UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

WASHINGTON, D.C.

 Order 2012-4-18

Action on IATA Agreement

Issued by the Department of Transportation

on the 13th day of April, 2012

Served: April 13, 2012

Docket 32851, Agreement CAB 1175

Docket OST-2006-25307

Docket OST-2006-26404

Docket OST-2010-0114

Docket OST-2012-0058

APPLICATION FOR

FURTHER EXEMPTION FROM CONDITION #2

By application filed in Docket OST-2010-0114 on May 3, 2010, the International Air Transport 

Association (“IATA”) proposes that the Department grant IATA and its member airlines a broad 

prospective exemption from Condition #2, one of the existing conditions imposed upon its 

traffic conference system as part of the Department’s continued approval of its “Provisions for 

the Conduct of the IATA Traffic Conferences” (“by-laws”).1

 The requested exemption is 

 1 Order 85-5-32 (May 6, 1985). The various traffic conferences are the means through which IATA’s member 

airlines have traditionally met, discussed and agreed upon resolutions and recommended practices to be followed 

Agreements Adopted by the

International Air Transport

Association Relating to the Traffic 

Conferences

Application for Exemption

Under 49 U.S.C. 40109

From the Conditions of Order

68-7-55 Relating to the

IATA Traffic Conferences

Notice of IATA Traffic Conference

Actions Tentatively Exempted

From Filing for Approval
2

designed to facilitate prompt implementation of routine but essential standard setting and 

interline coordination agreements without antitrust immunity, while preserving public notice 

and regulatory options.

Condition #2, most recently imposed on the by-laws by Order 68-7-55 (July 12, 1968) and 

affirmed by Order 85-5-32, provides:

That the U.S. air carrier members of IATA shall submit to the [Department] for 

appropriate action all recommended practices, agreements and resolutions 

adopted by IATA and each of its conferences and permanent conference 

committees.2

The term “appropriate action” has been construed to mean either approval under 49 U.S.C. 

section 41309, or exemption from the antitrust laws under 49 U.S.C. sections 41308, prior to 

the agreement being declared effective by IATA or implemented by its members.3

 This advance 

filing condition applies to all traffic conference actions worldwide, except in markets where the 

Department has given an exemption from condition #2 for certain agreements or kinds of 

agreements resulting from approved conference activities.4

IATA’s Application

IATA states that its airline members annually reach a large number of interline agreements 

within the traffic conferences, which are designed under its current by-laws to facilitate the 

interline movement of passengers and cargo, primarily without the need for antitrust immunity 

under U.S. law, as recognized by the Department in Order 2007-3-23. According to IATA, when 

first imposed, condition #2 tracked and complemented statutory requirements requiring the 

filing and regulatory review of all agreements of U.S. airlines in foreign air transportation, but 

these sections of the Code no longer require such filings and make the grant of antitrust 

immunity discretionary in many cases.5 It emphasizes that many of these conference 

agreements no longer present the types of legal and policy concerns that have prompted close 

regulatory scrutiny by the Department and its predecessor agency since the general filing 

 

by the airlines under grants of antitrust immunity. The traffic conferences are administratively divided into agency, 

services and tariff conferences, which are in turn structured geographically. Separate conferences are held for 

passenger and cargo transportation.

2 Related conditions on the by-laws require that minutes of the Conferences and other associated information be 

filed with the agreements.

3

 U.S. air carrier members of IATA have given IATA a power-of-attorney to make such submissions on their behalf. 

Where IATA declares an agreement effective without prior Department action, that agreement will not be deemed 

to have been approved by the Department and will not enjoy immunity from application of the U.S. antitrust laws.

4 In addition, certain kinds of conference activities have been proscribed altogether in some markets by 

Department order. See, e.g. Order 2007-3-23 (March 30, 2007), which disapproved the traditional IATA pricesetting process in most U.S.-European and U.S.-Australian markets. Other restrictions, such as those on agency 

conference activities, are described in Order 2006-7-3 at pp. 3-14. 5 Title 49 U.S.C., sections 41309 and 41308.
3

requirement was first imposed and, consequently, that the need for U.S. regulatory oversight 

before conference agreements may be implemented has diminished significantly. 

