement is the disclosure 

provisions in our current oversales rule. 

These provisions were established 

because passengers deserve to know 

about the possibility, however remote, 

of an oversale occurring and because 

only a well-informed passenger can 

make a proper choice when faced with 

the option of volunteering to be bumped 

from a flight. We propose in this 

proceeding to reinforce required 

disclosures to ensure that passengers 

will be aware of their rights when 

making decisions regarding whether to 

volunteer for denied boarding and/or 

whether to accept a travel voucher in 

lieu of cash or a check as DBC if they 

are bumped involuntarily. 

The existing required disclosures can 

be found in sections 250.2b 250.9 and 

250.11. Section 250.2b(b) sets forth 

conditions and requirements that 

carriers must comply with when 

soliciting volunteers on an oversold 

flight. Specifically, it requires that 

carriers inform each passenger who is 

solicited to volunteer to be bumped 

whether he or she is in danger of being 

involuntarily denied boarding and the 

compensation to which they would be 

entitled in that event. In addition, 

section 250.9 specifies the written 

explanation of DBC and boarding 

priorities that must be provided to 

passengers involuntarily oversold, 

which statement also must be provided 

to any person who requests it at any 

location a carrier sells tickets and at its 

boarding gates. Section 250.11 requires 

that carriers provide at each station they 

or their agents sell tickets a prescribed 

notice advising persons of their basic 

rights in an oversale situation and that 

they are entitled to detailed information 

upon request. 

Despite these required disclosures, we 

are concerned that passengers may not 

be aware of their rights when making 

decisions regarding whether to 

volunteer for denied boarding and/or 

accept a travel voucher because of the 

manner in which carriers offer free or 

reduced air transportation. Agents often 

verbally advise passengers of the offer of 

a travel voucher and its amount. 

Although in the case of involuntarily 

bumped passengers, this offer must be 

accompanied by the written notice of 

the passenger’s right to insist on DBC by 

cash or check, there currently is no 

express requirement that this notice be 

given verbally. We are concerned that 

these passengers who are verbally 

offered a travel voucher may not have 

time to read the written notice and are 

not in fact verbally told by an agent that 

they are entitled to compensation by 

cash or check. Likewise, they may not 

be adequately informed of any 

conditions or limitations placed on the 

vouchers they are receiving. 

Accordingly, we are proposing that in 

any case in which a carrier verbally 

offers an involuntarily bumped 

passenger free or reduced-rate air 

transportation as an alternative to cash 

DBC, it also must at the same time 

verbally advise that passenger of his or 

her right to insist on compensation by 

cash or check and the actual amount of 

such compensation that would be due 

and of any conditions or restrictions 

applicable to the vouchers. This 

proposed requirement would not, if 

adopted, alter the carriers’ responsibility 

to provide the written DBC notice 

required by section 250.9, nor would it 

require carriers in all instances to 

provide verbal advice to passengers. But 

as a practical matter, verbal exchanges 

between carrier agents and passengers 

in oversale situations are the quickest 

and easiest form of communication and 

consumers are entitled to a fair 

presentation of their options during 

such situations. Therefore, if a carrier 

chooses to offer a passenger DBC in a 

form other than cash or check and to do 

so verbally, under this proposal it must 

also verbally advise the passenger about 

the cash/check option. 

Furthermore, we are proposing to 

prohibit carriers from offering or 

providing to volunteers solicited to be 

bumped, or to passengers involuntarily 

bumped, free or reduced-rate air 

transportation other than on an 

unrestricted basis, unless the carrier 

provides direct verbal notice to such 

passengers of any restrictions on such 

free or reduced rate air transportation. 

While the written notice required to be 

provided passengers under section 

250.9 suggests that carriers must 

disclose material restrictions in any free 

or reduced rate compensation offered, 

the requirement is not specifically 

reflected in any section of the rule itself, 

a shortcoming that we believe should be 

remedied. We ask for comment on our 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 109 / Tuesday, June 8, 2010 / Proposed Rules 32327 

proposals here as well as on whether 

there are any other forms of notice that 

might better inform passengers being 

requested to volunteer to be bumped, or 

those involuntarily bumped, of their 

rights and carriers’ obligations. 

The current disclosure rule does not 

define how the carriers should describe 

to passengers who are solicited to 

volunteer to be bumped the likelihood 

of being involuntarily denied boarding. 

In this NPRM, we propose to 

specifically require that carriers must 

inform the solicited passengers about 

their principal boarding priority rules 

applicable to the specific flight. Hence, 

the passengers can apply the boarding 

priority rules to their situations and 

more accurately estimate the likelihood 

of their being involuntarily denied 

boarding. By ‘‘principal boarding 

priority rules’’ we are referring to 

procedures such as bumping passengers 

involuntarily based on their fare, on 

when they checked in, or on whether 

they held seat assignments. Carriers 

need not recite specialized priorities 

such as those for unaccompanied 

minors or passengers with disabilities 

except where those priorities apply to a 

particular passenger. This information is 

significant if a passenger is willing to 

give up his or her confirmed reserved 

space but could not determine whether 

to accept the volunteer compensation 

offer or to wait until he or she would be 

involuntarily bumped. For instance, if 

the carrier informs the passengers that it 

will use the check-in time as its 

principal boarding priority criterion, a 

passenger willing to give up his or her 

seat on the flight in exchange for a 

sufficiently large cash compensation 

amount may choose to reject the 

volunteer compensation offer if he or 

she checked in at the last minute, 

knowing that the chance of being denied 

boarding involuntarily is high and that 

being involuntarily bumped would 

require a higher amount of 

compensation in cash from the carrier. 

Also material to the solicited 

passengers as decision makers is the 

availability of ‘‘comparable air 

transportation’’ provided to passengers 

who are involuntary denied boarding. 

Under the current DBC structure, if the 

passengers can reach their next stopover 

or, if none, their final destination within 

one hour of the planned arrival time of 

the original flight, the passengers are not 

required to be provided DBC. If the 

delay for a domestic flight is more than 

one hour but less than two hours (four 

hours for an international flight), the 

DBC rate is 100% of the passenger’s 

one-way fare. For delays that exceed 

this two/four hour timeframe, the DBC 

rate is 200% of the passenger’s one-way 

fare. Thus for a passenger who is 

considering rejecting the volunteer offer 

in hopes of receiving involuntary DBC, 

it is material to know how likely it is, 

if involuntarily denied boarding, that 

the passenger’s delay would exceed the 

one/two/four hour(s) limits. We seek 

comments on whether we should 

require this disclosure to every 

passenger the carrier solicits to 

volunteer and if so, what form, e.g., 

verbal or written, the disclosure should 

take. 

We are also considering expanding 

the applicability of the oversales rule to 

the operations of U.S. certificated and 

commuter carriers and foreign carriers 

using aircraft originally designed for 19 

or more seats. Currently, Part 250 

applies to all U.S. certificated and 

commuter air carriers and foreign 

carriers with respect to specified 

scheduled flight segments using an 

aircraft originally designed to have a 

passenger capacity of 30 or more seats. 

We have concerns that many carriers 

use code-share partners for their 

connecting services to smaller points, 

some of whom operate aircraft with 19– 

29 seats. Such flight segments are not 

covered by part 250, but are associated 

with the identity of a large carrier and 

many, if not most, are ‘‘fee for service’’ 

flights under the total control of the 

large carrier, which controls booking. 

Should we allow those flights to be 

oversold at all? If we do, should Part 

250 be applicable in its entirety? 

7. Full Fare Advertising 

The Department is proposing to 

amend its rule on price advertising (14 

CFR 399.84). The Department adopted 

this rule in 1984, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 

41712 (formerly section 411 of the 

Federal Aviation Act), which empowers 

the Department to prohibit unfair and 

deceptive practices and unfair methods 

of competition in air transportation and 

its sale. The rule states that the 

Department considers any 

advertisement that states a price for air 

transportation that is not the total price 

to be paid by the consumer to be an 

unfair and deceptive practice in 

violation of 49 U.S.C. 41712. However, 

the Department’s enforcement policy 

regarding this rule has permitted certain 

government-imposed charges to be 

stated separately from this total price. 

Under this policy, taxes and fees that 

are collected by a carrier on a perperson basis, are imposed by a 

government entity, and are not ad 

valorem in nature are allowed to be 

excluded from an advertised fare. The 

existence, nature, and amount of these 

additional taxes and fees must be clearly 

indicated where the airfare first appears 

in the ad, so that the consumer can 

easily calculate the total price to be 

paid. The Department has consistently 

prohibited sellers of air transportation 

from breaking out any other fee, 

including fuel surcharges, service fees, 

and taxes imposed on an ad valorem 

basis. This policy has been articulated 

in a number of industry letters and 

guidance documents; see http:// 

airconsumer.dot.gov/rules/ 

guidance.htm. 

The Department is considering 

changing its enforcement policy 

concerning this rule to enforce the ‘‘full 

price advertising’’ provision of the rule 

as it is written and, consistent with 

longstanding Department enforcement 

policy, to clarify that the rule applies to 

ticket agents. This change in 

enforcement policy would also include 

a requirement that all advertisers 

include all mandatory fees in the 

advertised price. Given technological 

innovations and new methods of 

communication, carriers and ticket 

agents are finding new and creative 

ways to advertise airfares, some of 

which circumvent the spirit if not the 

letter of the full-price advertising rule 

and Department enforcement policy. 

Consumers now receive airfare 

solicitations through print 

advertisements, radio advertisements, 

internet advertisements, and 

solicitations sent directly to consumers 

via e-mail newsletters, social 

networking Web sites, text messages, 

and applications designed for many 

different kinds of cell phones. The ease 

and speed of information sharing also 

allows airfare information to be 

presented to consumers in many 

different forms. Even in cases where 

those forms of advertising comply in a 

technical sense with our enforcement 

policy with regard to the full-price 

advertising rule, we are concerned that 

in many cases consumers are not easily 

able to determine the total cost of air 

transportation services or are deceived 

regarding the true price. Accordingly, 

we believe consumers would be better 

served if we enforce our existing fullprice rule as written and prohibit the 

practice of advertising fares that exclude 

any mandatory fees or surcharges, 

regardless of the source. In proposing 

this change in policy, we do not intend 

to foreclose carriers and ticket agents 

from advising the public in their fare 

solicitations about government taxes 

and fees, or other mandatory carrier- or 

ticket agent-imposed charges applicable 

to their airfares. However, we no longer 

see a useful purpose in presenting what 

purportedly are ‘‘fares’’ to consumers 

that do not include numerous required 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
32328 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 109 / Tuesday, June 8, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

charges and, in our view only act to 

confuse or deceive consumers regarding 

the true full price and to make price 

comparisons difficult or improbable. 

Our objective is to ensure that 

consumers are not be deceived or 

confused about the total fare they must 

pay, which we believe can best be 

ensured by requiring that consumers be 

able to see clearly the entire price of the 

air transportation being advertised 

whenever a price is displayed rather 

than having to wade through a myriad 

of footnotes and/or hyperlinks regarding 

government taxes and fees and make the 

full-price calculation themselves to try 

to establish which among many 

displayed ‘‘fares’’ is the real fare or wait 

until the purchase screen to see the total 

fare. 

The Department’s statutory authority 

under 49 U.S.C. 41712 to prohibit unfair 

and deceptive practices and unfair 

methods of competition applies not only 

to air carriers but also to ‘‘ticket agents’’ 

which includes those persons other than 

a carrier ‘‘that as a principal or agent 

sells, offers for sale, negotiates for, or 

holds itself out as selling, providing, or 

arranging for air transportation.’’ 49 

U.S.C. 40102(a)(40). Although the 

Department’s full-price advertising rule 

applies on its face to direct and indirect 

air carriers as well as ‘‘an agent of 

either,’’ it has been the longstanding 

policy of the Department to consider 

ticket agents as defined in title 49 to be 

subject to that rule. The Department 

believes it appropriate to specifically 

name ‘‘ticket agents’’ as being covered by 

the rule in order to ensure there is no 

confusion about their inclusion under 

the deceptive practice prohibitions of 

the rule. 

Air transportation is unlike any other 

industry in that the Department has the 

sole authority to regulate airlines’ fare 

advertisements by prohibiting practices 

that are unfair or deceptive. Congress 

modeled section 41712 on section 5 of 

the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) 

Act, 15 U.S.C.A. 45, but by its own 

terms, that statute cannot be enforced by 

FTC against ‘‘air carriers and foreign air 

carriers,’’ 15 U.S.C. 45(a)(2). The States 

are preempted from regulating in this 

area (49 U.S.C. 41713, see Morales v. 

Trans World Airlines, 504 U.S. 374, 112 

S.Ct.2031, 119 L.Ed.2d 157 (1992)). 

Thus, unlike advertising in other 

industries, where either the States or the 

FTC, or both, can take action against 

abusive practices, if we do not exercise 

our authority, consumers and 

competitors have no governmental 

recourse against advertising that is 

unfair or deceptive. Further, we do not 

believe that 49 U.S.C. 41712 gives rise 

to a private right of action; see Love v. 

Delta Air Lines, 310 F.3d 1347 (11th 

Cir.2002), Boswell v. Skywest Airlines, 

Inc., 361 F.3d 1263 (10th Cir. 2004); see 

also Alexander v. Sandoval 532 U.S. 

275, 286, 121 S.Ct. 1511, 149 L.Ed.2d 

517 (2001). 

The Department invites comments on 

its proposal to change its enforcement 

policy under section 399.84 from one of 

permitting limited exceptions to 

disclosing the full price in all 

advertising of air transportation and air 

tours to requiring disclosure of the full 

price to be paid by a consumer 

whenever a price is displayed, and its 

proposal to specify in the rule that it 

applies to ‘‘ticket agents.’’ Specific 

questions on which the Department 

invites comments regarding this policy 

shift include how sellers of air 

transportation foresee this affecting the 

methods they use to advertise fares, how 

consumers view the proposed change, 

and the potential cost in changing the 

current advertising structures that 

carriers and ticket agents have in place 

to ensure compliance with the current 

policy of the Department. 

Additionally, the Department is 

considering adding two new paragraphs 

to the price advertising rule. We 

propose adding paragraph (b) which 

would codify the Department’s current 

enforcement policy on each-way airfare 

advertising. Currently, the Department 

allows sellers of air transportation to 

advertise an each-way price that is 

contingent on a roundtrip ticket 

purchase, so long as the roundtrip 

purchase requirement is clearly and 

conspicuously disclosed in a location 

that is prominent and proximate to the 

advertised fare amount. This proposal 

would codify existing enforcement 

policy and would also preclude carriers 

from referring to such fares as ‘‘one-way’’ 

fares, which they are not. The 

Department invites interested persons to 

comment on adding this paragraph on 

each-way airfare advertising policy to 

the price advertising rule. The 

Department also invites comment on 

whether a rule similar to that proposed 

for each-way fare advertising disclosure 

should be applied to air/hotel packages 

that advertise a single price, but are sold 

at that price only on a double 

occupancy basis, i.e., where two people 

must purchase the package in order to 

obtain the advertised price. 

The second provision the Department 

proposes to add to the price advertising 

rule in section 399.84 would prohibit 

so-called ‘‘opt-out’’ provisions in price 

advertising. The Department has noticed 

a trend lately in the air transportation 

industry to add fees for ancillary 

services and products to the total price 

of air transportation, which charges the 

consumer is deemed to have accepted 

unless he or she affirmatively opts out 

of the service and related charges. For 

example, carriers may allow a consumer 

to select a preferred seat or receive 

priority boarding status if he or she pays 

a predetermined fee. In some cases the 

optional services and accompanying 

charges for those services is pre-selected 

and added to the total fare without the 

consumer affirmatively choosing those 

optional services or fees. This often is 

accomplished on a Web site through use 

of a small box that is pre-checked and 

must be ‘‘unchecked’’ by a consumer in 

order to avoid the charge. This can be 

deceptive depending on the layout of 

the webpage and instructions 

accompanying the service and charge. 

What can be even more problematic is 

that opt-out provisions are sometimes 

included on the same webpage as optin provisions, in which case it is much 

less likely that consumers will notice 

the opt-out nature of certain optional 

services that carry additional charges. 

The Department proposes adding a 

paragraph (c) to section 399.84 to 

prohibit such opt-out procedures. 

Proposed paragraph (c) would provide 

that if a carrier offers optional services, 

the consumer must affirmatively opt in 

to accept and purchase that product or 

service before the price for that service 

can be added to the total airfare to be 

paid. No longer will carriers or ticket 

agents be allowed to require that a 

consumer opt out of purchasing such 

products or services in order to avoid 

being charged for them. The proposed 

rule, as part of the current full-price 

advertising rule, would also apply to 

carriers and ticket agents that advertise 

tours which include air transportation. 

Examples of such opt-out procedures 

the Department has seen in recent years 

include fees for travel insurance, rental 

cars, transfers between airports and 

hotels, priority boarding, premium 

seats, and extra legroom. Oftentimes the 

consumer does not realize that the 

ancillary services are included in the 

total price of the ticket due to the 

deceptive nature of such opt-out 

provisions. The Department asks 

interested persons to comment on 

adding the proposed subsection (c) to 

the existing price advertising rule. The 

Department would like to hear from 

both sellers of air transportation and 

consumers about the costs and benefits 

of prohibiting opt-out features. 

8. Baggage and Other Fees and Related 

Code-Share Issues 

With the increasing industry-wide 

trend to ‘‘unbundle’’ fares by charging 

fees for individual services provided in 

connection with air transportation, the 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 109 / Tuesday, June 8, 2010 / Proposed Rules 32329 

Department has decided that there is a 

need to enhance protections for air 

travelers by establishing rules to ensure 

adequate notice of such fees for optional 

services to consumers. When booking 

air travel, consumers are not always 

made aware of the extra charges that a 

carrier may impose on them for 

additional services. Such charges may 

include services that traditionally have 

been included in the ticket price, such 

as the carriage of one or two checked 

bags, obtaining seat assignments in 

advance, in-flight entertainment, and inflight food and beverage service. In fact, 

the Airline Tariff Publishing Company 

(ATPCO), which collects schedule and 

fare information from airlines for use in 

computerized reservation systems, has 

developed a list containing scores of 

ancillary charges in various categories. 

Due to what the Department feels is 

sometimes a lack of clear and adequate 

disclosure, consumers are not always 

able to determine the full price of their 

travel (the ticket price plus the price of 

additional fees for optional services) 

prior to purchase. 

We also seek comment on the costs 

and benefits of requiring that two prices 

be provided in certain airfare 

advertising—the full fare, including all 

mandatory charges, as well as that full 

fare plus the cost of baggage charges that 

traditionally have been included in the 

price of the ticket, if these prices differ. 

We would regard charges for one 

personal item (e.g., a purse or laptop 

computer), one carry-on bag, and one or 

two checked bags as baggage charges 

that traditionally have been included in 

the price of a ticket. Should such a 

requirement for a second price, if 

adopted, be limited to the full fare plus 

the cost of baggage charges? Should the 

Department require carriers to include 

in the second price all services that 

traditionally have been included in the 

price of the ticket such as obtaining seat 

assignments in advance? Why or why 

not? In the alternative, the Department 

is considering requiring sellers of air 

transportation to display on their Web 

sites information regarding a full price 

including optional fees selected by the 

passenger when a prospective passenger 

conducts a query for a particular 

itinerary. In other words, passengers 

would be able to conduct queries for 

their specific needs (e.g., airfare and 2 

checked bags; air fare, 1 checked bag, 

and extra legroom). The benefit of this 

approach is that consumers would be 

able to more easily compare airfares and 

charges for their own particular 

itinerary and options. We invite 

comment on this approach, including its 

feasibility, as well as its costs to airlines 

and ticket agents. 

The Department believes that effective 

disclosure of the optional nature of 

services and their costs would prevent 

carriers from imposing hidden fees on 

consumers and allow consumers to 

make better informed decisions when 

purchasing air travel. In 2008, the 

Department’s Aviation Enforcement 

Office issued guidance concerning the 

disclosure of baggage fees to the public. 

See, e.g., Notice of the Assistant General 

Counsel for Aviation Enforcement and 

Proceedings, ‘‘Guidance on Disclosure of 

Policies and Charges Associated with 

Checked Baggage,’’ May 13, 2008, 

http://airconsumer.dot.gov/rules/ 

guidance.htm. We propose to codify this 

guidance and also cover in the rule 

notice of charges for services other than 

checked baggage. 

More specifically, the Department is 

proposing to adopt three provisions in 

a proposed new 14 CFR 399.85. 

Proposed section 399.85(a) would 

require carriers that maintain a Web site 

accessible to the general public to 

prominently disclose on the homepage 

of such Web site any increase in the fee 

for passenger baggage or any change in 

the free baggage allowance for checked 

or carry-on bags (e.g., size, weight, 

number). This could be done, for 

example, through direct, prominent 

notice or through a conspicuous notice 

of the existence of such fees in a 

hyperlink that takes the reader directly 

to an explanation of the carrier’s 

baggage policies and charges. The 

proposed rule would require this notice 

to remain on the homepage of the 

carrier’s Web site for at least three 

months after the change is made. The 

Department invites interested persons to 

comment on this proposal, including 

whether the time period for displaying 

such changes on the homepage should 

be greater or less than three months. The 

Department also asks for comment on 

the best options for displaying such 

information to the public if it were to 

adopt a notice requirement. 

Proposed section 399.85(b) would 

require carriers that issue e-ticket 

confirmations to passengers to include 

information regarding their free baggage 

allowance and/or the applicable fee for 

a carry-on bag or the first and second 

checked bag on the e-ticket 

confirmation. By providing this 

information to consumers on the e-ticket 

confirmation—the document that 

confirms a passenger’s travel on the 

carrier—passengers will be informed 

well before the flight date and arrival at 

the airport of the applicable baggage 

rules and charges. The Department 

believes that including this information 

on the e-ticket confirmation will permit 

passengers to avoid unexpected baggage 

charges to the extent possible and also 

save time at the airport for both 

passengers and carrier personnel 

because the passengers will be better 

informed about the baggage allowance 

and any charges to be incurred. 