As noted by IATA, the recent focus of its by-laws on facilitation of interline services by airlines 

acting in service and pricing areas has allowed the Department to grant both specific and more 

general exemptions from condition #2 in areas where regulatory concerns have diminished or 

disappeared, particularly in the numerous services conferences. As a prime example IATA notes 

that it and the Department have already worked together to identify categories of service 

conference resolutions that need only be filed for information in a public docket before being 

declared effective under IATA procedures, without antitrust immunity.6 It also notes that DOT 

exempted from filing, on a worldwide basis, all resolutions adopted by IATA’s passenger and 

cargo agency conferences.7 IATA further notes that even in the competition-sensitive area of 

interlineable fares, IATA has moved to a market-based “Flex Fare” system which it has made 

effective without antitrust immunity pursuant to Department orders exempting Flex Fare 

resolutions from condition #2.8

Yet, IATA points out that condition #2 still has broad application, and most traffic conference 

agreements must still be submitted well in advance of their proposed effective date for DOT 

review, even though the Department has been increasingly disposed to grant ad hoc filing 

exemption relief to allow implementation without antitrust immunity. IATA recognizes that the 

time and effort required for Department action, even on IATA matters not involving significant 

policy issues, is still substantial, and delays are common. IATA submits that eliminating delay to 

the extent possible in implementing non-controversial agreements, including amendments and 

revalidations, will benefit the traveling and shipping public by reducing delay and uncertainty 

for the carriers and reducing the resources now devoted by the Department to the review of 

such agreements, while fully satisfying both the public’s and the Department’s needs for 

information on IATA Traffic Conference activities, and providing for pre-effectiveness review 

and Department action in the case of agreements perceived by the Department to raise 

significant competitive, consumer and other issues. Such a balance, IATA asserts, makes its 

proposed prospective exemption from condition #2 in the public interest.

IATA’s Proposal

IATA proposes, by means of a carefully tailored exemption from condition #2, to establish a 

three-tiered system for the filing and implementation of traffic conference agreements. 

The first tier would include all traffic conference agreements except those included in tiers two 

and three. IATA would file all first-tier agreements, and related IATA documentation such as 

conference minutes, “for information” in a master public docket maintained by the 

 6 See e.g. Orders 2002-1-15 (February 1, 2002); 2002-7-3 (July 5, 2002); 2002-8-16 (August 20, 2002); 2003-6-15 

(June 13, 2003); 2003-7-22 (July 23, 2003); 2003-11-9 (November 20, 2003) and 2005-7-20 (July 25, 2005). 7 Order 2008-4-45 (May 5, 2008). 8 See e.g. Orders 2006-12-24 (January 2, 2007), 2009-10-9 (October 22, 2009) and others discussed infra.
4

Department, at least 30 days prior to their intended effective dates. The Department and 

interested parties would then have a minimum of 30 days to review each agreement. At its 

discretion, the Department could advise IATA on or before the thirtieth day after the date of 

filing to delay the effective date for an additional period of up to 60 days to allow further time 

for Department consideration. At any time during the review period, the Department could 

advise IATA to re-file the agreement in a separate docket for Department review and action. 

Such filings would then have to await Department action. If the Department did not give IATA 

notice to postpone the effective date or to re-file the agreement, then IATA would be able to 

declare the agreement effective according to its terms, without further Department action. 

Such agreements could then be implemented, but would not have antitrust immunity.

The second tier would consist of any agreements in specific subject areas listed by IATA in its 

application. These are subject areas which the Department has indicated that it still chooses to 

review on a case-by-case basis before implementation. This category would include all 

amendments or modifications to recommended practices, agreements and/or resolutions listed 

in IATA’s application, and all new recommended practices, agreements and resolutions 

addressing substantially similar subjects. Examples of such subject areas include conditions of 

carriage for passengers and cargo, ticket notices, air waybills, carriage of cargo using electronic 

data interchange, cargo security, carriage of passengers requiring special assistance, and Flex 

Fares in U.S. markets.9

The third tier would be those recommended practices, agreements or resolutions that IATA still 

wishes to file with the Department for approval and antitrust immunity under sections 41308 

and 41309 of the Code. As is the case now, all such filings would have to await Department 

review and appropriate action before implementation.10

Decision

We have decided to grant the exemption from condition #2 essentially as proposed by IATA. 