Proposed section 399.85(c) would 

require carriers that have a Web site 

accessible to the general public to 

disclose all fees for optional services to 

consumers through a prominent link on 

their homepage that leads directly to a 

listing of those fees. Optional services 

include but are not limited to the cost 

of a carry-on bag, checking baggage, 

advance seat assignments, in-flight food 

and beverage service, in-flight 

entertainment, blankets, pillows, or 

other comfort items, and fees for seat 

upgrades. The Department feels that 

having all of the fees for optional 

services in one place for consumers to 

review will help ensure that consumers 

do not encounter such charges 

unexpectedly and that they can more 

easily compare these charges among 

competing carriers. Additionally, 

disclosure as proposed will result in 

this important cost information being 

presented in a clear and concise form 

and reduce the prospect of delays at the 

airport and in-flight that can occur 

when the consumer is unaware of 

charges for optional services. The 

Department invites comments regarding 

the proposal to have full, complete 

disclosure of all fees for optional 

services on one Web page, accessible to 

the consumer through a prominent 

hyperlink. In particular, we solicit 

comment on whether we should limit 

the requirement to disclose fees to 

‘‘significant’’ fees for optional services, 

including comment on the definition of 

‘‘significant fee’’ and whether it should 

be defined as a particular dollar amount. 

The Department seeks comment on the 

alternatives to the proposed link to the 

information on a carrier’s homepage, 

such as disclosure of these optional fees 

on e-ticket confirmations or elsewhere. 

The Department is also considering 

requiring that carriers make all the 

information that must be made directly 

available to consumers via proposed 

section 399.85 available to global 

distribution systems (GDS’s) in which 

they participate in an up-to-date fashion 

and useful format. This would ensure 

that the information is readily available 

to both Internet and ‘‘brick and mortar’’ 

travel agencies and ticket agents so that 

it can be passed on to the many 

consumers who use their services to 

compare air transportation offers and 

make purchases. We invite comments 

on this proposal, including the present 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
32330 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 109 / Tuesday, June 8, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

ability of carriers to meet this 

requirement, the potential costs of the 

requirement, including costs of 

developing new software or systems to 

deliver such information to GDS’s, if 

necessary, and the benefits of this 

requirement. 

The proposed section 399.85 would 

apply to all U.S. and foreign air carriers 

that have Web sites accessible to the 

general public in the United States 

through which tickets are sold, as well 

as to their agents. The Department 

invites comment on alternative 

proposals, including limiting the 

applicability of the proposed section 

399.85 to all flights operated by U.S. 

carriers, U.S. and foreign carriers that 

operate any aircraft with sixty (60) or 

more seats, or U.S. and foreign carriers 

that operate any aircraft with thirty (30) 

or more seats. In addition, we invite 

comment on whether the rule should 

apply to all ticket agents, as defined in 

49 U.S.C. § 40102, which includes not 

just agents of carriers, but also others 

who, as a principal, ‘‘sells, offers for 

sale, negotiates for, or holds itself out as 

selling, providing, or arranging for air 

transportation.’’ Under proposed section 

399.85, the Department would consider 

the failure of a carrier to give consumers 

appropriate notice about baggage fees 

and other optional fees to be an unfair 

and deceptive practice in violation of 49 

U.S.C. 41712. 

The Department is also seeking 

comment on the need for a special rule 

relating to the disclosure of fees and 

related restrictions in connection with 

code-share service. It has come to the 

Department’s attention that many 

carriers operating flights under a codeshare agreement impose different fees 

and restrictions than those of the carrier 

under whose identity the service is 

marketed, notwithstanding the fact that 

as a condition for approval of 

international code-share services, the 

Department has as a matter of policy 

required that ‘‘the carrier selling such 

transportation (i.e., the carrier shown on 

the ticket) accept responsibility for the 

entirety of the code-share journey for all 

obligations established in the contract of 

carriage with the passenger; and that the 

passenger liability of the operating 

carrier be unaffected.’’ See, Notice of the 

Assistant General Counsel for Aviation 

Enforcement and Proceedings, 

‘‘Guidance on Airline Baggage Liability 

and Responsibilities of Code-Share 

Partners Involving International 

Itineraries,’’ http://airconsumer.dot.gov/ 

rules, March 26, 2009. For example, 

they may have different free baggage 

allowances and different charges for 

extra pieces and overweight bags, some 

may not allow unaccompanied minors 

while others do (perhaps subject to 

varying charges and various age 

restrictions), and some may not provide 

in-flight medical oxygen while others do 

(subject to different charges). We believe 

that, at a minimum, prospective 

customers for these code-share flights 

should be made aware of any significant 

differences between the ancillary 

services and fees of the carrier under 

whose identity their service was 

marketed and those of the carrier 

operating their flights. Comments are 

invited on whether such disclosure by 

ticketing/marketing carriers should be 

required through reservation agents, 

Web sites, or e-ticket confirmations or 

through each of those mechanisms. 

Further comment is invited on whether 

there are any ancillary services that 

should not be allowed to vary among 

code-share partners, e.g., the free 

baggage allowance or baggage fees. For 

example, Department policy provides 

that for passengers whose ultimate 

ticketed origin or destination is a U.S. 

point, the baggage rules that apply at the 

beginning of the itinerary apply 

throughout the itinerary, and the 

ticketing carrier’s rules take precedence. 

See, e.g., Order 2009–9–20, Dockets 

OST–2008–0367 and 0370, ‘‘Agreements 

adopted by the Tariff Coordinating 

Conference of the International Air 

Transport Association relating to 

passenger baggage matters,’’ September 

30, 2009. Information on the cost of 

these proposals is invited. 

9. Post-Purchase Price Increases 

The Department is proposing a new 

section in 14 CFR part 399 that would 

prohibit post-purchase price increases 

in air transportation or air tours by 

carriers and ticket agents. The seller of 

air transportation would be prohibited 

from raising the price after the 

consumer completes the purchase. 

Currently, the Department allows postpurchase price increases as long as any 

term that permits a carrier to increase 

the price after purchase is included in 

the conditions of carriage and the 

consumer receives direct notice of that 

provision on or with the ticket. See 14 

CFR 253.7. The Department has found 

that some sellers of air transportation 

are abusing this rule by burying 

provisions purporting to permit them to 

raise the price in the contract of carriage 

or conditions of travel and merely 

providing the consumer a hyperlink to 

the contract of carriage or conditions of 

travel. The consumer is unaware of the 

potential for such increase until well 

after the purchase is made. Although we 

have not seen carriers resort to this 

problematic practice, we have often 

found this to be the case in the sale of 

tour packages that include air 

transportation, where an air tour 

operator will increase the price of an air 

tour before travel, ostensibly in order to 

pass along fuel surcharges or an increase 

in the price of a seat. Consumers are not 

made aware of the potential for a price 

increase at the time of purchase, and 

therefore are deceived when the 

increase is imposed and the seller uses 

the terms of the contract of carriage to 

justify an additional collection. 

Moreover, most airlines and tour 

operators will advertise and sell tickets 

or packages at a stated price nearly a 

year in advance of scheduled travel. We 

are tentatively of the opinion that it is 

patently unfair for a carrier or tour 

operator to advertise and sell air 

transportation at a particular price long 

before travel, with the caveat that they 

reserve the right to change the 

advertised price at any time before 

travel, and in any amount. The 

Department feels it is time to ban the 

practice of post-purchase price 

increases. 

The Department invites interested 

parties to comment on this proposal and 

on several alternatives. As indicated 

above, the Department’s primary 

proposal is an outright ban on postpurchase price increases. One 

alternative the Department is 

considering would be to allow postpurchase price increases, but only as 

long as the seller of air transportation 

conspicuously discloses to the 

consumer the potential for such an 

increase and the maximum amount of 

the increase, and the consumer 

affirmatively agrees to the potential for 

such an increase prior to purchasing the 

ticket. Another alternative would be to 

allow post-purchase price increases, 

with full and adequate disclosure, that 

the consumer agrees to in advance of 

purchasing a ticket, but to prohibit price 

increases within thirty or sixty days of 

the first flight in a consumer’s itinerary. 

10. Flight Status Changes 

We are proposing to require that 

certificated air carriers that account for 

at least 1 percent of domestic scheduled 

passenger revenues (reporting carriers) 

promptly notify passengers in the 

boarding gate area of changes to their 

domestic scheduled flights resulting 

from delays or cancellations, promptly 

update all domestic scheduled flight 

information under their control at 

airports regarding changes to the status 

of particular flights as a result of delays 

or cancellations and promptly update 

flight status details available on their 

Web sites and through their telephone 

reservation systems. ‘‘Domestic 

scheduled flight’’ for this purpose means 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 109 / Tuesday, June 8, 2010 / Proposed Rules 32331 

a flight segment. For example, on a 

direct flight from Chicago to London 

with a stop in New York, the ChicagoNew York segment would be covered by 

this requirement. The Department 

tentatively believes that the cost of 

requiring smaller carriers to provide this 

information outweighs the benefits to 

consumers in general in light of the fact 

that the operations of the reporting 

carriers account for nearly 90 percent of 

all domestic passenger enplanements. 

We ask for comment on whether the 

regulation should cover a greater 

number of carriers and operations, 

including operations of smaller U.S. 

carriers and/or international operations 

of U.S. and foreign carriers. 

What would be the cost or benefit of 

expanding coverage to those additional 

carriers? 

It is important to passengers as well 

as persons dropping passengers off for 

outbound flights or meeting passengers 

on incoming flights to be kept informed 

on a timely basis of delays and/or 

cancellations affecting their flights in 

order to avoid unnecessary waits at, or 

pointless trips to, an airport. Passengers 

also need flight status updates as soon 

as they become available in order to 

make decisions about alternate travel 

plans. Carriers recognize the importance 

of timely and accurate flight 

information, as evidenced by the fact 

that many of the largest U.S. carriers 

promise through their customer service 

plans to provide passengers all known 

information about delays and 

cancellations as soon as they become 

aware of the issue. Failures by carriers 

to provide timely or accurate flight 

status information not only 

inconvenience passengers and other 

members of the public but also can 

result in additional expenses to those 

persons. 

Our proposals here are intended to 

provide additional measures to ensure 

that passengers and the general public 

know about flight delays and 

cancellations within a reasonable time 

so that they can, if possible, take steps 

to protect themselves and avoid 

unnecessary loss of time and expense. 

We are therefore proposing that carriers 

promptly notify passengers holding 

tickets or reservations on one of their 

flights as well as other interested parties 

about changes to a flight’s status, i.e., 

delays and cancellations, which affect 

the planned operation of the flight by at 

least 30 minutes. Additional 

notifications would be required if any 

such delayed flight was further delayed 

by 30 minutes or more. By ‘‘promptly’’ 

we mean that a carrier must provide the 

required notification regarding the 

status of a flight as soon as possible but 

no later than 30 minutes after the carrier 

becomes aware or should have become 

aware of a change in the status of the 

flight due to a delay or cancellation. 

This requirement would apply to all the 

domestic scheduled flight segments that 

a reporting carrier ‘‘markets.’’ For 

example, for a code-share flight this 

proposed notification requirement 

would be the responsibility of the 

carrier whose code is used, whether or 

not it is operated under a fee-for-service 

arrangement. 

We note that many covered carriers 

already voluntarily provide flight status 

details via the proposed methods 

proposed in this notice (i.e., 

announcement in boarding area, Web 

sites, telephone reservation systems, 

airport display boards). In addition, 

most of the largest carriers generally 

make efforts to notify passengers of 

changes to the status of their flights by 

permitting passengers to subscribe to 

flight status update services via various 

widely-used media, including 

computer-generated telephone/ 

voicemail, text messages, and e-mails. 