For the reasons identified by IATA, and elaborated below, we find that the exemption, subject 

to several conditions and understandings, is in the public interest.11 The exemption is set forth 

in full at Appendices A and B to this order.

 9 IATA’s proposal contemplates that the Department may amend the second-tier subject areas at its discretion, 

upon written notice to IATA. Our procedures in this regard are discussed, infra, at page 9, and in Appendix A, 

Section B.

10 Such action could include a determination to grant a sua sponte exemption from review, as discussed below. 11 Comments were submitted in Docket 2010-0114 on August 29, 2011, by Jocelyn D. Curtis, and on October 6, 

2011, by Basil Devine. Both are self-described consumers who believe that the IATA process requires more 

“transparency,” such as allowing consumers free and easy access to detailed transcripts and/or audio recordings of 

the discussions that take place in the conferences. Although late, we will accept the comments in the interests of a 

complete record. As described in this Order, the Department believes that the expanded exemption adopted here, 

as conditioned, provides both enhanced transparency and effective consumer protections.
5

The expedited filing process we are implementing here through this expanded exemption is a 

logical extension of many actions we have taken over the years to refine our areas of regulatory 

concern and to develop appropriate responses to evolving traffic conference activities.12

Condition #2 was initially imposed on the by-laws to insure that the Civil Aeronautics Board had 

review authority over all IATA traffic conference actions worldwide, even though by statute 

only agreements involving U.S. carriers affecting “foreign air transportation” were required to 

be filed. The broader scope was deemed necessary to insure that neither worldwide conditions 

of service, nor fare rules between foreign points, operated to prejudice U.S. consumers. With 

deregulation and the easing of bilateral governmental constraints on both service and price 

competition, fueling growth in air travel, IATA conference activities have focused increasingly 

on technical standard setting and the facilitation of interline travel rather than setting fares by 

agreement among competitors. Following statutory changes to make all agreement filing 

voluntary and the grant of antitrust immunity discretionary in most cases, the Department 

sharpened its criteria to distinguish facilitative functions from those more problematic to 

competition and consumers, and to narrow the scope of IATA agreements covered by Condition 

#2.

A step toward a new approach to IATA activities was taken in 1998 when the Department 

continued its approval of IATA’s Articles of Incorporation but withdrew their antitrust 

immunity.13 Thereafter, IATA and the Department investigated the possibility of exempting 

specific categories of service conference resolutions from the advance filing and approval 

requirement where the resolutions did not raise public interest issues or need antitrust 

immunity for implementation. 

In Order 2002-1-15, February 1, 2002, the Department approved IATA’s request for an 

exemption from condition #2 to adopt and implement future changes in 37 specified 

resolutions and recommended practices (RPs) of its Worldwide Passenger Services Conference 

(PSC) without filing them for review. Such resolutions and RPs retain their previously-granted 

antitrust immunity until they are amended or revalidated. The Department agreed with IATA 

that the kinds of agreements exempted by the order “are generally among those that have 

been approved consistently in the past...which have not presented consumer protection, 

competitive or other problems under aviation regulations and policy, and which have been 

identified by IATA as not raising legal difficulties under U.S antitrust laws.” The Department 

concluded that “It is our judgment that the antitrust laws are a sufficient protection against 

abuse of the discussion authority which DOT has continued to give to the services conferences 

with regard to the subject matter of these agreements.”

 12 An example of this evolution is the treatment of agency conferences. The CAB disapproved certain IATA 

resolutions jointly setting travel agent commissions to/from the U.S. in 1978, and in 1981 the CAB denied antitrust 

immunity to all agency conference activities affecting carrier-agent relations within the U.S. U.S. carriers have 

since refrained from any participation in agreements fixing or recommending travel agent commissions outside the 

U.S., removing the CAB’s chief concern. By Order 2008-4-45, May 5, 2008, the Department exempted from filing 

under condition #2 all resolutions by IATA’s passenger and cargo agency conferences applicable worldwide. 13 Order 98-6-6, June 5, 1998.
6

The Department granted the prospective exemption subject to two understandings. First, it 

covered only the specific resolutions and RPs identified in the application, “and their present 

subject matter.” If resolutions were combined, or changed significantly in terms of subject 

matter, the Department and the public needed sufficient information to determine whether 

they fell under the exemption.14 Second, IATA would identify separately in any submission of 

conference agreements those resolutions and RPs which had been exempted and whose 

changes were being filed “for information” only, and those which had not been exempted and 

which were being filed for review and prior approval before implementation.