This proposal to promptly notify 

passengers and other interested parties 

of changes to flights as a result of delays 

or cancellations would not impose upon 

carriers a requirement to offer 

passengers the opportunity to subscribe 

to such a service but would require 

carriers to the extent that they use this 

or other methods of communication to 

ensure that the flight status changes are 

promptly updated. 

We seek comments on whether it is 

preferable to require carriers to provide 

prompt notification of flight status 

changes and leave it up to the carriers 

to determine how that notification is 

provided, or prescribe particular means 

by which carriers must communicate or 

must make available flight status 

updates. We ask for comment on the 

four proposed means of notification: an 

announcement in the boarding area, 

carriers’ Web sites, carriers’ telephone 

reservation systems, and airport 

displays under carriers’ control. 

Commenters should support their 

opinions with as much detail as 

possible regarding the practicality, 

costs, and benefits of any standard they 

support or oppose. We also seek 

comment about the cost and benefit of 

flight status update services. It goes 

without saying that the quicker that 

changes to a flight’s status can be 

provided to passengers, the more useful 

the information is likely to be. In 

addition to seeking comment on the 

need, in general, for this proposed 

notification requirement, we specifically 

ask for comment on whether the 

standard we propose—‘‘30 minutes after 

the carrier becomes aware or should 

have become aware of a change in the 

status of a flight’’—is a reasonable 

notification standard to apply in 

requiring carriers to pass along updates 

to passengers and to the public. Does it 

provide consumers sufficient lead time 

in most cases to act to protect 

themselves? If not, why not, and could 

carriers be expected to meet a more 

stringent standard? Is the more stringent 

standard a reasonable standard for 

carriers to meet and, if not, why not? 

In addition, we are proposing that 

notification be provided regarding any 

changes that affect the planned 

operation of a flight by at least 30 

minutes. While shorter flight delays 

occur more frequently, we believe they 

are less likely to significantly disrupt 

expectations or travel plans. We ask for 

comment on whether this 30-minute 

standard is appropriate. Do consumers 

in most instances require notice of flight 

delays that are less than 30 minutes? 

Would changing the standard of delays 

to less than 30 minutes impose 

unreasonable burdens or costs on 

carriers that outweigh any benefits to 

the public? According to data from the 

Department’s Bureau of Transportation 

Statistics (BTS), in calendar year 2009, 

approximately 10% of departure delays 

and 11% of arrival delays were over 30 

minutes. The majority of scheduled 

domestic passenger flights depart or 

arrive 1 to 14 minutes after their 

scheduled departure and arrival times, 

respectively. 

We note that the requirement to 

promptly update all domestic scheduled 

flight information under a carrier’s 

control at airports would cover all 

communication methods that are under 

the control of a carrier at an airport. For 

example, flight information provided 

via electronic or other display boards at 

airport counters and departure gates 

would be covered. We are not proposing 

at this time that carriers establish new 

types of flight information outlets but 

this requirement, if made final, would 

apply to every type of outlet a carrier 

elects to use to provide flight 

information to the public at airports. 

With respect to flight status information 

outlets at an airport that are not under 

a carrier’s control, e.g., flight arrival and 

departure displays that are under the 

control of an airport authority, a 

carrier’s responsibility is limited to 

providing the updated flight 

information to the airport authority 

within the required 30 minutes. 

11. Choice-of-Forum Provisions 

The Department is proposing to 

amend 14 CFR part 253, the Part that 

concerns notice of contract of carriage 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
32332 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 109 / Tuesday, June 8, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

terms, by adding a new section to codify 

the policy of the Department’s Aviation 

Enforcement Office that choice-of-forum 

provisions are unfair and deceptive 

when used to limit a passenger’s legal 

forum to a particular inconvenient 

venue. Choice-of-forum provisions 

purport to designate the court or 

jurisdiction where any lawsuit against 

the carrier concerning the purchased air 

transportation must be brought See, e.g., 

Notice of the Assistant General Counsel 

for Aviation Enforcement and 

Proceedings, ‘‘‘Choice of Forum’ 

Contract Provisions,’’ http:// 

airconsumer.dot.gov/rules/ 

19960715.htm (July 15, 1996). It is the 

Department’s view that for air 

transportation sold in the U.S., it would 

be an unfair or deceptive practice for the 

seller to attempt to prevent a passenger 

from seeking legal redress in any court 

of competent jurisdiction, including a 

court within the jurisdiction of the 

passenger’s residence, provided that the 

carrier does business within that 

jurisdiction. Consumers should not be 

forced to litigate in a jurisdiction that 

could be thousands of miles from their 

United States residence. The 

Department believes that such narrow 

choice-of-forum provisions would 

operate as a limitation on the right of a 

consumer to bring legitimate and viable 

suits. We invite interested persons to 

comment on this proposal and on the 

use of such choice-of-forum provisions 

in contracts of carriage. 

12. Peanut Allergies 

The Department is considering several 

different measures to provide greater 

access to air travel for individuals with 

severe peanut allergies in light of the 

significant number of children 

diagnosed with peanut allergies, some 

of whom do not fly because of health 

concerns related to peanut service on 

aircraft. The Air Carrier Access Act 

(ACAA) prohibits discrimination by 

U.S. and foreign air carriers against 

individuals with disabilities. The 

Department of Transportation defines an 

individual with a disability in 14 CFR 

part 382 (Part 382), the regulation 

implementing the ACAA. An individual 

with a disability is any individual who 

has a physical or mental impairment 

that, on a permanent or temporary basis, 

substantially limits one or more major 

life activities, has a record of such an 

impairment, or is regarded as having 

such an impairment. Generally, a person 

with an allergy is not an individual with 

a disability. However, if a person’s 

allergy is sufficiently severe to 

substantially limit a major life activity, 

then that person meets the definition of 

an individual with a disability. Part 382 

states that major life activities means 

functions such as caring for one’s self, 

performing manual tasks, walking, 

seeing, hearing, speaking, breathing, 

learning, and working. Airline 

passengers with severe allergies to 

peanuts have a qualifying disability as 

defined in part 382. 

Part 382 requires airlines to change or 

make an exception to an otherwise 

general policy or practice to make sure 

that a passenger with a disability can 

take the trip for which he or she is 

ticketed unless the change would cause 

an undue burden on the airline or a 

fundamental alteration in its services. 

The Department has in the past told 

airlines that, based on this requirement, 

they must make reasonable 

accommodations for air travelers who 

are allergic to peanuts. Specifically, in 

August 1998 the Department’s Aviation 

Enforcement Office sent an industry 

letter providing guidance on this issue. 

That letter suggested that, if given 

advance notice, providing a peanut-free 

buffer zone in the immediate area of a 

passenger with a medically-documented 

severe allergy to peanuts would be a 

reasonable accommodation for the 

passenger’s disability, and would not 

constitute an undue burden on the 

airline. 

After the issuance of the guidance 

letter, the Department was directed by 

Congress to cease issuing guidance on 

this subject or face a cutoff of funding 

for its Aviation Enforcement Office. See, 

for example, section 346 of Public Law 

106–69, (October 9, 1999)—‘‘DOT and 

Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 

2000,’’ which stated that none of the 

funds made available under that Act 

could be used to require or suggest that 

airlines provide peanut-free buffer zones 

or otherwise restrict the distribution of 

peanuts. This congressional prohibition 

was to remain in effect ‘‘until 90 days 

after submission to the Congress of a 

peer-reviewed scientific study that 

determined that there are severe 

reactions by passengers to peanuts as a 

result of contact with very small 

airborne peanut particles of the kind 

that passengers might encounter in an 

aircraft.’’ This specific congressional ban 

on our involvement in this issue has not 

appeared recently in any legislation. At 

this time, we are considering the 

following alternatives to provide greater 

access to air travel for individuals with 

severe peanut allergies: (1) Banning the 

serving of peanuts and all peanut 

products by both U.S. and foreign 

carriers on flights covered by DOT’s 

disability rule; (2) banning the serving 

of peanuts and all peanut products on 

all such flights where a passenger with 

a peanut allergy is on board and has 

requested a peanut-free flight in 

advance; or (3) requiring a peanut-free 

buffer zone in the immediate area of a 

passenger with a medically-documented 

severe allergy to peanuts if passenger 

has requested a peanut-free flight in 

advance. We seek comment on these 

approaches as well as the question of 

whether it would be preferable to 

maintain the current practice of not 

prescribing carrier practices concerning 

the serving of peanuts. We are 

particularly interested in hearing views 

on how peanuts and peanut products 

brought on board aircraft by passengers 

should be handled. How likely is it that 

a passenger with allergies to peanuts 

will have severe adverse health 

reactions by being exposed to the 

airborne transmission of peanut 

particles in an aircraft cabin (as opposed 

to ingesting peanuts orally)? Will taking 

certain specific steps to prepare for a 

flight (e.g., carrying an epinephrine 

auto-injector in order to immediately 

and aggressively treat an anaphylactic 

reaction) sufficiently protect individuals 

with severe peanut allergies? Who 

should be responsible for ensuring an 

epinephrine auto-injector is available on 

a flight—the passenger with a severe 

peanut allergy or the carrier? Is there 

recent scientific or anecdotal evidence 

of serious in-flight medical events 

related to the airborne transmission of 

peanut particles? Should any food item 

that contains peanuts be included 

within the definition of peanut products 

(e.g., peanut butter crackers, products 

containing peanut oil)? Is there a way of 

limiting this definition? 

13. Effective Date 

We propose that any final rule that we 

adopt take effect 180 days after its 

publication in the Federal Register. We 

believe this would allow sufficient time 

for carriers to comply with the various 

proposed requirements. We invite 

comments on whether 180 days is the 

appropriate interval for completing 

these changes. 

Regulatory Analyses And 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. The Regulatory Evaluation finds 

that the benefits of the proposal appear 

to exceed its costs, even without 

considering non-quantifiable benefits. 

The total present value of passenger 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 109 / Tuesday, June 8, 2010 / Proposed Rules 32333 

benefits from the proposed requirements 

over a 10 year period at a 7% discount 

rate is $87.59 million and the total 

present value of costs incurred by 

carriers and other sellers of air 

transportation over a 10 year period at 

a 7% discount rate is $25.98 million. 

The net present value of the rule for 10 

years at a 7% discount rate is $61.61 

million. 

Below, we have included a table 

outlining the projected costs and 

benefits of this rulemaking. We invite 

comment on the quantification of costs 

and benefits for each provision, as well 

as the methodology used to develop our 

cost and benefit estimates. We also seek 

comment on how unquantified costs 

and benefits could be measured. More 

detail on the estimates within this table 

can be found in the preliminary 

Regulatory Impact Analysis associated 

with this proposed rule. 

COMPARISON OF REQUIREMENT-SPECIFIC BENEFITS AND COSTS, 2010–2020 

[Discounted at 7%/year to 2010 $ millions] 

Requirement 1: Expand tarmac delay contingency plan requirements to smaller airports and require that foreign carriers have a tarmac delay contingency plan.Total 

Estimated Quantified Benefits .......................................................................................................................................................... $1.99 

Estimated Quantified Costs .............................................................................................................................................................. $3.24 

Net Benefits .............................................................................................................................................................................. Ø$1.25 

Unquantified Benefits: 

• Improved Management of Flight Delays 

• Decreased Anxiety with Regard to Flying 

• Reduced Stress among Delayed Passengers and Crew 

• Improved Overall Carrier Operations 

• Improved Customer Good Will Towards Carriers 

Unquantified Costs: 

• Increased Flight Cancellations 

• Increased Passenger Anxiety Associated with Potential Flight Cancellations 

Requirement 2: Expand carriers’ reporting tarmac delay info to DOT and require reporting by foreign carriers. Total 

Estimated Quantified Benefits .......................................................................................................................................................... not estimated 

Estimated Quantified Costs .............................................................................................................................................................. $2.31 

Net Benefits .............................................................................................................................................................................. not estimated 

Unquantified Benefits: 

• Increased Efficiency of US DOT Oversight and Enforcement Office Operations 

• Improved Planning by Passengers 

• Improved Management of Flight Delays 

• Improved Market Competition 

Requirement 3: Establish of minimum standards for carriers’ customer service plans and extend the customer service plan requirements to cover foreign carriers.Total 

Estimated Quantified Benefits .......................................................................................................................................................... $6.25 

Estimated Quantified Costs .............................................................................................................................................................. $8.58 

Net Benefits .............................................................................................................................................................................. Ø$2.33 

Unquantified Benefits: 

• Decreased Confusion and Uncertainty Regarding Department’s Requirements 

• Value of Improved Customer Service Based on Self-Auditing of Adherence to Customer Service Plans for Foreign Carriers 

• Improved Customer Good Will Towards Carriers 

Requirement 4: Require incorporation of tarmac delay contingency plans and customer service plans into carrier 

contracts of carriage.

Total 

Estimated Quantified Benefits .......................................................................................................................................................... not estimated 

Estimated Quantified Costs .............................................................................................................................................................. not estimated 

Net Benefits .............................................................................................................................................................................. not estimated 

Unquantified Benefits: 

• Decreased Occurrence of Customer Complaints 

• Improved Resolution of Customer Complaints 

Requirement 5: Extend requirements for carriers to respond to consumer complaints to cover foreign carriers. Total 

Estimated Quantified Benefits .......................................................................................................................................................... $0.00 

Estimated Quantified Costs .............................................................................................................................................................. $1.82 

Net Benefits .............................................................................................................................................................................. Ø$1.82 

Unquantified Benefits: 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
32334 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 109 / Tuesday, June 8, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

COMPARISON OF REQUIREMENT-SPECIFIC BENEFITS AND COSTS, 2010–2020—Continued 

[Discounted at 7%/year to 2010 $ millions] 

• Decreased Occurrence of Conduct that Would Produce Complaints 

• Improved Resolution of Customer Complaints 

• Decreased Anger Toward Carriers During Resolution of Complaints 

Requirement 6: Changes in denied boarding compensation (involuntary bumping) policy: increase minimum compensation, add inflation adjustment, greater passenger information about policies.Total 

Estimated Quantified Benefits .......................................................................................................................................................... not estimated 

Estimated Quantified Costs .............................................................................................................................................................. $0.66 

Net Benefits .............................................................................................................................................................................. not estimated 

Unquantified Benefits: 

• Decrease in Confusion Regarding Denied Boarding Compensation Provisions 

• More Accurate Compensation for those Denied Boarding 

• Decreased Resentment among Some Passengers Regarding Different Compensation Received 

Requirement 7: Require that carriers include taxes and fees in advertising (‘‘full-fare advertising’’) and prohibit use of 

sales provisions that require purchasers to opt out of add-ons such as trip insurance.

Total 

Estimated Quantified Benefits .......................................................................................................................................................... $73.50 

Estimated Quantified Costs .............................................................................................................................................................. $6.86 

Net Benefits .............................................................................................................................................................................. $66.64 

Unquantified Benefits: 

• Travelers Less Likely to Mistakenly Purchase Unwanted Services and Amenities 

• Improved Market Competition 

• Improved Customer Good Will Towards Carriers 

Requirement 8: Require carriers to disclose baggage and other optional fees on their Web sites. Total 

Estimated Quantified Benefits .......................................................................................................................................................... not estimated 

Estimated Quantified Costs .............................................................................................................................................................. $2.51 

Net Benefits .............................................................................................................................................................................. not estimated 

Unquantified Benefits: 

• Decrease in Time at Check-in 

• Avoidance of Unfair Surprise 

• Improved Customer Good Will Towards Carriers 

• Improved Market Competition 

Requirement 9: Ban the practice of post-purchase price increases. Total 

Estimated Quantified Benefits .......................................................................................................................................................... $5.83 

Estimated Quantified Costs .............................................................................................................................................................. not estimated 

Net Benefits .............................................................................................................................................................................. not estimated 

Unquantified Benefits: 

• Improved Customer Good Will Towards Carriers 

• Avoidance of Unfair Surprise 

Unquantified Costs: 

• Inability to Increase Prices Based on Unanticipated or Changed Circumstances 

Requirement 10: Require prompt passenger notification of flight status changes (cancellations, delays, etc.) at the 

boarding gate area, on Web site and on telephone reservation systems.

Total 

Estimated Quantified Benefits .......................................................................................................................................................... not estimated 

Estimated Quantified Costs .............................................................................................................................................................. not estimated 

Net Benefits .............................................................................................................................................................................. not estimated 

Unquantified Benefits: 

• Reduced Passenger Anxiety 

• Greater Comfort and Certainty from Knowing that Information Will Be Available In Timely Manner 

Unquantified Costs: 

• Expense of Providing Notification 

Requirement 11: Permit consumers to file suit wherever a carrier does business. Total 

Estimated Quantified Benefits .......................................................................................................................................................... not estimated 

Estimated Quantified Costs .............................................................................................................................................................. not estimated 

Net Benefits .............................................................................................................................................................................. not estimated 

Unquantified Benefits: 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 109 / Tuesday, June 8, 2010 / Proposed Rules 32335 

COMPARISON OF REQUIREMENT-SPECIFIC BENEFITS AND COSTS, 2010–2020—Continued 

[Discounted at 7%/year to 2010 $ millions] 

• Greater compliance with DOT regulations 

• Improved Customer Good Will Towards Carriers 

Unquantified Costs: 

• Need to Defend Suit in Location of Consumer’s Choice 

Requirements 1–11: TOTAL .......................................................................................................................................................... Total 

Estimated Quantified Benefits .......................................................................................................................................................... $87.6 

Estimated Quantified Costs .............................................................................................................................................................. $26.0 

Net Benefits .............................................................................................................................................................................. $61.6 

B. 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 NPRM would have some impact on 

some small entities, as discussed in the 

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis. 

The Initial Regulatory Flexibility 

Analysis determined that no more than 

12 independently-owned small U.S. 

carriers operating at least one aircraft 

with 30 or more passenger seats but 

none with more than 60 passenger seats 

would have to comply with the 

proposed requirements relating to 

denied boarding compensation and 

lengthy tarmac delays. These 12 U.S. 

carriers and an additional 35 small U.S. 

carriers that only operate aircraft with 

fewer than 30 seats would potentially 

have to comply with the requirements 

pertaining to full fare advertising 

(requirement to display full fares on 

Web sites and in print advertising and 

prohibition on opt-out provisions), 

disclosure of baggage and other fees, 

and prohibition on post-purchase price 

increases. The compliance costs 

associated with the full fare advertising 

requirements are estimated at $6,000 or 

less per carrier. The estimated unit costs 

for complying with the other 

requirements are nominal. 

The proposed initiatives may have a 

more substantial impact on small 

foreign carriers that provide scheduled 

service on flights to and from the U.S. 

using only aircraft with 60 or less 

passenger seats. There is only one small 

foreign carrier that operates service to 

and from the U.S. using aircraft with 

more than 29 but fewer than 61 seats. 

It would be required to comply with the 

proposed requirements described above 

for U.S. carriers of this size-class, as 

well as requirements relating to tarmac 

delay contingency plans, customer 

service plans, and customer problems/ 

complaints (these requirements were 

instituted for covered U.S. carriers in a 

previous proceeding). Each of these sets 

of requirements may entail compliance 

costs of $3,000 or more per-carrier, but 

only the requirement to develop and 

implement a compliant tarmac delay 

contingency plan is likely to involve 

single-year cost in excess of $10,000 per 

carrier. There are also two small foreign 

carriers that operate service to and from 

the U.S. exclusively with aircraft that 

have fewer than 19 seats; these two 

carriers would potentially have to 

comply with the requirements 

pertaining to full fares advertising 

(requirement to display full fares on 

Web sites and in print advertising and 

prohibition on opt-out provisions), 

disclosure of baggage and other fees, 

and prohibition on post-purchase price 

increases. The per-carrier compliance 

costs for these two small foreign carriers 

are expected to be similar to those for 

U.S. carriers of the same size-class. 

It may also be necessary for some 

small travel agencies and tour operators 

to revise air travel prices displayed in 

Web site and print media advertising to 

comply with the proposed requirements 

relating to full fare advertising of air 

fares. Costs for small firms to revise Web 

sites and update print media advertising 

are estimated at no more than $3,000 

each on a per-firm basis. Finally, a 

limited number of personnel at some 

small airports will incur time costs of a 

few hours on average to interact with 

carriers that are required to coordinate 

tarmac contingency plans with airport 

authorities. We invite comment to 

facilitate our assessment of the potential 

impact of these initiatives on small 

entities. 

C. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism) 

This 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 

provision 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. 

D. 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. 

E. Paperwork Reduction Act 

This NPRM proposes three new 

collections of information that would 

require approval by the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) under 

the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

(Pub. L. 104–13, 49 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). 

Under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 

before an agency submits a proposed 

collection of information to OMB for 

approval, it must publish a document in 

the Federal Register providing notice of 

the proposed collection of information 

and a 60-day comment period, and must 

otherwise consult with members of the 

public and affected agencies concerning 

the proposed collection. 

The first collection of information 

proposed here is a requirement that 

foreign air carriers that operate 

scheduled passenger service to or from 

the U.S. using any aircraft originally 

designed to have a passenger capacity of 

30 or more seats retain for two years the 

following information about any ground 

delay that lasts at least three hours: the 

length of the delay, the precise cause of 

the delay, the actions taken to minimize 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
32336 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 109 / Tuesday, June 8, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

hardships for passengers, whether the 

flight ultimately took off (in the case of 

a departure delay or diversion) or 

returned to the gate; and an explanation 

for any tarmac delay that exceeded 3 

hours. The Department plans to use the 

information to investigate instances of 

long delays on the ground and to 

identify any trends and patterns that 

may develop. 

The second information collection is 

a requirement that any foreign air carrier 

that operates scheduled passenger 

service to and from the U.S. using any 

aircraft originally designed to have a 

passenger capacity of 30 or more seats 

adopt a customer service plan, audit its 

adherence to the plan annually, and 

retain the results of each audit for two 

years. The Department plans to review 

the audits to monitor carriers’ 

compliance with their plans and take 

enforcement action when appropriate. 

The third is a requirement that U.S. 

carriers and foreign carriers that operate 

any aircraft originally designed to have 

a passenger capacity of 30 or more seats 

report monthly tarmac delay data to the 

Department with respect to their 

operations at a U.S. airport for any 

tarmac delay exceeding three hours or 

more, including diverted flights and 

cancelled flights. This requirement 

would apply to reporting carriers under 

14 CFR part 234 only with respect to 

their public charter service and 

international service. Reporting carriers 

already submit tarmac delay data to the 

Department for their domestic 

scheduled passenger service. The 

Department plans to use this 

information to obtain more precise data 

to compare tarmac delay incidents by 

carrier, by airport, and by specific time 

frame, for use in making future policy 

decisions and developing rulemakings. 