Subsequently, the Department exempted additional groups of resolutions and RPs of the 

worldwide passenger and cargo services conferences that we found presented no significant 

competitive or U.S. aviation policy issues, subject to the same understandings. See Orders 

2002-7-3 (July 5, 2002), 2003-6-15 (June 13, 2003), and 2005-7-20 (July 25, 2005) exempting a 

total of 83 resolutions and recommended practices from passenger services conferences, and 

Orders 2002-8-16 (August 20, 2002), 2003-7-22 (July 23, 2003, and 2003-11-9 (November 20, 

2003) exempting a total of 29 resolutions and RPs from the cargo services conferences.

In several orders dealing with agreements of both the services conferences and the traditionally 

more sensitive tariff conferences, the Department found it appropriate to grant specific 

exemptions from condition #2 on an ad hoc basis. Some of the exemptions were granted at 

IATA’s request and others were granted sua sponte. By Order 2008-9-26 (September 26, 2008) 

the Department determined that several resolutions rescinding rules on free and reduced-rate 

travel, and amending certain fare construction rules, did not involve the kind of conduct 

prohibited by Order 2007-3-23 and should be exempted from filing, subject, however, to the 

continuation of previously imposed conditions on the various resolutions, whether directly or 

through permanent effectiveness Resolution 001. By Order 2008-11-16 (November 26, 2008) 

another sua sponte exemption was given to a composite agreement adopting technical 

currency changes that raised no competitive issues and facilitated interline service. Order 2009-

2-6 (February 13, 2009) reviewed RP 1601 (Conditions for Carriage for Cargo), adopted for 

foreign markets by the cargo services conference and filed for normal review by IATA. The 

Department found that antitrust immunity was not necessary and instead exempted the 

agreement from filing. Similarly, by Order 2009-6-8 (June 15, 2009) the Department exempted 

from filing amended Resolution 724 creating a new worldwide passenger ticket notice, adopted 

by the passenger services conference. By Order 2009-9-20 (October 5, 2009) the Department 

approved and immunized a temporary extension of existing baggage allowance Resolutions 300 

and 301 but exempted, subject to two conditions, new Resolution 302 which created a formula 

for selecting which baggage rules apply to an interline journey. Order 2010-5-21 (May 21, 2010) 

exempted a technical amendment to RP 1601 while approving a new RP 1630 (Cargo Security). 

More recently, by Order 2011-3-3 (March 1, 2011) the Department reviewed a mixture of 

 14 The order directed IATA to assign new identification numbers to new, significantly changed, or consolidated 

resolutions and recommended practices, and either file an amended exemption application for them or file them 

for specific approval and immunity.
7

technical amendments to existing ticketing resolutions and new recommended practices 

dealing with data exchanges and passengers with disabilities adopted by the passenger services 

conference, approving and granting immunity to most, subject to conditions, but granting a sua 

sponte filing exemption to one new recommended practice. 

In a series of orders the Department has exempted from filing for approval the establishment of 

fully-flexible interline fares (“Flex Fares”) through a new IATA process designed to eliminate 

direct discussions or other identifiable information sharing among airlines of the type 

proscribed for major markets by Order 2007-3-23.15 As described in Order 2008-7-4 (July 7, 

2008), Flex Fares for particular markets are derived by aggregating individual carrier 

interlineable fares charged in each market, applying an algorithm to the distribution, and 

adding an interline premium set by IATA. Changes to the algorithm or the interline premium

are adopted through an anonymous internet voting platform.