For each of these information 

collections, the title, a description of the 

respondents, and an estimate of the 

annual recordkeeping and periodic 

reporting burden are set forth below: 

1. Requirement to retain for two years 

information about any ground delay 

that lasts at least three hours. 

Respondents: Foreign air carriers that 

operate passenger service to and from 

the U.S. using any aircraft originally 

designed to have a passenger capacity of 

30 or more seats. 

Estimated Annual Burden on 

Respondents: 0 to 1 hour per 

respondent. 

Estimated Total Annual Burden: 15 

hours and 25 minutes for all 

respondents. 

Frequency: One information set to 

submit per three hour plus tarmac delay 

for each respondent . 

2. Requirement that carrier retain for 

two years the results of its annual selfaudit of its compliance with its 

Customer Service Plan. 

Respondents: Foreign air carriers that 

operate scheduled passenger service to 

and from the U.S. using any aircraft 

originally designed to have a passenger 

capacity of 30 or more seats. 

Estimated Annual Burden on 

Respondents: 15 minutes per year for 

each respondent. 

Estimated Total Annual Burden: A 

maximum of 22 hours for all 

respondents. 

Frequency: One information set to 

retain per year for each respondent. 

3. Requirement that carrier report 

certain tarmac delay data to the 

Department on a monthly basis. 

Respondents: U.S. carriers that 

operate passenger service using any 

aircraft with 30 or more seats, and 

foreign air carriers that operate 

passenger service to and from the 

United States using any aircraft 

originally designed to have a passenger 

capacity of 30 or more seats. 

Estimated Annual Burden on 

Respondents: 5 to 160 hours per 

respondent in the first year (average of 

40 hours) and no more than 3 hours in 

subsequent years per respondent. 

Estimated Total Annual Burden: 

5,200 hours in the first year and no 

more than 390 hours in subsequent 

years for all respondents. 

Frequency: One information set to 

submit per month for each respondent. 

The Department invites interested 

persons to submit comments on any 

aspect of each of these three 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 

notice 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. 

List of Subjects 

14 CFR Parts 234, 250, and 259 

Air carriers, Consumer protection, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

14 CFR Part 244 

Air carriers, Consumer protection, 

and Tarmac delay data. 

14 CFR Part 253 

Air carriers, Consumer protection, 

and Contract of carriage. 

14 CFR Part 399 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Air carriers, Air rates and 

fares, Air taxis, Consumer protection, 

Small businesses. 

Issued June 2, 2010 in Washington, DC. 

Ray LaHood, 

Secretary of Transportation. 

For the reasons set forth in the 

preamble, the Department proposes to 

amend title 14 CFR Chapter II as 

follows: 

PART 234—[AMENDED] 

1. The authority citation for 14 CFR 

part 234 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 329 and chapters 401 

and 417. 

2. Section 234.11 is amended by 

revising paragraph (d) and adding 

paragraph (e) to read as follows: 

§ 234.11 Disclosure to consumers. 

* * * * * 

(d) For each scheduled domestic flight 

segment, including domestic segments 

of a code-share flight operated by 

another carrier, a reporting carrier shall 

promptly provide to passengers who are 

ticketed or hold reservations, and to 

other interested persons information 

about a change in the status of a flight, 

defined for this purpose as cancellation 

of a flight or a delay of 30 minutes or 

more in the planned operation of a 

flight, including additional delays of 30 

minutes or more to flights for which 

notification has already been provided. 

This information must at a minimum be 

provided in the boarding gate area, via 

a carrier’s telephone reservation system 

and on the homepage of a carrier’s Web 

site. 

(1) With respect to any carrier that 

permits passengers to subscribe to flight 

status notification services, the 

reporting carrier shall deliver such 

notification to such passengers, by 

whatever means is available to the 

carrier and of the passenger’s choice, 

within 30 minutes after the carrier 

becomes aware or should have become 

aware of a change in the status of a 

flight. 

(2) The reporting carrier shall 

incorporate such notification service 

commitment into its Customer Service 

Plan as specified in section 259.5 of this 

chapter. 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 109 / Tuesday, June 8, 2010 / Proposed Rules 32337 

(e) Each reporting carrier shall update 

all flight status displays and other 

sources of flight information that are 

under the carrier’s control at airports 

with information on each flight delay of 

30 minutes or more or flight 

cancellation, within 30 minutes after the 

carrier becomes aware or should have 

become aware of a change in the status 

of a flight. 

3. A new part 244 is added to read as 

follows: 

PART 244—REPORTING TARMAC 

DELAY DATA 

Sec. 

244.1 Definitions. 

244.2 Applicability. 

244.3 Reporting of tarmac delay data. 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 40101(a)(4), 

40101(a)(9), 40113(a), 41702, and 41712. 

§ 244.1 Definitions. 

For the purposes of this part: 

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, carriers 

using a Docking Guidance System (DGS) 

may record the official ‘‘gate-arrival 

time’’ when the aircraft is stopped at the 

appropriate parking mark. 

Cancelled flight means a flight 

operation that was not operated, but was 

listed in an air carrier or a foreign air 

carrier’s computer reservation system 

within seven calendar days of the 

scheduled departure. 

Certificated air carrier means a U.S. 

air carrier holding a certificate issued 

under 49 U.S.C. 41102 to conduct 

passenger service or holding an 

exemption to conduct passenger 

operation under 49 U.S.C. 40109. 

Commuter air carrier means a U.S. 

commuter air carrier as described in 14 

CFR 298.3(b) that is authorized to carry 

passengers on at least five round trips 

per week on at least one route between 

two or more points according to a 

published flight schedule using small 

aircraft. 

Covered carrier means a certificated 

carrier, a commuter carrier, or a foreign 

air carrier operating to and from or 

within the United States, conducting 

scheduled passenger service or public 

charter service with at least one aircraft 

originally designed to have a passenger 

capacity of 30 or more seats. 

Diverted flight means a flight which is 

operated from the scheduled origin 

point to a point other than the 

scheduled destination point in the 

carrier’s published schedule. 

Foreign air carrier means a carrier that 

is not a citizen of the United States as 

defined in 49 U.S.C. 40102(a) that holds 

a foreign air carrier permit issued under 

49 U.S.C. 41302 or an exemption issued 

under 49 U.S.C. 40109 authorizing 

direct foreign air transportation. 

Gate departure time is the instant 

when the pilot releases the aircraft 

parking brake after passengers have 

been boarded and aircraft doors have 

been closed. In cases where the flight 

returned to the departure gate before 

wheels-off time and departed a second 

time, the reportable gate departure time 

is the last gate departure time before 

wheels-off time. In cases of an air 

return, the reportable gate departure 

time is the last gate departure time 

before the gate return. If passengers 

were boarded without the parking brake 

being set, the reportable gate departure 

time is the time that the passenger door 

was closed. Also, the official ‘‘gatedeparture time’’ may be based on aircraft 

movement for carriers using a Docking 

Guidance System (DGS). For example, 

one DGS records gate departure time 

when the aircraft moves more than 1 

meter from the appropriate parking 

mark within 15 seconds. Fifteen 

seconds is then subtracted from the 

recorded time to obtain the appropriate 

out time. 

Gate return means that the aircraft 

leaves the boarding gate only to return 

to a gate for the purpose of allowing 

passengers to disembark from the 

aircraft. 

Tarmac delay means the holding of an 

aircraft on the ground either before 

taking off or after landing with no 

opportunity for its passengers to 

deplane. 

§ 244.2 Applicability. 

(a) This part applies to U.S. 

certificated air carriers, U.S. commuter 

air carriers and foreign air carriers that 

operate passenger service to a U.S. 

airport with an aircraft originally 

designed to have a passenger capacity of 

30 or more seats. Carriers must report all 

passenger operations that experience a 

tarmac time of 3 hours or more at a U.S. 

airport. 

(b) If a U.S. or a foreign air carrier has 

no 3-hour tarmac times in a given 

month, it still must submit a monthly 

report stating there were no 3-hour 

tarmac times. 

(c) U.S. carriers that submit Part 234 

Airline Service Quality Performance 

Report must only submit 3-hour tarmac 

information for public charter flights 

and international passengers flights as 

the domestic scheduled passenger flight 

information is already being collected in 

part 234 of this chapter. 

§ 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 

and Statistics on a monthly basis, 

setting forth the information for each of 

its flights that experienced a tarmac 

delay of three hours or more, 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 of 

the end of each month and shall be 

made in the form and manner set forth 

in accounting and reporting directives 

issued by the Director, Office of Airline 

Statistics, 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) Gate arrival time (actual) in local 

time. 

(8) Wheels-off time (actual) in local 

time. 

(9) Wheels-on 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 

diverted flight. 

(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) The same information required by 

paragraph (a)(13) through (a)(17) of this 

section must be provided for each 

subsequent diverted airport landing. 

PART 250—[AMENDED] 

4. The authority citation for 14 CFR 

part 250 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. chapters 401, 411, 413 

and 417. 

5. Section 250.1 is amended by 

removing the definition of ‘‘sum of the 

values of the remaining flight coupons’’ 

and adding a definition of ‘‘confirmed 

reserved space’’ to read as follows: 

§ 250.1 Definitions. 

* * * * * 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
32338 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 109 / Tuesday, June 8, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

Confirmed reserved space means 

space on a specific date on a specific 

flight and class of service of a carrier 

which has been requested by a 

passenger, including a passenger with a 

‘‘zero fare ticket’’ (e.g., consolidator 

ticket that does not show a fare amount 

on the ticket, frequent-flyer award 

ticket, or ticket obtained using a travel 

voucher), and which the carrier or its 

agent has verified, by appropriate 

notation on the ticket or in any other 

manner provided therefore by the 

carrier, as being reserved for the 

accommodation of the passenger. 

* * * * * 

6. Section 250.2b is amended by 

revising paragraph (b) and adding 

paragraph (c) to read as follows: 

§ 250.2b Carriers to request volunteers for 

denied boarding. 

* * * * * 

(b) Every carrier shall advise each 

passenger solicited to volunteer for 

denied boarding, no later than the time 

the carrier solicits that passenger to 

volunteer, whether he or she is in 

danger of being involuntarily denied 

boarding (in doing so, the carrier must 

fully disclose the boarding priority rules 

that the carrier will apply for that 

specific flight), and the compensation 

the carrier is obligated to pay if the 

passenger is involuntarily denied 

boarding. If an insufficient number of 

volunteers come forward, the carrier 

may deny boarding to other passengers 

in accordance with its boarding priority 

rules. 

(c) If a carrier offers free or reduced 

rate air transportation as compensation 

to volunteers, the carrier must disclose 

all material restrictions on the use of 

that transportation before the passenger 

decides whether to give up his or her 

confirmed reserved space on that flight 

in exchange for the free or reduced rate 

transportation. 

7. Section 250.5 is revised to read as 

follows: 

§ 250.5 Amount of denied boarding 

compensation for passengers denied 

boarding involuntarily. 

(a) Subject to the exceptions provided 

in § 250.6, a carrier to whom this part 

applies as described in § 250.2 shall pay 

compensation to passengers denied 

boarding involuntarily from an oversold 

flight at the rate of 200 percent of the 

fare (including any surcharges and air 

transportation taxes) to the passenger’s 

next stopover, or if none, to the 

passenger’s final destination, with a 

maximum of $1,300. However, the 

compensation shall be one-half the 

amount described above, with a $650 

maximum, if the carrier arranges for 

comparable air transportation [see 

§ 250.1], or other transportation used by 

the passenger that, at the time either 

such arrangement is made, is planned to 

arrive at the airport of the passenger’s 

next stopover, or if none, the airport of 

the passenger’s final destination, not 

later than 2 hours after the time the 

direct or connecting flight from which 

the passenger was denied boarding is 

planned to arrive in the case of 

interstate air transportation, or 4 hours 

after such time in the case of foreign air 

transportation. 

(b) Carriers may offer free or reduced 

rate air transportation in lieu of the cash 

due under paragraph (a) of this section, 

if: 

(1) The value of the transportation 

benefit offered is equal to or greater than 

the cash payment otherwise required; 

(2) The carrier fully informs the 

passenger of the amount of cash 

compensation that would otherwise be 

due and that the passenger may decline 

the transportation benefit and receive 

the cash payment; and 

(3) The carrier fully discloses all 

material restrictions on the use of such 

free or reduced rate transportation 

before the passenger decides to give up 

cash payment in exchange for such 

transportation. 

(c) For the purpose of calculating the 

denied boarding compensation for a 

passenger with a ‘‘zero fare ticket’’, the 

requirements in paragraph (a), (b), and 

(c) of this section apply. The fare paid 

by these passengers for purpose of this 

calculation shall be the lowest cash, 

check, or credit card payment charged 

for a comparable class of ticket on the 

same flight. 

(d) The Department of Transportation 

will review the maximum denied 

boarding compensation amounts 

prescribed in this part every two years. 

The Department will use the Consumer 

Price Index for All Urban Consumers 

(CPI–U) as of July of each review year 

to calculate the revised maximum 

compensation amounts. The Department 

will use the following formula: 

Current Denied Boarding Compensation 

multiplied by (a/b) rounded to the 

nearest $25 where: 

a = July CPI–U of year of current 

adjustment 

b = the CPI–U figure in July 2010 

when the inflation adjustment 

provision was added to Part 250. 

8. Section 250.9 is amended by 

revising the section heading and 

paragraph (c) to read as follows: 

§ 250.9 Written explanation of denied 

boarding compensation and boarding 

priorities, and verbal notification of denied 

boarding compensation. 

* * * * * 

(c) In addition to furnishing 

passengers with the carrier’s written 

statement as specified in paragraphs (a) 

and (b) of this section, if the carrier 

orally advises involuntarily bumped 

passengers that they are entitled to 

receive free or discounted transportation 

as denied boarding compensation, the 

carrier must also orally advise the 

passengers of any restrictions or 

conditions applicable to the free or 

discounted transportation and that they 

are entitled to choose cash or check 

compensation instead. 

PART 253—[AMENDED] 

9. The authority citation for 14 CFR 

part 253 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 40113; 49 U.S.C. 

Chapters 401, 415 and 417. 

10. Section 253.7 is revised to read as 

follows: 

§ 253.7 Direct notice of certain terms. 

A passenger shall not be bound by 

any terms restricting refunds of the 

ticket price or imposing monetary 

penalties on passengers unless the 

passenger receives conspicuous written 

notice of the salient features of those 

terms on or with the ticket. 

11. Section 253.9 is revised to read as 

follows: 

§ 253.9 Notice of contract of carriage 

choice-of-forum provisions. 

The Department considers any 

contract of carriage provision containing 

a choice-of-forum clause that attempts 

to preclude a passenger from bringing a 

consumer-related claim against a carrier 

in any court of competent jurisdiction, 

including a court within the jurisdiction 

of the passenger’s residence in the 

United States, provided that the carrier 

does business within that jurisdiction, 

to be an unfair and deceptive practice 

prohibited by 49 U.S.C. 41712. 

PART 259—[AMENDED] 

12. The authority citation for 14 CFR 

part 259 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 40101(a)(4), 

40101(a)(9), 40113(a), 41702, and 41712. 

13. Section 259.2 is revised to read as 

follows: 

§ 259.2 Applicability. 

This rule 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 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 109 / Tuesday, June 8, 2010 / Proposed Rules 32339 

a passenger capacity of 30 or more seats, 

and to all the flights to and from the 

U.S. of a foreign 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, with the exception that 

§ 259.5 and § 259.7 do not apply to 

charter service. 

14. Section 259.3 is revised to read as 

follows: 

§ 259.3. Definitions. 

For the purposes of this part: 

Certificated air carrier means a U.S. 

air carrier that holds a certificate issued 

under 49 U.S.C. 41102 to operate 

passenger service or an exemption from 

49 U.S.C. 41102. 

Commuter air carrier means a U.S. air 

carrier as established by 14 CFR 298.3(b) 

that is authorized to carry passengers on 

at least five round trips per week on at 

least one route between two or more 

points according to a published flight 

schedule using small aircraft. 

Covered carrier means a certificated 

carrier, a commuter carrier, or a foreign 

air carrier operating to and from or 

within the United States, conducting 

scheduled passenger service or public 

charter service with at least one aircraft 

originally designed to have a passenger 

capacity of 30 or more seats. 

Foreign air carrier means a carrier that 

is not a citizen of the United States as 

defined in 49 U.S.C. 40102(a) that holds 

a foreign air carrier permit issued under 

49 U.S.C. 41302 or an exemption issued 

under 49 U.S.C. 40109 authorizing 

direct foreign air transportation. 

Large hub airport means an airport 

that accounts for at least 1.00 percent of 

the total enplanements in the United 

States. 

Medium hub airport means an airport 

accounting for at least 0.25 percent but 

less than 1.00 percent of the total 

enplanements in the United States. 

Non-hub airport means an airport 

with 10,000 or more annual 

enplanements but less than 0.05 percent 

of the country’s annual passenger 

boardings. 

Small hub airport means an airport 

accounting for at least 0.05 percent but 

less than 0.25 percent of the total 

enplanements in the United States. 

Tarmac delay means the holding of an 

aircraft on the ground either before 

taking off or after landing with no 

opportunity for its passengers to 

deplane. 

15. Section 259.4 is revised to read as 

follows: 

§ 259.4 Contingency plan for lengthy 

tarmac delays. 

(a) Adoption of Plan. Each covered 

carrier shall adopt a Contingency Plan 

for Lengthy Tarmac Delays for its 

scheduled and public charter flights at 

each large U.S. hub airport, medium 

hub airport, small hub airport and nonhub airport at which it operates 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, the 

following: 

(1) For domestic flights, assurance 

that the covered U.S. air carrier will not 

permit an aircraft to remain on the 

tarmac for more than three hours before 

allowing passengers to deplane unless: 

(i) The pilot-in-command determines 

there is a safety-related or securityrelated reason (e.g. weather, a directive 

from an appropriate government agency) 

why the aircraft cannot leave its 

position on the tarmac to deplane 

passengers; or 

(ii) Air traffic control advises the 

pilot-in-command that returning to the 

gate or another disembarkation point 

elsewhere in order to deplane 

passengers would significantly disrupt 

airport operations. 

(2) For international flights operated 

by covered carriers that depart from or 

arrive at a U.S. airport, assurance that 

the carrier will not permit an aircraft to 

remain on the tarmac at a U.S. airport 

for more than a set number of hours as 

determined by the carrier and set out in 

its contingency plan, before allowing 

passengers to deplane, unless: 

(i) The pilot-in-command determines 

there is a safety-related or securityrelated reason why the aircraft cannot 

leave its position on the tarmac to 

deplane passengers; or 

(ii) Air traffic control advises the 

pilot-in-command that returning to the 

gate or another disembarkation point 

elsewhere in order to deplane 

passengers would significantly disrupt 

airport operations. 

(3) For all flights, assurance that the 

carrier will 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 pilotin-command determines that safety or 

security considerations preclude such 

service; 

(4) For all flights, assurance of 

operable lavatory facilities, as well as 

adequate medical attention if needed, 

while the aircraft remains on the tarmac; 

(5) For all flights, assurance that the 

passengers on the delayed flight will 

receive notifications regarding the status 

of the tarmac delay every 30 minutes 

while the plane is delayed, including 

the reasons for the tarmac delay; 

(6) Assurance of sufficient resources 

to implement the plan; and 

(7) Assurance that the plan has been 

coordinated with airport authorities at 

each U.S. large hub airport, medium 

hub airport, small hub airport and nonhub airport that the carrier serves, as 

well as its regular U.S. diversion 

airports; 

(8) Assurance that the plan has been 

coordinated with 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 

diversion airports; and 

(9) Assurance that the plan has been 

coordinated with the Transportation 

Security Administration (TSA) at each 

large U.S. hub airport, medium hub 

airport, small hub airport and non-hub 

airport that the carrier serves, including 

diversion airports. 

(c) 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 (b)(1) of this 

section, for aircraft to remain on the 

tarmac for international flights covered 

in paragraph (b)(2) of this section, and 

for the trigger point for food and water 

covered in paragraph (b)(3) of this 

section. A carrier may also amend its 

plan to increase these intervals (up to 

the limits in this rule), in which case the 

amended plan shall apply only to those 

flights that are first offered for sale after 

the plan’s amendment. 

(d) Retention of records. Each carrier 

that is required to adopt a Contingency 

Plan for Lengthy Tarmac Delays shall 

retain for two years the following 

information about any tarmac delay that 

lasts at least three hours: 

(1) The length of the delay; 

(2) The precise cause of the delay; 

(3) The actions taken to minimize 

hardships for passengers, including the 

provision of food and water, the 

maintenance and servicing of lavatories, 

and medical assistance; 

(4) Whether the flight ultimately took 

off (in the case of a departure delay or 

diversion) or returned to the gate; and 

(5) An explanation for any tarmac 

delay that exceeded 3 hours (i.e., why 

the aircraft did not return to the gate by 

the 3-hour mark). 

(e) Unfair and deceptive practice. A 

carrier’s failure to comply with the 

assurances required by this rule and as 

contained in its Contingency Plan for 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
32340 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 109 / Tuesday, June 8, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

Lengthy Tarmac Delays will be 

considered an unfair and deceptive 

practice within the meaning of 49 U.S.C. 

41712 that is subject to enforcement 

action by the Department. 

16. Section 259.5 is revised to read as 

follows: 

§ 259.5 Customer Service Plan. 

(a) Adoption of Plan. Each covered 

carrier shall adopt a Customer Service 

Plan applicable to its scheduled flights 

and shall adhere to this plan’s terms. 