The Department, at IATA’s request, exempted Flex Fare resolutions in foreign-to-foreign 

markets from filing for approval on the basis that IATA fares for travel between non-U.S. 

markets typically present no public interest concerns involving U.S. passengers under U.S. 

aviation policy or U.S. antitrust laws to justify our review, and that the new process is unlikely 

to affect fares in U.S. markets and is also constrained by foreign competition law.16 

Subsequently, the Department also exempted Flex Fares in U.S. markets, concluding that the 

mechanism does not appear to present the type of conduct we prohibited in major U.S. 

markets in Order 2007-3-23. The Flex Fares system is a mechanistic, computer-driven process 

that involves no direct contact between carriers. It produces IATA interline fares based on 

adjusted averages of market fares, rather than negotiations among competitors. Annual and 

exceptional updates to the fares, as well as amendments to the methodology or the interline 

premium, likewise involve no direct contacts between carriers, and the process is open to 

participation by non-IATA carriers. Compared to traditional IATA tariff conference activities, 

there is much less risk that the Flex Fares process, or the resulting IATA interline fares, will have 

a significant spillover effect on individual airline prices. For each geographic Flex Fares market, 

our orders granted an exemption from condition #2 to the Flex Fares resolutions, future 

amendments to the resolutions, and the fares periodically produced by the agreements. In 

addition, there is no reason to believe that non-IATA interline fares will cease to be widely 

available. However, the order imposed two express conditions on the exemption. To avoid the 

possibility that Flex Fares could be adopted in markets at issue where traditional tariff 

conferences were still authorized under previous orders, resulting in two overlapping forms of 

coordination in the same market, the Flex Fare exemption was granted only upon non-

 15 Order 2007-3-23 disapproved the traditional IATA price-setting process in most U.S.-European and U.S.-

Australian markets.

16 Orders 2008-7-4 (July 7, 2008), 2006-12-24 (January 2, 2006), 2007-9-16 (September 19, 2007), and 2008-4-45 

(May 5, 2008).
8

application of the by-law procedures in the subject markets. Second, all previous conditions 

placed on other IATA resolutions and recommended practices continued to apply.

17 

Because Flex Fares are the product of a process, not a one-time agreement, the filing 

exemptions we have granted broadly included “any amendments to the agreements” to permit

normal technical changes in the algorithm, the timing of Flex Fare updates, the interline 

premium, and the resulting fares, so long as there is no direct contact or identifiable 

information-sharing between airlines. However, adoption and implementation of amendments 

to Flex Fares under our broad exemption requires IATA to exercise judgment to ensure that 

such changes do not involve the kind of conduct proscribed by Order 2007-3-23. For example, 

IATA informally contacted the Department to discuss the possibility of adopting a “national 

carrier exception” in U.S. Flex fares markets similar to that which it had adopted in a number of 

foreign-to-foreign Flex Fares markets.18 Under this exception to the normal process for 

selecting qualifying market fares, fares of national carriers in a market that fall outside the 

permitted distribution are nevertheless included. This clearly could have an impact on the 

average fare; moreover, in some city pairs the national carrier fare could became the 

benchmark Flex Fare. Although this modification to the basic process was carrier-neutral, the 

Department informed IATA that, regardless of the mechanics, it believed that the likely effect of 

the exception would be to prevent the undercutting of national carriers’ fares and thus 

appeared tantamount to the kind of price-setting activity that could have anticompetitive 

effects on other fares. IATA responded promptly to remove the “national carrier” provisions 

from all prospective Flex Fare agreements, in both U.S. and foreign-to-foreign markets, 

including those previously exempted.

IATA’s application includes U.S. Flex Fares in the second tier of agreements, where changes 

would have to be filed for Department review and appropriate action before being 

implemented. As proposed, this would require all Flex Fare changes applicable to U.S. points, 

including the annual and exceptional fare updates, as well as the interline premiums and the 

underlying methodology, to be filed for Department action. However, as granted herein, the 

exemption will apply that requirement only to changes in the underlying methodology and its

procedures, while fare updates and changes in the interline premiums will be included in the 

first tier (filing for information, with implementation after a 30-day waiting period). This will 

ensure that the Department and interested parties have notice, in a separate docket, of any 

changes in the Flex Fare methodology or process that could have an impact on the prices U.S. 

consumers might pay or the services they might receive, without unduly delaying 

implementation of Flex Fares under the existing method. Flex Fare agreements limited to nonU.S. markets will normally be included in tier one, but we expect IATA to continue to exercise 

judgement concerning changes in the non-U.S. Flex Fares methodology or procedures that 

could have knock-on anticompetitive effects on other fares. 

 17 Order 2008-7-24 (July 28, 2008). To illustrate, the order mentioned conditions limiting or negating fare 

construction and advertising and sales restrictions, citing Order 99-7-8 (July 14, 1999), Order 85-3-79 (March 28,

1985), and Order 82-2-130 (February 26, 1982). These and other conditions continue to apply under the 

exemption to all IATA fares, including Flex Fares. 18 Under our broad exemption language, those exceptions had not been filed.
9

Implementation

The structure and details of the expanded, blanket exemption from condition #2 are set forth in 

Appendix A and Appendix B to this order. In essence, the procedures implementing the 

expedited filing and implementation regime being established by this exemption are consistent 

with the procedures and requirements already in place for exempted agreements of the 

passenger and cargo services conferences, and the procedures, requirements and conditions 

also in place for Flex Fare and other exempted agreements of the passenger and cargo tariff 

conferences. The Director, Office of International Aviation, under assigned authority, will 

exercise the initial discretion to interpret the conditions of the exemption should clarification 

be needed.19

Pursuant to authority duly delegated under the Department’s regulations, 49 CFR 1.54(b)(1) 

and 14 CFR 385.13:

We find that granting the exemption from condition #2 requested by the International Air 

Transport Association in this docket, subject to the understandings and conditions described in 

the body of this order and set forth in Appendix A and Appendix B to this order, is in the public 

interest.

ACCORDINGLY, 

1. We exempt the International Air Transport Association and its member carriers from 

Condition #2 imposed upon IATA’s Provisions for the Conduct of the IATA Traffic 

Conferences, Agreement 1175, as amended by Order 68-7-55, to the extent that IATA 

need not file agreements adopted by any Traffic Conference, within the scope of Section 

A of Appendix A hereto, with the Department for its review and approval prior to a 

declaration of effectiveness by IATA, provided that the terms and conditions of 

Appendices A and B hereto are observed;

2. This exemption may be revoked in whole or in part at any time, and

3. This Order will be served on the International Air Transport Association.

Persons entitled to petition the Department for review of this order, under 14 CFR 385.30, 

may file petitions within seven days after the date of service of this order.

This order shall become effective and become the action of the Department of 

Transportation upon expiration of the above period, unless within such period a petition for 

 19 49 CFR 1.54(b)(1) and 14 CFR 385.13.
10

review is filed or the Assistant Secretary for Aviation and International Affairs gives notice 

that she will review this order on her own motion.

By:

Paul L. Gretch

Director, Office of International Aviation

An electronic version of this document is available on the World Wide Web at

http:/dms.dot.gov//reports/reports_aviation.asp
Appendix A

Blanket Exemption from Condition #2

Terms and conditions

Tier 1 Agreements

A. Except as provided in sections B and C below, IATA shall file each resolution, 

recommended practice or other agreement reached by any traffic conference after the 

date of service of this order in a master public docket specified as Docket OST-2012-

0058, “Notice of IATA Traffic Conference Actions Tentatively Exempted from Filing for 

Approval” subject to the following procedures and conditions:

1. Each such resolution, recommended practice or other agreement shall be filed in the 

master docket at least thirty (30) days in advance of the date on which IATA seeks to 

declare the agreement effective; 1

2. Such agreements shall include the IATA minutes and/or meeting reports associated 

with their adoption, including records of any further actions taken with respect to 

such agreements; 2

3. Each resolution, recommended practice or other agreement filed in the master 

docket shall be clearly identified either as one that has already been exempted from 

Condition #2 by previous Department action, or one that has not;

4. Agreements previously exempted shall identify the docket and order numbers

granting their exemption;

5. Resolutions and recommended practices previously exempted that have been 

combined with others or changed significantly in terms of subject matter shall be 

assigned new identification numbers and accompanied by information sufficient for 

the Department to determine whether they continue to fall within the previous 

exemption;3

6. Each such resolution, recommended practice or other agreement may be declared 

by IATA to be effective according to IATA procedures for implementation by its 

members not less than 30 days from the date of filing, provided that effectiveness 

 1 IATA shall simultaneously send electronic notifications of such filings to John.Kiser@dot.gov and 

Della.Davis@dot.gov . 2 IATA will file with the Department the same complete package of text amendments, revalidations or other 

changes to agreements, as well as minutes of meetings, that are sent to the carrier members of IATA. 3 Significant changes would include the extension of the agreements to other IATA conference areas or other 

markets, as well as the inclusion of other fares, rates or subject matter.
shall not be declared if the Department notifies IATA by electronic means on or 

before the 30th day after filing that either:

(1) The Department requires up to sixty (60) additional days to review such 

resolution, recommended practice or other agreement, in which case IATA 

shall defer declaration of effectiveness for the additional days requested by 

the Department, or

(2) The Department, within the initial 30-day filing period, or such additional 

period the Department has requested, requires such resolution, 

recommended practice or other agreement to be filed in a public docket for 

review and appropriate action, in which case IATA shall not declare such 

resolution, recommended practice or other agreement effective for 

implementation by its members until appropriate action is taken by the 

Department.

4

 

7. Resolutions, recommended practices or other agreements previously exempted shall 

retain any antitrust immunity previously granted, subject to conditions imposed, 

until they are amended, revalidated or otherwise modified and declared effective. 

Any such changed resolutions, recommended practices or other agreements shall be 

so identified in the master docket; and

8. All resolutions, recommended practices and other agreements filed in accordance 

with this section and permitted to be declared effective by IATA remain subject to 

conditions previously imposed by the Department.

Tier 2 Agreements

B. IATA shall file all resolutions, recommended practices, and other agreements in the

specific subject areas listed in Appendix B for review and appropriate action by the 

Department, before declarations of effectiveness by IATA and implementation by 

carriers. This category of agreements includes all amendments or modifications to such 

resolutions, recommended practices, and other agreements, and all new agreements 

addressing substantially similar subjects.

As noted in the order, the Department reserves the right to modify the list in Appendix B 

from time to time, by adding, subtracting or refining the subject areas, through issuance 

of an advance notice in the master docket. It may also, through such notice, interpret 

and clarify the scope and meaning of the list. As is the case now with service conference 

agreements granted an exemption from condition #2, the Director, Office of 

 4 IATA shall send notifications of such re-filings to John.Kiser@dot.gov and Della.Davis@dot.gov .
International Aviation, has the initial authority to act on these matters, subject to staff 

action review procedures.

Tier 3 Agreements

C. Tier three agreements, those for which IATA seeks approval, or approval and antitrust 

immunity, will continue to be governed by 49 U.S.C. 41308 and 41309, 14 CFR Part 303, 

and the Department’s conditions on the IATA by-laws.

Fees

D. Tier 1 agreements shall incur no filing fees. Tier 2 and 3 agreements, including those 

previously filed in Tier 1 that the Department subsequently requires IATA to file for 

review and appropriate action, shall incur filing fees under 14 CFR Part 389.
Appendix B

Tier 2 Agreements

1. Flex Fares to or from the United States or its Territories (Resolution 111 series).

2. Air Waybill – Conditions of Contract (Resolution 600b).

3. Carriage Concluded and Evidenced by Electronic Means – Conditions of Contract (Resolution 

600i).

4. Acceptance and Carriage of Passengers Requiring Special Assistance (Resolution 700).

5. Carriage of Passengers with Reduced Mobility and Escorts Requirement (Recommended 

Practice 1700b).

6. Seat Assignment for Passengers With Reduced Mobility and for Escorts (Recommended 

Practice 1700c).

7. Passengers with Reduced Mobility Group Travel (Recommended Practice 1700d).

8. Publication in Airline Guides of Rates and Conditions Relating To Travel of Passengers with 

Reduced Mobility (Recommended Practice 1700e).

9. Passenger Assistance List (PAL) and Change Assistance List (CAL) (Recommended Practice 

1708a)

10. Ticket Notices (Resolution 724).

11. Acceptance of Power Driven Wheelchairs or Other Battery Powered Mobility Aids as 

Checked Baggage (Resolution 745b)

12. Conditions of Carriage for Cargo (Recommended Practice 1601), if applicable to or from the 

United States or its territories.

13. Cargo Security (Recommended Practice 1630).

14. Carriage of Cargo using Electronic Data Interchange (Recommended Practice 1670).

15. General Conditions of Carriage (Passenger and Baggage) (Recommended Practice 1724).

16. Carriage of Carry-on Baggage (Recommended Practice 1749)

17. Denied Boarding Compensation (Recommended Practice 1799).