(b) Contents of Plan. Each Customer 

Service Plan shall address the following 

subjects and comply with the minimum 

standards set forth: 

(1) Offering the lowest fare available 

on the carrier’s Web site, at the ticket 

counter, or when a customer calls the 

carrier’s reservation center to inquire 

about a fare or to make a reservation; 

(2) Notifying consumers in the 

boarding gate area, on board aircraft and 

via a carrier’s telephone reservation 

system and its Web site of known 

delays, cancellations, and diversions; 

(3) Delivering baggage on time, 

including making every reasonable 

effort to return mishandled baggage 

within twenty-four hours and 

compensating passengers for reasonable 

expenses that result due to delay in 

delivery; 

(4) Allowing reservations to be held at 

the quoted fare without payment, or 

cancelled without penalty, for at least 

twenty-four hours after the reservation 

is made; 

(5) Where ticket refunds are due, 

providing prompt refunds for credit 

card purchases as required by § 374.3 of 

this chapter and 12 CFR part 226, and 

for cash and check purchases within 20 

days after receiving a complete refund 

request; 

(6) Properly accommodating 

passengers with disabilities as required 

by Part 382 of this chapter and for other 

special-needs passengers as set forth in 

the carrier’s policies and procedures, 

including during lengthy tarmac delays; 

(7) Meeting customers’ essential needs 

during lengthy tarmac delays as 

required by § 259.4 of this chapter and 

as provided for in each covered carrier’s 

contingency plan; 

(8) Handling ‘‘bumped’’ passengers 

with fairness and consistency in the 

case of oversales as required by Part 250 

of this chapter and as described in each 

carrier’s policies and procedures for 

determining boarding priority; 

(9) Disclosing cancellation policies, 

frequent flyer rules, aircraft 

configuration, and lavatory availability 

on the selling carrier’s Web site, and 

upon request, from the selling carrier’s 

telephone reservations staff; 

(10) Notifying consumers in a timely 

manner of changes in their travel 

itineraries; 

(11) Ensuring good customer service 

from code-share partners, including 

making reasonable efforts to ensure that 

its code-share partner(s) have 

comparable customer service plans or 

provide comparable customer service 

levels, or have adopted the identified 

carrier’s customer service plan; 

(12) Ensuring responsiveness to 

customer complaints as required by 

section 259.7 of this chapter; and 

(13) Identifying the services it 

provides to mitigate passenger 

inconveniences resulting from flight 

cancellations and misconnections. 

(c) Self-auditing of Plan and retention 

of records. Each carrier that is required 

to adopt a Customer Service Plan shall 

audit its own adherence to its plan 

annually. Carriers shall make the results 

of their audits available for the 

Department’s review upon request for 

two years following the date any audit 

is completed. 

17. Section 259.6 is revised to read as 

follows: 

§ 259.6 Contract of carriage. 

(a) Each U.S. and foreign air carrier 

that is required to adopt a contingency 

plan for lengthy tarmac delays shall 

incorporate this plan into its contract of 

carriage. 

(b) Each U.S. and foreign air carrier 

that is required to adopt a customer 

service plan shall incorporate this plan 

in its contract of carriage. 

(c) Each U.S. and foreign air carrier 

that has a Web site shall post its entire 

contract of carriage on its Web site in 

easily accessible form, including all 

updates to its contract of carriage. 

18. Section 259.7 is revised to read as 

follows: 

§ 259.7 Response to consumer problems. 

(a) Designated advocates for 

passengers’ interests. Each covered 

carrier shall designate for its scheduled 

flights an employee who shall be 

responsible for monitoring the effects of 

flight delays, flight cancellations, and 

lengthy tarmac delays on passengers. 

This employee shall have input into 

decisions on which flights to cancel and 

which will be delayed the longest. 

(b) Informing consumers how to 

complain. Each covered carrier shall 

make available the mailing address and 

e-mail or web address of the designated 

department in the airline with which to 

file a complaint about its scheduled 

service. This information shall be 

provided on the carrier’s Web site (if 

any), on all e-ticket confirmations and, 

upon request, at each ticket counter and 

boarding gate staffed by the carrier or a 

contractor of the carrier. 

(c) Response to complaints. Each 

covered carrier shall acknowledge 

receipt of each complaint regarding its 

scheduled service to the complainant 

within 30 days of receiving it and shall 

send a substantive response to each 

complainant within 60 days of receiving 

the complaint. A complaint is a specific 

written expression of dissatisfaction 

concerning a difficulty or problem 

which the person experienced when 

using or attempting to use an airline’s 

services. 

PART 399—[AMENDED] 

19. The authority citation for 14 CFR 

part 399 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 40101 et seq. 

20. Section 399.84 is revised to read 

as follows: 

§ 399.84 Price advertising and opt-out 

provisions. 

(a) The Department considers any 

advertising or solicitation by a direct air 

carrier, indirect air carrier, an agent of 

either, or a ticket agent, for passenger air 

transportation, a tour (e.g., a 

combination of air transportation and 

ground accommodations), or a tour 

component (e.g., a hotel stay) that states 

a price for such air transportation, tour, 

or tour component to be an unfair and 

deceptive practice in violation of 49 

U.S.C. 41712, unless the price stated is 

the entire price to be paid by the 

customer to the carrier, or agent, for 

such air transportation, tour, or tour 

component. Although separate charges 

included within the total price (e.g., 

taxes or a fuel surcharge) may be stated 

in fine print or through links or ‘‘pop 

ups’’ on Web sites, fares that exclude 

any required charges may not be 

displayed in advertising or solicitations. 

(b) The Department considers any 

advertising by the entities listed in 

paragraph (a) of this section of an eachway airfare that is available only when 

purchased for round-trip travel to be an 

unfair and deceptive practice in 

violation of 49 U.S.C. 41712, unless 

such airfare is advertised as ‘‘each way’’ 

and in such a way so that the disclosure 

of the round trip purchase requirement 

is clearly and conspicuously noted in 

the advertisement and is stated 

prominently and proximately to the 

each-way fare amount. Each-way fares 

may not be referred to as ‘‘one-way’’ 

fares. 

(c) When offering a ticket for purchase 

by a consumer, for passenger air 

transportation or for an air tour or air 

tour component, a direct air carrier, 

indirect air carrier, an agent of either, or 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 109 / Tuesday, June 8, 2010 / Proposed Rules 32341 

a ticket agent, may not include ‘‘opt-out’’ 

provisions for additional optional 

services in connection with air 

transportation, an air tour, or air tour 

component that will automatically be 

added to the purchase if the consumer 

takes no other action. The consumer 

must affirmatively ‘‘opt in’’ (i.e., agree) to 

such a fee for the services before that fee 

is added to the total price for the air 

transportation-related purchase. The 

Department considers the use of ‘‘optout’’ provisions to be an unfair and 

deceptive practice in violation of 49 

U.S.C. 41712. 

21. A new § 399.85 is added to read 

as follows: 

§ 399.85 Notice of baggage fees and other 

fees. 

(a) If a U.S. or foreign air carrier has 

a Web site accessible for ticket 

purchases by the general public, the 

carrier must promptly and prominently 

disclose any increase in its fee for carryon or checked baggage and any change 

in the checked baggage allowance for a 

passenger on the homepage of the 

carrier’s Web site. Such notice must 

remain on the homepage for at least 

three months after the change becomes 

effective. 

(b) On all e-ticket confirmations for 

air transportation within, to or from the 

United States, including the summary 

page at the completion of an online 

purchase and a post-purchase e-mail 

confirmation, a U.S. or foreign air 

carrier must include information 

regarding the free passenger’s baggage 

allowance and/or the applicable fee for 

a carry-on bag and the first and second 

checked bag. 

(c) If a U.S. or foreign air carrier has 

a Web site where it advertises or sells 

air transportation, on its Web site the 

carrier must disclose information on 

fees for optional services that are 

charged to a passenger purchasing air 

transportation. Such disclosure must be 

clear, with a conspicuous link from the 

air carrier’s homepage to the fee 

disclosure. For purposes of this section, 

the term ‘‘optional services’’ is defined 

as any service the airline provides 

beyond the provision of passenger air 

transportation. Such fees include, but 

are not limited to, charges for checked 

or carry-on baggage, advance seat 

selection, in-flight beverages, snacks 

and meals, and seat upgrades. 

(d) The Department considers the 

failure to give the appropriate notice 

described in paragraphs (a), (b), and (c) 

of this section to be an unfair and 

deceptive practice within the meaning 

of 49 U.S.C. 41712. 

22. A new § 399.87 is added to read 

as follows: 

§ 399.87 Prohibition on post-purchase 

price increase. 

It is an unfair and deceptive practice 

within the meaning of 49 U.S.C. 41712 

for any seller of scheduled air 

transportation, or of a tour or tour 

component that includes scheduled air 

transportation to increase the price of 

that air transportation to a consumer, 

including but not limited to increase in 

the price of the seat, increase in the 

price for the carriage of passenger 

baggage, or increase in an applicable 

fuel surcharge, after the air 

transportation has been purchased by 

the consumer. 

[FR Doc. 2010–13572 Filed 6–7–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–9X–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

19 CFR Part 351 

[Docket No. 100602237–0237–01] 

Import Administration IA ACCESS Pilot 

Program 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

ACTION: Public notice and request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce 

(the Department) is creating a pilot 

program to test an electronic filing 

system in certain antidumping (AD) and 

countervailing duty (CVD) proceedings. 

In addition, the Department is 

requesting comments from parties on 

this pilot program. 

DATES: Effective Date: The pilot program 

will be in effect from July 1, 2010, 

through September 30, 2010. 

Comments Due Date: Comments on 

the Department’s conduct of the pilot 

program for electronic filing should be 

submitted either electronically or 

manually no later than 30 days after the 

publication of this notice in the Federal 

Register. 

ADDRESSES: Written comments may be 

submitted by any of the following 

methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.Regulations.gov. All comments 

must be submitted into Docket Number 

ITA–2010–XXXX. All comments should 

refer to RIN 0625–AA84. 

• Mail or Hand Delivery/Courier: 

Please submit the original and two 

copies of comments to the Secretary of 

Commerce, Attn: Evangeline Keenan, 

Import Administration, APO/Dockets 

Unit, Room 1870, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, Constitution Avenue and 

14th Street, NW., Washington, DC 

20230. 

• E-mail: Comments may be 

submitted electronically via e-mail to 

webmaster-support@ita.doc.gov. Please 

reference ‘‘IA ACCESS Pilot Comments’’ 

in the subject line of the e-mail. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Evangeline Keenan, Acting APO/ 

Dockets Unit Director, Import 

Administration, APO/Dockets Unit, 

Room 1870, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, Constitution Avenue and 

14th Street, NW., Washington, DC 

20230; telephone: (202) 482–9157. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

The Department is undertaking a 

review of its regulations in AD and CVD 

proceedings governing the submission 

of information to the Department, 

currently 19 CFR part 351, subpart C, 

with a view to the adoption of rules and 

procedures that will implement an 

electronic filing system, which will be 

entitled Import Administration’s 

Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 

Centralized Electronic Service System 

(IA ACCESS). The Department’s current 

rules on the submission of information 

in AD and CVD proceedings, at 19 CFR 

351.303(c)(1), require that parties 

submit six paper copies of each 

submission to the Department. In 

developing IA ACCESS, the Department 

seeks to expand the public’s access to 

the Department’s AD and CVD 

proceedings by making all publicly filed 

documents available on the internet and 

to facilitate the electronic submission of 

documents to the Department in AD and 

CVD proceedings by allowing interested 

parties to file documents electronically. 

The Department envisions that such a 

system will create efficiencies in both 

the process and costs associated with 

filing and maintaining documents 

pertaining to AD and CVD proceedings. 

The pilot program will implement IA 

ACCESS on a small scale to allow the 

Department to evaluate and gain 

experience with operating an electronic 

filing system. Implementation of the full 

electronic filing system will be 

accomplished through a later 

rulemaking that will amend the 

Department’s regulations; the 

Department also intends to provide 

more detailed procedures for IA 

ACCESS in a document separate from 

the regulations, which the Department 

intends to publish on its Web site prior 

to issuing regulations creating IA 

ACCESS. IA ACCESS will be 

implemented in three separate phases, 

or releases, with each phase 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS