BEFORE THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION WASHINGTON, D.C.

Agreements Adopted by the Traffic Conferences of the International Air Transport Association OST-2011-XXXX

APPLICATION FOR APPROVAL OF AGREEMENTS BY THE INTERNATIONAL AIR TRANSPORT ASSOCIATION

30 November 2011 Communications with respect to this document should be sent to Douglas E. Lavin Regional Vice President – North America International Air Transport Association 1776 K.St. N.W. #12 th Floor Washington DC 200061

Summary DOCKET: OST-2011-XXXX US DOT ORDER: pending

Date: 30 November 2011 Filing fee / IATA Acct: USD 61 / 0000-06 US/UST involved: No End of Government Filing Period: 16 December 2011 Meeting site, date: SIN, 14 Oct 2011 Intended effective date: 30 January 2012 Agreement: Composite Passenger Tariff Coordinating Conference Singapore, 14 October 2011 Composite Resolutions 010o Intended Effective Date: 30 January 2012 (Memo PTC COMP 1655)

Composite Passenger Tariff Coordinating Conference Singapore, 14 October 2011 Minutes (Memo PTC COMP 1656) R1 010o2

APPLICATION FOR APPROVAL OF AGREEMENT Pursuant to statements submitted by Member airlines of the International Air Transport Association (IATA), the undersigned has been constitu ted to be their attorney-in-fact for filing with the Department of Transportation copi es of agreements adopted by the IATA Traffic Conferences. On their behalf, and pursuant to Sections 41308 and 41309 of Title 49 of the United States Code and Parts 303.03, 303.05 and 303.30 (c) of Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations, I am filing with the Department this applicat ion for approval of an IATA agreement. This agreement and related factual a nd explanatory material and documentation required by 14 C.F.R. 303.31 and Department and Civil Aeronautics Board (CAB) precedent are contained in the IATA Traffic C onference documentation summarized above. This agreement arises from the continuing process of Tariff Coordinating Conferences and was developed in the context of prior Depar tment and CAB rulings addressing related resolutions which reflected regulatory and market conditions then in effect. Thus, the present agreement should be viewed as part of a dynam ic process of IATA Member airline adjustment to governmental and economic factors. On previous occasions, the Department ha s found such agreements to be consistent with the public interest when they do not result in fares or rates that are unlawful or injurious to competition in the markets at issue. A pproval of the present agreement would not yield fares or rates that are unlawful or injurious to competition. Moreover, approval of this agreement, which reflects compromises among the differing economic and social philosophies of the many nations whose airlines are parties, will advance the public interest in maintaining good aviation relations with other countries. We request early approval by the Department of the for egoing agreement, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 41309, and the grant of full antitrust immunity, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 41308. The conferral of full antitrust immunity wo uld be in the public interest and necessary for the transaction to proceed. This agreement is a product of the IATA Tariff Coordinating Conferences which the Department found to be anticompetitive but nevertheless approved and immunized in Order 85-5-32 (May 6, 1985) on foreign policy and comity grounds because such action is necessary to achieve the serious transportation need of maintaining good aviation relations with other countries and these benefits are not obtainable by reasonably available means having materi ally less anticompetitive effects. This agreement concerns fares or rates between non-U.S. points and thus has at most indirect application in foreign air transportati on. The U.S. authorities have recognized (e.g, Order 79-8-194, 30 August 1979) that the intere sts of sovereign nations in the conditions governing air transportation between them greatly exceed any that the U.S. might have by reason of U.S. airline, citizen or shipper partici pation. This agreement is not adverse to the public interest or in violation of the Act and, therefore, should be granted full immunity. Respectfully submitted

___________________________ Douglas Lavin Regional Vice President – North America International Air Transport Association3 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

A copy of this application or a summary not ice thereof has been served by first class or priority mail on the following person

Chief, Transportation, Energy & Agriculture Section Antitrust Division Department of Justice Washington D.C. 20530

________________________________ Douglas E. Lavin

30 November 2011 Date ServedInternational Air Transport Association Route de l’Aéroport 33 PO Box 416 CH - 1215 Geneva 15 Airport Switzerland Tel: +41 22 770 2842 Fax +41 22 770 2896 LO www.iata.org E-Mail: tariffs@iata.org 25 November 2011

MEMORANDUM PTC COMP 1655 TO: Members Participating in Tariff Coordinating Conferences FROM: Manager, Interline Tariffs SUBJECT: Composite Passenger Tariff Coordinating Conference Singapore, 14 October 2011 Special Passenger Amending Resolution 010o between South Sudan and Africa Intended Effective Date: 30 January 2012

R ESOLUTIONS - A DOPTED Attached is Composite Resolution 010o, which was adopted at the above meeting for an intended effective date of 30 January 2012. The filing period for the attached Resolutions ends 1 6 December 2011

. Members are reminded of their obligations under Resolutions 001 and 006 to advise this office by the end of the filing period whether approval by their Government authorities is required and, if so, to accomplish the necessary filing formalities. The effective date will be declared in accordance with Resolutions 001 and 006, when all the known necessary Government approvals have been received.

Alban Sato Manager, Interline Tariffs Passenger Interline StandardRESOLUTION AMENDED AT

COMPOSITE MEETING OF PASSENGER TARIFF COORDINATING CONFERENCE

SINGAPORE, 14 OCTOBER 2011

EFFECTIVE DATE: 30 JANUARY 2012

RESO TITLE COMMENTS RD 010o Special Passenger Amending Resolution between South Sudan and Africa New 1ADOPTED Res Doc : 1 Resolution : 010o

TC2 SPECIAL PASSENGER AMENDING RESOLUTION BETWEEN SOUTH SUDAN AND AFRICA PTC2(165) 010o Amending

Filing Period Begins 25 November 2011 Intended Effectiveness 30 January 2012 Ends 16 December 2011 Expiry Indefinite Type B RESOLVED that, to support interlining to/from the newly formed nation of South Sudan: 1. Fares are specified between South Sudan and Africa as constructed with use of existing add-ons in Sudanese Pound (SDG), converting to South Sudanese Pound (SSP) at the exchange rate of 1:1. 2. The fares will be updated by Flex Fares process.

Attachment2F: TC2 MIDDLE EAST-AFRICA 1

ABJ-JUB Origin Origin > Destination GI > Destination GI Fare Basis Note Fare Reso Effective Expiry Fare Basis Note Fare Reso Effective Expiry ABIDJAN ABJ XOF MPXIF1M RT 569700 074OP 30JAN12 >>>>> JUBA JUB EH FIF OO 1421800 052OO 30JAN12 BANJUL BJL USD FIF RT 2187300 052OO 30JAN12 >>>>> JUBA JUB EH CIF OO 959100 042OO 30JAN12 FIF OO 3258 052OO 30JAN12 CIF RT 1475400 042OO 30JAN12 FIF RT 5013 052OO 30JAN12 YIF OO 874800 062OO 30JAN12 CIF OO 2472 042OO 30JAN12 YIF RT 1345800 062OO 30JAN12 CIF RT 3803 042OO 30JAN12 MEEIF3M RT 805800 070OP 30JAN12 YIF OO 1982 062OO 30JAN12 MPXIF1M RT 644700 074OP 30JAN12 YIF RT 3049 062OO 30JAN12 MEEIF3M RT 1968 070OP 30JAN12 ACCRA ACC USD MPXIF1M RT 1574 074OP 30JAN12 >>>>> JUBA JUB EH FIF OO 2360 052OO 30JAN12 BENGHAZI BEN LYD FIF RT 3631 052OO 30JAN12 >>>>> JUBA JUB EH CIF OO 1761 042OO 30JAN12 FIF OO 692.3 052OO 30JAN12 CIF RT 2709 042OO 30JAN12 FIF RT 1065.0 052OO 30JAN12 YIF OO 1438 062OO 30JAN12 CIF OO 544.1 042OO 30JAN12 YIF RT 2212 062OO 30JAN12 CIF RT 837.0 042OO 30JAN12 MEEIF3M RT 1319 070OP 30JAN12 YIF OO 470.0 062OO 30JAN12 MPXIF1M RT 1055 074OP 30JAN12 YIF RT 723.0 062OO 30JAN12 MEEIF3M RT 548.0 070OP 30JAN12 ADDIS ABABA ADD USD MPXIF1M RT 438.4 074OP 30JAN12 >>>>> JUBA JUB EH FIF OO 1069 052OO 30JAN12 BRAZZAVILLE BZV XAF FIF RT 1645 052OO 30JAN12 >>>>> JUBA JUB EH CIF OO 1069 042OO 30JAN12 FIF OO 1406200 052OO 30JAN12 CIF RT 1645 042OO 30JAN12 FIF RT 2163300 052OO 30JAN12 YIF OO 803 062OO 30JAN12 CIF OO 872700 042OO 30JAN12 YIF RT 1235 062OO 30JAN12 CIF RT 1342600 042OO 30JAN12 MEEIF3M RT 878 070OP 30JAN12 YIF OO 828000 062OO 30JAN12 MPXIF1M RT 702 074OP 30JAN12 YIF RT 1273700 062OO 30JAN12 MEEIF3M RT 712000 070OP 30JAN12 ANTANANARIVO TNR USD MPXIF1M RT 569600 074OP 30JAN12 >>>>> JUBA JUB EH FIF OO 3728 052OO 30JAN12 BUJUMBURA BJM USD FIF RT 5735 052OO 30JAN12 >>>>> JUBA JUB EH CIF OO 2584 042OO 30JAN12 FIF OO 1541 052OO 30JAN12 CIF RT 3975 042OO 30JAN12 FIF RT 2371 052OO 30JAN12 YIF OO 2018 062OO 30JAN12 CIF OO 1286 042OO 30JAN12 YIF RT 3104 062OO 30JAN12 CIF RT 1979 042OO 30JAN12 MEEIF3M RT 2325 070OP 30JAN12 YIF OO 893 062OO 30JAN12 MPXIF1M RT 1860 074OP 30JAN12 YIF RT 1374 062OO 30JAN12 MEEIF3M RT 1064 070OP 30JAN12 ASMARA ASM USD MPXIF1M RT 851 074OP 30JAN12 >>>>> JUBA JUB EH FIF OO 660 052OO 30JAN12 BULAWAYO BUQ USD FIF RT 1015 052OO 30JAN12 >>>>> JUBA JUB EH CIF OO 547 042OO 30JAN12 FIF OO 2653 052OO 30JAN12 CIF RT 842 042OO 30JAN12 FIF RT 4081 052OO 30JAN12 YIF OO 412 062OO 30JAN12 CIF OO 2046 042OO 30JAN12 YIF RT 634 062OO 30JAN12 CIF RT 3147 042OO 30JAN12 MEEIF3M RT 403 070OP 30JAN12 YIF OO 1557 062OO 30JAN12 MPXIF1M RT 322 074OP 30JAN12 YIF RT 2395 062OO 30JAN12 MEEIF3M RT 1438 070OP 30JAN12 BAMAKO BKO XOF MPXIF1M RT 1150 074OP 30JAN12 >>>>> JUBA JUB EH FIF OO 1528800 052OO 30JAN12 CONAKRY CKY USD FIF RT 2352000 052OO 30JAN12 >>>>> JUBA JUB EH CIF OO 1150500 042OO 30JAN12 FIF OO 3318 052OO 30JAN12 CIF RT 1769900 042OO 30JAN12 FIF RT 5104 052OO 30JAN12 YIF OO 940500 062OO 30JAN12 CIF OO 2510 042OO 30JAN12 YIF RT 1446900 062OO 30JAN12 CIF RT 3862 042OO 30JAN12 MEEIF3M RT 859200 070OP 30JAN12 YIF OO 2018 062OO 30JAN12 MPXIF1M RT 687400 074OP 30JAN12 YIF RT 3104 062OO 30JAN12 MEEIF3M RT 1993 070OP 30JAN12 BANGUI BGF XAF MPXIF1M RT 1594 074OP 30JAN12 >>>>> JUBA JUB EH FIF OO 1241300 052OO 30JAN12 COTONOU COO XOF FIF RT 1909600 052OO 30JAN12 >>>>> JUBA JUB EH CIF OO 940700 042OO 30JAN12 FIF OO 1271100 052OO 30JAN12 CIF RT 1447200 042OO 30JAN12 FIF RT 1955400 052OO 30JAN12 YIF OO 694200 062OO 30JAN12 CIF OO 963200 042OO 30JAN12 YIF RT 1067900 062OO 30JAN12 CIF RT 1481700 042OO 30JAN12 MEEIF3M RT 712100 070OP 30JAN12 YIF OO 781800 062OO 30JAN12 Date: 24-NOV-11 COO-JUB2F: TC2 MIDDLE EAST-AFRICA 2

COO-JUB Origin Origin > Destination GI > Destination GI Fare Basis Note Fare Reso Effective Expiry Fare Basis Note Fare Reso Effective Expiry COTONOU COO XOF FIF RT 19995 052OO 30JAN12 >>>>> JUBA JUB EH CIF OO 10030 042OO 30JAN12 YIF RT 1202700 062OO 30JAN12 CIF RT 15430 042OO 30JAN12 MEEIF3M RT 684400 070OP 30JAN12 YIF OO 8149 062OO 30JAN12 MPXIF1M RT 547600 074OP 30JAN12 YIF RT 12537 062OO 30JAN12 MEEIF3M RT 10740 070OP 30JAN12 DAKAR DKR XOF MPXIF1M RT 8592 074OP 30JAN12 >>>>> JUBA JUB EH FIF OO 1647600 052OO 30JAN12 GAROUA GOU XAF FIF RT 2534700 052OO 30JAN12 >>>>> JUBA JUB EH CIF OO 1234300 042OO 30JAN12 FIF OO 960000 052OO 30JAN12 CIF RT 1898800 042OO 30JAN12 FIF RT 1476800 052OO 30JAN12 YIF OO 753900 062OO 30JAN12 CIF OO 763400 042OO 30JAN12 YIF RT 1159800 062OO 30JAN12 CIF RT 1174400 042OO 30JAN12 MEEIF3M RT 917400 070OP 30JAN12 YIF OO 630500 062OO 30JAN12 MPXIF1M RT 734000 074OP 30JAN12 YIF RT 970000 062OO 30JAN12 MEEIF3M RT 625400 070OP 30JAN12 DAR ES SALAAM DAR USD MPXIF1M RT 500400 074OP 30JAN12 >>>>> JUBA JUB EH FIF OO 1357 052OO 30JAN12 HARARE HRE USD FIF RT 2088 052OO 30JAN12 >>>>> JUBA JUB EH CIF OO 1195 042OO 30JAN12 FIF OO 2642 052OO 30JAN12 CIF RT 1838 042OO 30JAN12 FIF RT 4065 052OO 30JAN12 YIF OO 872 062OO 30JAN12 CIF OO 1683 042OO 30JAN12 YIF RT 1342 062OO 30JAN12 CIF RT 2589 042OO 30JAN12 MEEIF3M RT 1135 070OP 30JAN12 YIF OO 1276 062OO 30JAN12 MPXIF1M RT 908 074OP 30JAN12 YIF RT 1963 062OO 30JAN12 MEEIF3M RT 1426 070OP 30JAN12 DJIBOUTI JIB DJF MPXIF1M RT 1141 074OP 30JAN12 >>>>> JUBA JUB EH FIF OO 213100 052OO 30JAN12 JOHANNESBURG JNB ZAR FIF RT 327700 052OO 30JAN12 >>>>> JUBA JUB EH CIF OO 213100 042OO 30JAN12 FIF OO 20150 052OO 30JAN12 CIF RT 327700 042OO 30JAN12 FIF RT 31000 052OO 30JAN12 YIF OO 137100 062OO 30JAN12 CIF OO 18290 042OO 30JAN12 YIF RT 210800 062OO 30JAN12 CIF RT 28130 042OO 30JAN12 MEEIF3M RT 131600 070OP 30JAN12 YIF OO 12880 062OO 30JAN12 MPXIF1M RT 105300 074OP 30JAN12 YIF RT 19810 062OO 30JAN12 MEEIF3M RT 13370 070OP 30JAN12 DOUALA DLA XAF MPXIF1M RT 10700 074OP 30JAN12 >>>>> JUBA JUB EH FIF OO 1068900 052OO 30JAN12 JUBA JUB SDG FIF RT 1644400 052OO 30JAN12 >>>>> ABIDJAN ABJ EH CIF OO 848200 042OO 30JAN12 FIF OO 4939.00 052OO 30JAN12 CIF RT 1304900 042OO 30JAN12 FIF RT 7597.00 052OO 30JAN12 YIF OO 634500 062OO 30JAN12 CIF OO 3739.00 042OO 30JAN12 YIF RT 976100 062OO 30JAN12 CIF RT 5751.00 042OO 30JAN12 MEEIF3M RT 674500 070OP 30JAN12 YIF OO 3098.00 062OO 30JAN12 MPXIF1M RT 539600 074OP 30JAN12 YIF RT 4765.00 062OO 30JAN12 MEEIF3M RT 2867.00 070OP 30JAN12 ENTEBBE EBB USD MPXIF1M RT 2294.00 074OP 30JAN12 >>>>> JUBA JUB EH FIF OO 1318 052OO 30JAN12 >>>>> ACCRA ACC EH FIF RT 2027 052OO 30JAN12 FIF OO 4625.00 052OO 30JAN12 CIF OO 1104 042OO 30JAN12 FIF RT 7115.00 052OO 30JAN12 CIF RT 1698 042OO 30JAN12 CIF OO 3562.00 042OO 30JAN12 YIF OO 619 062OO 30JAN12 CIF RT 5480.00 042OO 30JAN12 YIF RT 952 062OO 30JAN12 YIF OO 2653.00 062OO 30JAN12 MEEIF3M RT 832 070OP 30JAN12 YIF RT 4081.00 062OO 30JAN12 MPXIF1M RT 666 074OP 30JAN12 MEEIF3M RT 2678.00 070OP 30JAN12 MPXIF1M RT 2143.00 074OP 30JAN12 FREETOWN FNA USD >>>>> JUBA JUB EH >>>>> ADDIS ABABA ADD EH FIF OO 3933 052OO 30JAN12 FIF OO 1971.00 052OO 30JAN12 FIF RT 6051 052OO 30JAN12 FIF RT 3032.00 052OO 30JAN12 CIF OO 2947 042OO 30JAN12 CIF OO 1662.00 042OO 30JAN12 CIF RT 4534 042OO 30JAN12 CIF RT 2556.00 042OO 30JAN12 YIF OO 2178 062OO 30JAN12 YIF OO 1306.00 062OO 30JAN12 YIF RT 3351 062OO 30JAN12 YIF RT 2009.00 062OO 30JAN12 MEEIF3M RT 2366 070OP 30JAN12 MEEIF3M RT 1306.00 070OP 30JAN12 MPXIF1M RT 1893 074OP 30JAN12 MPXIF1M RT 1045.00 074OP 30JAN12 GABORONE GBE BWP >>>>> ANTANANARIVO TNR EH >>>>> JUBA JUB EH FIF OO 5882.00 052OO 30JAN12 FIF OO 12997 052OO 30JAN12 FIF RT 9049.00 052OO 30JAN12 Date: 24-NOV-11 JUB-TNR2F: TC2 MIDDLE EAST-AFRICA 3

JUB-TNR Origin Origin > Destination GI > Destination GI Fare Basis Note Fare Reso Effective Expiry Fare Basis Note Fare Reso Effective Expiry JUBA JUB SDG YIF RT 4154.00 062OO 30JAN12 >>>>> ANTANANARIVO TNR EH MEEIF3M RT 2062.00 070OP 30JAN12 CIF OO 4805.00 042OO 30JAN12 MPXIF1M RT 1650.00 074OP 30JAN12 CIF RT 7392.00 042OO 30JAN12 YIF OO 4051.00 062OO 30JAN12 >>>>> CONAKRY CKY EH YIF RT 6231.00 062OO 30JAN12 FIF OO 5162.00 052OO 30JAN12 MEEIF3M RT 3747.00 070OP 30JAN12 FIF RT 7941.00 052OO 30JAN12 MPXIF1M RT 2998.00 074OP 30JAN12 CIF OO 4223.00 042OO 30JAN12 CIF RT 6496.00 042OO 30JAN12 >>>>> ASMARA ASM EH YIF OO 3560.00 062OO 30JAN12 FIF OO 1235.00 052OO 30JAN12 YIF RT 5476.00 062OO 30JAN12 FIF RT 1899.00 052OO 30JAN12 MEEIF3M RT 3289.00 070OP 30JAN12 CIF OO 1010.00 042OO 30JAN12 MPXIF1M RT 2632.00 074OP 30JAN12 CIF RT 1553.00 042OO 30JAN12 YIF OO 853.00 062OO 30JAN12 >>>>> COTONOU COO EH YIF RT 1312.00 062OO 30JAN12 FIF OO 4417.00 052OO 30JAN12 MEEIF3M RT 666.00 070OP 30JAN12 FIF RT 6795.00 052OO 30JAN12 MPXIF1M RT 533.00 074OP 30JAN12 CIF OO 3609.00 042OO 30JAN12 CIF RT 5551.00 042OO 30JAN12 >>>>> BAMAKO BKO EH YIF OO 3046.00 062OO 30JAN12 FIF OO 5162.00 052OO 30JAN12 YIF RT 4686.00 062OO 30JAN12 FIF RT 7941.00 052OO 30JAN12 MEEIF3M RT 2816.00 070OP 30JAN12 CIF OO 3863.00 042OO 30JAN12 MPXIF1M RT 2253.00 074OP 30JAN12 CIF RT 5942.00 042OO 30JAN12 YIF OO 3560.00 062OO 30JAN12 >>>>> DAKAR DKR EH YIF RT 5476.00 062OO 30JAN12 FIF OO 5720.00 052OO 30JAN12 MEEIF3M RT 2990.00 070OP 30JAN12 FIF RT 8799.00 052OO 30JAN12 MPXIF1M RT 2392.00 074OP 30JAN12 CIF OO 4374.00 042OO 30JAN12 CIF RT 6728.00 042OO 30JAN12 >>>>> BANGUI BGF EH YIF OO 3945.00 062OO 30JAN12 FIF OO 4304.00 052OO 30JAN12 YIF RT 6069.00 062OO 30JAN12 FIF RT 6621.00 052OO 30JAN12 MEEIF3M RT 3458.00 070OP 30JAN12 CIF OO 3523.00 042OO 30JAN12 MPXIF1M RT 2767.00 074OP 30JAN12 CIF RT 5419.00 042OO 30JAN12 YIF OO 2969.00 062OO 30JAN12 >>>>> DAR ES SALAAM DAR EH YIF RT 4567.00 062OO 30JAN12 FIF OO 3447.00 052OO 30JAN12 MEEIF3M RT 2502.00 070OP 30JAN12 FIF RT 5302.00 052OO 30JAN12 MPXIF1M RT 2002.00 074OP 30JAN12 CIF OO 2798.00 042OO 30JAN12 CIF RT 4304.00 042OO 30JAN12 >>>>> BANJUL BJL EH YIF OO 2284.00 062OO 30JAN12 FIF OO 5316.00 052OO 30JAN12 YIF RT 3513.00 062OO 30JAN12 FIF RT 8178.00 052OO 30JAN12 MEEIF3M RT 2244.00 070OP 30JAN12 CIF OO 4348.00 042OO 30JAN12 MPXIF1M RT 1796.00 074OP 30JAN12 CIF RT 6688.00 042OO 30JAN12 YIF OO 3667.00 062OO 30JAN12 >>>>> DJIBOUTI JIB EH YIF RT 5641.00 062OO 30JAN12 FIF OO 1862.00 052OO 30JAN12 MEEIF3M RT 3388.00 070OP 30JAN12 FIF RT 2864.00 052OO 30JAN12 MPXIF1M RT 2711.00 074OP 30JAN12 CIF OO 1754.00 042OO 30JAN12 CIF RT 2697.00 042OO 30JAN12 >>>>> BENGHAZI BEN EH YIF OO 1356.00 062OO 30JAN12 FIF OO 3185.00 052OO 30JAN12 YIF RT 2085.00 062OO 30JAN12 FIF RT 4899.00 052OO 30JAN12 MEEIF3M RT 1247.00 070OP 30JAN12 CIF OO 2515.00 042OO 30JAN12 MPXIF1M RT 998.00 074OP 30JAN12 CIF RT 3868.00 042OO 30JAN12 YIF OO 1669.00 062OO 30JAN12 >>>>> DOUALA DLA EH YIF RT 2567.00 062OO 30JAN12 FIF OO 4417.00 052OO 30JAN12 MEEIF3M RT 2198.00 070OP 30JAN12 FIF RT 6795.00 052OO 30JAN12 MPXIF1M RT 1759.00 074OP 30JAN12 CIF OO 3475.00 042OO 30JAN12 CIF RT 5345.00 042OO 30JAN12 >>>>> BRAZZAVILLE BZV EH YIF OO 2771.00 062OO 30JAN12 FIF OO 4883.00 052OO 30JAN12 YIF RT 4263.00 062OO 30JAN12 FIF RT 7511.00 052OO 30JAN12 MEEIF3M RT 2735.00 070OP 30JAN12 CIF OO 3774.00 042OO 30JAN12 MPXIF1M RT 2188.00 074OP 30JAN12 CIF RT 5805.00 042OO 30JAN12 YIF OO 3062.00 062OO 30JAN12 >>>>> ENTEBBE EBB EH YIF RT 4710.00 062OO 30JAN12 FIF OO 3301.00 052OO 30JAN12 MEEIF3M RT 2980.00 070OP 30JAN12 FIF RT 5078.00 052OO 30JAN12 MPXIF1M RT 2384.00 074OP 30JAN12 CIF OO 2453.00 042OO 30JAN12 CIF RT 3773.00 042OO 30JAN12 >>>>> BUJUMBURA BJM EH YIF OO 2070.00 062OO 30JAN12 FIF OO 3921.00 052OO 30JAN12 YIF RT 3184.00 062OO 30JAN12 FIF RT 6032.00 052OO 30JAN12 MEEIF3M RT 1909.00 070OP 30JAN12 CIF OO 3204.00 042OO 30JAN12 MPXIF1M RT 1528.00 074OP 30JAN12 CIF RT 4928.00 042OO 30JAN12 YIF OO 2701.00 062OO 30JAN12 Date: 24-NOV-11 JUB-EBB2F: TC2 MIDDLE EAST-AFRICA 4

JUB-FNA Origin Origin > Destination GI > Destination GI Fare Basis Note Fare Reso Effective Expiry Fare Basis Note Fare Reso Effective Expiry JUBA JUB SDG >>>>> LAGOS LOS EH >>>>> FREETOWN FNA EH FIF OO 3974.00 052OO 30JAN12 FIF OO 5316.00 052OO 30JAN12 FIF RT 6113.00 052OO 30JAN12 FIF RT 8178.00 052OO 30JAN12 CIF OO 2964.00 042OO 30JAN12 CIF OO 4348.00 042OO 30JAN12 CIF RT 4559.00 042OO 30JAN12 CIF RT 6688.00 042OO 30JAN12 YIF OO 2478.00 062OO 30JAN12 YIF OO 3667.00 062OO 30JAN12 YIF RT 3812.00 062OO 30JAN12 YIF RT 5641.00 062OO 30JAN12 MEEIF3M RT 2544.00 070OP 30JAN12 MEEIF3M RT 3388.00 070OP 30JAN12 MPXIF1M RT 2036.00 074OP 30JAN12 MPXIF1M RT 2711.00 074OP 30JAN12 >>>>> LIBREVILLE LBV EH >>>>> GABORONE GBE EH FIF OO 4510.00 052OO 30JAN12 FIF OO 7292.00 052OO 30JAN12 FIF RT 6937.00 052OO 30JAN12 FIF RT 11217.00 052OO 30JAN12 CIF OO 3532.00 042OO 30JAN12 CIF OO 5794.00 042OO 30JAN12 CIF RT 5433.00 042OO 30JAN12 CIF RT 8913.00 042OO 30JAN12 YIF OO 2849.00 062OO 30JAN12 YIF OO 4891.00 062OO 30JAN12 YIF RT 4383.00 062OO 30JAN12 YIF RT 7524.00 062OO 30JAN12 MEEIF3M RT 2763.00 070OP 30JAN12 MEEIF3M RT 5844.00 070OP 30JAN12 MPXIF1M RT 2211.00 074OP 30JAN12 MPXIF1M RT 4676.00 074OP 30JAN12 >>>>> LILONGWE LLW EH >>>>> HARARE HRE EH FIF OO 6284.00 052OO 30JAN12 FIF OO 6973.00 052OO 30JAN12 FIF RT 9667.00 052OO 30JAN12 FIF RT 10727.00 052OO 30JAN12 CIF OO 5002.00 042OO 30JAN12 CIF OO 5516.00 042OO 30JAN12 CIF RT 7695.00 042OO 30JAN12 CIF RT 8486.00 042OO 30JAN12 YIF OO 4222.00 062OO 30JAN12 YIF OO 4659.00 062OO 30JAN12 YIF RT 6495.00 062OO 30JAN12 YIF RT 7167.00 062OO 30JAN12 MEEIF3M RT 3219.00 070OP 30JAN12 MEEIF3M RT 3562.00 070OP 30JAN12 MPXIF1M RT 2576.00 074OP 30JAN12 MPXIF1M RT 2850.00 074OP 30JAN12 >>>>> LIVINGSTONE LVI EH >>>>> JOHANNESBURG JNB EH FIF OO 6284.00 052OO 30JAN12 FIF OO 6764.00 052OO 30JAN12 FIF RT 9667.00 052OO 30JAN12 FIF RT 10406.00 052OO 30JAN12 CIF OO 5138.00 042OO 30JAN12 CIF OO 5135.00 042OO 30JAN12 CIF RT 7904.00 042OO 30JAN12 CIF RT 7899.00 042OO 30JAN12 YIF OO 4329.00 062OO 30JAN12 YIF OO 4305.00 062OO 30JAN12 YIF RT 6660.00 062OO 30JAN12 YIF RT 6622.00 062OO 30JAN12 MEEIF3M RT 4010.00 070OP 30JAN12 MEEIF3M RT 4140.00 070OP 30JAN12 MPXIF1M RT 3208.00 074OP 30JAN12 MPXIF1M RT 3312.00 074OP 30JAN12 >>>>> LOME LFW EH >>>>> KANO KAN EH FIF OO 4417.00 052OO 30JAN12 FIF OO 3496.00 052OO 30JAN12 FIF RT 6795.00 052OO 30JAN12 FIF RT 5378.00 052OO 30JAN12 CIF OO 3305.00 042OO 30JAN12 CIF OO 2697.00 042OO 30JAN12 CIF RT 5084.00 042OO 30JAN12 CIF RT 4149.00 042OO 30JAN12 YIF OO 2517.00 062OO 30JAN12 YIF OO 2192.00 062OO 30JAN12 YIF RT 3872.00 062OO 30JAN12 YIF RT 3372.00 062OO 30JAN12 MEEIF3M RT 2693.00 070OP 30JAN12 MEEIF3M RT 2233.00 070OP 30JAN12 MPXIF1M RT 2155.00 074OP 30JAN12 MPXIF1M RT 1787.00 074OP 30JAN12 >>>>> LUBUMBASHI FBM EH >>>>> KIGALI KGL EH FIF OO 5265.00 052OO 30JAN12 MEEIF3M RT 2062.00 070OP 30JAN12 FIF RT 8099.00 052OO 30JAN12 MPXIF1M RT 1650.00 074OP 30JAN12 CIF OO 4302.00 042OO 30JAN12 CIF RT 6617.00 042OO 30JAN12 >>>>> KILIMANJARO JRO EH YIF OO 3631.00 062OO 30JAN12 FIF OO 3245.00 052OO 30JAN12 YIF RT 5586.00 062OO 30JAN12 FIF RT 4991.00 052OO 30JAN12 MEEIF3M RT 2976.00 070OP 30JAN12 CIF OO 2651.00 042OO 30JAN12 MPXIF1M RT 2381.00 074OP 30JAN12 CIF RT 4078.00 042OO 30JAN12 YIF OO 2238.00 062OO 30JAN12 >>>>> LUSAKA LUN EH YIF RT 3442.00 062OO 30JAN12 FIF OO 5835.00 052OO 30JAN12 MEEIF3M RT 1804.00 070OP 30JAN12 FIF RT 8976.00 052OO 30JAN12 MPXIF1M RT 1444.00 074OP 30JAN12 CIF OO 4769.00 042OO 30JAN12 CIF RT 7336.00 042OO 30JAN12 >>>>> KINSHASA FIH EH YIF OO 4025.00 062OO 30JAN12 FIF OO 5379.00 052OO 30JAN12 YIF RT 6192.00 062OO 30JAN12 FIF RT 8274.00 052OO 30JAN12 MEEIF3M RT 3072.00 070OP 30JAN12 CIF OO 4012.00 042OO 30JAN12 MPXIF1M RT 2458.00 074OP 30JAN12 CIF RT 6171.00 042OO 30JAN12 YIF OO 3372.00 062OO 30JAN12 >>>>> MAHE IS SEZ EH YIF RT 5187.00 062OO 30JAN12 FIF OO 4829.00 052OO 30JAN12 MEEIF3M RT 3133.00 070OP 30JAN12 FIF RT 7428.00 052OO 30JAN12 MPXIF1M RT 2507.00 074OP 30JAN12 CIF OO 3945.00 042OO 30JAN12 CIF RT 6069.00 042OO 30JAN12 Date: 24-NOV-11 JUB-SEZ2F: TC2 MIDDLE EAST-AFRICA 5

JUB-SEZ Origin Origin > Destination GI > Destination GI Fare Basis Note Fare Reso Effective Expiry Fare Basis Note Fare Reso Effective Expiry JUBA JUB SDG MPXIF1M RT 1364.00 074OP 30JAN12 >>>>> MAHE IS SEZ EH YIF OO 3331.00 062OO 30JAN12 >>>>> N’DJAMENA NDJ EH YIF RT 5124.00 062OO 30JAN12 FIF OO 2798.00 052OO 30JAN12 MEEIF3M RT 3077.00 070OP 30JAN12 FIF RT 4304.00 052OO 30JAN12 MPXIF1M RT 2462.00 074OP 30JAN12 CIF OO 2080.00 042OO 30JAN12 CIF RT 3199.00 042OO 30JAN12 >>>>> MAPUTO MPM EH YIF OO 1604.00 062OO 30JAN12 FIF OO 7292.00 052OO 30JAN12 YIF RT 2467.00 062OO 30JAN12 FIF RT 11217.00 052OO 30JAN12 MEEIF3M RT 1783.00 070OP 30JAN12 CIF OO 5794.00 042OO 30JAN12 MPXIF1M RT 1427.00 074OP 30JAN12 CIF RT 8913.00 042OO 30JAN12 YIF OO 4891.00 062OO 30JAN12 >>>>> NIAMEY NIM EH YIF RT 7524.00 062OO 30JAN12 FIF OO 4417.00 052OO 30JAN12 MEEIF3M RT 4198.00 070OP 30JAN12 FIF RT 6795.00 052OO 30JAN12 MPXIF1M RT 3359.00 074OP 30JAN12 CIF OO 3609.00 042OO 30JAN12 CIF RT 5551.00 042OO 30JAN12 >>>>> MAURITIUS MRU EH YIF OO 3046.00 062OO 30JAN12 FIF OO 7142.00 052OO 30JAN12 YIF RT 4686.00 062OO 30JAN12 FIF RT 10987.00 052OO 30JAN12 MEEIF3M RT 2816.00 070OP 30JAN12 CIF OO 4829.00 042OO 30JAN12 MPXIF1M RT 2253.00 074OP 30JAN12 CIF RT 7429.00 042OO 30JAN12 YIF OO 4071.00 062OO 30JAN12 >>>>> NOUADHIBOU NDB EH YIF RT 6262.00 062OO 30JAN12 FIF OO 5720.00 052OO 30JAN12 MEEIF3M RT 4403.00 070OP 30JAN12 FIF RT 8799.00 052OO 30JAN12 MPXIF1M RT 3523.00 074OP 30JAN12 CIF OO 4674.00 042OO 30JAN12 CIF RT 7190.00 042OO 30JAN12 >>>>> MOGADISHU MGQ EH YIF OO 3945.00 062OO 30JAN12 FIF OO 3137.00 052OO 30JAN12 YIF RT 6069.00 062OO 30JAN12 FIF RT 4825.00 052OO 30JAN12 MEEIF3M RT 3871.00 070OP 30JAN12 CIF OO 1790.00 042OO 30JAN12 MPXIF1M RT 3097.00 074OP 30JAN12 CIF RT 2753.00 042OO 30JAN12 YIF OO 1507.00 062OO 30JAN12 >>>>> NOUAKCHOTT NKC EH YIF RT 2318.00 062OO 30JAN12 FIF OO 5720.00 052OO 30JAN12 MEEIF3M RT 1401.00 070OP 30JAN12 FIF RT 8799.00 052OO 30JAN12 MPXIF1M RT 1121.00 074OP 30JAN12 CIF OO 4674.00 042OO 30JAN12 CIF RT 7190.00 042OO 30JAN12 >>>>> MOMBASA MBA EH YIF OO 3945.00 062OO 30JAN12 FIF OO 3172.00 052OO 30JAN12 YIF RT 6069.00 062OO 30JAN12 FIF RT 4879.00 052OO 30JAN12 MEEIF3M RT 3871.00 070OP 30JAN12 CIF OO 2595.00 042OO 30JAN12 MPXIF1M RT 3097.00 074OP 30JAN12 CIF RT 3992.00 042OO 30JAN12 YIF OO 2187.00 062OO 30JAN12 >>>>> OUAGADOUGOU OUA EH YIF RT 3364.00 062OO 30JAN12 FIF OO 5125.00 052OO 30JAN12 MEEIF3M RT 1670.00 070OP 30JAN12 FIF RT 7884.00 052OO 30JAN12 MPXIF1M RT 1336.00 074OP 30JAN12 CIF OO 3248.00 042OO 30JAN12 CIF RT 4996.00 042OO 30JAN12 >>>>> MONROVIA MLW EH YIF OO 3137.00 062OO 30JAN12 FIF OO 5316.00 052OO 30JAN12 YIF RT 4825.00 062OO 30JAN12 FIF RT 8178.00 052OO 30JAN12 MEEIF3M RT 2813.00 070OP 30JAN12 CIF OO 4348.00 042OO 30JAN12 MPXIF1M RT 2251.00 074OP 30JAN12 CIF RT 6688.00 042OO 30JAN12 YIF OO 3667.00 062OO 30JAN12 >>>>> ST DENIS RUN EH YIF RT 5641.00 062OO 30JAN12 FIF OO 6270.00 052OO 30JAN12 MEEIF3M RT 3388.00 070OP 30JAN12 FIF RT 9646.00 052OO 30JAN12 MPXIF1M RT 2711.00 074OP 30JAN12 CIF OO 5130.00 042OO 30JAN12 CIF RT 7892.00 042OO 30JAN12 >>>>> MORONI YVA EH YIF OO 4325.00 062OO 30JAN12 FIF OO 4635.00 052OO 30JAN12 YIF RT 6653.00 062OO 30JAN12 FIF RT 7130.00 052OO 30JAN12 MEEIF3M RT 3999.00 070OP 30JAN12 CIF OO 4134.00 042OO 30JAN12 MPXIF1M RT 3200.00 074OP 30JAN12 CIF RT 6359.00 042OO 30JAN12 YIF OO 3004.00 062OO 30JAN12 >>>>> SEBHA SEB EH YIF RT 4621.00 062OO 30JAN12 FIF OO 4369.00 052OO 30JAN12 MEEIF3M RT 3580.00 070OP 30JAN12 FIF RT 6721.00 052OO 30JAN12 MPXIF1M RT 2864.00 074OP 30JAN12 CIF OO 3245.00 042OO 30JAN12 CIF RT 4992.00 042OO 30JAN12 >>>>> NAIROBI NBO EH YIF OO 2740.00 062OO 30JAN12 FIF OO 2948.00 052OO 30JAN12 YIF RT 4215.00 062OO 30JAN12 FIF RT 4535.00 052OO 30JAN12 MEEIF3M RT 2656.00 070OP 30JAN12 CIF OO 2254.00 042OO 30JAN12 MPXIF1M RT 2125.00 074OP 30JAN12 CIF RT 3467.00 042OO 30JAN12 YIF OO 1755.00 062OO 30JAN12 >>>>> TRIPOLI TIP EH YIF RT 2700.00 062OO 30JAN12 FIF OO 3709.00 052OO 30JAN12 MEEIF3M RT 1704.00 070OP 30JAN12 FIF RT 5706.00 052OO 30JAN12 Date: 24-NOV-11 JUB-TIP2F: TC2 MIDDLE EAST-AFRICA 6

JUB-TIP Origin Origin > Destination GI > Destination GI Fare Basis Note Fare Reso Effective Expiry Fare Basis Note Fare Reso Effective Expiry JUBA JUB SDG LAGOS LOS USD >>>>> TRIPOLI TIP EH >>>>> JUBA JUB EH CIF OO 3221.00 042OO 30JAN12 FIF OO 1366 052OO 30JAN12 CIF RT 4955.00 042OO 30JAN12 FIF RT 2101 052OO 30JAN12 YIF OO 2645.00 062OO 30JAN12 CIF OO 1151 042OO 30JAN12 YIF RT 4069.00 062OO 30JAN12 CIF RT 1770 042OO 30JAN12 MEEIF3M RT 2280.00 070OP 30JAN12 YIF OO 951 062OO 30JAN12 MPXIF1M RT 1824.00 074OP 30JAN12 YIF RT 1463 062OO 30JAN12 MEEIF3M RT 944 070OP 30JAN12 >>>>> WINDHOEK WDH EH MPXIF1M RT 755 074OP 30JAN12 FIF OO 7888.00 052OO 30JAN12 FIF RT 12135.00 052OO 30JAN12 LIBREVILLE LBV XAF CIF OO 6359.00 042OO 30JAN12 >>>>> JUBA JUB EH CIF RT 9783.00 042OO 30JAN12 FIF OO 1133800 052OO 30JAN12 YIF OO 5351.00 062OO 30JAN12 FIF RT 1744300 052OO 30JAN12 YIF RT 8231.00 062OO 30JAN12 CIF OO 901100 042OO 30JAN12 MEEIF3M RT 5269.00 070OP 30JAN12 CIF RT 1386300 042OO 30JAN12 MPXIF1M RT 4216.00 074OP 30JAN12 YIF OO 737700 062OO 30JAN12 YIF RT 1134800 062OO 30JAN12 >>>>> YAOUNDE YAO EH MEEIF3M RT 662600 070OP 30JAN12 FIF OO 4417.00 052OO 30JAN12 MPXIF1M RT 530100 074OP 30JAN12 FIF RT 6795.00 052OO 30JAN12 CIF OO 3609.00 042OO 30JAN12 LILONGWE LLW USD CIF RT 5551.00 042OO 30JAN12 >>>>> JUBA JUB EH YIF OO 3046.00 062OO 30JAN12 FIF OO 2476 052OO 30JAN12 YIF RT 4686.00 062OO 30JAN12 FIF RT 3809 052OO 30JAN12 MEEIF3M RT 2816.00 070OP 30JAN12 CIF OO 1819 042OO 30JAN12 MPXIF1M RT 2253.00 074OP 30JAN12 CIF RT 2798 042OO 30JAN12 YIF OO 1551 062OO 30JAN12 KANO KAN USD YIF RT 2386 062OO 30JAN12 >>>>> JUBA JUB EH MEEIF3M RT 1294 070OP 30JAN12 FIF OO 1350 052OO 30JAN12 MPXIF1M RT 1035 074OP 30JAN12 FIF RT 2077 052OO 30JAN12 CIF OO 1051 042OO 30JAN12 LIVINGSTONE LVI USD CIF RT 1617 042OO 30JAN12 >>>>> JUBA JUB EH YIF OO 857 062OO 30JAN12 FIF OO 3808 052OO 30JAN12 YIF RT 1318 062OO 30JAN12 FIF RT 5858 052OO 30JAN12 MEEIF3M RT 799 070OP 30JAN12 CIF OO 3149 042OO 30JAN12 MPXIF1M RT 639 074OP 30JAN12 CIF RT 4844 042OO 30JAN12 YIF OO 2194 062OO 30JAN12 KIGALI KGL USD YIF RT 3375 062OO 30JAN12 >>>>> JUBA JUB EH MEEIF3M RT 2073 070OP 30JAN12 FIF OO 1541 052OO 30JAN12 MPXIF1M RT 1658 074OP 30JAN12 FIF RT 2371 052OO 30JAN12 CIF OO 861 042OO 30JAN12 LOME LFW XOF CIF RT 1325 042OO 30JAN12 >>>>> JUBA JUB EH YIF OO 677 062OO 30JAN12 FIF OO 1271100 052OO 30JAN12 YIF RT 1041 062OO 30JAN12 FIF RT 1955400 052OO 30JAN12 MEEIF3M RT 1041 070OP 30JAN12 CIF OO 875600 042OO 30JAN12 MPXIF1M RT 833 074OP 30JAN12 CIF RT 1347000 042OO 30JAN12 YIF OO 781800 062OO 30JAN12 KILIMANJARO JRO USD YIF RT 1202700 062OO 30JAN12 >>>>> JUBA JUB EH MEEIF3M RT 694600 070OP 30JAN12 FIF OO 1566 052OO 30JAN12 MPXIF1M RT 555700 074OP 30JAN12 FIF RT 2409 052OO 30JAN12 CIF OO 1203 042OO 30JAN12 LUANDA LAD USD CIF RT 1851 042OO 30JAN12 >>>>> JUBA JUB EH YIF OO 864 062OO 30JAN12 FIF OO 3090 052OO 30JAN12 YIF RT 1329 062OO 30JAN12 FIF RT 4754 052OO 30JAN12 MEEIF3M RT 1135 070OP 30JAN12 CIF OO 2301 042OO 30JAN12 MPXIF1M RT 908 074OP 30JAN12 CIF RT 3540 042OO 30JAN12 YIF OO 1764 062OO 30JAN12 KINSHASA FIH USD YIF RT 2714 062OO 30JAN12 >>>>> JUBA JUB EH MEEIF3M RT 1829 070OP 30JAN12 FIF OO 3954 052OO 30JAN12 MPXIF1M RT 1463 074OP 30JAN12 FIF RT 6083 052OO 30JAN12 CIF OO 2723 042OO 30JAN12 LUBUMBASHI FBM USD CIF RT 4189 042OO 30JAN12 >>>>> JUBA JUB EH YIF OO 1791 062OO 30JAN12 FIF OO 3868 052OO 30JAN12 YIF RT 2755 062OO 30JAN12 FIF RT 5950 052OO 30JAN12 MEEIF3M RT 2072 070OP 30JAN12 CIF OO 2660 042OO 30JAN12 MPXIF1M RT 1658 074OP 30JAN12 CIF RT 4092 042OO 30JAN12 YIF OO 1751 062OO 30JAN12 YIF RT 2694 062OO 30JAN12 MEEIF3M RT 1970 070OP 30JAN12 Date: 24-NOV-11 FBM-JUB2F: TC2 MIDDLE EAST-AFRICA 7

LUN-JUB Origin Origin > Destination GI > Destination GI Fare Basis Note Fare Reso Effective Expiry Fare Basis Note Fare Reso Effective Expiry LUBUMBASHI FBM USD YIF OO 2575 062OO 30JAN12 >>>>> JUBA JUB EH YIF RT 3961 062OO 30JAN12 MPXIF1M RT 1576 074OP 30JAN12 MEEIF3M RT 2868 070OP 30JAN12 LUSAKA LUN USD MPXIF1M RT 2294 074OP 30JAN12 >>>>> JUBA JUB EH FIF OO 3541 052OO 30JAN12 MORONI YVA KMF FIF RT 5448 052OO 30JAN12 >>>>> JUBA JUB EH CIF OO 2924 042OO 30JAN12 FIF OO 975400 052OO 30JAN12 CIF RT 4498 042OO 30JAN12 FIF RT 1500500 052OO 30JAN12 YIF OO 2246 062OO 30JAN12 CIF OO 936400 042OO 30JAN12 YIF RT 3456 062OO 30JAN12 CIF RT 1440600 042OO 30JAN12 MEEIF3M RT 2165 070OP 30JAN12 YIF OO 686800 062OO 30JAN12 MPXIF1M RT 1732 074OP 30JAN12 YIF RT 1056500 062OO 30JAN12 MEEIF3M RT 738900 070OP 30JAN12 MAHE IS SEZ SCR MPXIF1M RT 591200 074OP 30JAN12 >>>>> JUBA JUB EH FIF OO 18967 052OO 30JAN12 NAIROBI NBO USD FIF RT 29180 052OO 30JAN12 >>>>> JUBA JUB EH CIF OO 15049 042OO 30JAN12 FIF OO 1066 052OO 30JAN12 CIF RT 23151 042OO 30JAN12 FIF RT 1640 052OO 30JAN12 YIF OO 12458 062OO 30JAN12 CIF OO 975 042OO 30JAN12 YIF RT 19165 062OO 30JAN12 CIF RT 1500 042OO 30JAN12 MEEIF3M RT 12087 070OP 30JAN12 YIF OO 688 062OO 30JAN12 MPXIF1M RT 9670 074OP 30JAN12 YIF RT 1059 062OO 30JAN12 MEEIF3M RT 666 070OP 30JAN12 MAPUTO MPM MZN MPXIF1M RT 533 074OP 30JAN12 >>>>> JUBA JUB EH FIF OO 52280 052OO 30JAN12 N’DJAMENA NDJ XAF FIF RT 80430 052OO 30JAN12 >>>>> JUBA JUB EH CIF OO 40140 042OO 30JAN12 FIF OO 803900 052OO 30JAN12 CIF RT 61750 042OO 30JAN12 FIF RT 1236700 052OO 30JAN12 YIF OO 29210 062OO 30JAN12 CIF OO 611100 042OO 30JAN12 YIF RT 44930 062OO 30JAN12 CIF RT 940100 042OO 30JAN12 MEEIF3M RT 29620 070OP 30JAN12 YIF OO 494500 062OO 30JAN12 MPXIF1M RT 23700 074OP 30JAN12 YIF RT 760700 062OO 30JAN12 MEEIF3M RT 492700 070OP 30JAN12 MAURITIUS MRU MUR MPXIF1M RT 394200 074OP 30JAN12 >>>>> JUBA JUB EH FIF OO 54880 052OO 30JAN12 NIAMEY NIM XOF FIF RT 84425 052OO 30JAN12 >>>>> JUBA JUB EH CIF OO 43575 042OO 30JAN12 FIF OO 1271100 052OO 30JAN12 CIF RT 67035 042OO 30JAN12 FIF RT 1955400 052OO 30JAN12 YIF OO 36060 062OO 30JAN12 CIF OO 963200 042OO 30JAN12 YIF RT 55475 062OO 30JAN12 CIF RT 1481700 042OO 30JAN12 MEEIF3M RT 34405 070OP 30JAN12 YIF OO 781800 062OO 30JAN12 MPXIF1M RT 27525 074OP 30JAN12 YIF RT 1202700 062OO 30JAN12 MEEIF3M RT 778500 070OP 30JAN12 MOGADISHU MGQ USD MPXIF1M RT 622800 074OP 30JAN12 >>>>> JUBA JUB EH FIF OO 1431 052OO 30JAN12 NOUADHIBOU NDB MRO FIF RT 2201 052OO 30JAN12 >>>>> JUBA JUB EH CIF OO 831 042OO 30JAN12 FIF OO 513360 052OO 30JAN12 CIF RT 1278 042OO 30JAN12 FIF RT 789780 052OO 30JAN12 YIF OO 619 062OO 30JAN12 CIF OO 388820 042OO 30JAN12 YIF RT 953 062OO 30JAN12 CIF RT 598160 042OO 30JAN12 MEEIF3M RT 607 070OP 30JAN12 YIF OO 315840 062OO 30JAN12 MPXIF1M RT 486 074OP 30JAN12 YIF RT 485900 062OO 30JAN12 MEEIF3M RT 312680 070OP 30JAN12 MOMBASA MBA USD MPXIF1M RT 250160 074OP 30JAN12 >>>>> JUBA JUB EH FIF OO 1310 052OO 30JAN12 NOUAKCHOTT NKC MRO FIF RT 2016 052OO 30JAN12 >>>>> JUBA JUB EH CIF OO 1063 042OO 30JAN12 FIF OO 513360 052OO 30JAN12 CIF RT 1636 042OO 30JAN12 FIF RT 789780 052OO 30JAN12 YIF OO 839 062OO 30JAN12 CIF OO 388820 042OO 30JAN12 YIF RT 1290 062OO 30JAN12 CIF RT 598160 042OO 30JAN12 MEEIF3M RT 780 070OP 30JAN12 YIF OO 315840 062OO 30JAN12 MPXIF1M RT 624 074OP 30JAN12 YIF RT 485900 062OO 30JAN12 MEEIF3M RT 312680 070OP 30JAN12 MONROVIA MLW USD MPXIF1M RT 250160 074OP 30JAN12 >>>>> JUBA JUB EH FIF OO 4774 052OO 30JAN12 OUAGADOUGOU OUA XOF FIF RT 7345 052OO 30JAN12 >>>>> JUBA JUB EH CIF OO 2575 042OO 30JAN12 FIF OO 1473100 052OO 30JAN12 CIF RT 3961 042OO 30JAN12 FIF RT 2266200 052OO 30JAN12 Date: 24-NOV-11 OUA-JUB2F: TC2 MIDDLE EAST-AFRICA 8

OUA-JUB Origin Origin > Destination GI > Destination GI Fare Basis Note Fare Reso Effective Expiry Fare Basis Note Fare Reso Effective Expiry OUAGADOUGOU OUA XOF >>>>> JUBA JUB EH CIF OO 852700 042OO 30JAN12 CIF RT 1311700 042OO 30JAN12 YIF OO 606700 062OO 30JAN12 YIF RT 933300 062OO 30JAN12 MEEIF3M RT 902300 070OP 30JAN12 MPXIF1M RT 721900 074OP 30JAN12 ST DENIS RUN EUR >>>>> JUBA JUB EH FIF OO 3200 052OO 30JAN12 FIF RT 4922 052OO 30JAN12 CIF OO 2541 042OO 30JAN12 CIF RT 3909 042OO 30JAN12 YIF OO 2103 062OO 30JAN12 YIF RT 3234 062OO 30JAN12 MEEIF3M RT 2002 070OP 30JAN12 MPXIF1M RT 1602 074OP 30JAN12 SEBHA SEB LYD >>>>> JUBA JUB EH FIF OO 877.5 052OO 30JAN12 FIF RT 1350.0 052OO 30JAN12 CIF OO 696.2 042OO 30JAN12 CIF RT 1071.0 042OO 30JAN12 YIF OO 575.9 062OO 30JAN12 YIF RT 886.0 062OO 30JAN12 MEEIF3M RT 597.0 070OP 30JAN12 MPXIF1M RT 477.6 074OP 30JAN12 TRIPOLI TIP LYD >>>>> JUBA JUB EH FIF OO 770.3 052OO 30JAN12 FIF RT 1185.0 052OO 30JAN12 CIF OO 568.8 042OO 30JAN12 CIF RT 875.0 042OO 30JAN12 YIF OO 503.8 062OO 30JAN12 YIF RT 775.0 062OO 30JAN12 MEEIF3M RT 588.0 070OP 30JAN12 MPXIF1M RT 470.4 074OP 30JAN12 WINDHOEK WDH NAD >>>>> JUBA JUB EH FIF OO 23200 052OO 30JAN12 FIF RT 35690 052OO 30JAN12 CIF OO 18350 042OO 30JAN12 CIF RT 28220 042OO 30JAN12 YIF OO 14230 062OO 30JAN12 YIF RT 21890 062OO 30JAN12 MEEIF3M RT 13880 070OP 30JAN12 MPXIF1M RT 11110 074OP 30JAN12 YAOUNDE YAO XAF >>>>> JUBA JUB EH FIF OO 1068900 052OO 30JAN12 FIF RT 1644400 052OO 30JAN12 CIF OO 848200 042OO 30JAN12 CIF RT 1304900 042OO 30JAN12 YIF OO 642700 062OO 30JAN12 YIF RT 988700 062OO 30JAN12 MEEIF3M RT 696900 070OP 30JAN12 MPXIF1M RT 557600 074OP 30JAN12

Date: 24-NOV-11 YAO-JUBInternational Air Transport Association Route de l’Aéroport 33 PO Box 416 CH - 1215 Geneva 15 Airport Switzerland Tel: +41 22 770 2842 Fax +41 22 770 2682 AS www.iata.org E-Mail: tariffs@iata.org 30 November 2011

MEMORANDUM PTC COMP 1656

TO: Members Participating in Tariff Coordinating Conferences FROM: Manager, Interline Tariffs SUBJECT: Composite Meeting of Passenger Tariff Coordinating Conferences Singapore, 14 October 2011

M INUTES Attached are the Minutes of the Composite Meeting of Passenger Tariff Coordinating Conferences, which was held in Singapore, 14 October 2011 under the Chairmanship of Mrs. Patricia George.

Alban Sato Manager, Interline Tariffs Passenger Interline StandardsPTC COMP 1656 SIN, Oct11 OUTLINE OF CONTENTS

• Opening of Meeting

• Attendance Record

• Determination of Voting Membership

• Examination of Credentials of Accred ited Representatives and Alternates

• Approval of Minutes of Previous Meeting

• Passenger Tariff Conferences Steering Group (PSG) Report

• Resolution Advisory Working Group (RADWG)

• Expedited Resolution 024a (1 Februar y 2012) Fares Currency from Russia

• Expedited Resolution 012b, 024d (1 February 2012) for South Sudan

• Baggage – Status of Automated Baggage Rules (ABR) Project

• Resolution 302 – Baggage Provisions Selection Criteria - Deletion of Step 1 - Addition of a Step - Excess Baggage Charges and Handling Fees - Checked Portion: ‘Ticke ted’ versus ‘Baggage-tagged’ - Multi-Airport Cities

• Resolution 017b – Construction Rules for Pricing Units

• Resolution 017f – Exchange, Reissues and Refunds

• Resolution 017jj – Fare Selection Criteria - Validation of Resolution 017jj - Amendments to Resolution 017jj

• Resolution 017h Fare Selection Criteria within Africa

• Resolution 017i Carrier Selecti on for Fare Construction Checks

• Currency Conversion Working Group

• Resolution 011b – Global Indicators

• Close of Meeting Attachment ‘A’ – JPSC agenda P13 - US DoT Rules on Enhacing Airline Passenger Protection. Attachment ‘B’ – DOT FAQ on Enhancing Airline Passenger Protection (19October2011) Attachment ‘C’ – Summary of Agreements Attachment ‘D’ – Attendance RecordPTC COMP 1656 SIN, Oct11 COMPOSITE MEETING OF PASSENGER TARIFF COORDINATING CONFERENCES

Geneva, 14 October 2011

M I N U T E S

OPENING OF MEETING The Chairman, Mrs. Patricia George, opened the Composite Meeting of Tariff Coordinating Conferences at 1030 hours on Friday, 14 th October 2011. The Meeting had been convened by Memorandum PTC COMP 1587, dated 16 September 2010. It comprised the following:

88 th Meeting of Passenger Tariff Coordination Conference 1 166 th Meeting of Passenger Tari ff Coordination Conference 2 93 rd Meeting of Passenger Tari ff Coordination Conference 3 197 th Meeting of Passenger Tariff Coordination Conference 12 162 nd Meeting of Passenger Tari ff Coordination Conference 23 127 th Meeting of Passenger Tari ff Coordination Conference 31 176 th Meeting of Passenger Tariff Coordination Conference 123 As with all traffic conference meetings, th is meeting has immunity from US anti-trust laws, on the condition that all agreements ar e submitted for specific approval by the US authorities. IATA would submit the agreements to the DoT in accordance with this condition. Consistent with this, IA TA's Board of Governors determined that any agreement reached at this meeting must not be put into effect prior to its declaration of effectiveness. This ruling is contained in the Provisions for the Conduct of the IATA Traffic Conferences and must be complied with.

ATTENDANCE RECORD

The Attendance Record is at Attachment 'A'. DETERMINATION OF VOTING MEMBERSHIP The Voting Membership for the meeti ng was determined in accordance with the Provisions for the Conduct of t he IATA Traffic Conferences. EXAMINATION OF CREDENTIALS OF AC CREDITED REPRESENTATIVES AND ALTERNATES The accreditation received by IATA was examined and found to be in accordance with the Provisions for the Conduct of the IATA Traffic Conferences. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING The following minutes were approved: Composite Meeting of Passenger Tariff Coordinating Conferences Geneva, 22 October 2010 Memorandum PTC COMP 1594 dated 2 November 2010PTC COMP 1656 SIN, Oct11 PASSENGER TARIFF CONFERENCES STEERING GROUP (PSG) Report IATA presented a short summary of PSG activities of 2011. The PSG met twice via teleconference in 2011 to address issues such as;

• Automated Baggage Rules Project

• ‘National Carrier’ Provisions in the Flex Fares Resolutions

• Scope of e-Tariff Sessions

• Fare Selection Criteria

• Status of Flex Fares The conference noted the the actitivies of PSG.

RESOLUTION ADVISORY WORKING GROUP (RADWG)

Background As endorsed by the Composite Meeting in 2009, the Resolution Advisory Working Group (RADWG) replaced the Resolution Advisory Panel (RAP) with the aim to revitalise RAP activities and make them more relevant. The main goals have been to broaden the areas of discussion and open the m eeting to more airline and supplier participation. The second RADWG meeting was held 28 February -2 March 2011 in Montreal, moderated by Ms. Cynthia Towne (ITA). T he meeting was participated by 10 airlines and 7 strategic partners. The meeting wa s followed by ATPCO Data App Working Group meeting 3-4 March at the sa me venue. The group made agreements on several items which are forwarded to the Composite Conference, via the Steering Group, for consideration and are reflected in the agenda for the Composite meeting. The next meeting is planned to take place in 1-3 November 2011 in Geneva. The Meeting was advised that the Fall 2012 RADWG meeting will be scheduled for September 2012, a month prior to the next Composite meeting. The new schedule will allow RADWG to assess and validate al l proposals before they are tabled to the Composite meeting. Airlines are encouraged to submit their Composite agenda items to RADWG. Final Result: new RADWG meeting schedule approved The conference was encouraged to take part in the Working Group. RADWG extranet site ( http://extranet2.iata.org/sites/Resolution-Advisory-Working-Group ) has been established where Members and Strategi c Partners can obtain all relevant information regarding the RADWG meetings and results. TC members who would like more information should register for the extranet site at http://www2.iata.org/registration/getemai lpage.aspx?siteurl=Resolution-AdvisoryWorking-Group

.

RESOLUTION 024A EXPEDITED EFFECT 1 FEBRUARY 2012 Fares Currency from Russia Taking into consideration the strengthening national currency, SU proposed to establish fares, related charges and add- ons from Russia (in Europe) (RU) and Russia (in Asia) (XU) in Ruble (RUB) e ffective 1 February 2012. The method would be for current fares in Euro (EUR) be converted to Ruble (RUB) using the latest IROE, and the resultant levels rounded in accordance with Resolution 024d.PTC COMP 1656 SIN, Oct11 The proposal was opposed by S7, UN, JL, LH, KL, CX, 9U, QR VN because they believed that ruble is still volatile and th e current process already allows for using both euro and ruble. SU responded that the change is required to simplify and unify the process from the current two-currency processing to ensure better usage of automated pricing and revenue accounting systems. Opposing carriers were unable to change thei r positions despite the explanation from SU, and the chairman declared the proposal defeated. SU accepted the defeat of their proposal with the following statement: “SU understands the position of our counterpar ts and partly agrees with their concern that to prevent any possible losses it’s safer to publish the fares in the hard currencies. However SU is confident that ruble has become a strong currency and showed a significant appreciation over last two years. We observe that, while all Russian carriers have a facility to publish the domestic fares either in euro or ruble, carriers are ac tually publishing fares in rubles despite the financial risks mentioned. SU would have had no problem in maintaining the two currencies system had it not been for its decision to simplify the process. SU is the first Russian carrier to implement solutions such as automated exchange and refund, and fully automated revenue accounting processes. However the existing situation on the dual currency processing is an obstacle when implementing the new solutions. Our position is that simplification of the business should prevail over any possible financial risk especially when such risk is the volatility of ruble that SU do not consider as significant. SU is very disappointed that an agreement could not be made, but taking into consideration the importance of the issue for SU we would have to raise the issue to the attention of the Russian government to have this current regulation changed at the federal law level. SU is confident that it will get the support in this matter having in mind the government efforts in strengthening the ruble in the global economy scene. It should be clearly realized that in case the current Russian regulation is changed there will be no way to revert the establishment of fares in any other currency than ruble.” Final Result: Defeated RESOLUTIONS 012B, 024D EXPEDITED EFFECT 1 FEBRUARY 2012 South Sudan 1. Fares Currency from South Sudan Resolution 024d – Establishing P assenger Fares and Related Charges In accordance with Resolution 012b, the Secretary is authorised to change the alpha and numeric codes of currencies, currency names and rounding units in Resolution 024d. New currency was introduced in South S udan and has been in circulation from 1 September 2011. The new currency replaced the Sudanese Pound (SDG) which was the legal tender in South Sudan. The Composite meeting noted on the introduction of South Sudanese Pound (SSP) 2. IATA fares from South Sudan There are no IATA specified fares fo r South Sudan, however add-ons for Juba (JUB) over Khartoum (KRT) exist for fares between Middle East and Africa. ToPTC COMP 1656 SIN, Oct11 support interlining in the region, it is proposed to establish fares between South Sudan and Africa as constructed with use of existing add-ons in SDG, converting to SSP at the exchange rate of 1:1. The fares will be updated by Flex Fares process. Final Result: The Composite meeting agreed on the introduction of interlineable fares to/from South Sudan as proposed. 3. Additional Information The meeting was advised by IATA that; a. as is for Sudan, South Sudan is part of Tariff Conference 2 Within Middle East sub-area b. travel between Sudan and South Sudan is international and will be subject to fare construction rules as outlined in Resolution 017 series c. IATA has not received an official guidance on the taxes/fees to be applied from South Sudan. Current tax applied for Sudan is not applicable for South Sudan KQ requested that IATA and airlines in the region confer with the South Sudanese government as needed and this was agreed. 4. Implementation The meeting was advised that, due to comp lex coding required, system providers have advised that the new currency cannot be implemented earlier than 1 February 2012. RADWG will address some of the technical issues at a meeting scheduled for 31 October – 2 November 2011 in Geneva. IATA will closely monitor the progress of the system providers and will advise the new implementation date as needed.

RESOLUTION 302 Status of Automated Baggage Rules (ABR) Project Resolution 302 - Baggage Provisions Selectio n Criteria was implemented on 1 April 2011, and resolutions 300 and 301 expired on 31 March 2011. As of 9 June 2011, 301 carriers have filed their baggage rules to ATPCO, 90% of which are coded and released to system providers. Major GDS have gone live with the free baggage allowance solutions. All GDS continue to work with charges solution. DCS providers are now involved in the process. Final meeting of the baggage technical working group related to this project is scheduled took place 26-29 July 2011 in WAS to discuss enhancements required by the airlines to comply with US DoT new rule on disclosure, as well as to work with the DCS providers. Some outcomes of the meeting were proposed in the meeting. Since 2010, Resolution 302 has been amended to remove unnecessary terms and examples (Composite meeti ng 2010), and clarification added as for the definition of sub-areas in TC1 (TC1 e-Tariffs). AF commented that US DoT clarification is still required on their requirements.

• IATA was requested to continue to engage US DoT for more clarification on their requirement, and provide summary

• IATA will make DoT documents available to the Members

o Attachment A (published separately): JPSC Agenda Item P13 on US DoT – Enhancing Airline Pa ssenger Protections BillPTC COMP 1656 SIN, Oct11 o Attachment B (published separately): DOT FAQ on Enhancing Airline Passenger Protection (19October2011)

• Conference was advised that the 24 January 2012 deadline for compliance on the Enhanced Airline Passenger Protection rule will not change

• Conference was advised that JPSC agreed to disband the ABR Task Force

Final Result: Status report noted

RESOLUTION 302 1 APRIL 2012

1. Deletion of Step 1 Currently the process outlined for determin ing interline baggage provisions contains 4 steps. The final result of both Step 1 and Step 2 is application of the MSC baggage provisions whether or not there are any si milar baggage provisions between airlines on an interline journey. Sample itinerary: SYD - XX - X/BKK – BB - X/DXB – CC - PAR Step 1. Compare the rules of Carriers XX, BB, and CC to see if they are the same. If they're not the same, go to step 2. Step 2. The MSC (Cxr BB for BKK-DXB MSC sector) In essence, there is no point in deter mining whether any baggage provisions are the same, in either Step 1 or Step 2, because if there are any differences, the process defaults to MSC. This means that MSC provisions are applied regardless whether they are the same or different than other airlines on the journey. In a manual environment, requi ring look-up and comparison of multiple airline baggage provisions for the purpose of identifying simi larities is time c onsuming and produces no benefit. From an automation standpoint such a comparison is not done. In order to streamline the process and ali gn logic with that applied in the automated baggage product, RADWG proposed to eliminate Step 1 from Paragraph 2) in its entirety. While the Conference recognized that the proposal is intended to delete a redundant step in the carrier baggage selection process, UA and LH preferred that no changes are made while the Resolution is still in the process of implementation by some system providers in particular DCS, and awaits further clarification from US DoT. Final Result: Defeated 2. Additional Step Currently the process outlined in Reso lution 302 for determining interline baggage provisions contains 4 steps. Resolution 302 proceeds directly from attempting to find through checked baggage allowance/charges (steps 2-3) to allowance/charges established per flown sector (step 4). It seems that progressing from step 3 to step 4 eliminates some viable possibilities for using multiple sector through-checked baggage allowance/charge provisions for which the passenger would qualify, and instead becomes extremely punitive by applying sector baggage allowance and charges. At RADWG it was questioned why there isn’t a middle step when more than 2 airlines are involved in the transportation of through-checked baggage, to attempt to find anyPTC COMP 1656 SIN, Oct11 “MSC” carrier who has baggage allowance/ch arges for consecutive sectors in the through-checked portion of the itinerary. It was proposed to insert a new step between current Step 3 and Step 4 to allow for more reasonable attempts at finding th rough checked baggage provisions and charges before resorting to point to point application. 5 RADWG member carriers supported the pr oposal in principle however, following concerns were raised: - it would be very difficult to slide & di ce baggage provisions, having to look for the lowest combination when MSC/first check in carriers do not publish their rules. - A carrier was concerned that such a step may result in inconsistent output by the system providers. - A data provider pointed out that the proposal would impact automation and would have to be studied - A carrier was reserved pending further study Noting support from several carriers, RA DWG proposed to add a step to find any “MSC” carrier who has baggage allowance/ch arges for consecutive sectors in the through-checked portion of the itinerary. The proposal was opposed by SU UA LH PG JL NH CX, with following reasons:

• Carriers were concerned that the automation of the new step in the carrier baggage provision selection process may be difficult

• Members required more clarification, i.e. how ‘consecutive sectors’ is applied, and if the MSC process should also be considered in such ‘consecutive sectors’

• Similar to the concerns expresses in the previous agenda item to delete step 1 in Paragraph 2) of the Resolution, airlines pr eferred that the Resolution remain as is until automation is in place Final Result: Defeated

3. Excess Baggage Charges and Handling Fees Discussion at the second ABRTF meeting in Lisbon (September 2010) revealed there was considerable misunderstanding over the ca lculation, charging and ticketing of excess baggage charges and fees which already has an established process for ticketing and interline billing and settlem ent versus the emerging business model of collecting charges for checking in a bag. It was noted that Resolution 302 was crafted in a time where there was little prevalence of hold baggage fees and as such Resolution 302 only relates to excess baggage. There are no interline billing and settlement rules related to hold baggage fees and one carrier suggested that it was problematic to have specifically hold baggage fees identified. The Composite meeting 2011 subsequently attempted to define charges that would include the handling fees as ‘paid baggage al lowance’ charge. This proposal was met by an opposition and defeated. In clarifying the application of the Federal Register 399.85 for the disclosure of baggage fees, US DoT determined that excess baggage charges and handling fees are considered the same and both should be di sclosed to passenger. This clarification impacts: - Composite Resolution 012 Excess Baggage Charges definition which states, ‘Charges applied to baggage checked in excess of free or paid baggage allowance’ - Automation of the charges application, whic h would require clarification as to whose handling fees should apply, MSC vs. check-in carrier - Prorate rules which provides for interlin ing and prorating process only to excess baggage chargesPTC COMP 1656 SIN, Oct11 The Composite meeting was requested to provide guidance on how this should be addressed.

UA commented that

• Handling fees should not be interlineable

• Resolution 302 is intended for the assessment of excess baggage charges only

• UA does not apply 302, instead follow DoT requirement The conference was nevertheless concerned on the compliance of DoT requirement to disclose both excess baggage charges and handling fees. The chairman suggested that this be dealt by the policy group established by PSG, to research the possibility of establishing an IATA interlineable process/procedure for "handling fees” - to begin with the definition of "handling fee”, and this was agreed. Final Result: To be addressed by the PSG or by the new policy group to be established by the PSG 4. Checked Portion – ‘Ticketed’ versus ‘Baggage-tagged’ At a working group meeting held in Wash ington 26-28 July 2011, system providers requested clarification on how Resolution 302 should be applied for short-tagged baggage. For example, ‘ticketed’ checked portion may be LON-x/FRA-DXB, in which case passenger would normally check the bag through to DXB, applying the provisions of carrier operating FRA-DXB. The passenger may, however, choose to pick up the bag at the transit point FRA. In this case, should the MSC be based on the ‘ticketed’ checked portion, FRA-DXB, or the ‘baggage’ checked portion only, which would be based on LON-FRA? The Composite meeting was requested to provide guidance on how this should be addressed. The Meeting believed that ‘short tagging’ of a baggage does not occur for a transit point, and agreed that the checked portion should be defined as ticketed

Final Result: Agreed on the ‘ticketed’ checked portion 5. Multi-Airport Cities In case multi airport such as NRT and HND or surface sector exist in the journey, some GDS consider as stopover point even though transit time is less than 24 hours. According to the Resolution 012, stopover points are defined as transit time over 24 hours. JL proposed to clarify, for the purpose of baggage provisions selection, that travel via multi-airport city or surface sector is considered as a stopover point regardless of interval time. The proposal was opposed by AF KL NH LH SK IR as they believed that a passenger should not be penalized for transiting via mu lti-airport cities by having their baggage journey broken, and systems should apply the baggage provision through. Final Result: Defeated. Meeting agreed that baggage provision should be applied through for transit via a multi-airport city.

RESOLUTIONS 012/ 017B 1 APRIL 2012 CTM exception for local combinationPTC COMP 1656 SIN, Oct11 Agreement was reached at the Spring 2010 RADWG to eliminate the current definition of Special Fare Circle Trip entirely and remove the term “Normal Fare” from the current Normal Fare Circle Trip. The current ATPCO definition for circle trip does not distinguish normal and special fares and the removal of the distinction from the IATA definition will synchronize IATA and ATPCO definitions providing a stand ardized industry application. However the item was defeated at the 2010 Composite Conference by JL who were concerned that ambiguity remains as to what chec k to perform in case of a circle trip of mixed normal and special fare components. IATA advised that such combined trip of normal and special fare components is not considered a circle trip but a local combination. IATA additionally pointed out that no rule has been established in case of a circle trip with comprised of different type of special fares, i.e. a circle trip comprised of Excursion and PEX fares. The working group discussed various propos als to change the definition of "local combination" and/or the application of 017b to exempt CTM for "local combinations". Majority of carriers present voted to am end 017b to apply the CTM exemption to "local combinations". This will be achieved by de leting the words 'of normal and special fares' in 017b C)2)b)i). Additionally the group agreed to amend the definit ion of "local combinations" to a single pricing unit of 2 or more components (rest of current definition is essentially unchanged, i.e. normal/special and combination of special fares of different types). While majority of the airlines present voted to exempt CTM for local combinations, airlines were reminded that, should they requ ire application of CTM they need to specify the CTM process. Accordingly RADWG proposed to: 1. Exempt CTM for local combinations by deleting the words 'of normal and special fares' in 017b C)2)b)i)

Final Result: Agreed 2. Amend the definition of "local combinations " in Resolution 012 to a single pricing unit of 2 or more components

Final Result: Agreed with certain amendment combination of two or more fare components (normal and special fare or two or more different special fare types) to create a single pricing unit - provided the second last fare component returns to the country of origin of the first fare component

RESOLUTION 017F Reissue with change to C ountry of Commencement (COC) Because the criteria which establishes COC is linked to the country from which travel on the first international sector occurs, there exists the possibility that COC is not the same country as that in which travel comm ences. This occurs when the first portion of travel on a ticket is comprised of domes tic flights followed by an international surface sector and the original pricing does not price over the surface sector . Circumstances where Reissue results in a change to COC: 1. Wholly Unused – (no change to 1st ticketed flight) a. change requested to book a flight for the international surface sector, or b. re-price alters outbound fare component by pricing over international surface sector 2. Partially Used a. after domestic portion is flown, passenger books flight(s) for the international surface sector, orPTC COMP 1656 SIN, Oct11 b. re-price alters outbound fare component by pricing over international surface sector No reference exists in 017f for how to det ermine fare difference when, on a reissue, the base fares are in different currencies. A proposal below was reviewed by the work ing group to resolve base fare amounts to same currency for reissue to determine ADC or residual value: Add logic to 017f, Section B, paragraph 3, new sub-paragraph d) and Section C, paragraph 2, new sub-paragr aph c) as follows: Section B, paragraph 3, d) and Section C, paragraph 2), c) If the change results in a change to COC, convert original Base Fare to revised Base Fare by historic BSR. i. If the original fare in new COC is greater than the revised fare in new COC, convert the difference back to the original COC by reversing the conversion process. This represents the value eligible for refund/netting as applicable. ii. If the original fare in new COC is less than the revised fare in new COC, this represents the amount of fare difference subject to collection from the passenger. It was agreed that change to COC needs to be addressed in Resolution 017f, but not necessarily with the language proposed in this agenda item. Three systems are already pricing a change to COC/reissue us ing at least two different processes so a final formula will be worked on at the next RADWG. The Composite meeting was requested to endorse the work of RADWG on this issue and submit proposal to the next worki ng group meeting, and this was agreed. Final Result : Work of RADWG endorsed

FARE SELECTION CRITERIA RESOLUTION 017JJ (PSG) Passenger Steering Group (PSG) agreed that Resolution 017jj on Fare Selection Criteria agreed at the Europe-South West Pacific e-Tariff session should be discussed at the Composite meeting for validation. Issues identified with Resolution 017jj were:

• While the resolution applies for fare components between Europe and South West Pacific, almost all airlines globally are affected by the change, including carriers in TC1

• Only a few airlines had an opportunity to review the proposal or vote on it

• The new resolution may not deliver solution that the proponent was seeking

• Numerous technical issues have been raised by system providers

• Brings into Composite resolution concept of ‘issuing’ or ‘validating’ carrier which had not existed, but could have enormous impact on the commercial and distribution process The Composite meeting was requested to; 1. review the Resolution from both commercial and technical perspective, and 2. vote to validate the Resolution

While some airlines were able to consider accepting the fare selection process for Europe- South West Pacific market with further review, others opposed to have exceptional process.PTC COMP 1656 SIN, Oct11 New working group was established to revi ew the Resolution 017h as a whole. The group will consist of, but not limited to: KQ LH UA NZ AF LY PG JL KE NH CX SK KL This item is referred to the next RADWG, after which it is addressed by the new working group Final Result: - Resolution 017jj determined invalid - New working group established

RESOLUTION 017JJ (NZ) Resolution 017jj was developed and agreed just a couple of months ago to try to solve the problem of valid fares not being quoted by GDSs, even though they may be the cheapest, just because the fare-owning carr ier is not the carrier operating the first area-to-area crossing. Although the Resolution has since been found to have imperfections, NZ believed that with so me fine-tuning it can be made workable, and will be a major advance on the otherwise-applicable Resolution 017h. NZ believed they have come up with a us eful amended version which should be more suitable to GDSs, while going some way towards the solution sought by a number of long-haul carriers such as NZ. Composit e Meeting was requested to agree on the amendments to 017jj. Final Result: To be addressed by the new working group

RESOLUTION 017H – FARE SELECTION CRITERIA WITHIN AFRICA (KQ) Current Fare Selection Criteria outlined in Resolution 017h selects first international carrier over the long haul sector, even if t he first international sector is a short haul flight. KQ would also like to have the possi bility of bilateral fares selected in the process, provided such fare-owning carrier is participating in the fare component. KQ proposed to establish a dual fare selection process for fare components within Africa, where the lowest fare of either th e first international carrier or the issuing carrier is selected. Final Result: To be addressed by the new working group

RESOLUTION 017I 1 APRIL 2012 Carrier Selection for Fare Construction Checks - Deletion of Examples No Longer Applied JL proposed to delete examples of the fa re checks those are no longer effective. Examples to be deleted: 3) Directional Minimum Check (DMC) 4) Common Point Minimum Check (CPM) 5) Country of Payment Check (COP) 6) One Way Sub-journey Check (OSC) 7) Return Sub-journey Check (RSC)

Final Result: AgreedPTC COMP 1656 SIN, Oct11 RESOLUTION 024D IATA Passenger Tariff Coordinating (TC) Comp osite Conference Resolutions 024 series defines, for the purpose for fare filing and ticketing,

• Currency to be used in establishing fares and charges

• For which country US Dollar or EMU Eu ro should be used to establish fares instead of local currencies

• Which currencies restricts acceptance only to the country concerned

• Rounding and decimal units for each currency

• Sources for the rates of exchange to be applied when converting the local currency fares to the currency of payment Numerous problems have been ident ified by RADWG as follows:

1. Sources for the rates of exchange A resolution specifies sources for the ra tes of exchange. Currently 118 countries specify their source, either national banks or journals, and most (91 countries) of the sources update the rates on a weekly basis. Where such source is not specified, IATA Clearing House (ICH) Five Day Rate (FDR) is used.

Problems : a. ICH rates are updated only once a month and the rates are far from market rates. Some systems and airlines resort to cr eating their own exchange rates that are more closely aligned to market rates. b. Specified sources have not been updated for decades and are outdated (only 37 sources are from websites) c. Collection of the exchange rates using the list of sources and the FDR file is an extremely manual process, as the data are in different formats (journals, websites, letters, reports) from numerous sources at different time schedule, requiring system providers and airlines to assign numerous resources yet still leading to inconsistent result when pricing and ticketi ng. A system provider advises that they process 100,000 updates a month. Possible Solution : Simplify the list of sources and search for alternative source that are updated more frequently and data pulled with minimum intervention.

2. Restricted currencies A resolution lists currencies where acceptance of such currency is restricted to the country concerned.

Problems: a. There is no clear definition as to how some currencies are determined to be ‘restricted’, nor is there a single neutral source that li sts these restricted countries. The resolution therefore has not been updated for some years in this regard. b. We do not know the extent of the ‘restriction’, whether such restriction is only for refunding of the tickets, or if it also applies when tickets are being exchanged for another due to change in itinerary. c. We do not know how to ‘honour’ tickets where the fare applied is in USD or EUR but paid by restricted currencies Possible Solution : Link the ‘restricted’ currency definition to a source in compliant of local regulations 3. Conversion Process A resolution specifies how fares for certain soft currency countries are established in US Dollar or EMU Euro.PTC COMP 1656 SIN, Oct11 Problem : Related to ICH and restricted currency issues above, there is no standardized conversion process for soft currency countries where often a source for rates of exchange has not been specified. Instead of defaulting to use ICH, some airlines and system providers are estab lishing their own conversion process using competitive market rates (cross rates). Possible Solution: Establish a standardized conversion process, applying a cross rate either via USD or EUR depending on which currency the soft currency country establish their fares.

• Composite Meeting was requested to endor se the establishment of the Currency Conversion Working Group with the terms of reference as shown in the attachment

• Composite Meeting to enlist vo lunteers for the working group

The meeting endorsed the establishment of the new working group. The group will consist of, but not limited to AF KL KQ BA LH LY IR UA This item is referred to the next RADWG, a fter which it is addressed by the new working group. Final Result:

• New working group endorsed

• New working group established, consisting of but not limited to AF KL KQ BA LH LY IR UA

RESOLUTION 011B 1 JUNE 2012 CX proposed to establish a global indictor to be applied for fares between TC2 and TC1 via the Pacific Examples: DXB-CX-HKG-CX-LAX AUH-CX-HKG-CX-YTO JNB-CX-HKG-CX-YVR DMM-CX-HKG-CX-CHI

Final Result : Agreed

CLOSE OF MEETING The Chairman thanked the delegates and IATA sta ff for their support, cooperation and active participation in the discussion. The Composite Meeting was closed at 1430 hours on 14 October 2011.PTC COMP 1656 SIN, Oct11 ATTACHMENT ‘A’ Published Separately: JPSC Agenda Item P13 on US DoT – Enhancing Airline Passenger Protections BillPTC COMP 1656 SIN, Oct11 ATTACHMENT ‘B’ Published Separately: DOT FAQ on Enhanci ng Airline Passenger Protection_19October2011PTC COMP 1656 SIN, Oct11 ATTACHMENT ‘C’ SUMMARY OF AGREEMENT

The Composite meeting met in Singapore 14 October 2011. The changes are briefly described below.

For Intended Effect 30 January 2012:

• Fares are specified between South Sudan and Africa as constructed with use of existing add-ons to support interlining for tr avel from the newly formed nation of South Sudan. The fares will subsequently be updated by the Flex Fares

For Intended Effect 1 April 2012:

• Redundant examples in Resolution 017i Ca rrier Selection for Fare Construction Checks deleted.

• Definition for ‘Local Combi nation’ amended in Resolution 012

• Amendments made to Resolution 017c Construction Rules for Fare Components Paragraph C)2)b)i) related to local combination For Intended Effect 1 June 2012:

• Global Indicator PA amended to include rout ing TC12 via the Pacific (via TC3) in Resolution 011b Global IndicatorsPTC COMP 1656 SIN, Oct11 ATTACHMENT ‘D’ PASSENGER TARIFF COORDINATING CONFERENCE COMPOSITE MEETING, SINGAPORE, 14 OCTOBER 2011 CHAIRMAN: PATTY GEORGE

Airline First Name Last Name Aeroflot - Russian Airlines Ivan Batanov Aeroflot - Russian Airlines Natalia Prokudina Air China Ltd Hailong Yue Air France Bernard Charrier Air Moldova Natalia Macovscaia Air New Zealand David Sharp Air Niugini Ltd John Polume All Nippon Airways Kuniko Hayakawa All Nippon Airways Mitsue Sato All Nippon Airways Etsuko Tada Bangkok Airways Co. Ltd Pakorn Rattanarod Bangkok Airways Co. Ltd Kanyarat Tretepvijit British Airways Jerry Foran Cathay Pacific Melody Kwok China Airlines Yi Ching Lee Egyptair Ahmed Ibrahim El Al Israel Airlines Ltd Linda Grinfeld Eva Air Helen Weng Hainan Airlines Guo Jiajing Hainan Airlines Limin Tang Iran Air Mansour Rezaei Japan Airlines Rie Hayashi Japan Airlines Takahiro Ishida Kenya Airways Agnes Kwanya KLM Marianne Klinkenberg Korean Air Keunhae Kim Korean Air Bongkyung Lee Kuwait Airlines Mansour Alsultan LOT Polish Airlines Elizabeth Dmowska LOT Polish Airlines Dorota Wronska Lufthansa Tanja Pritzkoleit Olympic Air Efharis Zervou Qatar Airways Stephane Baudemont S7 Airlines Vadim Besperstov S7 Airlines Irina Anokhina SAS Christina Falck SAS Elaine Rusén SAS Kurt Saetre Singapore Airlines Chiew Peng Lam Singapore Airlines Paak Keat Ong Singapore Airlines Yu Pin Toh Thai Airways Chollada Pasutanavin Thai Airways Nantavan Suvongse Transaero Tatiana Pidgaynaya United Airlines Carol Swanson Vietnam Airlines Nu Do thi Vietnam Airlines Ngoc Nguyen Thi Mhin Vietnam Airlines Hang Nguyen Thi Thuy Vietnam Airlines Uyen Vu Thi Virgin Australia (observer) Simon PittPTC COMP 1656 SIN, Oct11 IATA

Name Job Title Telephone Email Mike MULLER Head, Passenger Interline Standards +41 22 7702731 mullerm@iata.org David MCEWEN Manager, Passenger Interline Standards +41 22 7702086 mcewend@iata.org Daniel KANTER Senior Legal Counsel +15148740202 ext 3506 kanterd@iata.org Alban SATO Manager Interline Tariffs +41 22 7702878 satoa@iata.org Cristina ROTOR Manager, Tariff Solutions and Distribution +41 22 7702816 rotorc@iata.org Rosanna IANNANTUONO Manager, Mileage Products +41 22 7702824 IannantuoR@iata.orgCOMP 1656 - Attachment A JPSC/31 PSC/33 Oct 11 Agenda Item: P13 Page: 1 of 7 SUPP New

Subject: US DoT – Enhancing Ai rline Passenger Protections Bill Submitted by: ATA and IATA Background On April 19, 2011, the US Depar tment of Transportation (DoT) issued the final rule for the Enhancing Passenger Protections to ‘improve the air travel environment for consumers’. The effective date of the requirements included in this rule was August 23, 2011. Subsequently a delayed effective date of January 24, 2012 was issued for some of the more challenging requirements. “All ai r carriers” for purposes of this paper means U.S. or foreign carrier operati ng to or from the U. S. with at least one aircraft with 30 or more passenger seats. Below is a summary of the provisions as described in the regulation: Subject Final Rule Tarmac Delay Contingency Plans

Effective date: August 23, 2011 • Requires all air carriers operating to or from the U.S. with at least one aircraft with 30 or more passenger seats to adopt and adhere to tarmac delay contingency plans.

• Requires all air carriers to not permit an international flight to remain on the tarmac at a U.S. airport for more than four hours without allowing passengers to deplane subject to safety, security, and ATC exceptions.

• Expands the airports at which all air carriers must adhere to the contingency plan terms to include small hub and non-hub airports, including diversion airports.

• Expands the airports at which all air carriers must coordinate plans with Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) at each U.S. airport regularly used for international flights, including diversion airports to include small hub and non-hub airports.

• Requires all air carriers to provide notification regarding the status of delays every 30 minutes while aircraft is delayed, including reasons for delay if known.

• Requires all air carriers to provide notification every 30 minutes of opportunity to deplane from an aircraft that is at the gate or another disembarkation area with door open if the opportunity to deplane actually exists.

• Requires all air carriers to provide food and water no later than 2 hours after gate departure or touchdown at a U.S. airport unless the pilotdetermines safety or security prevents the service.JPSC/31 PSC/33 Oct 11 Agenda Item: P13 Page: 2 SUPP New

Subject Final Rule Tarmac Delay Data Effective date: August 23, 2011 • Requires all air carriers t hat must adopt tarmac delay contingency plans to file data wit h the Department regarding any a tarmac delay of 3 hours or more at a U.S. airport.

• The first tarmac delay report is due on or before October 17, 2011; the reporting period is one month.

• The first report must include data for any reportable tarmac delay incident that occurr ed between August 23, 2011, and September 30, 2011 at a U.S. airport.

• All air carriers (foreign or U.S. ) do not have to file any report (under Part 244)if you do not have a 3 hour tarmac delay during a report period. U.S. air carriers that already report flight information to DOT (under part 234) also do not have to file a report under part 244 if the part 234 report already contains the delay data. Customer Service Plans

Effective date: August 23, 2011 • Requires all air carriers that operate scheduled passenger service to and from the U.S. with at least one aircraft with 30 or more passenger seats to adopt, fo llow, audit customer service plans and retain audit records for 2 years for DOT inspection.

• Establishes standards for the subj ects all air carriers must cover in customer service plans. Examples include:

• delivering baggage on time, in cluding reimbursing passengers for any fee charged to transport a bag if the bag is lost;

• where ticket refunds are due, providing prompt refunds including refund of optional fees charged to a passenger for services that the passenger was unable to use due to an oversale situation or flight cancellation; and

• allowing reservations to be held at the quoted fare without payment, or cancelled without pe nalty, for at least twentyfour hours after the reservation is made if the reservation is made one week or more prior to a flight’s departure date.JPSC/31 PSC/33 Oct 11 Agenda Item: P13 Page: 3 SUPP New Subject Final Rule Posting of Customer Service Plans and Tarmac Delay Contingency Plans Effective date: August 23, 2011 • Requires all air carriers to pos t their required contingency plans, customer service plans, and c ontracts of carriage on their websites as is already required of U.S. carriers.

Response to Consumer Problems Effective date: August 23, 2011 • Expands the pool of carriers that must respond to consumer problems to include foreign air carriers operating scheduled passenger service to and from the U.S. with at least one aircraft with 30 or more passenger seats (i.e., monitor the effects of irregular flight operations on consumers; inform consumers how to file a complaint with the carrier, and provide substantives responses to consumer complaints within 60 days). Oversales Effective date: August 23, 2011 • Increases the minimum denied b oarding compensation limits to 200%/400% of the one-way fa re up to a maximum of $650/$1,300.

• Implements an automatic inflat ion adjuster for minimum DBC limits every 2 years.

• Clarifies that DBC must be offe red to “zero fare ticket” holders (e.g., holders of frequent fl yer award tickets) who are involuntarily bumped.

• Requires that a carrier verba lly offer cash/check DBC if the carrier verbally offers a travel voucher as DBC to passengers who are involuntarily bumped.

• Requires that a carrier inform passengers solicited to volunteer for denied boarding about all material restrictions on the use of transportation vouchers offered in lieu of cash.JPSC/31 PSC/33 Oct 11 Agenda Item: P13 Page: 4 SUPP New

Subject Final Rule Full Fare Advertising Effective date: January 24, 2012 • Enforces the full fare advertisi ng rule as written starting January 24, 2012 (i.e., ads which state a pr ice must state the full price that include taxes and fees).

• All air carriers may separately st ate the costs of taxes and fees in addition to the full fare pric e after January 24, 2012 but this additional disclosure may not be di splayed prominently, e.g. the taxes and fee text must be sma ller than the full fare price.

• Until then carriers currently ma y exclude government taxes/fees imposed on a per-passenger basis.

• Clarifies the rule applies to ticket agents.

• Prohibits carriers and ticket agent s from advertising fares that are not the full fare and impose st ringent notice requirements in connection with the advertisement of “each-way” fares available for purchase only on a round-trip basis.

• Prohibits opt-out provisions in ads for air transportation. Baggage and Other Fees and Related Code-Share Issues Effective date: August 23, 2011 • Requires U.S. and foreign air carri ers to disclose changes in bag fees/allowances on their homepage for three months, to include information regarding the free baggage allowance.

• Requires U.S. and foreign air ca rriers to disclose all fees for optional services to consumers through a prominent link on their homepage.

• Requires the marketing carrier to disclose on its website any difference between its optional services and fees and those of the carrier operating the fli ght. Disclosure may be made through a hyperlink to the operating carriers’ websites that detail the operating carriers’ fees for opt ional services, or to a page onits website that lists the differences in policies among codeshare partners.JPSC/31 PSC/33 Oct 11 Agenda Item: P13 Page: 5 SUPP New

Baggage and Other Fees and Related Code-Share Issues Effective date: January 24, 2012 • Requires carriers (U.S. and fore ign) and ticket agents to include on e-ticket confirmations information about the free baggage allowance and applicable fees fo r the first and second checked bag and carry-on but allows ticket agents, unlike carriers, to do so through a hyperlink.

• Requires carriers (U.S. and fore ign) and ticket agents to inform passengers on the first screen on which the ticket agent or carrier offers a fare quotation fo r a specific itinerary selected by a consumer that additional airl ine fees for baggage may apply and where consumers can go to see these baggage fees.

• Requires that the same baggage allowances and fees apply throughout a passenger’s journey. Subject Final Rule Post-Purchase Price Increases Effective date: January 24, 2012 • Bans the practice of post-purchase price increases in air transportation or air tours unless the increase is due to an increase in governmen t-imposed taxes or fees and only if the passenger was provided full disclos ure of the potential for the increase and affirmatively agreed to the potential for such an increase prior to purchase. Flight Status Changes Effective date: January 23, 2012 • Requires U.S. and foreign ai r carriers operating scheduled passenger service with any aircraft with 30 or more seats to promptly notify consumers through whatever means is available to the carrier for passengers who s ubscribe to the carrier’s flight status notification services, in the boarding gate area, on a carrier’s telephone reservation system and on its website of delays of 30 minutes or more, cancellations and diversions within 30 minutes of the carrier becoming aware of a change in the status of a flight.Choice-ofForum Provisions Effective date: August 23, 2011 • Prohibits U.S. and foreign air ca rriers from limiting a passenger’s forum to pursue litigation to a particular inconvenient venue.JPSC/31 PSC/33 Oct 11 Agenda Item: P13 Page: 6 SUPP New

The requirement below is effective Augus t 23, 2011 may need to be addressed to ensure compliance: 14 CFR 259.7 (b) Informing consumers how to complain . Each covered carrier shall make available the mailing address and e-ma il or web address of the des ignated department in the airline with which to file a complaint about it s scheduled service. This information shall be provided on the U.S. carrier’s website (i f any) and the foreign carrier’s website (if marketed to U.S. consumers), on all e-ti cket confirmations and, upon request, at each ticket counter and boarding gate sta ffed by the carrier or a cont ractor of the carrier. 8 items were delayed until January 24, 2012:

• full fare advertising section 399.84

• baggage fees section 399.85(b) and

• baggage fees 399.85(c)

• baggage allowances and fees 399.87

• post-purchase price in creases section 399.88

• disclosure of potential price increases before payment 399.89)

• flight status notific ations section 259.8 and

• holding a reservation without payment section 259.5(b)(4)

The requirement below is effective January 24, 2012 may need to be addressed to ensure compliance: 14 CFR 399.85 (c) On all e-ticket confirmations for air transportation within, to or from the United States, including the summary page at the co mpletion of an online purchase and a postpurchase email confirmation, a U. S. carrier, a foreign air carrier , an agent of either, or a ticket agent that advertises or sells air transpo rtation in the United States must include information regarding the passenger’s free baggage allowance and/or the applicable fee for a carry-on bag and the first and second c hecked bag. Carriers must provide this information in text form in the e-ticket confirmation. Agent s may provide this information in text form in the e-ticket confirmations or through a hyperlink to the specific location on airline websites or their ow n website where this information is displayed. The fee information provided for a carry-on bag and the first and second checked bag must be expressed as specific charges taking into account any factors (e.g., frequent flyer status, early purchase, and so fort h) that affect those charges.JPSC/31 PSC/33 Oct 11 Agenda Item: P13 Page: 7 SUPP New

The final rule is shown as Attachment A_P13

. The postponement notice is shown as Attachment B_P13

. A PowerPoint presentation from DoT is shown as Attachment C_P13

. Slides 17-19 of the PowerPoint presentation clarify that a carrier or ticket agent can comply with this new regulation by including “a list or table in text form that shows baggage allowances and fees for all potential classifica tions of passengers regarding first and second checked baggage and carry-on baggage.” This is a very important clarification because it means the agent or carrier does not have to figure out an individualized baggage fee for each passeng er, which would have been extremely difficult; the carrier or agent would have to know all factors that could impact whether the passenger owes a baggage fee such as a pa ssenger’s credit card status, whether the passenger purchased an upgr ade etc. With this DOT clarification agents and carriers have the option of providing a static table where the passenger can look up their status and find the applic able fee. Attachment D is a DOT FAQ document that provides additional guidance on a ll aspects of the DOT final rule.

Proposed Action: PSC and ATA Passenger Council is asked to review this regulation on Enhancing Airline Passenger Protections and discuss what steps they would like IATA and ATA take to facilitate that ai rline industry procedures under the scope of passenger services are compliant with this US DoT mandate.1656 Attachment A Supplement B DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY 14 CFR PARTS 244, 250, 253, 259 and 399

Docket No. DOT-OST-2010-0140

RIN No. 2105-AD92 Enhancing Airline Passenger Protections: Limite d Extension of Effective Date For Certain

Provisions

AGENCY: Office of the Secretary (OST), De partment of Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Final Rule, limited extension of eff ective date for certain provisions

SUMMARY: The Department of Transportation is extending the effective date for certain requirements adopted in an April 25, 2011 final rule on enhancing airline passenger protections. Specifically, the Department is extending the effective date from August 23, 2011 to January 24, 2012, for requirements pertaining to baggage fees, post purchase price increases, flight status changes and holding a reservation without payment fo r twenty-four hours. The Department is also extending the effective date from October 24, 2011 to January 24, 2012 for requirements pertaining to full fare advertising. The effective date remains August 23, 2011 for all the other requirements in the April 25, 2011 final rule, including the requirement not to permit an international flight to remain on the tarmac at a U.S. airport for more than four hours without allowing passengers to deplane, the requirement increasing the denied boarding compensation airlines must pay to passengers bumped from flights, and the requirement to disclose prominently all fees for optional aviation services on

carriers’ websites.2 DATES: This rule is effective on [i nsert date of publication in the Federal Register .] The effective date of the final rule published at 76 FR 23110, April 25, 2011, continues to be August 23, 2011, except for the amendments relating to 14 CFR 399.84, 399.85(b) and (c), 399.87, 399.88, 399.89, 259.8, and 259.5(b)(4) which become effective on January 24, 2012.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Blane A. Workie, Deputy Assistant General Counsel, Office of the Assistant General Couns el for Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 Ne w Jersey Ave. SE, Washington, DC 20590, 202- 366-9342 (phone), 202-366-7152 (fax ), blane.workie@dot.gov (e-mail).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On April 25, 2011, the Department of Transportation published a final rule in the Federal Register (76 FR 23110), titled “Enhancing Airline Passenger Protections,” containing many new requirements to improve the air travel environment for consumers, expanding upon the improved passeng er rights included in a rule published on December 30, 2009. More specifically, the Apri l 25, 2011, rule (1) increases the number of carriers that are required to adopt tarmac delay contingency plans and includes additional airports at which they must adhere to the plan’s terms; (2) increases the number of carriers that are required to report tarmac delay information to the Department; (3) expands the group of carriers that are required to a dopt, follow, and audit customer service plans and establishes minimum standards for the subjects all carriers mu st cover in such plans; (4) adds carriers to those required to include their contingency plans and customer se rvice plans on their websites; (5) increases the number of carriers that must respond to consumer complaints; (6) enhances protections afforded passengers in oversales situations, includi ng increasing the denied boarding compensation airlines must pay to passengers bump ed from flights; (7) st rengthens, clarifies and codifies the Department’s enforcement policies concerning air transporta tion price advertising3 practices; (8) requires carriers to notify consumers of optional fees related to air transportation and of increases in baggage fees; (9) prohibits post-purchase price increases; (10) requires carriers to provide passengers timely notice of flight status changes such as delays and cancellations; and (11) prohibits carriers from imposing unfair contract of carriage choice-offorum provisions. As published, the effective da te of the rule is A ugust 23, 2011, except for the full fare advertising amendments which become effective on October 24, 2011. We received requests from U.S. carrier associ ations, foreign carrier associations and a travel agent association to extend the effective date of certain provi sions in this rule. The Air Transport Association of America (ATA), the Regional Airline Association (RAA) and the Air Carrier Association of America (A CAA) requested that the Depart ment of Transportation extend by 180 days the compliance time for the full fare advertising amendments in 14 CFR 399.84, the denied boarding compensation amendments in 14 CFR Part 250, the requirement to disclose baggage fees in e-ticket confirmations in 14 CFR 399.85(c), and the requirement in 14 CFR 399.87 for the same baggage allowances and fees to apply to a passenger th roughout an itinerary. These U.S. carrier associations state that they have limited their request to the four provisions that require deployment of additional IT res ources, development of new protocols and the training of many employees. The National Air Carri er Association (NACA) joined the request to

extend the effective date and stated that it al so believes compliance cannot be achieved within the time contemplated by the regulation without undue cost to the airlines and confusion to the traveling public. According to the U.S. carrier associations, it will take more than the time allotted by the final rule to comply with the amendments to the denied boarding compensation rule because of the need to make additional systems and progr amming changes and the need to ensure the4 appropriate offices and employees are aware of a nd trained on the changes to this rule. The

carrier associations also ask fo r additional time to comply with the requirement to disclose baggage fees in e-ticket confirmations if detail ed baggage fee information individualized to a particular passenger is required a nd if the notice of applicable ba ggage information must be in text form and a hyperlink is not allowed. In add ition, the U.S. carrier asso ciations assert that it is not possible to comply with the requirement to apply the same baggage allowances and fees to a passenger throughout an itinerary without an add itional 180 days as no central repository for carrier baggage policies and fees currently exists. They note that carriers are working to develop an industry solution to comply with this requirement but more time is needed. The U.S. carrier associations are particular ly concerned about the full fare advertising requirements, which they contend they cannot m eet by the published eff ective date of October 24, 2011. They state that this aspect of the final rule requires the greatest IT inve stment and that carriers are preparing to reprogram and reconfigure their online se arch engines to incorporate the new advertising requirements but that carriers would need at least an additional 180 days to create, modify and test these changes. The a ssociations ask that the Department extend the effective date for not only online advertising but also pr int advertising so that consumers receive consistent advertising of fares through all advertising channels. The foreign air carrier associa tions have indicated their strong support of the request by

the U.S. carrier associations and have asked th at the 180-day extension be expanded to cover all the requirements being imposed fo r the first time on non-U.S. airlines. These associations are the International Air Transport Association (IAT), Association of Asia Pacific Airlines (AAPA), Association of European Airlin es (AEA), and Latin and Caribbean Air Transport Association (ALTA). They have stated that they believe investments and changes are needed to meet the5 new DOT requirements. They also state that the ability of the non-U.S. airlines to meet these requirements in a timely fashion is impacted by constraints on existing operations, staffing, IT support, local laws and regulations, labor practices and resources. In addition to the airlines, the American Soci ety of Travel Agents (ASTA) has requested

an extension of the effective date of the final rule. ASTA requests th at the Department extend the effective date of the requirement in secti on 399.85(b) to disclose baggage fee information on websites when a fare quotation for a specific itinerary is selected by a consumer and the requirement in section 399.85(c) to disclo se baggage fee information on all e-ticket confirmations. ASTA’s request differs from th e requests of the U.S. and foreign air carrier associations in that ASTA is not requesting a specific amount of additional time to implement the requirements. Rather, ASTA is asking that th e Department defer the effective date of these two requirements until the Department concludes its upcoming rulemaking on disclosure of fees for ancillary services. ASTA, like the U.S. carri ers, notes its uncertainty as to whether the requirement to provide specific information to passengers about baggage allowances and baggage fees means providing individualized in formation about those matters. ASTA also

asserts that the two methods the rule describes for agents to provide baggage information to

consumers are not feasible. It calls the first me thod (providing a link to an airline website) “an

act of commercial suicide” and believes the se cond method (referring cons umers to its own site if it displays airlines’ baggage f ees) impractical because of the la bor cost to achieve it initially

and to monitor airline website s constantly for updates. In addition to the requests to extend the effec tive date of the rule, we received a request from Allegiant Air and Spirit Airl ines as well as Sout hwest Airlines to postpone or stay the effective date pending judicial review of vari ous provisions in this regulation by the United6 States Court of Appeals for the District of Columb ia Circuit. In June, Al legiant and Spirit filed petitions for review before that court asserting that the rule unlawfully: (1) ends the practice of permitting sellers of air transportation to exclud e government taxes and fees from the advertised price; (2) prohibits the sale of nonrefundable tickets by requiring ai rlines to hold reservations at the quoted fare without payment or cancel without penalty for at least twen ty-four hours after the

reservation is made if the reservat ion is made one week or more pr ior to a flight’s departure; (3) prohibits post-purchase price incr eases, including increases in the price of ancillary products and services, after the initial ticket sale; (4) requi res baggage fees to be disclosed on e-ticket confirmations; and (5) mandates notific ation of flight schedule change s. Spirit’s and Allegiant’s request to the Department to stay the rule pe nding judicial review cove rs all the specific provisions that are part of the litigation. Southwest is requesti ng that the Depart ment stay the effective date of the new full fare advertising rule. A few other organizations have also provided the Department their views on the requests to stay the rule and the requests to extend the ef fective date of the rule. The Consumer Travel Alliance (CTA) has expressed its opposition to a ny delay in implementation of the rulemaking. CTA appears particularly concerne d about requests to delay the re quirement to disclose baggage

fee information to consumers. It notes that airlines have the means through the Airline Tariff Publishing Company (ATPCO) to disc lose all baggage fee informati on so that both airlines and ticket agents can easily disclose baggage fee information to consumers. The Airports Council International- North America (ACI-NA) has also noted its concern with the recent filings requesting extensions to the eff ective date of the rule but stat es that it recognizes that the Department may determine that the implementati on date for some portions of the regulations7 may need to be extended. ACI-NA does urge the Department to not delay the implementation

date for U.S. carriers to extend their tarmac delay plans to small and non-hub airports. Similarly, an individual comme nter who works in the travel industry stated that it may be appropriate to extend the effective date of certain provisions in the final rule such as the full fare advertising requirements but expressed his st rong opposition to the blanket request for an

extension of the effective date of all the consumer protection re quirements in the rule. This individual identified the provi sions pertaining to denied boa rding compensation and baggage

fees as ones that should not be delayed based on his belief that airlines can easily comply with these provisions and their importance to consumers. After carefully considering all the requests and comments provided, the Department has

decided to extend the effective da te of the requirements pertai ning to full fare advertising (section 399.84) by an additional three months to January 24, 2012, and extend the effective date of certain specific requirements pertaini ng to baggage fees (sec tions 399.85(b) and (d) and 399.87), post-purchase price increas es (sections 399.88 and 399.89), f light status notifications (section 259.8) and holding a reserv ation without payment (section 259.5 (b)(4)) to the same date. We are denying the request of U. S. carrier associations to extend the effective date of denied boarding compensation amendments and the request of the foreign carrier associations to extend

the effective date of the entire rule. The Department took a number of factors into consideration in deci ding to extend certain provisions of the rule until January 24, 2011, includi ng the fact that there are limited objections to the requests for an extension of time. We are persuaded that additional time is needed to comply with the full fare advertising amendments as they relate to online advertising as they may require the deployment of IT resources, and to al low maximum flexibility to make alterations to8 web sites with minimal disruption. We also believ e that we should apply the same effective date to print advertising so that consumers do not see different adve rtising displays in different media

which could result in consumer confusion. With regard to baggage fees, there appears to be some confusion regarding what the Department meant by the requirement in se ction 399.85 (b) that “specific baggage fee

information” must be disclosed on websites when a fare quotation for a specific itinerary is selected by a consumer and by the requirement in section 399.85(c) that carriers must provide information on all e-ticket confirmations rega rding the free baggage allowance and fee for a carry-on bag and the first and second checked bag “as specific charges ta king into account any factors (e.g., frequent flyer status , early purchase, and so forth) th at affect those charges.” We want to clarify that the rule does not require passenger-specifi c information concerning baggage allowances and baggage fees on e-ticket confirmati ons or on websites provid ing fare quotations. We used the term “specific charges” to ensure that the regulated entitie s understood that a range of fees would not be acceptable under the rule. In other words, carriers must provide specific

information to consumers about all the factors th at cause the fee for a carry-on bag or the first and second checked bag to vary so passengers can determine for themselves the fees that would apply to them. For example, it would not be suffic ient for a carrier to state that the fee for the first checked bag ranges from $0 to $50. However, it would acceptable if th e carrier states that the fee for the first checked bag would be $0 for its elite frequent flyer passengers or those who purchased their ticket with a specified credit card, $25 for passengers who pay for baggage online, and $50 for those passengers who pay at th e airport. Of cour se, carriers are free to provide individualized baggage ch arge information to passengers but this is not required by the

rule.9 Although individualized baggage fee informati on is not required by the final rule, the Department still sees merit in extending the e ffective date of the requirements in section 399.85(b) and (c) as the travel agencies need ti me to determine the method they will use to ensure that specific baggage fee information is available to their consumers. We are also persuaded that additional time is needed by the carriers as they are not permitted under the rule to provide the required notice of applicable ba ggage charges through a hyperlink. However, we

don’t believe that it will be in the best interest of consumers to de lay the effective date of these provisions until the Department concludes its ru lemaking on disclosure of ancillary fees as requested by ASTA. With respect to the U.S. carrier associations request to delay the effective date of the provision requiring consistent bagga ge rules across an entire itin erary, the associations have adequately demonstrated the difficulties in a pplying the same baggage allowances and fees across an itinerary when they cannot readily access each other’s fee schedules. We are encouraged that they are working towards an industry solution and have provided them

additional time so that an industr y standard can be developed. We have also decided to extend the effective date of the provisions pertaining to post purchase price increases, flight status changes and holding a reservation without payment for twenty-fo ur hours to provide additional time to overcome any technical difficulties in implementing the rules. In extending the effective date for these requirements, the Department is balancing the benefit of having these protections in place for co nsumers as soon as practi cal with the capability of airlines to comply with th e additional requirements being imposed upon them in a reasonable timeframe. We believe the January 24, 2012, date will provide the airlines adequate time to comply with the requirements.10 REGULATORY ANALYSES AND NOTICES

A. Administrative Procedure Act Section 553(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”) generally requires an agency to publish notice of a proposed rule making in the Federal Register. This requirement does not apply, however, if the agency “for good cause finds that notice and public procedure thereon are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Because August 23, 2011 (the effective date for the April 2011 final rule) is fast approaching, the Department finds good cause that this action delaying the effective date should take effect immediately. Today’s final rule makes no substantive changes to the rule, but simply dela ys the effective date of certain provisions until January 24, 2012.

B. Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) and DOT Regulatory

Policies and Procedures This rulemaking action is not a significan t regulatory action under Executive Order 12866 and the Department of Transportation’ s Regulatory Policies and Procedures. Accordingly, this action has not been review ed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act Pursuant to section 605 of the Regulatory Fl exibility Act (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 605(b), as amended by the Small Business Regulatory En forcement and Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), DOT certifies that this action will not have a sign ificant impact on a subs tantial number of small entities. This action imposes no dutie s or obligations on small entities.11 D. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)

This action will not have a substantial dir ect effect on the States, on the relationship

between the national Government and the St ates, or on the distri bution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of govern ment, and therefore will not have federalism implications.

E. Executive Order 13084 This notice has been analyzed in accordance w ith the principles and criteria contained in Executive Order 13084 (“Consultation and Coordinati on with Indian Tribal Governments”). Because the provisions for which we are delaying the effective date would not significantly or uniquely affect the communities of the Indian tr ibal governments or impose substantial direct compliance costs on them, the funding and cons ultation requirements of Executive Order 13084 do not apply. F. Paperwork Reduction Act The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) requires that DOT consider the impact of paperwork and othe r information collection burdens imposed on the public and, under the provisions of PRA section 3507(d), obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collecti on of information it conducts, sponsors, or requires through regulations. DOT has determined that there are no new information collection requirements associated with this action. The action merely postpones the effective date of a regulatory provision whose paperwork impact has already been analyzed by the Department, and consequently no additional OMB approval is necessary.12 G. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act The Department has determined that the requirements of Titl e II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 do not apply to this rulemaking.

ISSUED THIS 20th DAY OF July , 2011, IN WASHINGTON D.C.

ORIGINAL SIGNED

Susan Kurland Assistant Secretary for Aviation and International AffairsCOMP 1656 - Attachment A, Supplement A DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Office of the Secretary 14 CFR Parts 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), De partment of Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: The Department of Transportation is issu ing a final rule to im prove the air travel environment for consumers by: increasing the nu mber 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 requi red 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; adding carriers to those re quired to include their contingency plans and customer service plans on their websites; incr easing the number of carriers that must respond to consumer complaints; enhancing protections afforded passengers in oversales situations, including increasing the maximum denied boa rding compensation airlines must pay to passengers bumped from flight s; strengthening, codifying and clarifying the Department’s enforcement policies concerning air transportation price advertising prac tices; requiring carriers to notify consumers of optional fees related to air transportation a nd of increases in baggage fees; prohibiting post-purchase price in creases; requiring carriers to provide passengers timely notice2 of flight status changes such as delays and cancellations; and prohibiti ng carriers from imposing unfair contract of carriage choice -of-forum provisions. The Depa rtment is taking this action to strengthen the rights of air travelers in the ev ent of oversales, flight cancellations and delays, ensure that passengers have accurate and adequate information to make informed decisions when selecting flights, prohibit unfair and deceptive pr actices such as post-purchase price increases and contract of carriage choice -of-forum provisions, and to ensure responsiveness to consumer complaints.

DATES: This rule is effective [insert date 120 days after date of publication in the Federal Register] except for the amendments to 14 CFR 399.84 wh ich become effective [insert date 180 days after date of publication in the Federal Register] .

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Blane A. Workie, Tim Kelly or Daeleen Chesley, Office of the Assistan t General Counsel for Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 Ne w Jersey Ave. SE, Washington, DC 20590, 202- 366-9342 (phone), 202-366-7152 (fax), tim.kelly@dot.gov or blane.workie@dot.gov (e-mail).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On December 30, 2009, the Department published a final rule in which it required certain U.S. air carriers to adopt contingency plans for lengthy tarmac delays; respond to consumer problems; post flight delay information on their websites; and adopt, follow, and audit customer service plans. The rule also defined chronically delayed flight s and deemed them to be an “unfair and deceptive” practice. The majority of the provisions in that rule took effect on April 29, 2010. See 74 FR 68983 (December 30, 2009).3 In the preamble to that final rule, the Department noted that it planned to review additional ways to further enhance protections a fforded airline passengers and listed a number of subject areas that it was consid ering addressing in a future rulemaking. On June 8, 2010, the Department published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM), 75 FR 32318, in which it addressed the following areas: (1) contingency plans for lengt hy tarmac delays; (2) reporting of tarmac delay data; (3) customer service plans; (4) contracts of carri age; (5) responding to consumer problems/complaints (6 ) oversales; (7) full fare adve rtising; (8) baggage and other ancillary fees; (9) post-purchase price increases; ( 10) notification to passenge rs of flight status changes; (11) choice-of-forum pr ovisions; and (12) peanut allergie s. In response to the NPRM, the Department received over 2100 comments, the va st majority of which were related to the proposal to address peanut alle rgies in air travel. The Department received comments on the NP RM from the following: U.S. carriers and U.S. carrier associations; forei gn air carriers and foreign carrier associations; U.S. and foreign consumer groups; travel agents and members of orga nizations in the travel industry; airports and various airport-related industry groups; members of Congress; em bassies; peanut industry groups and allergy associations; as we ll as a number of individual co nsumers. In addition, the Department received a summary of the public discussion on the NPRM proposals that occurred on the Regulation Room Web site, http://www.regulationroom.org . The Regulation Room site is a site where members of the publ ic can learn about and discuss proposed federal regulations and provide feedback to agency decision makers. To support this Administ ration’s open government initiative, the Department partnere d with Cornell University in this pilot project to discover the best ways to use Web 2.0 a nd social networking technologies to increase effective public involvement in the rulemaking process.4 The Department has carefully reviewed a nd considered the comments received. The commenters’ positions that are germane to the specific issues raised in the NPRM and the Department’s responses are set forth below, immediately following a summary of regulatory provisions and a summary of the regulatory analysis. Summary of Regulatory Provisions

Subject Final Rule

Tarmac Delay Contingency Plans • Requires foreign air carriers operating to or from the U.S. with at least one aircraft with 30 or more passenger seats to adopt and adhere to tarmac delay contingency plans.

• Requires U.S. and foreign air carrie rs to not permit an international flight to remain on the tarmac at a U.S. airport for more than four hours without allowing passengers to deplane subject to safety, security, and ATC exceptions.

• Expands the airports at which airlines must adhere to the contingency plan terms to incl ude small hub and non-hub airports, including diversion airports.

• Requires U.S. and foreign carriers to coordinate plans with Customs and Border Protection (CBP) a nd the Transportation Security Administration ( TSA).

• Requires notification regarding the st atus of delays every 30 minutes while aircraft is delayed, incl uding reasons for delay if known.

• Requires notification of opportunity to deplane from an aircraft that is at the gate or another disemb arkation area with door open if the opportunity to deplane actually exists.

Tarmac Delay Data • Requires all carriers that must a dopt tarmac delay contingency plans to file data with the Departme nt regarding lengthy tarmac delays.5 Customer Service Plans • Requires foreign air carriers that operate scheduled passenger service to and from the U.S. with at least one aircraft with 30 or more passenger seats to adopt, follow and audit customer service plans.

• Establishes standards for the subjec ts U.S. and foreign air carriers must cover in customer service plans. Examples include:

• delivering baggage on time, including reimbursing passengers for any fee charged to transport a bag if the bag is lost;

• where ticket refunds are due , providing prompt refunds including refund of optional f ees charged to a passenger for services that the passenger was unable to use due to an oversale situation or f light cancellation; and

• allowing reservations to be he ld at the quoted fare without payment, or cancelled without penalty, for at least twentyfour hours after the reservation is made if the reservation is made one week or more prior to a flight’s departure date . Posting of Customer Service Plans and Tarmac Delay Contingency Plans • Requires foreign carriers to post th eir required contingency plans, customer service plans, and contract s of carriage on their websites as is already required of U.S. carriers.

Response to Consumer Problems • Expands the pool of carriers that must respond to consumer problems to include foreign air carriers operating scheduled passenger service to and from the U.S. with at least one aircraft with 30 or more passenger seats (i.e., monitor the effect s of irregular flight operations on consumers; inform consumers how to file a complaint with the carrier, and provide substantives re sponses to consumer complaints within 60 days).

Oversales

• Increases the minimum denied boarding compensation limits to $650/$1,300 or 200%/400% of the one-way fare, whichever is smaller.

• Implements an automatic inflation adjuster for minimum DBC limits every 2 years.6 • Clarifies that DBC must be offere d to “zero fare ticket” holders (e.g., holders of frequent flyer awar d tickets) who are involuntarily bumped.

• Requires that a carrier verbally o ffer cash/check DBC if the carrier verbally offers a travel vouche r as DBC to passengers who are involuntarily bumped.

• Requires that a carrier inform pa ssengers solicited to volunteer for denied boarding about all material restrictions on the use of transportation vouchers offe red in lieu of cash.

Full Fare Advertising • Enforces the full fare advertising ru le as written (i.e., ads which state a price must state the full price to be paid). Carriers currently may exclude government taxes/fees imposed on a per-passenger basis.

• Clarifies the rule’s applicability to ticket agents.

• Prohibits carriers and ticket agents from advertising fares that are not the full fare and impose stringent notice requirements in connection with the advertisement of “each-way” fares available for purchase only on a roundtrip basis.

• Prohibits opt-out provisions in ads for air transportation.

Baggage and Other Fees andRelated CodeShare Issues • Requires U.S. and foreign air carrie rs to disclose changes in bag fees/allowances on their homepage for three months, to include information regarding the free baggage allowance.

• Requires carriers (U.S. and foreign) and ticket agents to include on eticket confirmations information about the free baggage allowance and applicable fees for the first and second checked bag and carry-on but allows ticket agents, unlike ca rriers, to do so through a hyperlink.

• Requires carriers (U.S. and forei gn) and ticket agents to inform passengers on the first screen on wh ich the ticket agent or carrier offers a fare quotation for a specific itinerary selected by a consumer that additional airline fees for baggage may apply and where consumers can go to see these baggage fees.

• Requires U.S. and foreign air carriers to disclose all fees for optional services to consumers through a pr ominent link on their homepage.7 • Requires that the same baggage allowances and fees apply throughout a passenger’s journey.

• Requires the marketing carrier to disclose on its website any difference between its optional serv ices and fees and those of the carrier operating the f light. Disclosure may be made through a hyperlink to the operating carriers’ we bsites that detail the operating carriers’ fees for optional services, or to a page on its website that lists the differences in policies among code-share partners.

Post-Purchase Price Increases • Bans the practice of post-purch ase price increases in air transportation or air tour s unless the increase is due to an increase in government-imposed taxes or fees and only if the passenger was provided full disclosure of th e potential for the increase and affirmatively agreed to the potential for such an increase prior to purchase. Flight Status Changes • Requires U.S. and foreign air carr iers operating scheduled passenger service with any aircraft with 30 or more seats to promptly notify consumers through whatever means is available to the carrier for passengers who subscribe to the carri er’s flight stat us notification services, in the boarding gate area, on a carrier’s telephone reservation system and on its webs ite of delays of 30 minutes or more, cancellations and diversions within 30 minutes of the carrier becoming aware of a change in the status of a flight.

Choice-ofForum Provisions • Prohibits U.S. and foreign air carriers from limiting a passenger’s forum to pursue litigation to a particular inconvenient venue

Summary of Regulatory Analysis The regulatory analysis shows that the mone tized benefits of the proposed requirements exceed their monetized costs, even without consid ering non-quantifiable benefits. This analysis, outlined in the table below, has determined that the present value of monetized net benefits for a 10 year period at a 7% discount rate is $14.3 milli on. At a 3% discount rate, the present value of monetized net benefits is estimated to be $20.3 million.8 Present Value (millions) 10 Years, 7% discounting $45.0 Monetized Benefits 10 Years, 3% discounting $53.5 10 Years, 7% discounting $30.7 Monetized Costs 10 Years, 3% discounting $33.2 10 Years, 7% discounting $14.3 Monetized Net Benefits 10 Years, 3% discounting $20.3

A comparison of the monetized benefits and costs for each of the final requirements is provided in the Regulatory Analysis and Notices secti on, set forth below, along with information on additional benefits and costs for which quantit ative estimates could not be developed. Comments and Responses 1. Tarmac Delay Contingency Plans

A. Entities Covered

The NPRM: The NPRM proposed to require any fore ign 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 passeng er seats to adopt and comply with a tarmac delay contingency plan for their flights to and from the U.S. that includes minimum assurances identical to those currently required of U.S. ca rriers. As proposed, it would apply to all of a foreign carrier’s flights to and from a covered U.S. airport, including those involving aircraft with fewer than 30 seats if a carrier operates any aircraft originally desi gned to have a passenger capacity of 30 or more seats to or from the U.S. We sought comment on whether the requirement to have a contingency plan should be narrowed or expanded, and if so, the cost burdens and benefits of doing so. For example, we proposed to include foreign carriers that operate aircraft originally designed to have a passenger9 capacity of 30 or more seats to and from the U.S. , but we invited interested persons to comment on whether, in the event that we adopt a rule requiring foreign carri ers to have contingency plans, we should limit its applicability to foreign air carr iers 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. We also asked whether the requirement to adopt tarmac delay contingency plans should apply not only to U.S. and foreign air carriers but also to U.S. airports . We requested that proponents and opponents of these or other alternative pr oposals provide arguments in support of their positions.

Comments: A number of U.S. and foreign airlin es and airline associations support requiring airports to develop thei r own contingency plans to addr ess lengthy tarmac delays but generally agree that these plans should be limited to coordinating with airlines and government agencies and assisting airlines during tarmac delays. Some of these commenters note that airports are in the best position to address the logistics associated with lengthy delays, particularly with respect to divert ed flights. For example, they ar gue that an airport authority is most likely to know the areas in the airport wh ere international passeng ers can be allowed to deplane without resulting in U.S. Customs a nd Border Protection (CBP) or Transportation Security Administration (TSA) concerns. Commente rs also note that requi ring only carriers to have a contingency plan unreasonably places the burden of the operations of the entire air transport industry on carriers. Consumer groups ar e also in favor of requiring airports to adopt contingency plans. Of the airport and airport industry commenters, Dallas/Fort Worth Airport generally supports requiring U.S. airports to adop t a tarmac delay contingenc y plan but notes that U.S. airports do not have direct contact with ai rline passengers when they are on the aircraft and have no control over deplaning. Airports Council In ternational (AC I) supports the airlines’ plans10 being coordinated with airports but does not support requiring airpor ts to adopt separate plans. ACI believes that separate air port and airline contingency plan s could result in confusion and states that it is committed to supporting air lines in the developm ent of their plans. With regard to the adoption of a tarmac dela y contingency plan by foreign carriers, the views of foreign carrier associ ations and carriers differed sign ificantly from those of other commenters. In general, the foreign carriers and foreign carrier asso ciation commenters object to the proposal that they adopt tarmac delay co ntingency plans as unnecessary and note that the same issues with tarmac delays do not arise as often with international flights as they do with domestic flights. The Interna tional Air Carrier Association (IA CA) states that EU Regulation 261/2004 is an EU passenger rights provision to which EU carriers ar e subject on all their flights, including flights that depart from U.S. air ports, and that the Depa rtment’s proposals could

conflict with EU laws. The In ternational Air Trans port Association (IATA) generally supports the principle of contingency plans, but believes such plans should be developed individually by each carrier according to its specific operations and conditions as opposed to having terms set by the government. The Arab Air Carrier Associ ation (AACA) and the Latin American and Caribbean Air Transport Association (ALTA) conc ur with IATA, as do many foreign carriers. The Air Transport Users Council (AUC) and a number of European carriers point out, similar to IACA, that many of the provisions in the NPRM are covered under EU legislation. The National Airlines Council of Canada (NA CC) supports the need for conti ngency plans in the event of irregular operations but states that they should be developed in the interest of enhanced customer service rather than being mandated by government regulation. TUI Travel notes that EU carriers must comply with EU regulations and asks that carriers originating outside the U.S. be excluded11 from the tarmac delay contingency plan rule. M onarch Airlines commented that an exception to any requirement should exist for flights that do not pick up passengers in the United States.

U.S. carrier associations such as the Air Transport Association of America (ATA) and National Air Carrier Association (NACA) indi cated their support for requiring foreign air

carriers to meet the same standards as U.S. carri ers for adopting tarmac delay contingency plans. Of the U.S. carriers that commented, Spirit Ai rlines supports extending the rule to foreign carriers, while Virgin America states that DOT should not adopt any of the proposals related to tarmac delays.

Most of the comments received fr om individuals on this issue noted that a requirement to develop a tarmac delay contingency plan should be extended to foreign carriers because it is important to protect consumers on all flights to and from the United States, not merely on flights operated by U.S. airlines. Among the consum er group commenters, the Consumer Travel Alliance (CTA) supports the expansion of the tarm ac delay rules to foreign carriers, as does the Association for Airline Passenger Rights (AAP R), National Business Travel Association (NBTA), Flyersrights.org, Consumers Union a nd Aviation Consumer Action Project (ACAP). The American Society of Travel Agents (ASTA) also supports extending the tarmac delay contingency plan provisions to fo reign carriers and states that the rule should cover all aircraft types. Among the airports and airport industry comm enters, ACI supports requiring foreign air carriers to adopt plans that incl ude minimum assurances as require d of U.S. airlines and strongly supports extending the rule to foreig n air carriers operating aircraft with 30 or more seats. The American Association of Airport Executives (AAAE ) agrees that foreign carriers should comply with specified contingency plans in order to provide equal and fa ir competition. The New York12 State Consumer Protection Board supports requi ring foreign carriers to adopt tarmac delay contingency plans that provide fo r passengers to receive the same basic necessities that U.S. carriers are required to provide. DOT Response: After fully considering the comments received, the Department has decided not to promulgate a requirement that airports adopt conti ngency plans addressing lengthy tarmac delays. The Department is aware th at many airports are voluntarily working with U.S. carriers to develop policies and procedur es to address lengthy tarmac delays and to cooperate with U.S. carriers in the coordination of the carriers' contingency plans as required of U.S. airlines by the first tarmac delay rule. As suc h, it is not necessary to regulate in this area at

this time. However, the Department thinks it is reasona ble and necessary to require foreign carriers that operate scheduled passenger or public charter serv ice to and from the U.S. to adopt and adhere to tarmac delay contingency plans. Inte rnational air travel is a large and increasingly significant market sector, and customers who use non-U.S. airlines deserve no less protection from lengthy tarmac delays at U.S. airports than do customers of U.S. airlines. We also wish to be consistent with the applic ation of our rules. The lengt hy tarmac delays experienced by a number of foreign carriers at John F. Kennedy International Airport (J FK) during and after the December 26, 2010, blizzard highlights the need to extend the rule to those carriers.

In order to address commenters' concerns that certain European laws (or laws of other countries) may conflict with this regulation, we want to clarify that the re quirement to adopt and follow a plan applies only to tarmac delay events that occur at a c overed U.S. airport. The rule should not conflict with EU Regulation 261/2004, th e EU rule on compensa tion and assistance to be provided to passengers in th e event of denied boarding, flig ht cancellation or long flight13 delays. The types of assistance re quired under the EU rule are for the most part services that

would not be available on board an aircraft dur ing a tarmac delay, e.g. phone calls, a hotel room, transportation between the airport and the hotel room, and rerouting on another flight. The context of the food and beverage requirement in regulation 261/2004 suggests that these services are to be provided in the airport terminal duri ng a normal (i.e., non-tarmac) flight delay before passengers have been boarded. As such, alt hough EU 261/2004 applies to EU carriers departing from or traveling to an EU member state and to non-EU carriers departin g from an EU member state airport, we see no conflict between that rule and this one. On a tarmac delay at a U.S. airport, EU and non-EU carriers can comply with all provisions of both rules. With regard to charter flights, we agree w ith Monarch Airlines and TUI Travel that an exception should exist for foreign-originating charte rs that operate to and from the United States but do not pick up any U.S. originating passengers. Consequently, carriers will not be required to adopt a tarmac delay contingency plan as long as their operations fall within these parameters. This is consistent with 14 CFR 382.7(d) of the DOT rule on air travel by passengers with

disabilities and with the minimal regulation of these flights by the Department’s public charter

rule in14 CFR Part 380. B. Time Frame for Deplaning Passengers on International Flights

The NPRM: Under the proposed rule, a covered fo reign air carrier would be required to include in its tarmac delay contingency plan an a ssurance that it 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 in its plan before allo wing passengers the opportunity to deplane. The proposal included appropriate safety, security, and ATC exceptions. This is already required of U.S. carriers for their international flights under the Department’s existing rule. As for domestic flights, U.S.14 carriers are required to provide an assurance that they will not permit an aircraft to remain on the tarmac for more than three hours without deplan ing passengers subject to the same safety, security and ATC exceptions. In the NPRM, we noted that there are ongoing questions as to whether mandating a specific time frame for depl aning passengers on international flights as currently exists for domestic flights is in the best interest of the public. We asked for comments on whether any final rule that we may adopt shou ld set 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 rather than allowing the ca rriers to set their own tarmac delay time limit for such flights. We also asked commenters w ho support the adoption of a uniform standard to propose specific time limits and state why they believe these intervals to be appropriate.

Comments: Of the U.S. carriers and carrier associ ations that commented, ATA objects to a hard time limit on tarmac delays for internati onal flights. NACA supports requiring foreign air

carriers to meet the same standards as U.S. carri ers for adopting tarmac delay contingency plans. In general, the non-U.S. carriers and carrier associations object to the proposal as unnecessary, asserting that the same problems with tarmac dela ys do not exist with international flights as with domestic flights. For example, Condor Flugdienst Airlines (Condor) states that it sees no reason to enforce a mandatory deplaning re quirement for a problem that occurs only very rarely. Many of these carriers also comment that a “one size fits all” appro ach is not practical and note that there are large differences between do mestic and international operations, and between long-haul and short-haul opera tions. IATA and IACA object to a uniform time limit entitling passengers to deplane. IACA states that th e proposal may conflict with EU passenger rights requirements since EU carriers must follow EU requi rements on all their fli ghts, including flights that depart from U.S. airports. The Association of European Airlines (AEA) and foreign airlines'15 comments are similar to IATA’s. Many object to the proposal to require carriers to set a time limit to deplane due to various operational conc erns. Specifically, a number of foreign industry groups and airlines noted the following:

• international flights operate less frequently and a cancellation could result in missed

connections with serious cons equences for passengers;

• returning to the gate and/or a flight cancellation may result in the crew “timing-out” and many foreign carriers do not have U.S.-based crews, which could re sult in a delay of 24 hours or more;

• international flights have limite d windows of opportunity to depa rt due to gate constraints at foreign airports;

• larger aircraft used for inte rnational flights take much l onger to enplane and deplane (up to 40 minutes), which can cause even further delay;

• international flights are of ten better equipped to meet passenger needs on-board the aircraft; and

• long-haul and ultra-long haul operations can make up time while in the air. Some carriers, such as Air New Zealand, support a 3 hour time limit, but note that consideration should be given to crew restrictions and gate al locations, or situations where resolution of the delay is less th an an hour away and deplaning would further delay the flight. Qantas also supports the 3 hour lim it in principle, but thinks such an assurance is limited by the carrier’s ability to c ontrol the circumstances. Of the tr avel agents and other industry group commenters that commented on this issue, ASTA ag rees that a specific standard for international flights is important but supports a four hour rather than three hour rule.16 Among the consumer commenters, the Associ ation for Airline Passenger Rights (AAPR) and Flyersrights.org strongly advocate for a ma ximum permissible tarmac delay of three hours for international flights. Fl yersrights.org urges that tarmac de lays of over three hours not be permitted for international flights and notes that the “health and inconvenience problems” are the same regardless of whether the flight is domestic or international. Consumer Action, along with Consumer Federation of America, the National Consumers League, Public Citizen, and U.S. PIRG support the extensive comments filed by Fl yersrights.org. Some individual commenters also expressed concern about lengthy tarmac dela ys on international flig hts and advocated for a uniform time limit for deplaning passengers. Of the commenters on “Regulation Room,” almost half noted, generally, that the Department s hould apply a uniform federal time limit on tarmac delays to all flights and airlines, regardless of aircraft size, airpor t size, and whether the flight is

domestic or international. DOT Response: As noted above, the Department is expanding its requirement to adopt a tarmac delay contingency plan to foreign carriers, as we believe that it is important to ensure that passengers on these carriers are also afford ed protection from unreasonably lengthy tarmac delays. With regard to a required time period for deplaning passengers on international flights operated by U.S. or foreign carriers, we are requiring that these car riers provide an assurance that they will not permit an aircraft to remain on the tarmac at a U.S. airport for more than four hours without providing passengers an opportunity to depl ane. As in our initial rulemaking to enhance airline passenger protections, this new requirement will allow exceptions for safety and security

considerations and in instances where Air Tra ffic Control advises the pilot-in-command that returning to the gate or permitting passengers to disembark elsewhere would significantly disrupt airport operations. We decided to impose a uniform time limit for deplaning passengers on17 international flights rather than allowing carriers to establish their own tarmac delay time limits because we believe the consistency in standard will provide passengers with clearer expectations as to when they would be allowed off aircraft in the event of a tarmac delay. A uniform standard

will also make it clearer to the other stakeholders such as airports of the need to assist airlines in deplaning passengers on international flights before the four hour mark. Further, the Department believes that a uniform time limit will reduce or prevent lengthy tarmac delay incidents such as those that occurred at JFK during and after the December 26, 2010, blizzard and the resulting impact on passengers trave ling on those flights. We decided to impose a four hour time limit for lengthy tarmac dela ys on international flights as opposed to the three hour limit that applies to lengthy tarmac delays on domestic flights for a number of reasons. First, because inte rnational flights are of much longer duration on average than domestic flights, it is possible that delays may not have as negative an impact on international passengers as they were already planning on spending a sign ificant amount of time in the aircraft and some of the time spent on the ta rmac can be made up while in the air. We also reviewed the contingency plans for the U.S. carrier s as they are already re quired to establish their own tarmac delay time limits for international fli ghts, and found that most of these carriers have chosen to set a four hour time limit for deplaning passengers from their inte rnational flights that experience a tarmac delay. In addition, we are persuaded by comments of the different environment in which international flights operate and the need to prov ide greater leeway for international flights than we allow for domestic fl ights. For these reasons, we have decided to impose a four hour time limit for deplaning pass engers on international flights and not allow U.S. and foreign carriers to establish their own longer tarmac delay time limits for international flights.18 As clarified in the first rule to enhance airline passenger protections, an international flight for purposes of this requirement is a nons top flight segment that departs from the United

States and lands in another count ry, or vice-versa, exclusive of non-traffic technical stops. For example, if a U.S. carrier operates a direct flight Chicago-New York-Frankfurt, with some Chicago-originating passengers destined for New Yo rk and others destined for Frankfurt, and the aircraft experiences a tarmac delay in Chicago, th en we would consider the tarmac delay to be on a domestic flight. This is because Chicago-New York is a domestic flight segment even though the final destination of the flight is Frankfurt, Germany. If, on the other hand, the aircraft only stops for refueling or a crew change in New Yo rk and the flight carries no Chicago-New York traffic and no Frankfurt-bound passengers enplane in New York, then we would consider the tarmac delay in Chicago to be a tarmac delay on an internat ional flight. C. Provision for Adequate Food and Water, Operable Lavatories, and Medical Attention if Needed

The NPRM: As proposed in the NPRM, the tarm ac delay contingency plans adopted by foreign air carriers for international flights that depa rt from or arrive at a U.S. airport would need to include: (1) an assurance th at the carrier will provide adequa te food and potable water no later

than two hours after the aircraft leaves the gate in the case of de parture 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 considerations preclude su ch service; (2) an assurance of operable lavatory

facilities while the aircraft remains on the tarm ac; and (3) an assuranc e of adequate medical

attention if needed while the aircraft remains on the tarmac. These requirements already apply

to U.S. carriers under the current rule.

Comments: With regard to the provision for adequate food and water, ATA notes that generally aircraft used for international flight s are able to comfortabl y accommodate passengers19 onboard for longer periods of time, with food service and entertai nment options often available given the type of equipment used and the expected length of these flights. Among the foreign air carriers that commented, Condor Ai rlines notes that when a lo nger delay becomes inevitable, Condor has snacks and drinks available for passenge rs. Similarly, Qatar Airways notes that the logistics of the ultra long-haul flights operated to and from the U.S. already require that Qatar Airways provide extra catering and potable/bot tled water to allow for extra time beyond that scheduled during which its customer s and crew may have to spend in the aircraft. Qatar explains that it already ensures that its customers are regularly offered water and soft drinks by cabin crew. Qantas indicates that it too provides passengers access to potable water and refreshments during tarmac delays but does not consider it reasonable to impos e a mandatory requirement to provide food to all passengers after two hours in all cases, as the commencement of a meal service may lead to further delays and missed opport unities for departure. Th e carrier also thinks that the term “adequate food” is too broad and open to different interpretations. South African Airways wants the Department to understand th at foreign airlines have significantly less flexibility than U.S. airlines to store extra catering items onboard. In the absence of evidence that lengthy delays are a problem for passengers traveling on foreign airlines, the airline believes the Department is not justified in imposing th e costs associated with these requirements. Regarding assurance of operable lavatory facilitie s, a number of carriers noted that this is a reasonable requirement and that they have working lavatories and toilet serviceability is maintained at the highest levels. However, one carrier expressed co ncern about unforeseen

maintenance issues. With regard to providing medi cal attention, Condor states th at its flight attendants are capable of providing basic first aid when needed and have access to remote medical advice for20 more serious medical emergencies. Similarly, Qatar Airways notes that its cabin crews are highly trained in first aid. Qant as Airlines believes that it is reasonable to require carriers to seek medical assistance for any onboard emergency a nd states that it engage s the services of an external medical provider to prov ide advice and assistance as requi red, but thinks the extent of this requirement needs clarificat ion. South African Airways expresses similar concerns as Qantas and notes that the NPRM is not clear re garding what comprises medical attention within the meaning of the proposal. South African Airw ays states that while its in-flight crewmembers have basic first-aid capabilities, the carrier relies on consultati ons with remote medical-care contractors and other passengers with medical training to provide good-Samaritan assistance. South African explains that it sees no practical way to ensure medical attention during tarmac delays that exceeds this basic assistance. The National Airlines C ouncil of Canada (NACC) states that many airlines are not in a position to provide adequate me dical attention as airlines are not medical organizations and in-flight staff in no t medical staff. As su ch, it believes that such assistance is up to local au thorities to provide. Among consumer groups and individual commen ters, the AAPR urges the Department to require the tarmac delay contingency plans of U. S. and foreign air carriers contain minimum guidelines for accommodating passengers with di sabilities. The New York State Consumer

Protection Board states that forei gn carriers should be required to adopt a plan that provides for passengers to receive the same basic necessities th at U.S. carriers are requ ired to provide, i.e., adequate food and water, operable lavatories, and medical attention if needed. By and large,

individual commenters also s upport the Department imposing iden tical requirements for foreign

and U.S. carriers. Of those that commented on Regulation Room, they generally support the Department requiring airlines to provide working bathrooms, water, beverages, snacks and, in21 some cases, meals on delayed flights. A few commenters also mention the need for adequate temperature control and the ability to walk around an aircraft du ring a delay in or der to stretch

and use the restroom. DOT Response: The Department continues to believe that passengers stuc k on an aircraft during lengthy tarmac delays deserve to be provid ed some type of food, potable water, operable lavatories, and if necessary, medical care. It appears from the comments that most carriers already have procedures to pr ovide food and water during long ta rmac delays, and ensure that their lavatory facilities are operable while the aircraft remains on the tarmac. The concern expressed by South African Airways about stor age space for extra catering items seems to be based on a misconception that extensive supplies are needed. There also a ppears to be confusion as to what the Department means by the term “ad equate food.” The Department would consider snack foods such as granola bars that carriers t ypically provide on flights to suffice as “adequate” food. Carriers are, of course , free to provide more complete meals to passengers if they so wish. We note that the requirement to provide food and water within two hours would not apply if the pilot-in-command determines that safety or security precludes such service, so the

commencement of a meal service should not lead to further delays or missed opportunities for departure as feared by at least one commenter. As for the requirement to provide medical care if necessary, the Department’s expectation is that carriers would have the ca pabilities to provide

basic first aid assistance on the ai rcraft and would seek further medical assistance as necessary for any onboard emergency, including disembarking the passenger for treatment if needed with the assistance of airport emergency personnel. D. Coordination with Covered Airports22 The NPRM: In the initial rulemaking to enha nce airline passenge r protections, we required U.S. carriers to have contingency plan s for tarmac delays to large-hub and medium-hub airports, as well as diversion air ports that the carrier serves or utilizes. In the NPRM for the current proceeding, we proposed to extend this requirement to small hub and non-hub airports and to require all covered carriers (U.S. and foreign) to coordinate their plans with each covered U.S. airport that they serve or utilize for diversions. In maki ng this proposal, the Department

noted its belief that the same issues and di scomfort to passengers during an extended tarmac delay are likely to occur regardless of airport size or layout. We also noted our strong belief that

it is essential that airlin es involve airports in de veloping their plans in order to enable them to effectively meet the needs of passengers. We invited comment on whether it was workable to require covered carriers coordina te with small hub and non-hub airports to which they regularly operate scheduled passenger or public charter service. We also asked if the rule should be expanded to include other commercial U.S. ai rports (i.e., those with less than 10,000 annual enplanements). Finally, we specifically solicite d comments from airlines, airports and other industry entities on whether there are any special operational concerns affecting such airports.

Comments: Of the U.S. carriers and carrier a ssociation commenters, ATA supports expanding the number of airports where carriers must coordinate plans to include small hub and non-hub airports. The Regional Ai rline Association (RAA) opposes extending the rule to smallhub and non-hub airports because it believes there is no evidence that doing so is necessary or

beneficial and believes that the cost to expand tarmac delay conti ngency plans to smaller airports outweighs the benefits, as requiring regional an d other carriers serving small airports to coordinate plans with all such airports would require significant resources.23 In general, non-U.S. carrier and carrier a ssociation commenters objec t to the proposal as unnecessary and note that they ha ve limited presence or service at these smaller airports. Air France and KLM specifically oppose this provision. On the other hand, Alitalia supports the idea of coordination, but believes the proposal is extremely burdensome. Singapore Airlines supports coordinating contingency plans with airports to handle diverted f lights, but states that the plans should focus on customer care such as swiftly disembarking passengers, returning baggage, accommodating passengers if necessary in hotels or on a lternate flights, and ensuring that passengers continue their j ourney. Monarch Air disagrees and states that coordination with airports is not necessary, as it would let the ai rport determine what is best for the customer. Of the travel agent interests that comment ed, ASTA supports expanding contingency plan coordination obligations to include small hub a nd non-hub airports. TUI Travel states that coordinating contingency plans is not necessary, as the airport can determine what is in the best

interest of the airline cu stomer and notes restrictions on gate availability that may be determined on the day of arrival, so pre-coordina tion will reduce operational flexibility. Of the airport and airport industry comme nters, Dallas/Fort Worth Airport supports requiring carriers to coordinate thei r contingency plans with all air ports that they serve and notes that important airport factors su ch as terminal capacity, equipm ent, and government services are taken into account during such coordination. ACI also supports the need for airlines to coordinate with airports of all sizes and states that it is committed to supporting airline development of contingency plans with accurate a nd relevant information about the airports the

carriers serve. Of the consumer and consumer group comment ers, CTA supports the expansion of the tarmac-delay rules to smaller airports. AAPR a nd Flyersrights.org fully support increasing the24 number of covered airports to include small hub and non-hub airports. NBTA also supports these provisions. The New York State Consumer Prot ection Board supports expa nding the rule to all airports, as do many Regulation Room commenters, some of wh om state that airlines and airports should be required to work together to develop and implement tarmac delay contingency plans. DOT Response: The Department is adopting the requi rement that covered carriers, both U.S. and foreign, include small hub and non-hub air ports in their tarmac de lay contingency plans and ensure that the plan has been coordinated with air port authorities at those airports. We

continue to maintain that the same issues and discomfort to passengers during an extended tarmac delay are likely to occur regardless of air port size or layout. Sim ilar to the expansion of the scope of the requirement to adopt contingency plans to in clude foreign carriers, this requirement will protect a greater number of passengers at more airports. We are not convinced by commenters’ concerns that requiring carriers to coordinate their plans with small hub and non-hub airports will have a significant financial impact on carriers. U.S. carriers are already require d to coordinate plans with la rge-hub and medium-hub airports and should be able to tailor existing plans to a pply to these smaller air ports. We recognize that the requirement to coordinate contingency plans with airports is a new requirement for foreign carriers, but expect that it w ill not be overly burdensome for fore ign carriers as the large-hub and medium-hub airports are familiar with the coordination process after having worked with the U.S. carriers on tarmac delay contingency plans this past year. The need for such coordination was recently highlighted by the events at JFK airport following the December 26, 2010 blizzard. Also, during the past two year s significant amount of work ha s been done through a project funded by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to produce a best-practice guidance25 document for developing coordina ted contingency plans for tarmac delays at small hub and nonhub airports.

The benefit of airlines coordinating with airports on contingency plans becomes particularly clear when there are flight diversions. In situations where flights must be diverted from their intended destination airports, it is im perative that airlines and the airports that regularly serve as their diversion airports have already discussed th ings such as locations within the airport where passengers ar e allowed to wait when TSA or CBP personnel are not present and the availability of equipment to deplane/ bus passengers to the terminal to minimize the hardship to travelers. It is e ssential that airlines involve air ports in developing their plans to enable them to effectively m eet the needs of passengers. The rule on coordination with airports is also being clarified to ensure that at airports , like JFK, where operations such as snow removal and gate use are managed by entities other than th e airport authority (e.g., a carrier, a consortium of carriers, or a contractor), carr iers covered by this rule must also coordinate with these terminal operators.

E. Coordination with CBP and TSA

The NPRM: As recommended by the Tarmac Delay Task Force 1 , we proposed to require

carriers to include TSA in their coordination e fforts for any large, medium, small, and non-hub U.S. airports, including U.S. dive rsion airports which they regular ly use. We also proposed to require carriers to coordinate with CBP for any U.S. airport that the carrier regularly uses for its international flights, including di version airports. We proposed th ese measures as it had come to the Department’s attention on more than one oc casion that passengers on international flights

1 In January 2008, the Department established a Tarmac Delay Task Force to coordinate and develop contingency plans to deal with lengthy delays. The Task Force comprising of individuals who represented airlines, airports and consumer groups issued a report that set forth guidelines for airlines, airports, and other stakeholders to use when dealing with long ground delays.26 were held on diverted aircraft for extended periods of time because there were reportedly no means to process those passengers and allow them acce ss to terminal facilities. At that time, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (TSA and CBP are part of DHS) had advised this Department that, subject to coordination with CBP regional directors, passengers on diverted international flights may be permitted into closed /sterile terminal areas without CBP screening. In the NPRM, we invited interested persons to comment on this proposal and asked what costs and benefits would result from imposing this requirement.

Comments: Of the U.S. carriers and carrier associat ions that commented, ATA states that carriers already coordinate with TSA and CBP and will continue to do so but stresses that interagency coordination between CBP and TSA as well as coor dination between the airports and CBP/TSA is needed in order to get diverted passengers who so desire off airplanes. USA3000 suggests that airports may not be prope rly staffed by CBP during irregula r operations and urges DOT to

review this issue with CBP and local airports.

The non-U.S. carrier and carrier association commenters object in general to the proposal as unnecessary. IACA notes that tarmac delays of more than three hou rs are very rare and believes the NPRM imposes a disproportionate bur den on airlines to coordinate plans not only with airports, but with federa l agencies. IATA supports th e need for the United States government to be more responsive to the needs of airline passenger who arri ve at airports where TSA and CBP personnel are not normally stationed or are not present during off hours, but think it is the responsibility of those ag encies to work together to put systems in place. The comments of the Association of European Airlines (AEA) and many forei gn airlines' are similar to or support IATA, while NACA adds that DOT s hould work with CBP and other government agencies on a memorandum of understanding to address issues regarding extended tarmac27 delays. The National Airlines Council of Ca nada (NACC) adds that carriers have limited influence over TSA and CBP, so obligations shou ld be on the U.S. government to ensure these agencies have their own contingency plans in pl ace. The Arab Air Carrier Association (AACA) states that coordinating contingency plans with diversion airports as well as TSA and CBP will be very costly and suggests, along with other commenters, that TSA and CBP should design their own contingency plans for any airport th at receives interna tional flights. Some foreign carriers assert that this proposal is flaw ed because TSA and CBP can provide only limited assistance at some airports due to limite d after-hours federal inspection capabilities or limited federal personnel available at the smaller airports. Carriers also ask how they can ensure that passengers will remain in one area of the airport or th at a sterile area will be available for containing such passengers. Britis h Airways supports the pr oposal that passengers on diverted international flights be permitted into closed termin al areas without CBP screening and notes, as do some other foreign carriers, that these carriers generally do not have a presence at diversion airports. As such, British Airways and other carriers assert that CBP and the airport operator should be responsible to ensure that pa ssengers can disembark the aircraft. Cathay

Pacific adds that the burden to coordinate plans should be on all the stakeholders, while Malaysia Airlines does not support coordina ting delay contingency plans with CBP and TSA, but thinks those agencies should design their own plans. Ca thay Pacific notes that not all airports can handle aircraft carrying 300+ passe ngers and states that airports not suitable for deplaning international passengers should fall outs ide the scope of the proposed rules. Of the travel agents and other industry group commenters, ASTA supports extending the

rule to include coordination with CBP and TSA. NBTA expresses concern that costs associated with requiring coordination with TSA and CBP may outweigh the benefits and may be passed on28 to the business traveler. As su ch, NBTA thinks DOT should deve lop a clearer picture of costbenefits before implementing this provision. TUI be lieves that it is not necessary to coordinate plans with TSA or CBP, and is concerned that this would add anothe r layer of planning. Of the consumer and consumer group co mmenters, CTA supports rules being promulgated by CBP and TSA that will allow pass engers on inbound international flights forced to land at a diversion airport to be proce ssed, as does the AAPR, Flyersrights.org and the Consumers Union. Dallas/Fort Worth Airport su pports requiring carriers to coordinate plans with CBP and TSA and states that plans should be in place to deal with the process of handling international passengers and allowing them access to terminal facilities at small and medium size airports with no CBP services. ACI applauds DOT for proposing to expand coordination to TSA

and CBP. DOT Response: After considering all the comments, the Department is adopting the requirement that carriers coordi nate plans with CBP and TSA at large, medium, small, and nonhub airports that they regularly se rve, including at dive rsion airports they plan to utilize. Because tarmac delays are a particular problem in situations where flights must be diverted from their intended destination airports, this rule re quires carriers to coordi nate their plans with airports that serve as diversion airports fo r such operations. As recommended by the Tarmac Delay Task Force, it is also important for car riers to include in their coordination efforts appropriate government authorities such as Customs and Border Protection and the Transportation Security Admini stration, when appropriate. In adopting this requirement, we note that more than one incident of concern to the Department has occurred at a diversion airport where passengers could not deplane the aircraft due at least in part to security concerns or issues with processing international passengers. It is29 important to ensure that there is a contingency plan in place in order to address the objective of deplaning passengers in those situations. The Department is actively working with TSA and CBP to develop policies and procedures in order to assist carriers with coordinating their plans and complying with this regulation. We would c onsider an airline to have complied with the requirement to coordinate its plan with CBP a nd TSA if the carrier submits its plan to CBP’s Regional Director and TSA’s Federal Security Dir ector for that airport an d considers any issues raised in response to those agencies. F. Passenger Notification

The NPRM: In the NPRM we proposed to require that U.S. and foreign air carriers update passengers every 30 minutes during a tarmac delay regarding th e status of their flight and the reasons for the tarmac delay. We also propos ed that carriers announce that passengers have the opportunity to deplane the airc raft when the flight is delaye d and the doors are open. In proposing these requirements, the Department gave consideration to passe ngers’ frustration with lack of communication by carrier personnel about the reasons a flight is experiencing a long tarmac delay. We noted that it did not seem unreasonable or unduly burdensome to require carriers to address this issue and verbally inform passengers as to the flig ht’s operational status on a regular basis during a lengthy tarmac delay. We did not antic ipate that a carrier’s flight crews will know every nuance of the reason for the delay, but we noted our expectation that they inform passengers of the reasons of which they are aware and make reasonable attempts to acquire information about the reasons for that delay.

We also invited comment on whether carrier s should be required to announce that passengers may deplane from an aircraft that is at the gate or other disembarkation area with a door open. The Department’s Office of Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings had previously30 explained that a tarmac delay begins when passe ngers no longer have an option to get off an aircraft, which usually occurs when the doors of the aircraft are closed, and has encouraged carriers to announce to passengers on flights that remain at the gate with the doors open for lengthy periods that the passengers are allowed off the aircraft if that is the case. However, we noted that such an announcement is not explicitly required in the existing rule. Consequently, we sought comment on the benefit to consumers of mandating such announcements and asked commenters, including carriers and carrier associa tions, to address any co sts and/or operational concerns related to implementing a rule requiring such announcements.

Comments: Non-U.S. carrier and carrier associa tion comments generally object to the proposal to update passengers ev ery 30 minutes during a tarmac de lay regarding the status of their flight and the reasons for the tarmac delay, characterizing it as unnecessary. IACA states that notifying passengers every 30 minutes as to reason for a tarmac delay is unnecessary overregulation. Some foreign carriers, such as Air France and KLM note that requiring announcements every 30 minutes will have unint ended consequences and state that keeping passengers informed is already important to carr iers and a regulation is not needed. Other carriers, such as Qantas and JetStar, agree that notifying passengers every 30 minutes is reasonable, but state that too much detail may l ead to false expectations on the part of the passengers. AACA expresses concern about the broad language regarding the format of

communication and when a carrier should be aware of information to provide to the passenger, and the ability of airlines to prove they have relayed informa tion to the passenger. NACC does not support updates every 30 minutes as this coul d result in relaying incomplete or inaccurate information to the passengers.31 U.S. carriers and carrier a ssociation commenters generally agree that it would be beneficial for passengers to be updated frequently on flight status changes when there is a tarmac delay but expressed concern that carriers are not always update d by FAA on a timely basis. Of the travel agents and other i ndustry group commenters, ASTA suppor ts the provision for carriers to make tarmac delay announcements every 30 minut es. However, TUI Travel does not believe DOT should be overly prescriptive or detail the circumstances or time intervals upon which updates on delays should be given, but agrees that information needs to be given and updated at regular intervals. Consumers and consumer group commenters support a requirement to provide updates every 30 minutes. More specifically, AAPR and Flye rsrights.org fully suppor t requiring carriers to communicate with passengers during delays. Of the airport industry commenters, the AAAE agrees that essential communication with pa ssengers is necessary. The New York State

Consumer Protection Board adds that comm unication with passengers during a delay is important because failure to upda te the flight’s status adds to the frustration caused by the situation. As such, it strongly supports the proposal that air ca rriers update passengers every 30 minutes during a delay. We received various differing comments on whether carriers shoul d be required to announce that passengers may deplane from an aircraft that is at the gate or other disembarkation area with the door open. Spirit Airlines opposes DOT requiring carriers to permit passenger to leave an aircraft that remains at the gate for a delay of less than three hours but notes that its practice is to permit depl aning after two hours. It states that deplaning could create operational problems and raise costs and notes that the window of time to enplane may be small, passengers may be hard to locate and re-boarding will be time consuming and delay departure. Spirit32 believes that the airline can exercise the best judgment regarding wh ether passenger should be allowed to deplane. IATA also does not support th e proposal to announce that passengers may deplane from an aircraft with the door open and states that the option to deplane raises a number of issues (e.g. removing baggage if a passenger doesn’t trav el, DHS personal data accountability issues, passenger manifest issues, length of time to depl ane and enplane large aircraft, short windows for departure). Comments of AEA and foreign airlines' commen ts are similar to IATA’s. Many foreign carriers object to the propos al to notify passengers that th ey can deplane due to various operational concerns similar to those posited by IATA and other foreign carrier associations. ALTA raises additional concerns with safety issues, and questions who will have control over passengers that temporarily deplane and, miss flig hts. Air France and KLM also state that a carrier should be given the op tion to make the announcement that passengers can deplane depending on the specific circumstances. Air Tah iti asks for clarification on whether there is a minimum duration an air carrier must wait for pa ssenger to re-enplane the aircraft and whether deplaned passengers’ baggage must be deplaned. CTA states carriers should be required to communicate with passenge rs on a regular basis and agrees that carriers should inform passengers dur ing delays while the airc raft is at a loading bridge with its doors open that th ey may deplane at any time, to stretch their legs, to be rebooked on another flight or to cancel their flight and get a refund. NB TA also supports this provision. DOT Response: After considering the comments rece ived, the Department has decided to require that carriers notify passengers every 30 minutes about the status of a tarmac delay, including the reasons for the delay if known. In implementing this requirement, we note that we expect the carrier to make reas onable attempts to acquire info rmation about the status of the33 delay and to provide this information to consumers. A carrier would not be held responsible for failing to provide a status that was not known to it so long as the carrier made reasonable efforts

to find out the status. We have also decided to requi re U.S. and foreign air carrie rs to notify passengers that they can deplane from an aircraft that is at th e gate or another disembar kation area with the door open, if that is the case. The purpose of this requ irement is to address problems that have arisen since the first tarmac delay rule has been in effect where U.S. carriers have asserted that the three hour clock should not yet be r unning but where passengers did not know that the door to the aircraft was open and that they ha d the option to get off of the airc raft, particularly on a departure delay at the gate or on large aircraft. We ar e not requiring carriers to provide passengers the opportunity to deplane in less than three hours but si mply to inform them that the opportunity to deplane exists, if it does. Of c ourse, in situations where an aircra ft is at the gate with the door open and passengers are not allowe d off the aircraft, the tarmac delay begins at the point when passengers are no longer permitted to deplane and not when the doors of the aircraft are shut.

As for commenters' concerns with reconci ling passenger manifests and dealing with the checked baggage of passengers who choose to deplan e, we are not requiring airlines to re-board a passenger who chooses to deplan e and therefore misses a flight , or to remove the checked baggage of a passenger that has deplaned. DHS /TSA also doesn’t require that passenger’s checked baggage be removed if the passenger is no longer on that flight. We encourage airlines to announce to passengers that they are deplaning at their own risk and that the flight could depart at any time without th em if this is the case. G. Code-Share Flights34 The NPRM: We sought comment on whether, in th e case of a code-share flight, we should expand coverage of the requirement to a dopt tarmac delay contingency plans so that the obligation to adopt such a plan and adhere to its terms is not only th e responsibility of the operating carrier but also the carri er under whose code the service is marketed, if different.

Comments: Of the U.S. carrier and carrier asso ciation commenters, ATA states that the operating carrier has sole operating au thority and is in sole control of how a passenger is treated, so it is unreasonable to also hold the marketing carri er accountable, especial ly if the contingency plans differ or are in conflict. The U.S. carriers that commented on this issue concur with ATA. RAA disagrees and states that, if DOT insists th at operating carriers adopt contingency plans, it should place primary responsibility for adoption and compliance with the plan on the marketing

carrier. RAA asserts that carri ers that hold out, sell and ticke t passengers should have sole responsibility to the Department and that liabil ity of the operating carrier should be determined by its contract with the marketing carrier.

Of the non-U.S. carrier and carrier associa tion commenters, IATA believes that only the operating carrier should be responsible for the terms of the contingency plan. AEA and ALTA, among others, concur with IATA. Of the fore ign carriers that commen ted, most believe that only operating carriers should be re sponsible in a code-share situ ation based on their assertion that the operating carrier has responsibility for how the passengers are treated. Some

commenters also note that the mark eting carrier might not operate it s own aircraft to all of the airports served by its code-share partners and thus would not have a relationship with those airport authorities. Others, such as Air Tahiti and Swiss Intern ational, note that the proposed regulations fail to consider the intricacies of the code-share relationship and suggest that there may be issues with collu sion and antitrust concerns in some jurisdictions.35 We received few comments from travel agen ts and other travel industry commenters on this issue. ASTA believes that code-share pa rtners should be responsib le for harmonizing their consumer protection processes so consumers don’t worry about which carrier does the marketing, ticketing or flying. Among the cons umer and consumer group comments, CTA states that given the expansion of code-shares and w ith the antitrust immunity granted to airline alliances, there should be no difference between f lights operated by U.S. or foreign carriers. AAPR supports expanding coverage of the requirement to adopt tarmac delay contingency plans

to the carrier under whose code the service is ma rketed if different th an the operating carrier. DOT Response: After considering all the comments, the Department has decided to require that the tarmac delay contingency plan of the carrier under whos e code the service is marketed governs if different from the plan of the operating carrier, unle ss the marketing carrier specifies in its contract of carri age that the operating carrier’s plan governs. In adopting this rule, we have considered the comments stating that the operating carrier should be responsible for following the terms of a plan, as it is in the best position to address passenger concerns in the event of a tarmac delay. However, on balance, we have concluded that the expectation of the types of services a passenger will be provided is based on the info rmation given to him or her by the marketing carrier, as this is the carrier th at held out, sold, and ticketed passengers for the flight. It is reasonable for a consumer to expe ct the marketing carrier’s tarmac delay contingency plan to apply unless the marketing carrier specifies in its contract of ca rriage that the operating carrier’s tarmac delay plan governs. Irrespective of whether the marketing carrier’s or operating carrier’s contingency plan governs in a particular situ ation, we intend to ho ld both the marketing carrier and the operating carrier (i .e., the carrier that sold the passenger a ticket under its name as well as the carrier that operates the aircraft in which that passe nger travels) legally responsible.36 We encourage code-share partners to the extent possible to ali gn their tarmac delay contingency plans. In situations where there are multiple marketing carriers on a single flight and the marketing carriers have not specif ied in their contracts of carri age that the operating carrier’s plan governs, it becomes even more critical that the carriers’ pl ans are aligned. If not, several different contingency plans may apply to passengers on the same flight. H. Retention of Records

The NPRM: As is the case for U.S. carriers under the existing rule, the NPRM proposed to require foreign carriers to retain for two years the following information on any tarmac delay

that lasts at least three hours: th e length of the delay, the specific cause of the delay, and the steps taken to minimize hardships for passengers (i ncluding providing food and water, maintaining lavatories, and providing medical assistance); whether th e flight ultimately took off (in the case of a departure delay or diversion) or returned to the gate; and an e xplanation for any tarmac delay that exceeded three hours, including why the aircraft did not return to the gate by the

three-hour mark.

Comments: We received few comments on this i ssue. Of the carriers and carrier associations that did comment, they expressed co ncerns that this provisi on would be burdensome and time consuming. DOT Response: The requirement to retain tarmac de lay records already applies to U.S. carriers. We are extending it he re to foreign carriers operating passenger service to and from the U.S. on at least one aircraft with a passenger ca pacity of 30 or more seats. The tarmac delay information that the Department is requiring fore ign airlines to retain is not available to it through other means. This information will help the Department obtain a more complete picture about lengthy tarmac delays and ensure carrier complia nce with the tarmac delay requirements.37 The Department also believes that the requireme nt to retain tarmac delay data would not be burdensome for carriers, since we believe mo st carriers would as a matter of good business practice, obtain this information for their own pur poses and, in any event, there are relatively few tarmac delays of more than thre e hours. In addition, the Department is not prescribing the manner in which this information must be kept a nd there is no requirement that a carrier submit the information to the Department unless specif ically requested to do so, all of which should reduce any costs associated with this requirement. 2. Tarmac Delay Data

The NPRM: The proposed rule would require any U.S. or foreign carrier that operates passenger service (charter or sche duled) to, from or within the U.S. using any aircraft with a passenger capacity of 30 or more seats to submit monthly to the Department a set of data regarding tarmac delays of three hours or more at a U.S. airport to the extent that the carrier doesn’t already provide such data to the Department. If a cove red carrier has no flight with 3- hour tarmac delays, the proposed rule would require the carrier to submit a negative report, i.e., a report stating there are no 3-hour tarmac times. The report would be due within 15 days after the end of each month being reported. Reporting carriers (carriers that account for at least one pe rcent of domestic scheduled passenger revenue which in calendar year 2009 c onsisted of the 16 largest U.S. carriers by scheduled passenger revenue plus two carriers that voluntarily f ile under Part 234) already file with the Department on-time flight performance da ta which includes all the data fields proposed to be reported here and more for their domestic scheduled flights pursuant to 14 CFR Part 234. In recognition of this fact, th e NPRM proposed that these U.S. carriers file tarmac delay data only for other types of transportation covered by the proposed rule, i.e., their charter and38 international flights. The NPRM proposed to re quire other U.S. carriers and foreign carriers to provide data on tarmac delays that occurred at a U.S. airport and lasted for three hours or more for any of their flights - scheduled and charter flights as well as domestic and international flights. We sought comments on whether we should limit the tarmac delay reporting requirement to U.S. and foreign air carriers that operate large aircraft, i.e., aircraft originally designed to have a maximum passenger capacity of 60 seats or more.

Comments: Individual consumers or consumer groups who submitted comments on this proposal unanimously support this proposal. Cons umers Union states that it supports expanding the pool of reporting carriers to all U.S. and forei gn carriers that operate any aircraft with 30 or more seats. It maintains that such a requireme nt is particularly important because it will reach many airline passengers who are currently not pr otected by these policies. One individual commenter states that equal treatment for all carri ers is necessary to ensure competitive equality. Consumers Union also supports requiring Part 234 reporting carriers to provide tarmac delay data for public charter and in ternational flights. The Association for Airline Passenger Rights po ints out that the Depa rtment is attentive to the potential burden to small carriers and has narrowed th e data fields it proposed to be reported for tarmac delays from the comprehensiv e on-time reporting scheme that exists. One commenter adds that most carriers already collect some of the data required under this proposal so it should not be overly burdensome for carrier s to comply with the requirements. Several commenters from the Regulation Room state that technology development makes compliance relatively easy. A few consumers and consumer organizati on commenters believe that the Department should go further in this respect. FlyersRight s.org suggests that, in addition to filing reports39 under this Part and complying with the record retention requireme nt in Part 259, the Department should require carriers to submit a comprehensive written report within 14 days of the occurrence of any lengthy tarmac de lay. One individual commenter asserts that data should be reported for tarmac delays of one hour or more to reflect a better picture of the tarmac delay problem. Among U.S. carriers and carri er associations that comme nted on this proposal, ATA states that it generally suppor ts expanding the repor ting carrier pool. RAA, on the other hand, argues that all carriers that are not required to report tarmac delay data under Part 234 should be exempted from this reporting requirement. RAA reasons that the new reporting requirements are not necessary because most carriers, incl uding carriers not covered under Part 234, are already required to retain tarmac delay data for two years. Thus, according to RAA, the Department may request such information fo r policy-making purpose whenever necessary. Additionally, RAA contends that the Department failed to provide a quantifiable cost/benefit analysis in the NPRM to justify such a require ment. NACA expresses its uncertainty regarding the purpose of requiring smaller car riers (which it defines as t hose that operate fewer than 25 aircraft) to report tarmac delay data. As a co mpromise, NACA suggests that carriers should be required to file tarmac delay reports under a ny rule only if during any given month the occurrences of tarmac delays have exceeded a cert ain threshold, e.g., more than 10 incidents. Comments provided by foreign carriers and carrier associations generally oppose this proposal or request that the reporting obligation be limited. Several commenters contend that the Department has not provided justification as to how the proposed data collection from foreign

carriers would address the causes of tarmac dela ys and benefit consum ers. Some commenters take the position that requiring foreign carriers to report tarmac delay data is not necessary40 because international flights ope rate less frequently than dom estic flights and tarmac delay incidents for international flight s are rare. Thus, according to these commenters, the cost for carriers to set up a reporting infras tructure outweighs the benefit. Furthermore, they believe it is inappropriate to require smaller carriers to submit and retain tarmac delay data due to their lesser administrative resources and the small segment of the market these carriers serve. A number of commenters state that tarmac delays usually occur as the result of airport in frastructure problems. Therefore, these commenters believe that the De partment should require ai rports to report this data. Likewise, some carriers argue that the data collected from th is proposal is readily available from FAA’s Air Traffic Control Syst em Command Center. A few commenters note that the burden on foreign carrier s is increased if the Departme nt maintains the proposal that negative reports must be filed when no reportabl e tarmac delay has occurred during a month. Qantas and JetStar Airways state that th ey would not oppose a rule if it imposed the reporting responsibility on operating carriers instead of the marketing code-share partners and limited the reporting fields to the identification of aircraft, airport, relevant times, and a brief explanation for the tarmac delay. They also re quest that easy methods of report submission should be permitted, such as email submission. Virgin Atlantic raises the concern that publishing reported data may be misleading to consumers who tend to judge a ca rrier’s performance based on raw tarmac delay records, and overlook the causes for such delay, which could be f actors that are not under carrier’s control. Lufthansa also requests that any publication of the tarmac delay data by the Department should also include the cause of the delay. National Airl ines Council of Canada fu rther states that such misjudgments will cause undue commercial damage to Canadian carrier s that face the most challenging weather conditions, which could co ntribute to more tarmac delays.41 Monarch Airlines and TUI Travel contend that foreign charter carriers that operate roundtrip flights to limited U.S. destinati ons should be exempted from the reporting requirements. In addition to consumers a nd industry commenters, NBTA and ACI-NA both provided comments in support of th e Department’s proposal. DOT Response: After thoroughly considering a ll the comments received, the Department continues to believe that the proposed data collec tion requirement is crucial to obtaining a more complete picture of the tarmac de lays at U.S. airports. Without such data, we do not have adequate statisti cal foundations to su pport a determination regarding whether lengthy tarmac delays are or will be a significant problem for c onsumers on international flights or charter flights. We reiterate that the cau ses of lengthy tarmac delays are comprehensive and

there is not a universal solution that would cure all problems at all airports. We continue to believe that a more complete pi cture of lengthy tarmac delays is the first step to obtaining a baseline that the Department can use to analy ze the issue by carrier, by region/airport, by month, or by the type of flight, as appropriate.

We note that several recent ta rmac delays that attracted si gnificant public attention were international arrivals. Tarmac delays involving in ternational flights, alth ough rare, tend to be particularly lengthy and complicated. In that re gard, we reiterate that collecting tarmac delay information for international flight s is important. The data that we are seeking to obtain here are not available to us through other means. Comme nters are mistaken when they assert that the FAA has this information readily available. Furthermore, the publication of the tarmac delay data would increase public awaren ess of the issue, providing incen tives for airline management to focus on addressing tarmac delay problems.42 With respect to whether the costs for foreign carriers to set up the reporting infrastructure justifies the benefits obtained from such reports in light of the relativel y less frequent occurrence of tarmac delay incidents on international flight s, we note that none of the commenters opposing extension of the reporting require ment to foreign carriers has pr ovided any cost/benefit analysis in support of their position. We understand that most data contai ned in the reporting fields under this proposal are already collected by the carriers intern ally. BTS already has a system in place to accept reports electronically. Reporting to th e BTS would incur a one-time IT infrastructure setup cost and minimal maintenance expenditure. We do not expect th ese costs to be significant.

We have also considered some commenters ’ suggestion that we should not require a negative report to be filed when no reportabl e tarmac delay occurred during a given month. Based on data submitted by the reporting carriers, during the past six months the total number of tarmac delay incidents that lasted for two hours or more at U.S. airports was less than 0.1% of the total domestic scheduled pa ssenger flights operated by those carriers for each month. We agree that these data indicate that international flights that expe rience reportable tarmac delays will only represent a fraction of the total number of f lights. As such, the vast majority of carriers filing reports if the rule is adopted as propos ed would be filing a negative report for most months. Although negative report s are an effective enforcement tool for ensuring accurate reporting of tarmac delay, we have decided not to re quire negative reports to be filed, in order to

further reduce the carriers’ burden in complying with this rule. With respect to some foreign carriers’ sugge stion that for code-share arrangements we should require the marketing carrier rather than the operating carrier to file the report, we are of the opinion that it is up to the c ode-share partners to designate who has the re sponsibility to file the report. Based on each carrie r’s resources and ability, it may be more convenient for a foreign43 carrier to use its U.S. code-share partner to file the reports, but the Department will not dictate which carrier has the reporting responsibility and will hold both marketing and operating carriers legally responsible if data for a reportable tarm ac delay are not timely or accurately filed. Regarding some foreign carriers’ comme nts on roundtrip charter services between foreign points and U.S. destinations, we agree that as long as these flights carry only passengers that originate at a foreign point and do not pick up any U.S. - originating passengers, tarmac delays on those flights will have minimal impact on U.S. consumers. Moreover, the Department is not applying its requirement for carriers to adopt contingency plans for lengthy tarmac delays to such operations. Therefore, we have decide d that this reporting re quirement should not apply to such flights.

We have also considered some carriers’ concern that publishing tarmac delay information may lead the public to compare carriers’ perf ormance quality based on the raw data, while carriers may not be at fault for all tarmac delay in cidents. We are not convinced that this will create overall false perceptions. The public is generally well informed about the causes contributing to a lengthy tarmac delay, not only th rough Departmental reports and press releases, but also through supplemental resources such as th e media and the Internet. This information will normally enable the public to look beyond the net number of tarmac delays by each carrier. Moreover, carriers are always fr ee to provide the public informa tion about the cause of their tarmac delays, so long as that inform ation is correct and not misleading. To address the suggestion of some consumer commenters that we s hould require carriers to report tarmac delays of less than three hours, we note that the three-hour standard is consistent with the current tarmac delay contingency plan re gulations and have reached the conclusion that this threshold represents the proper balance be tween the reporting burden placed on carriers and44 the benefits to the public. In addition, we do not believe it is necessary to mandate that a detailed explanation for each tarmac delay be filed with the tarmac delay report. Such detailed explanation is of little use to BTS, which is a data collecting and anal ysis agency. If the Department believes that a particular tarmac de lay warrants further inve stigation, its Aviation Enforcement Office will request in formation from the carrier, whic h the carrier is required to retain for tarmac delays of more than 3 hours. Finally, we would like to provi de further clarification rega rding the reporting duties for carriers that are currently filing Part 234 Ai rline Service Quality Performance Reports. According to BTS Technical Directive #20, issued on November 5, 2010, and effective on January 1, 2011, there are 15 U.S. carriers whose domestic scheduled passenger revenues meet the threshold for mandatory filing of Part 234 reports. These car riers are identified as Part 234 “reporting air carriers.” The carri ers on this list may change from time to time due to carriers’ revenue fluctuation and corporate restructuring, and BTS updates the list annually. In addition to the 15 reporting air carriers, Express Jet will submit on-time data under Part 234 in 2011 as a

“volunteer air carrier.” Alt hough Part 234 only requires data fo r domestic scheduled passenger flights to and from a large hub U.S. airport, all reporting carriers, in cluding the volunteer air carriers, are currently filing data for all domestic scheduled flights to and from all U.S. airports, including medium, small, and non-hub airports. As long as they continue to do so, they are only required to file tarmac delay data for internationa l and charter flights to a U.S. airport under the new reporting regulation, 14 CFR Part 244. Howeve r, if any Part 234 repo rting carrier decides to report only the minimum required data under Part 234, i.e., on-time performance data for domestic scheduled flights to and from large hub U. S. airports, it must report any tarmac delay of three hours or more for domestic scheduled flig hts to and from a medium, small, or non-hub U.S.45 airport under Part 244. The same rationale applie s to any volunteer air carriers under Part 234.

If a volunteer air carrier ceases to file any or all reports under 234, it must file tarmac delay data for reportable flights under Part 244. As we ha ve explained in the NPRM, the purpose of Part

244 is to fill in the tarmac dela y data gap that is not covered by Part 234. In that regard, no carrier is required to file both Part 234 and Part 244 reports for the same flight.

3. Customer Service Plans

A. Entities Covered

The NPRM: The NPRM proposed to increase the pr otections afforded consumers in the first Enhancing Airline Passenger Protections ru le by requiring foreign air carriers to adopt, follow, and audit customer service plans, as cove red U.S. carriers have been required to do since April 2010. We proposed to cover foreign air ca rriers operating scheduled passenger service to and from the U.S. that use any aircraft designed to have a passenger cap acity of 30 or more. We noted that the rule would apply to all flights to and from the U.S. of those carriers, including flights involving aircraft with fewer than 30 seat s, if a carrier operates any aircraft with 30 or more passenger seats to and from the U.S. We asked interested persons to comment on whether the proposed requirement for foreign air carriers to adopt, follow and audit customer service plans should be narrowed in any fashion. (e.g., shoul d never apply to aircraft with fewer than 30 seats).

Comments: Of the foreign-carrier industry comment ers, the majority expressed their strong belief that the customer service plans requirement should not be extended to foreign carriers. IACA states that DOT’s regulatory proposals ignore the fact that airlines have designed customer service in a way to attract th eir customer and asserts that these provisions

intervene in the airline’s busin ess and service practices. IATA strongly opposes any customer46 service requirements being imposed on fore ign carriers unless those requirements are harmonized with the regulations of other jurisdictions. IACA a nd IATA also assert that the proposals are extraterritorial in th at they would apply to all flight s to and from the U.S. and could be interpreted in such a way that these obligatio ns would also cover sale s generated outside the U.S. AACO, AEA and ALTA concur with IATA. Of the foreign air carrier commenters, LAN Airlines (LAN Ecuador, LAN Peru, LAN Argentina), Emirates, and SAS, among others, oppose DOT requiring them to adopt customer service provisions. Swiss Internatio nal contends that the applicati on of customer service plans to the conduct of foreign carriers on foreign soil or in foreign airspace poses several issues under

U.S. and international law related to extraterri torial application of U.S. regulations. TAP Portugal makes similar comments regarding ex traterritorial concer ns, as do, among others,

Lufthansa and Austrian Airlines. Other carriers, such as Britis h Airways, note that they are already subject to customer serv ice provisions in their own count ries (e.g. EU provisions) and, therefore, the Department’s proposal is unnecessary and redu ndant, as well as potentially

inconsistent with those countries ' requirements. Singapore Airlines adds that competition is more effective than government mandates in im proving customer service, and the Department

does not need to be involved in customer service matters. All Nippon states that the customer servic e provisions should apply only to sales made within the U.S. Qantas states that it is not n ecessary, practical or effi cient to require foreign carriers to provide customers with additional or different customer service plans when carriers already have such provisions in place (e.g., Qant as has a Customer Charter on its website) and states that any requirement should be limited to carriers that do not al ready have a customer service plan in place. JetSta r essentially concurs with Qantas

. JAL makes similar comments and47 notes that some of its standard s are more stringent than the se rvice requirements proposed and that foreign airlines compete on service and should determine thei r own service standards. JAL also expresses concern about the po tential costs associated with this provision, characterizes it as an intrusive service regulation and states that it is not just ified. VivaAerobus opposes the Department requiring small carriers to have a customer service plan. The Washington Aviation Assembly, representing 35 Embassies in the U.S., notes general issues with extraterritoriality, operational consequences for foreign airlines, and the potential economic burden for foreign airlines if they are require d to comply with the customer service provisions. As for U.S. airlines and associations, AT A expresses concern that DOT requiring foreign carriers to adopt a customer service plan coul d drive foreign governments to retaliate against U.S. carriers operating outside the U.S., wh ich could create conflicting standards and unnecessarily drive additional costs. Among the travel agency interests that commented, ASTA agrees that customer service plan rules and standards should apply equally to foreign air carriers, with no aircraft-size exceptions. ITSA supports in general the Department’s efforts to provide passengers with the means to make better inform ed decisions and more informed choices in

travel. Commenters on “Regulation Room,” who primarily identified themselves as air travelers, generally support DOT’s proposal. However, some of those that commented oppose the regulation and fear the costs will be passed on to consumers. The consumer groups that commented on this issue generally supported the provision and note that passengers should have the ability to know that certain customer service standards will be defined and met regardless of the carrier that a passenger choos es to travel on. CTA notes that foreign carriers operating as members of any international airl ine alliance must be included in these rules. AAPR, Consumers48 Union and Flyersrights.org genera lly support the proposal to require foreign air carriers to adopt, follow, and audit customer service plans. NB TA supports extending customer service provisions to foreign carriers using aircraft with 30 or more passenger seats. DOT Response: After fully considering the commen ts, we have decided to require foreign carriers that operate scheduled passenger se rvice to and from the U.S. using any aircraft with 30 or more seats to adopt, follow and audit customer service plans. As noted previously, a substantial number of passengers travel to and from the U.S. on flights operated by foreign air carriers and the Department conti nues to believe that it is impo rtant to protect these passengers, as well as to be consistent with the application of our consumer protection rules to both U.S. and foreign carriers. Foreign carriers' and others entities’ concerns with extraterritoriality have persuaded us, however, that some clarifications are needed. Firs t, we want to point out that out of the twelve customer service commitments in this final rule, the substance of two of them already applies to foreign air carriers under existing DOT rules, i.e., 14 CFR Part 250 concerning passengers who are “bumped” from flights that are oversold an d 14 CFR Part 382 which a ddresses air travel of passengers with disabilities. Prior to issuing those final rules, the Department addressed the

issue of extraterritori ality and determined how best to apply each of these requirements to foreign air carriers. For instance, the Department determined not to apply its oversales rule to international flights inbound to the United States and determined not to apply U.S. disability rules to a foreign carrier simply because a fore ign carrier’s flight between two foreign points carried passengers under a code-sharing arrangement with a U.S. carrier. The manner in which we are applying these existing requirements to fo reign air carriers through the customer service

commitments is not new and is not an extrater ritorial extension of U.S. jurisdiction.49 We note also that several of the other customer service commitments are merely reinforcing new requirements imposed elsewhere in this final rule, i.e., 14 CFR 259.8 which addresses notification of delays and cancellations, 14 CFR 259.4 wh ich addresses lengthy tarmac delays, and 14 CFR 259.7 which addr esses responding to consumer co mplaints. Concerns with extraterritoriality are sp ecifically addressed in those sections of this preamble that deal with those issues. In this final rule, for example, we explain in the tarmac delay section that the requirement to adopt and follow a tarmac delay contingency plan applies only to tarmac delay events that occur at a covered U.S. airport. Li kewise, we clarify in the section on known delays,

cancellations and diversions that the requirement to notify consumer s of flight ir regularities on a

carrier’s website and via the carri er’s telephone reservation system applies to a foreign carrier only if the carrier markets to U.S. consumers. We also make clear that the requirement to make this information available in the boarding gate areas applies only to boarding gate areas at a U.S. airport. We believe that these types of cl arifications address the foreign carriers’ main objections, which are the a pplication of the customer service pl an to sales made outside the U.S. and to the conduct of foreign carriers on foreign soil. We have made similar changes to other cu stomer service commitments that involve foreign carriers’ websites and reserv ation centers to ensure that we are not applying U.S. rules to a foreign carrier when that carrier does not market its services to the U.S. For example, the customer service commitment to disclose, among ot her things, cancellation policies and frequent flyer rules on the selling carrier’s website and upon request from the selling carrier’s telephone

reservations staff or the commitme nt to disclose the availability of the lowest fare on a carrier’s website or through its reservation center will apply to a foreign carrier only if it markets its services to U.S. consumers. We are also making changes to the customer service commitments50 related to services to be provide d generally or services to be provided at the ticket counter and boarding gate area to specify that such acti on is required only at U.S. airports. Finally, we want to clarify that for purposes of this section, except as otherwise provided in individual customer service provisions in this section, a “flight” that a foreign carrier operates

to and from the U.S. means a c ontinuous journey in the same airc raft or with one flight number that begins or ends at a U.S. air port. For example, if a carrier we re to operate flight 100, a direct flight from San Francisco to Singapore with a stop in Hong Kong, the customer service plan applies to both segments of this flight with re spect to U.S.-originating passengers. It would not apply to any Hong Kong originati ng passengers who board the aircra ft there and go to Singapore. On the reverse routing, the plan would apply to passengers who board in Singapore or Hong Kong and travel to the U.S.; it would not a pply to passengers board ing in Singapore whose destination is Hong Kong. Tempor arily deplaning at the intermed iate stop on a direct flight (Hong Kong in the above example) does not break the journey for purposes of the applicability of the customer service plan requirements fo r passengers who re-board and continue on that same flight operation. If an international passenger whose journey originates or terminates in the U.S. makes a connection to a flight with a differe nt flight number, the ca rrier’s customer service plan applies only to the direct fli ght to or from the U.S. In the case of change of gauge, all flight segments with the same flight number that begin or end in the U.S. are covered by the Customer Service Plan even if passengers must ch ange aircraft due to a change of gauge. As for the comments concerning the cost involv ed in adopting customer service plans, we

note that a number of carriers stat e that they already have customer service plans or similar plans in place and that these plans contain provisions similar or mo re stringent than those the Department is requiring them to adopt, or that their governments have similar requirements. To51 the extent provisions in existing plans are more st ringent than the minimum standards set in this rule, carriers are encouraged to continue to appl y these more stringent provisions. To the extent provisions in existing plans vary from our requireme nts, even if they are similar to them, it does not seem overly burdensome for a carrier to ame nd those plans with respect to flights to and from the U.S. to comply with this rule. Als o, while we understand that some foreign countries have rules requiring customer serv ice standards in air carriage, we are not aware, nor are we convinced based on the comments received, that any of those rules or standards conflict with the requirements of this provision in a manner that would prevent a carrier from complying with both requirements. B. Content of Customer Service Plan

The NPRM: In the NPRM, we noted that under th e final rule published on December 30, 2009, U.S. carriers are required to adopt customer service plans fo r their scheduled flights that address, at a minimum, the following service area s: (1) offering the lowest fare available; (2) notifying consumers of known dela ys, 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” pa ssengers 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 fro m flight cancellations and misconnections. We proposed to extend the requirement to address these twelve subjects in the customer service52 plan to foreign air carriers and requested comm ent on whether any of these subjects would be inappropriate if applied to a foreign carrier. The NPRM also proposed to require that U. S. and foreign carriers’ customer service plans meet minimum standards to ensure that the plans are specific and enforceable. The minimum standards that we propos ed are as follows: (1) offering the lowest fare available on the carrier’s website, at the ticket counter, or when a customer calls the carrier’s reservation center to inquire about a fare or to make a rese rvation; (2) notifying consumers in the boarding gate area, on board aircraft, a nd via a carrier’s telephone reserva tion system and its website of known delays, cancellations, and diversions; (3 ) delivering baggage on time, including making every reasonable effort to return misha ndled 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 reservat ion 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) properl y accommodating passengers with di sabilities as required by 14 CFR Part 382 and other special-needs passengers as se t forth in the carrier’s policies and procedures, including during lengthy tarmac de lays; (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” passenger s 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 boardi ng priority; (9) disclosing cancel lation policies, frequent flyer rules, aircraft configuration, and lavatory ava ilability on the selling carrier’s website, and upon53 request, from the selling carrier’s telephone rese rvations staff; (10) notifying consumers in a timely manner of changes in their travel itiner aries; (11) ensuring good customer service from code-share partners operating a flight, including making reasonabl e 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 custom er service plan; (12) ensuring responsiveness to customer complaints as re quired by 14 CFR 259.7; and (13) identifying the services it provides to mitigate passenger inconveniences resulting from flight cancellations and

misconnections. In addition, we invited comment on whethe r the minimum standards for any of the subjects contained in the customer service plans should be modified or enhanced in some way. With regard to delivering baggage on time, we solicited comment on whether we should also include as standards (1) that ca rriers 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 the same or earlier fli ght than the passenger, delivered within 2 hours of the passenger’s arrival) . With regard to providing prompt refunds, we sought comment on whether we should also include as a standa rd 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 re sult of the travel disruption. In addition, we requested 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 fees for optional services that were charged to a passenger for that flight (e.g., baggage fees, “service charges” for use of frequent flyer miles wh en the flight is canceled by the carrier). With respect to notifying pass engers on board aircraft of delays, we sought comment on how often54 updates should be provided and whether we should require that pa ssengers be advised when they may deplane from aircraft during lengthy tarmac delays. Finally, we requested co mment as to whether it is workable to set minimum standards for any of the subjects contained in the customer service plans and invited those that oppose the notion of the Department setting minimum sta ndards for customer service plans as unduly burdensome to provide evidence of the costs that they anticipate. We also sought comment on whether the Department should requ ire airlines to address any ot her subject in their customer service plans. We specifically asked if mandatory disclosure to passengers and other interested parties of past delays or cancellati ons of particular flights before ticket purchase should be a new subject area covered in customer service plans.

Comments: U.S. carriers and carrier associ ations are generally opposed to the Department setting minimum standards for the cu stomer service plans, particularly if the Department requires that the plans be incorporated into the carrier s’ contracts of carriage. ATA notes that, although U.S. carriers are already required under the current regulation to address each of the proposed customer service plan topics, the current regulation does not mandate minimum requirements and allows carriers to set their own standards for their customer service plans based on their own particular circumstances. ATA asserts that for the Department to set the minimum standards for carriers’ plans would face a major change to existing carrier policies in areas where U.S. carriers currently compet e and could dampen innovation, harm competition and reduce the flying public’s options. Many U.S. carriers concur with ATA. RAA is opposed not only to the establishmen t of minimum standards but also to any continued requirement for its members to adopt cust omer service plans. RAA explains that most regional carriers do not offer fares, take reservations, ticket passengers, receive payment from55 passengers, provide refunds to passengers, or have their own frequent flye r rules or cancellation policies. RAA maintains that the subjects to be addressed in the customer service plan would be inappropriate if applied to an ai rline that does not hold out, market , sell tickets for its operations

and asks that the customer serv ice requirements apply only to carri ers that hold out, market, sell and ticket air transportation. Most foreign carriers and carrier associat ions expressed strong opposition both to the requirement to have a customer service plan and for that plan to meet minimum standards set by the Department. A number of foreign carriers such as Air Berlin and asso ciations such as IATA

and IACA raised the issue of ex traterritoriality and argued that the Department was overreaching as the customer service requirements could be interpreted in such a way as to cover sales generated outside the U.S. and to cover the conduct of foreign carriers on foreign soil or in foreign airspace. There were also assertions that the Department’s regulatory proposals ignore

the fact that airlines have desi gned their customer service initiativ es in a way to attract customers

and the fact that carrier custom er service plan provisions are a way for carriers to differentiate

their services. South African Ai rways contends that prescriptive regulations should not take the place of competitive forces, especially when ther e is no evidence of market failure. Virgin Atlantic, while agreeing that defini ng a baseline standard is accep table, states that forcing all carriers to be the same denies them the righ t to compete commercially and does not allow

carriers to innovate.

Others raised the existence of customer se rvice requirements imposed by other entities as a reason for the Department not to issue a rule in this area. For instance, Air France and KLM state that the customer service proposals should not be finalized as to EU carriers where they are

inconsistent with or more stri ngent than EU regulations. Stil l other foreign carriers raised56 concerns that some of the minimum service levels are impracticable for a carrier to meet (for example, if a carrier sells a number of tickets via a travel agent and the passenger contact information is not passed on then the carrier ma y not have that passenger’s contact information in order to advise them of a change in itinerar y). Some carriers also expressed concerns that certain provisions may be outside of a carrie r’s control (e.g., “good customer service” from a code-share partner). Travel agent organizations such as ASTA and consumer groups such as AAPR, Flyersrights.org, NBTA, and CTA a ll support requiring carriers to adopt customer service plans and for those plans to meet the minimum standard s as proposed in the NPRM. Most individual commenters also support these DOT proposals, but a few oppose the regulation as burdensome and fear the costs will be passed on to consum ers. Many “Regulation Room” commenters want the Department to go further in setting mini mum standards and prohibi ting certain practices. The Department received a number of comments on some of the minimum standards proposed to be included in the cu stomer service plans as well as some of the questions we posed on modifying or enhancing these standards and we address those issues more fully below.

1. Offering the lowest fare available Many foreign air carrier associations, including AACO and NACC, contend that requiring carriers to offer the lowest fare on the carrier’s website, at the ticket counter, or when a

customer calls the carrier’s reserv ation center to inquire about a fa re or make a reservation would interfere in airline business practices. ALTA s eeks clarification on the meaning of “offering the lowest fare available” and asserts that a “one size fits all” fare will prejudice passengers by increasing fares and limiting competition.57 Among the foreign air carriers that commente d, Cathay Pacific states it can only publish the fare at the time a request is made, as fa res are driven by complex inventory and fare managing systems and a fare guarantee cannot be made . JetStar basically concurs and states that the proposal fails to take account of legitimate distribution and pricing practices. Qantas strongly opposes this requirement on the basis th at it fails to take into account the numerous possible options and fare construc tions that may be applicable to a consumer, and there may be a false perception that a carrier is not quoting the best pr ice when the lowest priced inventory sells

out. It is also concerned that carriers will not be able to enforce the proposed requirement against ticket agents and should not be respons ible for ticket agent actions. British Airways

states that it offers the lowest fare that meet s customers’ needs and its website allows consumers to find the lowest fare. Similarly, JAL states that it already offers the lowest fare on its website, at the ticket counter and via telephon e reservations as appropriate. Singapore Airlines states that, if this requirement is adopted, the Department should confirm that this provision is intended to

conform with ATA’s Customers Fi rst initiative and shoul d make it clear that the airline does not have to offer to a customer shopping via one poi nt-of-sale the lowest fare available in any

channel. Of the U.S. carriers that commented, Spirit Ai rlines (Spirit) opposes a requirement that

all fares available on its website should be made available through its telephone reservation service. Should DOT impose such a standard, it must be limited to a carrier’s generally available fares and not apply to special sa les fares because many of these lower fares cannot be purchased over higher-cost channels.

2. Allowing reservations to be held at the quoted fare58 A number of foreign carriers and carrier industry groups also expressed serious concerns with the proposal to allow 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 and thought this provision may lead to inconsistent sales policies. For example, Air New Zealand strongly opposes this provision be cause it takes inventory off the market for the duration of the refund period, blocking it from sale to other customers and risking that the seat may not be sold again. The carrier points out that passengers have the option to buy refundable fares, and choosing whether to allow a passe nger to hold a reservation w ithout payment is a commercial decision. Air France and KLM oppose this proposal primarily for the reasons stated above, as does Qatar Airways. Alitalia oppos es this proposal and thinks the airline should be the party that

establishes commercial terms and conditions with its customers. Singapore Airlines states that it is not set up to permit reservation holds and reprogra mming the system to do so is costly. It also notes that this proposal interferes with the fr ee market and deprives other passengers of the lowest fare, as well as compromises an airlin e's ability to adjust to overnight currency fluctuations. British Airways notes that its current selling systems do not allow for reservations to be held without penalty, but passengers that book via call centers have a “24 hour cooling off” period. It also states that consumers that vi sit BA.com have several opportunities to review exactly what they are booking and to confirm knowledge of details prior to booking. ATA strongly objects to a CSP proposal that w ould require a carrier to hold a reservation “at the quoted fare” for 24 hours for the following r easons: it eliminates th e carrier’s ability to sell these seats to another willing buyer; the DOT has not demonstrated a market failure that merits this action; a consumer could hold a rese rvation during the last 24 hours and then cancel,59 resulting in a seat that will ne ver be sold; and this requirement would effectively prevent repricing, which ordinarily happens multiple times a day. Of the U.S. carriers that commented, US Airways does not support adoption of a 24-hour standard as a rigid rule. The carrier suggests that DOT allow ai rlines flexibility to restrict

refunds in certain situations in order to assure that the largest number of potential passengers have access to seats. Spirit states this proposal is an effort to impose on all airlines a practice that was common prior to deregulation. As a low co st carrier, it states that almost all low-fare carriers require payments at time of booking to guarantee the fare and that making tickets nonrefundable is a practice that is cri tical to its ability to keep fares low. Should a consumer choose to, he or she can buy refundable tickets at a higher pr ice. The carrier states that travel agents that book via global distribution systems (GDS) can hold a reservation (space only) for 24 hours without penalty and Spirit offers a 24 hour c ourtesy refund for bookings made via GDS, but no other procedure for refunds via travel agents ca n be accomplished due to limited GDS functions. In order to comply with this pr ovision, Spirit states th at it would have to s ubstantially change its

business model and in cur large IT cost. Hawaiian Airlines (Hawaiian) notes that it ha s “on-demand” or “walk- up” flights that run on a high frequency basis. As proposed, this prov ision would put the carrier in the position of turning inventory over to passengers who will make several reservations for a flight ( within a 24 hour time period) but will pay for only one of the reservations, even though Hawaiian must

retain a seat for them on each fli ght. It notes the rule could resu lt in forcing Hawaiian to oversell flights to protect against the lo ss of seats and revenue. The ca rrier suggests the proposal be

modified to allow customers to hold seats fo r 24 hours up until 72 hours before the departure of the flight. Similar to Hawaiian, JetBlue suggest that the proposal be modified and that the “2460 hour rule” apply not later than 120 hours prior to departure for car riers that have a no oversales policy. JetBlue explains that it does not overse ll seats on its flights and it is the company’s policy not to issue refunds to passe ngers that cancel their reservati ons (in return for a guaranteed seat on the flight). It notes that the proposal would allow customers to hold a reservation without making a financial commitment and could cause lower load factors, which would threaten JetBlue’s business model. ASTA supports the 24 hour “reservation hold” ru le applying to travel agent bookings.

3. Refunding the ticket price for flights that are canceled or significantly delayed In discussing a commitment to provide prompt refunds, we asked for comments on whether we should require carrier s to refund the ticket price fo r flights that are canceled or significantly delayed if the passenge r chooses not to travel as a re sult of the travel disruption. ATA opposes including as a standard in the custom er service plan a requirement that carriers automatically provide ticketed passengers holding non-refundable tickets a refund for flights that are canceled or significantly delaye d. ATA notes that the regulatory effort to redefine restricted tickets as fully refundable even when cancellati on is desirable due to impending weather or government order would impose obligations not pr esent in any other mode of transportation. ATA adds that in most cases passengers on a cancelled flight are accommodated soon after the originally scheduled flight. In addition, AT A provides the following reasons for its opposition:

o The cause of the delay could be out of the carrier’s control;

o Carriers often allow free rebooking for si gnificant delays or cancellation;

o This is a marketplace issue;

o Imposing mandatory refunds when a passenge r chooses not to fly would convert

all tickets in cancel or delay situations to fully refundable tickets;61 o Passengers have a choice of what type of ticket to buy; and

o The DOT is not authorized to interfere in the marketplace in this manner. Of the foreign carriers and car rier associations that comm ented, AACO asserts that this provision intrudes in business practi ces and raises a risk that ca rriers cannot resell the seat postcancellation. NACC is also concerned about this proposal. Malaysia Airl ines strongly opposes this proposal because delays are often beyond air lines' control and carriers already make efforts to mitigate their impact. Similarly, Qantas states that cancellations may also be out of the

carrier’s control. Lufthansa and Austrian state that, if impos ed, the final rule should allow carriers to accommodate passengers in ways other than refunding the fare. JetStar contends that it is unfair to place the entire burden of costs of unforeseen delays and cancellations on the carriers and states that mandatory refunds may result in the oper ation of delayed flights empty or at a net loss.

The carrier also believes that it is not unfair or deceptive for consumers to share some of the risk in return for lower priced non -refundable tickets, provided fare rules are disclosed prior to purchase. VivaAerobus states that it is a no fril ls ultra low-fare carrier that only sells non refundable tickets and its policy is disclosed on its website so customers can comparatively shop prior to purchase. The carrier asserts that it ne ver overbooks flights and co ntends that it cannot give refunds. Of the U.S. carriers that commented, US Airw ays notes that many of its tickets are fully refundable and consumers that purchase non-refundabl e tickets are clearly informed of the risk. While the carrier supports the Department’s effort s in the NPRM to enhance disclosure, it does not think DOT should restrict options availabl e to passengers or competition among carriers by requiring refunds of non-refundable tickets. Spirit Air opposes requiring carriers to make62 refunds to passengers who choose to purchase no n-refundable tickets but decide not to fly because of a flight cancellation or significant delay. Rather, Spir it gives passengers the option of

re-accommodation or a voucher or refund, or a passenger can purchase travel insurance. Of the consumers and consumer organizations that commented on this issue, Flyersrights.org thinks tickets s hould be refunded if the flight is cancelled or significantly delayed for reasons within the ai rline's control. However, it is concerned about passengers who don't receive refunds of taxes and fees collected by the government for services passengers do

not receive due to cancelled reservations. Some “Regulation Room” commenters favor airlines providing full refunds as well as reimbursement for hotel rooms and meals if there is a significant flight delay. With regard to defining a “significant delay” for purposes of ticket refunds, ATA opposes any definition of “significant” delay that would create a single gove rnment standard and

eliminate a carrier’s latitude to create its own policies on non-refundable tickets that serve

customer and commercial needs. It reiterates that the applica tion of non-refundable tickets and carrier policies to re- accommodate passengers during an ev ent beyond the carrier’s control is best left to the marketplace in a deregulated industry, which will leave customers with more options. Of the foreign carriers that commented on defining a “significant delay,” Cathay Pacific states the Department should take into account the length of dela y, length of the flight and the circumstances. The longer the flight, th en the greater the tolerance should be for the delay. TAP Portugal makes a similar comment a nd states that the definition should depend on the duration of the flight. It al so notes that long-haul flights ca n make up for delays while in the air. Some commenters on “Regulation Room ” suggest that any delay over three hours is “significant,” while others not e they are willing to let the Department define the term.63 4. Refunding fees for optional services for flights that are canceled In discussing prompt refunds, we specifically asked for comments on whether we should require, as part of any refund due a consumer, a refund of any optional fees charged a passenger in connection with the flight in questions. AT A opposes including as a standard in the customer service plan that when a flight is cancelled carriers must refund not only the ticket price but also any fees for optional services that were charged to a passenger for that flight . ATA states that its members object to the Department’s concept that cancellation in itself s hould create a right to the refund of optional fees. It urges the Departme nt to clarify that a car rier has the opportunity to accommodate a passenger with other transporta tion options after a cancellation, instead of automatically refunding a ticket and ancillary fees. ATA also asks the Department to clarify that the proposed customer service plan requirement to provide prompt refunds “where ticket refunds are due” is meant to include only those situations where the passenger is una ble to fly due to the carrier’s decision to cancel. US Airways supports refunding fees for optiona l services for flights that are canceled, but only in cases where the services in question are not ultimately provided (e.g. baggage fees, seating fees). It asks the De partment to clarify that if the services are provided, refunds are not mandated. Among the fore ign carriers and carrier associations that commented, AACO states that fees should not be re imbursed for the ticket and ancillary services that have been provided. Mala ysia Airlines also st ates that this propos al should not require refunds of fees for services already delivere d. ASTA thinks mandated refunds should include “optional fees” pa id by a passenger.

5. Delivering baggage on time, compensating pa ssengers for expenses due to delay in delivery of baggage and refunding baggage fees Of the foreign air carriers and industry groups that commented, AACO states that the Department needs to define what “on time” delivery of baggage means and opposes any64 requirement that airlines bear th e sole responsibility fo r areas of business that other parties have control over (e.g. bags may be handl ed by airport or TSA). Air Be rlin notes that international baggage compensation is already governed by the Montreal Conven tion. South African Airways states that the proposal does not address Montreal or Warsaw and asks DOT to confirm that the rule does not apply where either Convention co ntrols. Singapore Airlines offers similar

comments. Air France and KLM state that the NP RM does not take into account vast differences between long-haul international flights and dom estic U.S./transborder flights, and as such, returning bags within 24 hours may be impossible due to limited frequencies to a specific destination, absence of local services, and/or a passenger with a multi-stop and multi-country itinerary. Among the U.S. industry groups and air carr iers, US Airways believes that, before advancing new proposals in this area, DOT shoul d articulate any additi onal facts warranting action beyond steps that the Department has alrea dy taken. It asserts that it is neither possible

nor desirable to set a uniform ma ximum time for delivery of delayed bags or to impose remedies for failure to make delivery within a time fr ame because there are t oo many variables involved, and asks that the Department seek more input fr om stakeholders involved. Spirit Airlines notes that Part 254 already requires airlines to compen sate passengers and airlines have incentives to locate and return bags. It also states that “ev ery reasonable effort” to return bags is a vague standard, and points out that th ere is no evidence that the curre nt rules are inadequate or passengers are being treated unf airly or with deception. ATA notes that its members oppose including as a standard in the customer service plan that carriers reimburse passengers the fee charged to transport a ba g if that bag is lost or not timely delivered. ATA states that bag fees ar e a competitive issue and whether a carrier chooses65 to refund a fee in all in stances is a matter the marketplace shou ld determine. Spirit also opposes such a requirement although it notes that its policy is to refund f ees when there is a delay in delivery. Flyersright.org states that fees should be refunded if the bag is not delivered on the same flight or an earlier one.

6. Notifying passengers of past delays and cancellations prior to ticket purchase We already require the reporti ng carriers (i.e., largest U.S. ca rriers) to provide delay and

cancellation information on their websites a nd upon request provide consumers on-time performance information during oral reservat ions. We asked for comment on whether all carriers required to have a custom er service plan should be required to disclose past delays and cancellations of flights to consumers before the latter purchase a ticket. Many carriers oppose having a customer service commitment on disclo sure to passengers of past delays or cancellations of particular flights before ticket purchase and do not see the need for it. They assert that past performance is not necessar ily indicative of future performance. Swiss International also states that, if imposed, the re quirement to disclose past delay and cancellation information should not apply to reservations agen ts via telephone because foreign carriers utilize call centers that often work with multiple carriers and the proposal is not feasible. Cathay Pacific does not support mandatory disclosu re of past delays and cancella tions before ticket purchase for international flights that have limited operations, but notes that for domestic services operated more frequently there may be value. ATA members oppose additional information notices regarding past flight delays or cancellations before purchase of a ticket, as the Department has recently adopted new flight information requirem ents and in accordance with those rules, the public will have access to information on flight de lays, cancellations, and flights 30 minutes late more than 50% of the time before purchase on the largest U.S. carriers’ websites. Of the U.S.66 carrier commenters, US Airways not es, similar to ATA ,that this information is available on the

carrier’s website and that is suffi cient to provide consumers with in formation. It also asserts that historic data is unreliable, the current rule is new and more time is needed to see how effective it is prior to initiating new rules, and DOT alrea dy decided further disclo sures were not required.

7. Other Customer Service Provisions With regard to the customer service requirement to notify consumers of itinerary changes in a timely manner, British Airways expressed su pport for this provision, but thinks it should be limited to passengers for which the carrier has relia ble contact information. In situations where a passenger books his/her ticke t through a travel agent, British Airways stat es that the travel agent and not the carrier should be held responsib le for notifying the pa ssenger of any itinerary changes. With respect to disclosing aircraft configuration, among other things, to consumers on the selling carrier’s website and upon request from the selling car rier’s telephone reservations staff, Singapore Airlines contends that there is no reason for its telephone reservations staff to provide this information as its cu stomers can find this information on the carrier's website. With regard to responding to consumer complaints, Ai r Berlin is concerned that as drafted the proposed definition would obligate a carrier to react to complaints from non-passengers. As for the requirement to ensure “good cu stomer service” from code-share partners, a

number of carriers and carrier a ssociations expressed concerns with the definition of “ensuring good customer service” as it relates to code-share partners and claim that they cannot be held responsible for code-share partners' actions. More specifically, NA CC contends that the provision to have “comparable serv ice plans” could be an extrater ritorial application of law if applied to more than flight segments to or from a U.S. airport. It states that the requirement to have comparable service is too prescriptive a nd is an unwarranted in terference in commercial67 relationships, and may discourage such arrangeme nts, leading to less flexibility and network connectivity. NACC also expresses concerns th at aligning customer service plans with codeshare partners may raise anti-t rust issues. JetStar does not support requirin g code-share participants to adopt each other’s customer servic e plans or align their se rvice levels and states that this is an issue of competition best left to the marketplace. It also notes that the marketing carrier has the primary relationship with the co nsumer. US Airways stat es that DOT should not adopt rules that marketing carrier s are responsible for violations by operating carriers and says that marketing carriers cannot control the app lication of uniform standards of all operating carriers with which they work. DOT Response: Having fully considered the comment s, the Department has decided to adopt a final rule largely along th e lines set forth in the NPRM, with some clarifications to

address comments received about extraterritorial application of U.S. law and the appropriateness

of individual customer service commitments. In adopting this approach , we believe that our action strikes a proper balance between ensuring th at the traveling public is provided an adequate level of service and is not subjected to unf air or deceptive practices, while ensuring the marketplace governs to the extent possible. We also view our approach as striking the proper balance between protecting consumers on nearly all flights to and from the United States by requiring not just U.S. carriers but also foreign ca rriers to adopt and adhere to customer service plans, while ensuring that these requirements do not involve an ex traterritorial application of U.S. law by limiting their application to foreign ca rriers to flights to and from the U.S., sales made within the U.S., and to the conduct of foreign carriers on U.S. soil. Under the final rule, foreign carriers are requi red to address the same subjects in their customer service plan as U.S. carriers. The fina l rule also establishes minimum standards for the68 customer service plans of both U.S. and foreign carriers. In making this decision, we note that carriers are already required to address a number of the subjects and comply with the minimum standards imposed for these subjects through existing requirements [e .g., 14 CFR Part 250, Part 254 (for U.S. carriers), and Part 382] or requireme nts imposed by other sections of this rule (e.g., 14 CFR 259.4, 259.7, and 259.8 ). Additionally, based on the comments received, many carriers already address many of th e requirements in the customer serv ice plans and, in so me cases, their customer service commitment is more stringent than those we are adopting. Consequently, we are not persuaded that it would be unduly burdens ome for carriers to adopt and adhere to these

standards.

Commenters have convinced us that it is not appropriate to require U.S. or foreign air

carriers to include in their cust omer service plans a commitment to ensure good customer service from their code-share partners by making certain that code-share partners have comparable customer service plans or provide comparable customer service levels. We agree with commenters that the requirement for code-share partners to have comparable service may unnecessarily restrict the marketplace and may u nduly discourage code-sharing arrangements. We have also decided against requiring covered carriers to include in their customer service plans an assurance that they will notify consum ers of past delays and cancellations. We are persuaded that the current availabi lity of data about past delays and cancellations provided by the largest U.S. carriers on their websites as a result of action of our recent consumer rulemaking is sufficient and additional requirements in this area would not materially benefit consumers. While, as noted above, the Department has de cided to establish minimum standards for the customer service plans of both U.S. and fore ign carriers, we are m odifying or clarifying a

few of these standards based on comments r eceived. For example, we are clarifying, as69 requested by U.S. and foreign carriers and asso ciations, that the requirement to compensate passengers for reasonable expenses that result due to delay in baggage delivery comports with 14 CFR Part 254 for domestic transportation and applicable internati onal agreements for international transportation. We are also adding as a standard that carriers must reimburse passengers for any fee charged to transport a bag if the bag is lost. We have decided against requiring carriers to reimburse pass engers for any fee charged to tr ansport a bag that is not timely delivered. Arguably, as is the case with transporting passengers themselves, while delay in receiving baggage may be inconvenient, once th e carrier delivers a bag the service has been performed. Consumers may, of course, seek re imbursement for damages caused by delay in the delivery of their baggage by filing a claim with the airline or, if dissatisfied with the airline’s resolution of the matter, with an appropriate civil court. With regard to carriers’ obligation to no tify passengers of known delays, cancellations and diversions, we specify that the minimum standa rd required to comply with this obligation is met through compliance with a requirement impose d elsewhere in this final rule, i.e., 14 CFR 259.8. Under section 259.8, we explain that the oblig ation to notify passengers of delays applies only to delays of 30 minutes or more and that th e carrier has the obligation to inform passengers of such delays, cancellations and diversions with in 30 minutes of the carrier becoming aware of a change in the status of a flight. We also explain that carriers must inform consumers of cancellations and delays of 30 minut es or more and diversions in the boarding gate area at U.S. airports, on board aircraft, via a carrier’s telephone reservati on system and on its website, and through whatever means made available by the ca rrier for passengers who subscribe to the carrier’s flight status notification services.70 With respect to providing prompt refunds, we conclude that the obligation to provide such refunds applies not only to refunding the basic price of a ticket but also to refunding optional fees charged to a passenge r for services that the passenge r is unable to use due to an oversale situation or a flight cancellation. For example, if a passenger pays for premium economy seating, but his flight is canceled or oversold and that seating is not available on the flight that he/she has agreed to be re-rerouted on, then the ca rrier must promptly refund the passenger the fee paid for the premium seating. In adopting this requirement, the Department

believes it is unfair for a carrier to refuse to provide a refund to a passenger of fees paid for services not provided through no fa ult of the passenger.

We continue to believe that there are circ umstances in which passengers would be due a refund, including a refund of non-refundable tick ets and optional fees a ssociated with those tickets due to a significant flight delay. Ho wever, we have been persuaded by industry commenters that the Department should not adop t a strict standard of what constitutes a significant delay as such a delay is difficult to define. We agr ee with the contention of carriers

and carrier associations that th e definition of a significant dela y depends on a wide variety of factors such as the length of the delay, length of the flight and the pa ssenger’s circumstances. The Department’s Aviation Enforcement Office will continue to monitor how carriers apply their non-refundability provision in the event of a signif icant change in schedule d departure or arrival time, and will determine on a case by case basis based on the facts and circumstances of the delay whether a failure to provide a refund in res ponse to such a delay is an unfair and deceptive practice. We reject some carriers’ and carrier associati ons’ assertions that ca rriers are not required to refund a passenger’s fare when a flight is cancelled if the carrier can accommodate the71 passenger with other transportation options after th e cancellation. We find it to be manifestly

unfair for a carrier to fail to provide the transportation contract ed for and then to refuse to provide a refund if the passenger finds the offe red rerouting unacceptable (e.g., greatly delayed or otherwise inconvenient) and he or she no longer wishes to travel. Since at least the time of an Industry Letter of July 15, 1996 (see http://airconsumer.dot.gov/rule s/guidance) the Department's

Aviation Enforcement Office has advised carriers that refusing to ref und a non-refundable fare when a flight is canceled and the passenger wi shes to cancel is a vi olation of 49 U.S.C. 41712 (unfair or deceptive practices) and would s ubject a carrier to enforcement action. We also have determined to modify the standa rd regarding the availa bility of the lowest fare from what was proposed in the NPRM. In the NPRM, we proposed that a carrier offer the

lowest fare available on the carrie r’s website, at the ticket counter, or when a customer calls the

carrier’s reservation center to i nquire about a fare or to make a reservation. Having taken into

consideration the comments recei ved about how this requirement could unduly interfere with airline business models by requiring airlines offe r to a consumer shopping via one point-of-sale the lowest fare available via any channel, we ar e modifying this provision to require carriers to

disclose to consumers who contact the carrier through any of these mediums that a lower fare may be offered by the carrier thr ough another channel (for example, the carrier must reveal via its telephone reservation service that a lower fare may be available on the carrier's website if that is the case). Of course, wherever the carrier offers its lowest fare , the carrier should not state that the lowest fare may be available elsewhere as such a statement would likely confuse consumers and could result in increased search time by cons umers for a nonexistent lower fare. In sum, we are not requiring carrier personnel to offer the lowest fare availabl e via whatever sales channel a consumer chooses to use, but to inform all of its customers and prospective customers that a72 lower fare may be available elsewh ere in the carrier's systems in order to give the consumer the opportunity to locate a lower fa re offered by that carrier. We have also decided to modify the cust omer service proposal which would require

carriers to allow reservations to be held at the quoted fare without payment, or cancelled without penalty, for at least twenty-four hours after the reservat ion is made. We ag ree with commenters who expressed concerns that allo wing consumers to hold a seat without payment for twenty-four

hours could result in loss of sales and revenue by carriers and prevent other passengers from purchasing the seat if the seat is not released in a timely manne r prior to the flight. We find persuasive the comments submitted by JetBlue and Hawaiian Airlines suggesting that a set point

in time should exist after which carriers would no longer be required to hold a passenger’s reservation in order to give the carrier a more realisti c opportunity to sell that seat in the final days before the flight departs. Accordingly, we are modifying th is provision to require carriers to hold the reservation for twenty-four hours only if a consumer makes the reservation one week (168 hours) or more prior to a flig ht’s scheduled departur e. After that time, a carrier is no longer required to hold a reservation without payment fo r any period of time. The Department believes

that this modification strikes the right balance between a consumer's desire to make travel plans and shop for a fare that meets his or her needs, and the carrier’s need fo r adequate time to sell seats on its flights. As for the remaining seven customer serv ice requirements, we received very few comments on them and we are adopting them as pr oposed in the NPRM. These seven customer service requirements pertain to accommodating passe ngers with disabilities, meeting customers’ essential needs during lengthy tarmac delays, handling “bumped” passengers with fairness and consistency, disclosing cancellati on policies, frequent flyer rule s, aircraft configuration, and73 lavatory availability, notifying consumers of changes in th eir travel itineraries, ensuring responsiveness to customer complaints, and id entifying the services th e carrier provides to mitigate passenger inconveniences resulting from flight cancellations and misconnections. In adopting these customer service commitments as proposed, we note our disagreement with comments stating that the requirement for carriers to notify consumers of itinerary changes should be limited to passengers who book their ticket s directly with the ca rrier and not apply to passengers who book their tickets through a travel agent. A pa ssenger has a right to know and benefit from knowing about changes in his/her itinerary whether th at person purchased the ticket directly from a carrier or from a travel agent. We also disagree with comments that the disclosure of aircraft configur ation be limited to the selling carrier’s website. While most

consumers will have access to the Internet and be able to obtain this information from carriers’ websites, we also see benefit in requiring thataircraft configuration information be made available upon request from the selling carrier’s telephone reservations st aff, particularly for those passengers who do not have access to the Internet or are not familiar with how to use it. With regard to the concern expressed by a car rier that it may be required to respond to complaints from non-passengers, we want to point out that “complaint” is defined in section 259.7 as a specific written expression of dissatisf action concerning a difficu lty or problem which a person experienced when using or atte mpting to use an airline’s services. C. Self-Auditing of Plan

The NPRM: The NPRM proposed that foreign air carriers audit their adherence to their customer service plan annually and make the results of their audits available for the Department’s review upon request for two year s following the audit completion date. U.S.74 carriers are already required to self-audit their plans and to make the audit results available for the Department’s review upon request for two years.

Comments: Of the foreign carriers that comm ented, TAP Portugal oppos es self-auditing

and contends that it is too burdensome to audit a dozen service standards, some of which involve hundreds of activities performed on a daily basi s. Similarly, British Airways opposes selfauditing customer service plans on the basis th at the plans cover many services and involve different departments that are responsible for these services, and as such would necessitate coordination at significant additional costs. Qata r Airways states that gl obal surveys regarding customer service standards already exist and audits specific to a limited number of international

routes will not add value to consumers. Swiss In ternational and Air Tahiti note that there is no guidance as to what a “self-audit” requires. A business travel organization supports requiring audits a nd states that its travel managers can provide their client s better protection on flights to a nd from the U.S. if they have

this information available. Of the consumer groups, Flyersrights.org supports requiring foreign

air carriers to audit customer se rvice plans and thinks failure to adopt a plan, adhere to it, and

make audit results available should be cons idered an unfair and deceptive practice. DOT Response: We have decided to adopt the self -auditing requirements as proposed in the NPRM. The final rule requires each carrier to audit its own adherence to its plan annually

and to make the results of each audit available for the Department’s review upon request for two years afterwards. The Department believes that a system for verifying compliance with the customer service plans is essential. As noted in the first rule to enhance airline passenger protections, we believe that requ iring covered carriers to audit th eir plans annually will further ensure that carriers will live up to their commitment s. It will also enable an airline to quickly75 take action if it learns that it is not in complian ce with its customer service plans or if it is not effectively implementing its plan. A self-audit is e ssentially a system for the carrier to verify its compliance with its customer service plan. We are not requiring that such audits be conducted “at similar times in the year” or even that ther e be a single unified audit of all the subjects covered in the customer service plans, in order to allow each airline the flexibility to design an audit program that fits its part icular operational environment. 4. Contracts of Carriage

The NPRM : This NPRM was the second time that the Department proposed requirements regarding incorporation of tarmac delay contingency plans and customer service plans into carriers’ contracts of carriage. In December 2008, the Department published in the Federal Register an NPRM proposing to require U.S. carriers to incorporate their tarmac delay contingency plans and customer service plans in their contracts of car riage, and make their contracts of carriage available on their websit es. In December 2009, the Department issued a final rule where it decided not to require such incorporation. Instead, the Department strongly encouraged carriers to voluntarily incorporate th e terms of their continge ncy plans and customer service plans in their contracts of carriage and re quired the carriers to post their plans and their contracts of carriage on their websit e. At that time, the Department also indicated its intention to address this matter again through rulemaking. In this proceeding, the Department again pr oposed to require carriers to include their tarmac delay contingency plans and customer servi ce plans in their contract s of carriage, and for foreign air carriers that have a website to post th eir entire contract of ca rriage on their website in an easily accessible form. U.S. carriers are alr eady required to post their contract of carriage on

their website under th e existing rule.76 The Department again sought comment on wh ether incorporation of the contingency plans and customer service plans in the contract of carriage would give c onsumers notice of what might happen in the event of a long delay on the tarmac and of passengers’ rights under carriers’ customer service plans. As in the past, we asked commenters to addres s whether and to what extent requiring the incorporation of contingency plans in carrier s’ 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 compromi sing their flexibility to deal with circumstances that can be both complex and unpredictable.

Comments : RAA questions whether DOT has au thority to impose a requirement for carriers to incorporate their tarmac delay continge ncy plans or customer service plans into their contracts of carriage. If th e Department nevertheless adopts such a requirement, RAA states that it should not apply to re gional carriers, as most regiona l passengers are subject to the ticketing carrier’s contract of carriage. ATA contends that the Department would be exceeding its regulatory authority if it were to require that the con tingency plans and customer service pl ans be incorporated into carriers’ contracts of carriage as a means of creating a private right of ac tion. ATA asserts that Congress did not create a private right of action for viol ations of 49 U.S.C. §41712 and the Department cannot substitute a different enforcement pro cess than the one Congress intended. ATA also states that the Department has failed to demonstr ate how a carrier’s failure to incorporate either its tarmac delay contingency plan or its customer service plan in its contract of carriage could be viewed as an unfair and deceptive practice under 49 U.S.C. §41712 . ATA points out that if the Department is interested in ensuring that passeng ers are more aware of th eir rights, then it should77 be sufficient that both the contingency plan and customer service plan are available on carrier

websites. U.S. carriers that commented generally support ATA. For example, US Airways, like ATA, states that there is no reason to require in corporation of the conti ngency plans or customer service plans as U.S. carriers already post these plans on their websites. US Airways speculates that only a small percentage of visitors to its website review the page c ontaining the Contract of Carriage, suggesting that the incl usion of the plans in carriers’ contracts of carriage would not increase passenger awareness of their rights. US Airways as well as other carriers are particularly concerned that this requirement would create a priv ate right of action and subject

airlines to a multitude of lawsuits in a variety of jurisdictions.

Similar to the U.S. carriers and carrier association, foreign carriers and carrier associations strongly oppose the proposed requi rement to incorporate plans into carriers’ contracts of carriage. IATA asserts that the DOT exceeds its authority in proposing this requirement and that it would substantially increase airlines’ legal costs. IATA also states that international airlines cannot be expected to adop t multiple contracts of carriage for each territory into and out of which they fly and that contract s of carriage are contracts between a carrier and all of its passengers, not just th ose that fly into the U.S. AEA generally supports and agrees with IATA. IACA states that placing contingency and customer service plans in a contract of carriage will make the contracts unreadable, as they ar e already detailed and will result in too much

information for the consumer. IACA also states , similar to IATA, that for many airlines U.S. flights make up only a small share of the total fl ights, so it is inappr opriate to incorporate information that is valid only for U.S. flights. IACA also notes that EU regulations already78 require carriers to provide customers with details of their rights, so the proposal is superfluous and counterproductive. IACA sugge sts that foreign carriers be exempted from this requirement. The foreign air carriers that commented ge nerally support IATA. Many carriers note that rules already exist in their countries regarding cu stomer service issues. For example, Virgin Atlantic notes that EC Reg 261/2004 already ha s passenger rights requirements covering delays

and oversales. Others raised conc erns about extraterrito riality. More specifically, JAL and TAP Portugal note concerns about the proposal as their Conditions of Carriage are reviewed and approved by their homeland regulator and any changes would need to be approved by those bodies. Qatar Airways states that there should be global harmonization of different government regulatory standards before such plans are incorpor ated in each carrier’s Contract of Carriage. Various carriers also expressed f ears about the litigation risks that would exist. South African Airways notes that mandating terms of an airline' s contract of carriage may improperly create a private right of action for minor lapses in service. Air France speculates that in order to avoid legal risks carriers may weaken plans if incorpor ation into carrier’s c ontract of carriage is required. Air France as well as many other carriers who object to the proposal assert, similar to IATA, that the Department does not have author ity to impose this requirement. In a similar fashion, Lufthansa strongly opposes the propos al and fully supports ATA’s and IATA’s comments, as do Alitalia, British Airways and various other foreign carriers. While most foreign air carriers are opposed to including the plans in their contract of carriage, a number of them did support the idea of placing the contingenc y plans and customer service plans on their respective we bsites or state that they have already done so. For example, Air France and KLM agree that the plans could be placed on a website. Virgin Atlantic states that its Conditions of Carriage are based on IATA standards and are available on its website, as79 does Qatar Airways. In addition, Virgin Atlantic suggests that contingency plans and customer service plans be provided, where th ere is a specific si tuation, to an affected passenger. South African Airways makes similar comments. Of the consumer groups that commented, CT A and AAPR generally support the proposal to include tarmac delay contingency plans and cust omer service plans in a carrier’s contract of carriage, or in the alternative on their websites. CTA also states that code-share rules should be

included in the contract of ca rriage. Flyersrights.org, and it s individual members that filed comments, support the proposal that carriers place both the tarmac delay contingency plans and the customer service plans in their contracts of carriage. The organization warns, however, that requiring carriers to incorporate pl ans into their contracts of carriage may result in carriers excluding key terms from the plan so as to make the plans unenforceable and asks that the Department review and monitor the plans. DOT Response: Having considered all the comments, the Department has decided not to adopt the proposal requiring U.S. and foreign car riers to include their contingency plans and customer service plans in their c ontracts of carriage. In making this decision, we note that some carriers have voluntarily put not only their customer service plans but also their tarmac delay contingency plans into their contracts of carriage si nce we issued the first rule to enhance airline passenger protections. We will continue to mon itor whether other carriers choose to do so, as

well as determine if we need to revisit this issue in the future should a problem exist. Further, with regard to the need to incorporat e customer service plans into the contract of carriage, the Department believes that our decision to set min imum standards for the provisions in a carrier’s customer service plan gives consumer s more certainty as to the quality and types of services they can expect. In addition, thes e minimum standards may make it easier for a80 consumer to demonstrate to the Department’s Aviation Enforcement Office that a carrier has

violated the law when that carrier does not m eet its standard of service commitment as the requirements of the customer service plans are mo re exacting than in the past. If the minimum standards are not met by a given ca rrier, the Department can dete rmine if enforcement action is appropriate in a given situation. Although we are not requiring tarmac delay contingency plans and customer service plans to be incorporated in cont racts of carriage, the Department has decided to require foreign carriers to post their tarmac dela y contingency plans, customer service plans and contracts of carriage on their websites. The December 2009 ru le to enhance airlin e passenger protections already requires U.S. carriers to post these pl ans on their websites. The purpose of this requirement is to ensure that interested consum ers can easily review an airline’s contract of carriage, customer service plan, and/or tarmac de lay contingency plan. By having the ability to review these documents, consumers can find out an airline’s stated obligations to passengers and

be better informed about their ri ghts and a carrier’s re sponsibilities before purchasing tickets and whenever problems occur (for example, the passenge r’s rights and carrier’s responsibilities if an airline delays or cancels a flight or loses a bag). The Departme nt believes that having the plans and contracts of carriage on websites will lead to a better informed consumer. The Department’s Aviation Enforcement Office will period ically monitor carriers’ websites to ensure that the required information is available. 5. Response to Consumer Problems A. Designated Advocate s for Passengers’ Interests The NPRM: The NPRM proposed to require foreign air carriers that operate scheduled passenger service to and from the United States using any aircraft with 30 or more seats to designate an employee who will be responsible for m onitoring the effects of flight delays, flight81 cancellations and lengthy tarmac delays on passengers. We proposed that this employee have input into decisions about which flights to can cel and which will be delayed the longest. U.S. carriers must comply with this requirement under the existing rules.

Comments: IATA, IACA, and AEA generally state that the proposal to designate an advocate for passenger interests intervenes too much in an airline’s operation as airlines organize themselves differently to monitor operational is sues and address customer concerns. Lufthansa opposes this proposal and comments that the deci sion to designate an employee to monitor the effects of irregular operations should be left to the discretion of each carrier. Similarly, Air Tahiti states that requiring dedicated staff to m onitor delays improperly interferes with internal airline operations. JAL does not think it makes sense to de signate an employee for a nonproblem and asks for additional information and clarification regarding the employee’s responsibilities. Swiss Internati onal states that this proposal is a substantial burden and believes that one individual may not be effective because each airport has its own issu es, so splitting these

tasks makes more sense and would result in better data. The carrier urges the Department to require each airport to designate an employee res ponsible for monitoring delays and coordinate with carriers to reduce delays. Air France and KLM oppose this requirement and explain that it has limited resources in the U.S. to fulfill any such new role and contends that this requirement would impose substantial costs on foreign carrie rs. Air France and KLM state that, if this proposal is implemented, the Depa rtment should permit foreign carriers to comply by having an off-site employee in a specific department w ho is accessible by a specific telephone number assist in such matters, and by providing this advocacy only in the principal language of the carrier’s homeland (French for Air France, Dutch fo r KLM) and in English. Of the travel agent interests that commented, ASTA generally support s the proposal to have a designated employee,82 but does not believe the employee should have to be available in the U.S. as long as he or she is

accessible. We received a few comments from consumers and consumer groups, all of whom generally support the proposals. DOT Response: The final rule requires foreign air carriers operating scheduled passenger service to and from the U.S. using any aircraft with 30 or more passenger seats to designate an employee to monitor the effects of flight delays , flight cancellations, and lengthy tarmac delays on passengers and to have input into decisions on which flights to cancel and which will be delayed the longest. It applies to all of a covered foreign carrier’s scheduled flights to and from the United States, including those involving aircraft with fewer than 30 seats if a carrier operates any aircraft with 30 or more passe nger seats to/from the U.S. We are not persuaded by commenters that th e Department is excessively intervening in an airline’s operation by requiring an employ ee or employees be designated to monitor performance of flights and that these employees have input into decisions such as which flights are cancelled or subject to the longest delays. Additionally, we have taken note of foreign carriers' concerns regarding the po tential lack of carrier personnel located in the United States or at specific airports where the carrier does not ha ve a large presence. We are not requiring that the employees responsible for monito ring irregular flight operations be located at a U.S. airport. As has been permitted for covered U.S. carriers, foreign carriers can determine where its employees are located, as long as the designate d employees can monitor flight delays and

cancellations for the carr iers’ flights to and from the U.S. throughout the carriers’ system and have input into decisions regard ing how to best meet the need s of passengers affected by any irregular operations. This requirement is intended to en sure that passenger interests are considered by carriers when decisions on irregul ar flight operations are made. We are not83 requiring that the designated employees make themselves available to speak with airport personnel or passengers and certainly are not prescribing the language to be used by the designated airline employees. By adopting this performance standard, the Department leaves it up to each carrier to determine the most efficien t and effective method to monitor the effects of flight delays and cance llations (for example , designating one or more i ndividuals at its systems operations center). This rule does not requir e carriers to hire new employees to comply with this provision as these responsibilities may be borne by current employees in addition to their other responsibilities. B. Informing Consumers How to Complain

The NPRM: Under the proposed rule, a foreign ai r carrier that operates scheduled passenger service to and from the U.S. using any aircraft with 30 or more passenger seats would be required to inform consumers how to file a complaint with the carrier (name of department, address, and email or web-mail address) on it s website, on all e-ticket confirmations, and, upon request, at each ticket counter and gate.

Comments: As with other sections of this proposa l, carrier association commenters, such IATA, IACA, and AEA, generally state that the proposal to info rm consumers how to complain unnecessarily and excessively intervenes in an airline’s operations. Many foreign carriers concur. For example, Qantas and JetStar state th at if a carrier has given a consumer reasonable access for lodging complaints, there is no need for the Department to mand ate a particular form of communication. Qatar Airways, among others, notes that foreign carriers already offer passengers a number of means by which to file a complaint. Foreign carriers and carrier associations also oppose the requirement to inform consumers how to complain as an extraterritorial a pplication of U.S. law. IATA asserts that this84 requirement would violate the Chicago Conventio n and U.S. Open Skies Agreement as it would necessitate foreign carriers modifying procedures and operations that take place outside the U.S. to meet U.S. regulatory requireme nts. For example, IATA stat es that this requirement would mandate that foreign carriers modify their home websites and foreign-issu ed tickets to include information mandated by the Department. NBTA generally supports the provisions, as do Consumers Union and AAPR. Flyersrights.org, in addition to supporting a requir ement for foreign airlines to make the mailing address and email or web address for filing a co mplaint available on their website and e-ticket confirmations, thinks there should be contac t information for the Department’s Aviation

Consumer Protection Division on e-ticket confirmations and boarding passes. DOT Response: The Department is extending this pr ovision to foreign carriers as proposed in the NPRM, with some clarifications to address concerns about extraterritoriality. First, we are requiring foreign carriers to info rm consumers how to complain, upon request, at each ticket counter and boarding gate at U.S. airports. We are not seeking to govern the activities of foreign carriers outside the United Stat es. U.S. carriers are still required to inform consumers how to complain upon request at all ti cket counters and boarding gates staffed by the

carrier or a contractor of the ca rrier, whether or not those locations are within the U.S. We are also specifying that the requirement to make info rmation about how to file a complaint available on a carrier’s website applies to a foreign carrier only if its website markets to U.S. consumers. Foreign carriers would not need to modify their home websites to ensure that they are complying with this requirement unless those sites market to U.S. consumers. We expect foreign carriers to follow U.S. law in the U.S. when marketing w ithin the U.S. and when flights are entering, operating within or departing from the U.S.85 Also, while we acknowledge foreign comment ers' concerns with the Department mandating avenues by which a consumer can file a complaint, we believe it is important that consumers have more than one avenue for regi stering their service-re lated concerns. As commenters note, since some foreign carriers al ready provide a number of means by which to file a complaint, the requirements of this rule should not prove overly burdensome. As with the

December 2009 rule to enhance ai rline passenger protections, this rule requires carriers to only provide passengers their email or web-form addr ess and their mailing address. We did not propose and are not now requiri ng that carriers provide passe ngers a telephone number for complaint calls because of concerns that te lephone “talk time” would impose a high cost on

airlines when there are other more-efficien t and effective compla int processing methods available. Of course, in addition to accepting complaints through the Internet and postal mail, airlines are free to voluntarily accept customer complaints through other methods such as telephone. We also point out that , as is currently allowed for U.S. carriers, a foreign carrier can comply with the requirement to provide contact information on an e-ticket confirmation or itinerary by including a link to a website contai ning the complaint info rmation in lieu of displaying the entire text of the contact inform ation, which will take up even less space on an eticket and reduce cost. It is our opinion that requiring complaint contact information on e-tickets and, upon request, at each ticket counter and boardi ng gate instead of just on websites will be

beneficial to consumers since a large number of passengers do not have access to the Internet while traveling and would not be able to access the complaint contact information through the

airlines’ websites. We are not adopting the suggestion that ca rriers be required to provide consumers information as a general matter on how to file complaints with DOT. That suggestion is beyond86 the scope of the notice and is not wise since it might direct consumers away from contacting carriers that are in the best posi tion to quickly resolve problems. C. Responding to Consumer Complaints

The NPRM: Under the NPRM, a foreign air carr ier that operates scheduled passenger service to and from the U.S. using any aircra ft with 30 or more passenger seats would be required to acknowledge receipt of a complaint within 30 days of receiving it and send a substantive response to each comp lainant within 60 days of receiving it. We proposed to define a complaint as a specific written expression of dissatisfaction c oncerning a difficulty or problem which the person experienced when using or attempti ng to use an airline’s services. We solicited comments on any operational difficulties U.S. and foreign airlines may face in responding to such complaints when received through soci al networking mediums such as Facebook and

Twitter.

Comments: We received a number of comments on th is issue from foreign carriers and carrier associations, some of whom supported this requirement. IATA, IACA, AEA, and many foreign carriers generally state that the proposal to respond to consumer complaints within a set timeframe excessively intervenes into an airlin e’s business practices and disregards procedures carriers already have in place to respond to consumer complaints. They also contend that the Department has not shown that this type of re quirement is needed. More specifically, British Airways notes that the timeline is unnecessary and overly burdensome and would force carriers to divert personnel to unnecessary administrativ e and recordkeeping functions. Qantas states

that it does not see the need to single out the airline industry fo r mandatory requirements related to customer response times and that the carrier al ready aims to provide substantive responses in less than 60 days. IATA suggests that, if a dopted, any final rule s hould include a provision87 allowing an airline to stop th e clock by providing a provisional response. Lufthansa makes a similar suggestion that the Department allow for a “provisional” response to a customer’s concerns within the 60 day time frame in the even t it cannot provide a full detailed response. A number of carriers such as Virgin Atlantic also recommend that a ny final rule adopted include an exception to the time frame established to respond to complaints for extraordinary circumstances, such as the Icelandic volcano in cident, as the volume of complaints resulting from such events requires a longer response time. Some carriers generally agree with the proposal or note that they respond to consumers in a shorter time period. For example, Singapore Airlines states that it would not oppose the Department’s proposal to provide a substantive response in 60 days if complaints are limited to actual customers and flights to or from the U.S. Japan Airlines stat es that its res ponse time of 14 days surpasses the Department’s proposal a nd that it has many mediums by which passengers

can contact it. Air France notes that it tries to reply to complaints within 28 days. Virgin Atlantic states that it already has a robust complaint handling pro cess and generally replies to all written complaints within 28 da ys of receipt. Air New Zeal and states that the suggested timeframes to respond to complaints are generous. A number of carriers expressed concern regarding the definition of a complaint

. Swiss International states that complaints need to include the passenger’s name, mailing address or email address, a copy of the ticket or boarding pass and the applicable flight number. Qatar Airways generally supports the prin ciples stated in the NPRM, but states that it should only have to respond to complaints from passengers who use its service, i.e., the definition of a complaint should be limited to a difficulty or problem wh ich the person experienced when using an airline’s service. Similarly, South African Airw ays and Condor state the proposal as drafted is88 burdensome and flawed because carriers would have to respond in 60 days to both customers and anyone else that “attempted” to us e their service. They also note that the proposal fails to give carriers any discretion in refusing to respond to repetitive or frivol ous complaints. With regard to complaints received through social networking mediums, U.S. and foreign carriers and carrier associations all oppose any mandate to communicate to passengers th rough such mediums. They recommend that the definition of complaint excl ude complaints sent by passengers to carriers’

Facebook or Twitter accounts. The consumers and consumer groups that co mmented generally support requiring carriers to acknowledge and respond to co mplaints within the time fr ame set forth in the NPRM. Flyersrights.org states th at U.S. passengers should have an avenue to file a complaint with a foreign carrier and to expect a timely and substantive response. CTA states that U.S. airline customer service personnel should be responsib le for handling any foreign alliance partner complaint and believes there should be a clea r way to contact foreign carriers through the Internet or by telephone number provided on the homepage of the airline. Very few consumers or consumer groups commented on the issue of comp laints sent through social networking sites. Of those that did, AAPR states that social networ king sites are not an appropriate venue for filing complaints though it supports the requirement fo r foreign carriers to acknowledge a complaint within 30 days and send a s ubstantive response within 60 days, as does the NBTA. DOT Response: We have decided to require forei gn carriers to acknowle dge receipt of a complaint within 30 days and provide a substantiv e response to passengers within 60 days, as is currently required of U.S. carrier s. We believe that 30 days to acknowledge a complaint and 60 days to provide a passenger w ith a substantive response allo ws carriers adequate time to investigate and respond appropria tely. We are not convinced by arguments put forth by89 commenters that suggest 60 days is not enough time to provide a substantive response. We note that more than one carrier suggests that 60 days is a reasonable amount of time in which to respond. We acknowledge and agree with industry comm enters that it may not be possible in all instances to provide a final repl y to a passenger within 60 days. The rule speaks of a substantive reply, which is not necessarily a final reply. By substantive response, we mean a response that addresses the specific problems about which the consumer has complained. This type of response often but not always results in a resoluti on of the complaint. If a carrier is actively investigating a complex complaint and is not able to conclude the investigation within 60 days, it is still likely to know more at the 60-day point than it did when it acknowledged the complaint. The airline can update the compla inant with all known informati on prior to the 60-day mark by sending a substantive response, continue its inve stigation, and thereafter send the final reply later. Regarding carriers' suggestions for an ex ception for complaints co ncerning unusual events such as the Icelandic volcano, the Department believ es that such an excepti on is not necessary as many consumers complain about similar issues associated with such events (e.g., delays, cancellations) and carriers generall y create form letters in which to respond substantively to most such complaints. As for the definition of a complaint to which carriers must respond, the Department continues to believe that it is important that this definition include not just problems which a person experiences when using an airline’s serv ices but also problems encountered by a person attempting to use an airline’s services (for exam ple, if he or she had problems while attempting to book or cancel a flight on the carrier’s website ). Carriers are not required to respond to general complaints from member s of the public. We are requ iring a carrier to respond to90 complaints from individuals that had a problem when they used or attempted to use its services. As with other portions of this section, foreign air carriers are only required to respond to complaints from consumers that are related to a ca rrier’s services being ma rketed in the U.S. and its flight to or from the U.S. We are persuaded by the commenters that th e Department should not mandate that U.S. and foreign carriers respond to complaints sent th rough social networking s ites. Carriers do use such sites to invite the public to communicate with them and perhaps even to monitor public opinion about their practices. However, we can appreciate concerns th at such sites are not intended to be a mechanism for handling individu al consumer complaints. In recognition of these somewhat competing interests, the final rule makes it clear that U.S. and foreign carriers need not to respond to such complaints so long as (1) the carrier's primary page on that social networking site clearly indicates that it will not reply to compla ints filed via that medium, and (2) on that page the carrier directs the consumer to the mailing address, e-mail address, or website location for filing written complaints. The Department believes this approach takes into

account the difference between soci al networking sites and the tr aditional one-on- one methods of text communication (e.g. a letter, email, printed complaint form, or Internet complaint form) while ensuring passengers know how to file a comp laint that will result in a response from the

carrier.

6. Oversales A. Denied Boarding Compensation limits, rates, and CPI-U adjuster

The NPRM: We proposed to increase the minimum for denied boarding compensation (DBC) limits from the current amounts of $400 or $800 depending on the length of the bumped passenger's delay to $650/$1,300 to take into account fully the increase in the Consumer Price91 Index – All Urban Consumers (CPI -U) since 1978. We also proposed to implement an inflation adjuster for these minimum DBC limits. We sought comments on whether the proposed

increases in the DBC limits and th e periodic adjustment are called for and, if so, whether the

increased amounts are reasonable. We asked whet her we should completely eliminate the DBC limits and require carriers to pay DBC based on 100%/200% of a passenger’s fare without limit, and whether the current 100%/200% formula (dep ending again on the length of the bumped passenger's delay) should be increased to, fo r example, 200%/400% of a passenger’s fare.

Comments: Eighteen individuals and consumer organizations, in addition to over 60 individuals who participated on the Regulation Room websit e, provided comments on the oversales proposals. The majority of these comme nters support increasing DBC limits. Some commenters, however, oppose calculating DBC am ounts based on the passenger’s fare, arguing that it will provide carriers an incentive to bump passengers with the lowest fare. As an alternative, one individual suggests that DBC should be ba sed on a fixed amount. Another commenter suggests that D BC amounts should be based on the length of delay.

A number of individual commenters go further by sugges ting that the Department should

abandon the oversales rule and ban oversales. These commenters reason that a ticket is a contract between a passenger and a carrier and that when the car rier cannot honor the ticket, it should run a bid or auction by continuously in creasing the offer to volunteers until enough

volunteers come forward. Most commenters on Regulation Room support eliminating DBC limits though a number of these commenters support a DBC amount based on 200%/400% of the passenger’s fare instead of the current 100%/200% of the passenger’s fare. Among the few individual commenters who oppose increasing DBC limits, one commenter questions whether raising DBC limits w ould result in the reduc tion of the number of92 passengers being bumped. Another commenter states that increasing DBC limits to $650/$1,300 would only benefit passengers whose fare is more than the current limits (i.e., $400/$800 one way). One commenter is concerned about the pos sibility that in response to the raised DBC limits and amounts, carriers would increase the re quired check-in time for the purpose of being eligible for DBC. We also received comments on a variety of othe r issues. With respect to the proposed biannual adjustment on DBC amounts based on CP I-U, Consumers Union as well as several commenters on Regulation Room expr essed their full support for the proposal. FlyersRights.org suggests that we should declare it to be a deceptive practice to give boarding priority to passengers who checked in later but paid a higher fare. In a ddition, FlyersRights.org

recommends that we ask carriers to increase o ffers to passengers solicited to volunteer.

Nine U.S. carriers and carrier associations as well as 27 foreign carriers and carrier associations commented on the oversales proposa ls. ATA states that it does not oppose the proposed increase to the DBC lim its to $650/$1,300 but questions th e effectiveness of such an increase in reducing the number of passengers being involuntari ly bumped. According to ATA, increasing DBC limits may provide incentives to passengers who would have otherwise volunteered to hold out, hoping to be bumped involuntarily. AT A opposes eliminating the DBC limits, contending that DBC is meant to compensate passengers for the loss of time only, because passengers retain the value of the fare by accepting alternate transportation provided by carriers. Delta Air Lines does not oppose the proposed incr ease of DBC limits but suggests that the new DBC limits should not be applied to airfare purcha ses that occur before the effective date of the final rule. On the other hand, the Regional Ai rline Association (RAA) opposes the increase of93 DBC limits to $650/$1,300, asserting that these incr eases far exceed the costs of most regional

airfares.

Southwest Airlines asserts that the curre nt 100%/200% of one-way fare formula works well and if the Department worries about the impact of fare unbundli ng practices on the DBC value, it should require that th e carriers refund all anci llary fees in the even t of oversales, instead of raising the 100%/200% rates to 200%/400%. RAA avers th at the DBC limits should be 100%/200% of the fare, and any adjustment to DBC limits should be based on fare changes. Spirit Airlines and Virgin America both oppos e the increase of DBC limits, questioning the economic soundness of such increases. Virgin America argues that the new proposal is a departure from the hybrid calculati on method that the Department established in 2008. Virgin America also points out that in 2007 the Department rejected th e proposal to implement a CPIbased adjuster on the DBC limits. Spirit Airlines takes a similar position as Virgin America and further contends that as a result of the pr oposal, many consumers will be harmed by increased

fares due to the windfall that the new DBC proposal will provide to a small number of

passengers. The majority of foreign carriers and carrier associations oppose the proposed increase in the DBC limits to $650/$1,300. Several commenters argue that increasing DBC limits will reduce the number of passengers who volunteer to be denied boarding and in turn increase the number of passengers who are invo luntarily bumped, a re sult that is counter to the goal of the

oversales rule. Some commenters contend that the Department has failed to provide evidence showing that the current DBC amoun ts are inadequate and also fa iled to recognize that air fares have decreased in “real” terms during the past decade. IATA and several foreign carriers operating long haul international f lights to and from the U.S. raise the concern that passengers on94 those flights will most likely get the higher limit of $1,300 in an oversales situation due to the infrequent schedule, and these passengers, according the commenters, will get a windfall for their mild inconvenience. Some long haul carrier s also insist that the Department’s proposal is aimed at addressing the fare unbund ling practice by most U.S. carrier s and these foreign carriers’ bundled fares would be subject to inequitable an d discriminatory treatment under this proposal. IATA further comments that the proposed $1,300 D BC limit is disproportiona te to the value of time that a passenger denied boarding involuntar ily may lose due to the delay. The Air Transportation Association of Canada and Na tional Airline Council of Canada, on the other hand, argue that the increased DBC limits will penalize foreign carrier s operating short flights, as

these limits far exceed the cost of air fare for those flights. IACA argues that the proposal interferes with the European Union (EU) la ws and may create uncerta inty for carriers and passengers. Several European carri ers suggest that the U.S. oversales rule should be harmonized

with the EU rule. The majority of foreign carrier commen ters firmly oppose eliminating DBC limits, averring that without a limit, the DBC amounts would be exorbitant, especially for many longhaul carriers who do not unbundle fares. Virgin Atlantic and Air New Zealand prefer a fixed amount for all involuntary denied boarding situati ons, reasoning that this approach will avoid the complexity in calculating DBC amounts based on fares. Most foreign carrier commenters also oppos e the CPI-based bi-annua l adjuster, arguing that air fare changes in the past are not related to CPI. The Na tional Airlines Council of Canada argues that the proposal ignores th e fact that fares paid by passe ngers are significantly lower than what they were ten or fifteen years ago, accounti ng for the inflation. Qantas and JetStar Airways95 state that the interval for the CPI-U based adju ster should be every five years instead of two years to avoid excessive administrative costs to implement the changes. DOT Response: With respect to the DBC limits increase, we have come to the conclusion that the proposed $650/$1,300 amounts are not only reasonable but also necessary. We disagree with carriers’ remarks that the in crease in the DBC limits is a disincentive for passengers to volunteer for denied boarding and will result in an increase in the number or rate of passengers who are involuntarily denied boardin g. To the contrary, if the DBC limits are increased, carriers will have a greater incentive to seek volunteers thr ough increasing the value of the compensation they offer to volunteers in order to avoid the higher DBC payments to involuntarily bumped passengers. The ultimate resu lt is that involuntary denied boarding should decrease while both volunteers and passengers w ho must involuntarily be denied boarding will receive increased compensation that more accu rately reflects their inconvenience. Although it is our firm belief that the DBC limits at the level of $400/$800 tend to be insufficient to compensate the passengers w ho are involuntarily denied boarding for their inconvenience and loss of time, we maintain that the basic structur e of the regulatory regime for oversales remains sound. In that regard, we are declining to adopt the suggestion of some commenters that the Department should elimin ate involuntary denied boarding and require carriers to run auctions until they obtain sufficient numbers of volunteers. As we have repeatedly stated in the past, the benefits to most consumers of a well-controlled oversales system outweigh the inconvenience experienced by a few. By contrast, an unlimited auction system could increase the cost of oversales to ca rriers to a prohibitive level, which would cause

airlines to be much more conservative in overb ooking flights. Consider ing the reduced schedule frequency and capacity during recent years, such an approach would result in fewer affordable96 seats being available to the public in general. Running an unlimited auction for volunteers is both time-consuming and complex, and requiring such a system may impose other negative impacts on all passengers, such as causing mo re flight delays, increasing the number of misconnections, and requiring earlier check-in times. We are also not adopting some consumer co mmenters’ suggestion th at we should set a minimum standard for the amount of compensati on offered to passengers solicited to volunteer for denied boarding. We maintain that other than the requirement that carriers must solicit volunteers before bumping any passengers involunt arily, the procedures for solicitation of

volunteers and the amounts of incentive offered to potential volunteers should remain within

carriers’ discretion because this as pect of the system has worked well. The Department believes that the involuntary DBC rates a nd limits set by the regulation are effective tools to motivate carriers to offer adequate compensation for volunteers. This final rule also provides that carriers must pay DBC equal to 200%/400% of the fare based on the length of delay experienced by pa ssengers up to the maximum of $650/$1,300. We are unconvinced by the argument of some industr y commenters that the regulatory mandated

DBC limits should not be increased because airf ares have not increased “in real terms.” Although the “fare,” in terms of the dollar amount reflected on a passenger’s ticket confirmation or ticket receipt, may not seem to be increa sing over the past decade, the actual cost for a passenger to travel by air, however, has indeed increased. Such incr ease in air travel cost is not reflected in the base ticket prices that are us ed as the basis for calculating DBC amounts. The increase of the cost to passengers is eviden t by the fact that a passenger now must pay, in addition to the base airfare, for many items that were included in the fare before the unbundling practice became widespread, such as for ch ecked baggage, food and beverage, in-flight97 entertainment, preferred seating, advance seat sel ection, telephone reservati ons, etc. It is the Department’s view that carriers may continue to explore other ways to further unbundle fares, thus leading to base ticket pri ces staying flat or declining. The Department believes that DBC

amounts based on 100%/200% of the base fa re are no longer adequate, under many circumstances, to address the inconvenience and consequential damages suffered by passengers who are denied boarding involuntarily, especially passengers who purchased the most deeply discounted fares, and who, by virtue of the low fa res, are most likely to be selected as the candidates for involuntary denied boarding. Rea listic DBC rates are also a necessary incentive to encourage careful overbooking pr actices on the part of carriers. Precisely for these reasons, we are raising the 100%/200% rate s in the involuntary DBC calcula tion to 200%/400%. In our opinion, this new formula, in conjunction with the raised DBC limits of $650/$1,300, strikes a balance between permitting carriers to continue to overbook flights, but limiting the carriers’ financial burden from compensating passengers due to oversales, and adequately protecting passengers’ interests in oversales situations.

We are aware that the amended DBC formul a and limits may have a larger impact on carriers operating regional and international short-ha ul flights, because these flights’ base fares are lower in general than the fare s of long haul flights. RAA has argued in its comments that the

DBC amounts should be based on 100%/200% of the fare and that the $650/$1,300 limits far exceed the costs of tickets on most regional flig hts. Several Canadian carriers and carrier

associations also contended that the oversales rule as proposed unfairly discriminates against carriers operating shorter flight s by requiring the same limits of compensation depending on the length of delay, regardless of the length of the flights from which the passengers were involuntarily denied boarding. The Department has fully considered these comments but remains98 unconvinced that the consequences of our amendmen t would be detrimental to these carriers. It is important to understand that the $650/$1,300 li mits come into play only when the DBC formula would cause a passenger's DBC to exceed th e limit. To the extent the fare paid by a passenger is low, the new $650/$1,300 limits have no e ffect. Fares in th e $49-$59 range are still regularly sold and even under the 400% calcula tion formula, the DBC amounts would not even come close to the $800 limit under the previous rule. Furthermore, compared to long-haul flights that are usually less frequently scheduled, region al and low cost carriers typically have more options with regard to finding al ternate transportation in a timel y fashion for passengers who are denied boarding involuntarily. T hus, passengers on these short haul flights often have a better chance of getting to their de stination or the next stopove r without extensive delay. Consequently, regional and low co st carriers have a better chan ce of limiting their DBC exposure

to the lower rate of 200% of the fare with a $650 limit. To ensure that there isn’t any confusion as to how DBC is calculated, we have added a

definition for “fare” in section 250.1. Under this definition, carriers do not need to take into account any ancillary fees and/ or charges for optional servi ce paid by passengers when calculating DBC amounts based on th e passenger’s fare. In relati on to this definition, however, we emphasize in section 250.5 that when a passenge r is denied boarding i nvoluntarily, the carrier must refund all unused ancillary fees paid by that passenger. Carriers do not have to refund any ancillary fees that will be applied to the alternat e transportation to the extent those same services are provided to the passenger. For instance, when a passenger de nied boarding involuntarily has paid for seat selection and checked baggage for th e original flight, the passenger should receive a

refund for the seat selection fee if the alternate tran sportation arranged by the carrier does not allow the passenger to select his/her seat. Conve rsely, the carrier does not need to refund the99 checked baggage fee if the passenger was able to check in the same number of bags for the substitute flight at no additional cost. We are also clarifying the meaning of the term “minimum DBC amounts” in this final

rule as some commenters seem to be confused by the term. These commenters believe that the Department is mistaken in referring in the NPRM preamble to “minimum” DBC amounts when it should be referring to “maximum” DBC amou nts. We recognize that the source of the

confusion was the term “maximum” used in th e rule text under section 250.5. The term “minimum DBC amounts” as used in the preamble of the NPRM refers to the lowest amount of DBC that is due an involuntarily oversold pa ssenger when the DBC calculation based on the passenger's one-way fare results in an amount exceeding the DBC limits (previously $400/$800 and increased to $650/$1,300 in this Final Rule). For example, when a passenger on a domestic flight who paid $550 one-way for a non-stop fli ght is delayed for 1 hour 20 minutes due to having been involuntary denied boa rding, the initial calculation of DBC due is based on 200% of the fare, which amounts to $1,100. However, the ma ximum amount of DBC a carrier is required to pay this passenger under our ru le would be $650. We continue to use the term “maximum” in the rule text. Accordingly, in order to avoid further confusion, we have used the term “DBC

limits” instead of the term “minimum DBC amo unts” in the preamble of this final rule. With regard to an automatic inflation adjustor for DBC limits, the Department has decided to adopt the proposed bi-annual adjustment on DBC limits. In doing so, we note our disagreement with some carriers’ comments that such an adjuster is not ju stified because air fares do not reflect changes in the CPI-U. DBC is not meant to fully compensate passengers for the loss of transportation, because ca rriers are obligated to offer alternate trans portation for the passengers or refund the passengers’ fare; therefore, fare value change is not directly relevant.100 DBC is meant as a form of liquidated da mages to compensate passengers for their inconvenience, loss of time, and other incidental and consequential costs associated with the delay (e.g., food, lodging, ground transportation, co mmunication etc.). To simplify the DBC calculation and to expedite the process, the Departme nt uses a formula that is tied to the one-way airfare paid by the passenger, which does not ne cessarily mean DBC amounts should be changed according to the levels at which the average airf are has changed. We observe that the costs for food, lodging and other accommodations and comm odities passengers need in an oversales

situation have all increa sed in correlation with inflation. In addition, as noted in the NPRM and further discussed above, the actual total cost of flying is likely to have increased, while what is commonly referred to as the ‘‘fare’ ’ may not have increased or incr eased as much as a result of the carriers’ current practice of unbundling fares, i.e., charging extra for services once provided as part of the airfare. Our decision to adopt the bi-annual inflation adju stment provision for DBC limits is also not contradictory to our decision made two years ago that we would take up the

issue de novo. We have indeed taken a fresh look at the issue during this rulemaking and ultimately reached the conclusion that the bi-annual inflation adjustment is the most efficient way to address the impact of infl ation on the DBC limits. We are also addressing the issue of airline travel vouchers vis-à-vis DBC in this final rule. Carriers frequently offer free or reduced-ra te air transportation, most commonly in the form of airline travel vouchers, to pa ssengers denied boarding involuntar ily as an alternative to the cash or check DBC payment required by our rule. Ou r previous rule requir ed that the value of such a voucher must be equal to or greater than the cash or check DBC payment otherwise required. One issue we did not address in the prev ious rule is whether an y mandatory fees, such as service fees, that some carriers charge fo r using the voucher should be taken into account101 when considering the value of th e benefit of the voucher offered. In this final rule, we clarify that any fees that passengers must pay in order to use the voucher for fu ture travel must be considered when determining the value of the v oucher. For instance, if the cash or check DBC payment for a passenger involuntarily denied boarding is required to be $400 under the 200%/400% calculation, and the passenger agrees to accept a travel voucher in lieu of that cash or check payment and there is a service fee of $50 to redeem the voucher, the minimum voucher

value that the carrier must offe r to the passenger is $450. The carrier must inform passengers, whether volunteers or involuntarily oversold, of any restrictions imposed on the use of the voucher. In addition, as described in detail below, it is unfair and deceptive for a carrier to offer a travel voucher as compensati on, particularly in an oversale situation, without advising the person to whom the voucher is offered of any re strictions that may a pply to the use of the voucher, such as service fees to redeem th e voucher, and advance notice requirements or expiration dates. Finally, we have made non- substantive revisions to the text of sections 250.5 and 250.9 in order to provide the most straightforward explanations of the methodology applicable under different circumstances for calculating DBC amount s. In a counterintuit ive way, the previous

rule describes the maximum DBC rate (200% at that time) and then states the circumstances under which the DBC amount will be reduced by ha lf. We have encountered confusion on the part of both carriers and the public regarding this somewhat convolut ed description. In this final rule, we discuss the DBC calculation for domestic f lights and for internationa l flights separately. In each category, we specify the amounts of DBC required under each of the three circumstances based on the length of delays incurred by a passe nger using alternate tran sportation due to the involuntary denied boarding: no compensation; 200% of the fare subject to the $650 limit; and102 400% of fare subject to the $1,300 limit. These categories and classifica tions are summarized in

the two tables that we added in the written not ice that carriers must provide to passengers who are denied boarding invol untarily and to anyone else upon request. These tables are meant to be used by carriers as a quick reference to assist bumped passengers so they can better understand

the DBC limits and calculations wh en those passengers may be c onfused and under time pressure during an involuntary bu mping situation.

We have also added a definition for “alternat e transportation” in se ction 250.1 to capture the two components of this term. The first com ponent is what was described as “comparable air transportation” under the previous rule. In or der to qualify as “alternate transportation” and consequently allow the carrier to limit its D BC exposure to less than the 400% rate, any air transportation offered to passengers involuntarily denied boarding as a substitute for the original flight must be operated by a carrier as defined in Part 250, i.e., a U.S. certificated or commuter air carrier or a foreign carrier that has been duly authorized by the Department to operate scheduled air services. Thus, if the carrier offered a substitute flight operated by an air taxi operator that is not a commuter carri er, that flight would not qualify as “alternate transportation.” Furthermore, in order to qualif y as "alternate transportation" carriers must offer a confirmed

reservation on that alte rnative flight. The second component of the concept of “alternate transportation” includes non-air tr ansportation (such as bus, rail, or taxi) and ai r transportation

that does not meet the definition above of “alternate transportation” arranged by the carrier. In order for these modes of transpor tation to qualify as “alternate tr ansportation,” the carrier must obtain the passenger’s consent that the passenger will accept the proposed form of transportation in lieu of air transportation. To further e xplain the concept and a pplication of “alternate transportation,” we emphasize that carriers are free to offer substitute transportation that does not103 meet the definition of "alternate tran sportation" in this rule (e.g., a flight on an air taxi that is not a commuter carrier, transportation on a scheduled flight without a confirmed reservation, or on a charter flight, or surface transp ortation), but the bumped passenge r has "veto rights" over such arrangements. If the bumped passenger declines th is "non-alternate" trans portation, he or she is

due DBC at the 400% rate because the carrier did not offer "alternate tran sportation" as defined in section 250.1. However, if the passenger ch ooses to accept the carrier-offered transportation that does not qualify as “alternate transportation,” the carrier is free to avail itself of the lower 200% DBC rate in the case of rerouting within 2/4 hours, and need not pay DBC at all if the nonalternate transportation accepted by the passenger w ill arrive at the passenger's destination less than one hour after the planned arrival time of the passenger's original flight. The passenger has no such veto right over "alternat e transportation." If the carrier offers alternate transportation and the passenger declines it, the carrier is still free to limit D BC to 200% or zero as applicable. Also in section 250.1, we have deleted the de finitions for “sum of the values of the remaining flight coupons” and “comparable air tr ansportation” as these terms are no longer used

in the rule text.

B. Zero Fare Tickets

The NPRM: We proposed to clarify in the rule te xt that DBC must be offered to “zero

fare ticket” holders who are invo luntarily denied board ing. We asked the public to comment on whether these passengers should be protected by the oversales rule, and whether the proposed

calculation method for their DBC amounts is reas onable (i.e., the “passenger fare” for purposes of DBC would be the fare of the lowest priced tic ket paid for a comparable class of ticket on the same flight). We also invited the public to s uggest any alternative met hod of establishing denied boarding compensation for zero fa re ticket holders, including wh ether we should allow carriers104 to compensate these passengers using the sa me “currency” (e.g., frequent flyer miles or vouchers) in which the tickets were obtained.

Comments: The individual and consumer organi zation commenters generally support affording zero fare ticket holders who are involu ntarily denied boarding the same protection and rights as passengers with other tickets. Regarding the form of compensation, some commenters suggest that compensation may be in the same form of “currency” as that was used in acquiring the tickets; others are in suppor t of the Department’s proposal, i.e., providing zero fare tickets holders DBC in the form of cash or check based on the lowest fare paid for a ticket on the same flight for a comparable class of service. So me commenters support payment in either form. The majority of the industry commenters do not oppose applying th e oversales rule to

zero fare ticket holders who are involuntarily denied boarding. However, these commenters are

adamant that zero fare tickets covered under th e oversales rule should not include non-revenue tickets such as airline employee passes. With respect to the fo rm of DBC payment to zero fare ticket holders, several commenters are in support of compensating those passengers in the same form of “currency” that they used to acquire the tickets. ATA state that carriers should have the discretion to pay DBC in the same form of “currency,” in travel vouchers, in cash/check, or in any combination thereof. ATA reasons that a mandatory cash payment requirement would create problems for carriers because gate agents cannot assign a cash value to the passenger’s fare as they do not have information on the lowest comparab le fare sold on the same flight. On similar grounds, the National Airlines Counc il of Canada avers that it is virtually impossible to figure

out the value of a ticket in the co mparable class of service “on the spot” as it is subject to a wide range of variables.105 JAL opposes the inclusion of zero fare ticket holders under the oversales rule, stating that

it should be left to a carriers’ co mmercial judgment as to whether to compensate zero fare ticket holders; JAL further states that the Department should not assume that carriers’ decisions would be adverse to passengers’ interests. Also in opposition to the proposal , South African Airways states that such a requirement would drastically reduce the carriers’ abi lity to offer zero fare

tickets. DOT Response: The majority of commenters from both consumer and industry representatives seem to agree that certain types of zero fare tick et holders should be compensated when they are denied boarding involuntarily in an oversale situation. The Department agrees with most industry commenters that compensa ble zero fare tickets should exclude “nonrevenue” tickets as that term has traditionally been used in the industry. In that regard, we have

added a definition in the final rule that defines “ zero fare tickets” to cover only tickets acquired with frequent flyer miles and airline travel vouche rs, as well as consolid ator tickets that are purchased with money but do not display a dollar amount on the ticket. In our view and the view of most commenters, zero fare ticket hold ers provided something of value in exchange for their air transportati on and when they are bumped, they should be compensated. The Department also wishes to point out that, for most non-revenue tic kets such as airline employee and employee family travel vouchers, the terms and conditions accompanying these tickets have already explicitly excluded them from any comp ensation for involuntarily denied boarding. We

note that under the definition of “zero fare tic ket,” a passenger who paid a nominal monetary amount in connection with a ticket may still qualify as a zero fare ticket holder. Therefore, a carrier must in those cases treat a passenger as a zero fare ticketholder even if the passenger’s

fare is not “zero” in a litera l sense, e.g., where the passenger ha s paid by cash or credit card the106 requisite taxes or “processing f ees” and “service fees” for the re demption of travel vouchers or frequent flyer miles. On the other hand, if a pa ssenger has paid substantial monetary value for the air transportation, e.g., paid cash for an economy class seat and used frequent flyer miles to upgrade to a business class seat, th is passenger should not be treated as a zero fare ticket holder if bumped from the flight and the amount of DBC the passenger receives should be based on the economy class fare paid by that passenger. Ho wever, the carrier must credit the amount of frequent flyer miles used for an upgrade back to the passenger’s acc ount if any substitute transportation provided is not in th e class of service that he or sh e used the frequent-flyer miles to acquire. With respect to th e form of DBC for zero fare ticket holders, some consumer commenters urge the Department to require all DBC to be paid in cash or check while many industry commenters either oppose paying DBC to zero fare ticket holders or at a minimum, argue that the Department should allow those pa ssengers to be compensated by means other than cash or check. The Department has fully evalua ted the reasons presented by the carriers for why we should not mandate cash or check DBC payments to zero fare ticket holders, but we have decided to apply the same DBC standard by requir ing carriers to offer DBC to these passengers

in the form of cash or check. DBC in non-moneta ry forms such as frequent flyer miles would not compensate a passenger for food, lodging and ot her expenses that may be associated with delays caused by the denied boarding. Furtherm ore, we reject some commenters’ notion that requiring carriers to pay cash to these passengers may result in harm to consumers, such as making frequent flyer tickets more expensive and restrictive for consumer s. We note that under section 250.5(c), carriers may offe r free or reduced rate air tran sportation to any involuntarily bumped passengers, including zero fare ticket holder s, in lieu of cash payment. Carriers should107 not assume that zero fare ticket holders woul d almost always opt to receive cash or check compensation, as the cash or check DBC amount is ca lculated with the lowest comparable fare as the base amount. We also disagree with some carriers’ suggestion th at procedurally paying DBC in cash or by check based on the lowest comp arable fare is unworkable because the gate agents may not have the lowest fare informati on “on the spot.” Just as is permitted for DBC payment to passengers who purchas ed their tickets with money, carriers are being afforded up to 24 hours after the involuntary denied boarding oc curred to tender a check to the affected passengers. We believe the 24-hour window is sufficient for the ca rriers to obtain necessary fare information and calculate the appropriate DBC amount for the zero fare ticket holders. In calculating the DBC amounts for zero fare tick et holders, we clarify in the rule text as well as here that the applicable lowest comparable fare paid by cash, check, or credit card refers

to the fare in the same class of service as th e zero fare ticket. By adding a new definition for “class of service,” we explain that we are referr ing to the lowest fare within the same service class or cabin such as first class, busine ss class, economy/coach class, or economy plus (premium economy) class. For instance, when a passenger holding a zero fare ticket in economy plus class is bumped, as the ba se fare for DBC calculation purpos es, the carrier should identify the lowest fare paid by cash, chec k, or credit card in the economy pl us class on that flight, not the economy class. C. Disclosure requirements

The NPRM: In the NPRM we proposed to require that (1) carriers offer cash/check DBC options verbally if they verbally offer a travel voucher as DBC to passengers who are involuntarily denied boarding, and (2) carriers inform passengers solicited to volunteer for denied boarding about their principa l boarding priority rules applicab le to that specific flight, the108 availability of alternate tran sportation, and all material re strictions on the use of any transportation vouchers that may be offered as compensation for giving up the passenger's

reservation. We asked whether th ere are any other forms of disclosure that may better inform passengers being solicited to volunteer or those i nvoluntarily bumped of their rights and carriers’ obligations.

Comments: Most consumer advocacy groups and associations support imposing more disclosure rules regarding oversal es. CTA proposes more disclosure to passengers solicited as volunteers, such as informing them of the overs ales rule in writing and orally prior to the negotiation, and providing them information on wh ether they will receive confirmed seats and when they are expected to arrive at the de stination on the alternative flight. CTA also recommends that carriers provide their boarding priority rules to the passengers when soliciting volunteers. FlyersRights.org sugge sts that carriers should be requi red to publish their principal boarding priority rules on their websites and info rm passengers of their risks of being bumped before ticket sales. Comments posted on the website of Regulation Room generally support our proposal of requiring carriers to verbally inform passengers of the cash or check option for DBC payment if carriers verbally offe r these passengers travel vouchers as DBC. These commenters also support the proposal that bo th passengers solicited as vol unteers and passengers denied boarding involuntarily should be clearly informed of their options, the amount of compensation they can receive, and details of alternative flights. They also recommend enhancing disclosures regarding oversales prior to and at the time of ticket sales, such as requiring carriers to ask whether a passenger is willing to be bumped at the time of making the reservation and to provide notice to all passengers 24 hours before the departure if the flight is oversold.109 ASTA supports the idea of disclosing overs ales rule at the time of ticket purchase and advising passengers of the risk involved if they do not secure a seat assignment. ASTA also recommends that carriers be prohibited from “gaming the system” by making it impossible to obtain seat assignments. ASTA points out that all disclosures regarding oversales should be made earlier because providing an explanation to pa ssengers at the gate is time consuming and it may create chaos and passenger confusion.

Most carrier and carrier association commenters oppos e all the proposed verbal disclosure requirements. These commenters ar e generally concerned about the additional time they assert would be needed for gate agents to comply with the various verbal notification requirements, arguing that these requirements would impose hardship on the agents who are under time pressure to board passengers and close out the flight. These commenters also contend

that this information is available in the written notice and assert that ve rbal notification is not necessary and may be hard to enforce. Some carrier s also point out that if the gate agents are not familiar with the oversales rule, verbal notificat ion may result in inaccurate or incomplete information being passed on to consum ers, causing further confusion. DOT Response: As we have stated in the NPRM, we believe disclosure in an oversales situation is essential for the passengers to fu lly understand their right s and options. After thoroughly evaluating all the comm ents, we have decided to a dopt some but not all of our proposals in this regard. We will discuss each proposal individually. With respect to the requirement that carri ers must verbally offer the cash option when they verbally advise passengers bumped involuntari ly that a carrier voucher as a form of DBC is available, we have reached the conclusion that this requirement is in fact critical to ensuring that passengers are fully informed when they are give n the opportunity to choose what form of DBC110 they are willing to take. Alt hough the cash option is clearly stat ed in the written notice that carriers are required to provide to passengers denied boarding i nvoluntarily, it is likely that due to the time pressure and occasional confusion associated with involuntarily denied boarding, passengers may not have the opportunity to fully review the written notice before they choose the form of DBC that they are willing to accept. Thus, it is the Department’s view that when carriers verbally offer a voucher option but om it (either inadvertently or intentionally) mentioning the cash option, it is unfair and de ceptive to the passengers. Furthermore we consider that to the extent carriers are willing to explain to passengers their option of receiving carrier vouchers as DBC payment, the additiona l time needed to add a few words about the cash/check option should not be substantial. In any event, if carriers are concerned about the additional time needed to verbally inform passe ngers of all options, it is permissible to not verbally advise passengers of DBC options at al l. They can simply hand the passengers a written

notice. On similar grounds we have decided to adopt the proposed requirement that carriers must disclose any material restrictio ns on airline travel vouchers o ffered to both passengers solicited to be volunteers and passengers denied boardi ng involuntarily. Some ca rriers argue that the process of informing passengers is too time-c onsuming. The Department disagrees although we note that the more time-consuming such a notice is, the more restrictions must apply to the voucher, necessitating more than ev er that notice of such restrict ions be provided. To provide a brief summary covering all the mate rial restrictions on vouchers s hould not take more than a few moments. For example, when the carrier announces at the gate that it needs volunteers who will receive a roundtrip voucher for any destination within th e continental U.S., to add a description

of conditions on the use of vouchers such as “t he vouchers are not transferrable, subject to111 certain blackout dates and servic e charges and will expire after two years...” would not require more than a few moments, and carriers may enc ourage anyone who wants to learn more details to speak to the gate agent direct ly. Typical examples of material restrictions and conditions are expiration dates, blackout dates, advance booking requirements, transferability restrictions, administrative fees and flight choi ce restrictions. We emphasize that this is not an exhaustive list and by the term “material” we refer to all the re strictions and conditions that might reasonably be expected to affect a passe nger’s decision regarding whethe r to accept the voucher. Since the substance of any re strictions and conditions on th e airline vouchers varies by carrier and is not incorporat ed in the general written not ice mandated by section 250.9, we require that any verbal offer of a travel voucher by carriers, ei ther to passengers solicited to volunteer or to passengers denied boarding i nvoluntarily, must be accompanied by a verbal explanation of any material rest rictions and conditions imposed on that voucher. In the event

carriers make a written offer of travel vouchers , but no verbal offer, carriers should provide a written explanation of the rest rictions and conditions on travel vouchers, along with the general written notice required by section 250.9. In adopting these disclosure requirements, we clarify that we do not intend to require carriers to give every passenger who is in danger of being denied boarding involuntarily a “personal presentation” of their ri ghts. The Department’s goal is to ensure that when carriers opt to verbally provide any information to the pa ssengers, the information is not presented in a misleading manner regarding any material terms. In the NPRM, we also proposed to require carriers to inform pa ssengers solicited to volunteer of their principal board ing priority rules and the availability of comparable air transportation. Our intention in proposing thes e two requirements was to provide passengers112 more information upon which they would be able to determine whether vol unteering to give up

their confirmed reservations would be in their best interests. After considering all the comments in this regard, we are convinced that these proposals, as well as some other disclosure measures not proposed by us but recommended by consumer commenters, may not achieve the expected goal. Although we disagree with some carriers’ comments that providing such information will only assist some passengers to “game” the system to the detriment of the majority of other passengers, we note that providing such informati on at the gate is time consuming and carriers’ principal boarding priority rules can be found in the written notice prescribed in section 250.9, as

well as on most carriers’ websites and/or in the contracts of carriage. We conclude that the burden on carriers of verbally providing such in formation at the boardin g gates outweighs the benefits. Furthermore, we reject some comment ers’ suggestions that all passengers should be informed of the carriers’ princi pal boarding priority rules and wh ether a particular flight was oversold at the time they make their reservations . We note that oversales might not occur until close to the departure time or date and, due to no-shows, many overbooked flights will not be oversold on the day of departure. We believe re quiring carriers to prov ide these two types of information through their reserv ation systems may not be beneficial to consumers yet will increase the operational costs of carriers, depress revenues and limit seat availability. These costs and restrictions ultimately will be borne by the consumers. Related to the boarding priority rule disclo sure proposal, FlyersRights.org and some other consumer commenters also suggested that we sh ould not allow carriers to set their boarding priority rules based on the amounts of passengers’ fa res. FlyersRights.org went further to urge the Department to declare that bumping a passenger who checked in earlie r but who paid a lower fare is an unfair and deceptive practice. We cannot agree. With the exception of unlawful113 discrimination, the Department has traditionally a llowed carriers extensive fl exibility to set their boarding priority rules based on several criter ia, including passengers’ fares. We believe affording carriers such flexibility is an important marketplace tool and permits carriers to proactively control the costs of oversales so they are able to continue to offer the maximum

numbers of seats to the traveli ng public. It makes perfect sense th at passengers who pay more for a ticket to get the last available seat and the right to obtain a full refund also want to be assured that they will be the last pe rson to be bumped from an ove rsold flight. We do agree that passengers seeking the lowest fare on a flight are most likely budget-c onscious consumers and are most likely to be the ones bumped by some carri ers. In this final rule, we have adopted provisions to increase the DBC limits and rate s based on the passengers’ fare which should help

them. With respect to the proposal to require di sclosure of the availability of alternate transportation at the time of volunteer solicitation, we have come to the conclusion that such a requirement is unworkable under most circumstances. The availability of alternate transportation is a fluid issue and is subject to many variables. Due to these variables, what carriers may offer

at the time of volunteer solicitati on could change by the time th e alternate transportation is provided to the volunteer. Should such change occur, the expectation created by the earlier information may cause passengers further confusi on and frustration. Thus, we are not going to require such information to be provided at the time of volunteer solicitation.

D. Covered Entities and Other Miscellaneous Issues

The NPRM: The oversales rule currently cove rs scheduled passenger service using

aircraft with 30 or more seats. We solicited comments on whethe r the oversales rule should be114 expanded, either in its entirety or partially, to cover scheduled se rvices using aircraft with 19-29

seats and whether we should allow these flights to be oversold at all.

Comments : CTA believes that the oversales rule should apply to all flights of major carriers, regardless of the size of the aircraft. Comments fr om RegulationsRoom.org generally support applying the oversales rule to all aircraft sizes. Some of these commenters urge the Department to ban oversales on small aircraft, arguing that being bumped from those flights is more disruptive and costly to passengers. ASTA supports extending the oversales rule to aircraft with 19-29 seats, stating that involuntar y denied boarding on shor t-haul flights operated by small aircraft has drastic e ffects on passengers who are connec ting to long-haul flights and these passengers are often surpri sed after being bumped to discover they have no protection from the Department’s oversales rule. On the carriers’ side, ATA supports ma intaining the status quo, i.e., allowing overbooking on flights operated with aircraft with 19-29 seats and not applying the oversales rule to these flights. ATA argues that banning oversales on these flights will threaten the existence of small community air services and imposing the oversales rule on these flights would be too costly to carriers. RAA also opposes banning ov ersales on regional flight s, arguing that such a ban would eliminate the ability of carriers to se rve small communities, as carriers would not be able to bear the costs of running flights with empty seats. RAA also contends that the denied boarding risk is low on regional flights operated by small aircraft because regional carriers’ load factors lag behind large aircraft operators. DOT Response: The Department has been persua ded that it should not extend the oversales rule to flights operated with aircraft wi th 19-29 seats. Aircraft of this size make up a small and diminishing portion of scheduled-service operations, particularly in the case of the115 code-share partners that were the predicate for this proposal. After being bumped from a shorthaul segment, the cost of paying DBC based on the fare to a passenger’ s downline destination — up to 400% of the fare and $1,300 under the final ru le — would be an unreasonable burden for operators of 19-29-seat aircraft. These carriers are most likely to be the very small entities to which the Regulatory Flexibility Act requires federa l agencies to afford special consideration in rulemaking. Based on similar rationale, we have also decided that it is not in the best interests of the public to ban oversales on these flights becau se doing so will further reduce the capacity of flights serving smaller airports and communities and cause price increases. Although not proposed in the NPRM, there ar e several issues raised by the commenters that the Department feels it is important to ad dress in order to clarif y what appears to be

confusion associated with the oversales rule. Fi rst, several foreign carriers urge the Department

to harmonize its oversales rule with the rules of other jurisdictions , such as the European Union. The Department agrees in principle that the U.S. oversales rule should not conflict with the rules of other jurisdictions. The Department has work ed diligently to that end, and sees no direct

conflict between our oversales rule and the rules of other jurisdic tions. We disagree with some commenters’ claim that the rule as proposed and finalized here will cause confusion among carrier staff and passengers. With respect to both domestic and internat ional flights, the U.S. rule applies only to denied boardin gs that occur at a U.S. airpor t, a relatively straightforward applicability standard that is similar to the approa ch taken in the EU oversal es rule for flights of non-EU carriers. Thus, passengers ar e clear that when they are deni ed boarding at a U.S. airport, the U.S. oversales rule applies. The carriers have the responsibility to tr ain their staffs to be familiar with rules of the jurisdictions to and from which they operate. We note that the EU oversales rule has an exception for denied boardings that are subject to compensation116 requirements of other jurisdictions. To the extent that flights of EU carriers from the U.S. to an EU state may also be subject to the EU oversales rule, those carri ers should be able to comply with both the U.S. and EU rules (e.g., by payi ng the higher compensation amount if the required amounts differ). CTA and FlyersRights.org both suggest that the Department should not exempt carriers from complying with the oversales rule when the involuntary denied boarding is caused by an equipment change due to factor s that are within carriers’ c ontrol, e.g., crew schedule or maintenance issues. We have carefully examined this suggestion but are not convinced that this proposal is consistent with th e underlying rationale of our overs ales rule. The Department’s longstanding policy of exempting carriers fr om paying DBC when an involuntary denied boarding was caused by equipment change is base d on the grounds that in this situation, the resulting denied boardings we re not caused by overbooking, a prac tice that absent compensation is fundamentally unfair to the passengers who have paid for confirmed seats but are not permitted to board the flight because their promised seat was sold to another person. Accordingly, we will not change our rule invol ving oversales that result from substitution of equipment of lesser capacity. Also raised by several foreign carriers is th e issue of an alternativ e to “cash” payment of DBC. These carriers are under the impression that in order to comply with our rule, they must keep a large amount of cash (cur rency) at the U.S. airports th ey serve for the purpose of making cash payments to passengers denied boarding invo luntarily. These carrier s assert that such a

cash reserve at their stations in U.S. air ports, many of which are staffed by third-party contractors, imposes security concerns. Thus, th ese carriers urge the Depa rtment to allow them to tender DBC payments to passengers in the form of a debit card or other forms of electronic117 funds. The Department wishes to clarify that under our rule, carriers are permitted to tender a check, in lieu of cash payment, to passengers de nied boarding involuntarily, and to do so up to 24 hours after the denied boarding occurred. Th e check may be mailed to the address that a passenger has provided. Therefore, it is not required that carriers maintain large amounts of cash at airports. We acknowledge the convenience and security featur es offered by electronic funds, but have not had the opportunity to fully exam ine the benefits and limitations of using this procedure as an alternative to cash/check DBC payments in this rulemaking proceeding. We may further explore this issu e in future rulemaking. Finally, we have decided not to adopt Delta ’s recommendation that the revised oversales rule should be applied only to tickets purchased on or after the effective da te of the final rule. Such application would inevitably result in th e situation where passenge rs bumped from the same flight will be subject to different rules. Additional delays may occur at the boarding gates when the gate agents have to spend additional time to determine the purchase dates of the tickets in order to determine which rule applies. Fo r this reason, we will require that all denied boardings and other DBC-related processes cove red by this rule that occur on or after the effective date of the final rule must comply with the new rule, regardless of the transaction dates

of the ticket sales.

We note that this final rule also includes a technical amendment c oncerning reporting of oversales. We are correcting a technical inconsis tency in the oversales re porting requirements in

section 250.10. One sentence in that section st ates “The reporting basis shall be flights originating or terminating at or serving, a point within the United States.” The last sentence of that section reads: “No reports need be filed for inbound inte rnational flights on which the protections of this part do not apply.” Apparently, when the rule was amended many years ago118 to remove applicability to inte rnational flights inbound to the Un ited States, the second sentence quoted above was added but the firs t sentence was not revised to re move the reference to flights "terminating in” or “serving a point within” the United States. The intent and the practice has

been not to include internationa l flights that termin ate in the U.S. (i.e ., inbound international flights) in these Form 251 data. This has been cl ear in paragraphs (A) and (E) in the instructions to the form (see http://www.bts.gov/program s/airline_information/forms/pdf/form_251.pdf ). We are not aware of any instances in which data for inbound international flights have been inadvertently included in Form 251 reports. 7. Full Fare Advertising A. Change in Enforcement Policy

The NPRM: The Department’s price advertisi ng rule (14 CFR 399.84) states that any advertised price for air transporta tion, an air tour or an air tour component must be the entire price to be paid by the customer for that transportation, tour or tour component. However, the Department’s enforcement policy with regard to this rule has permitted sellers of air transportation to state separately from the adve rtised price government- imposed taxes and fees, provided that they are not ad valorem in natu re, are collected by th e seller on a per-passenger basis, and their existence and amount are clearly indicated in the advertisement so that the consumer can determine the full price to be pai d. The Department has pr ohibited sellers of air transportation from breaking out any other seller imposed fees, including fuel surcharges and service fees, and taxes imposed on an ad valorem basis. In the NPRM, the Department proposed enforcing the price adverting rule as it is written. This proposal would change the existing enforcement policy by ending the practice of permitting sellers to exclude government taxe s and fees from the advertised price, and would instead require119 that the price advertised include all mandatory fees. The Department invited comments on how sellers of air transportation foresee this change in enforcement policy affecting the methods they

use to advertise fares and how consumers view the change. The Department also requested comment on the potential cost of changing the current advertising structures that carriers and ticket agents have in plac e in order to adhere to the proposed policy shift.

Comments: Individuals and consumer organizations such as Fl yersrights.org, in addition to individuals who participated on Regulation Room, support the proposal that advertisements for air transportation state the total price to be paid by the consumer. Some commenters participating in discussions through Regulation Ro om reported that there were occasions when they thought they were going to pay one price fo r air transportation, but th e final price was much higher due to additional taxes and fees. Regulation Room commenters also stated that the current advertising method borders on bait -and-switch tactics. Some i ndividual commenters expressed similar sentiments, noting how they have been surp rised by the total amount to be paid at the end of a purchase online and their pr eference to know the total amount to be paid earlier. Some consumers and consumer groups go further by su ggesting that the Department should require that the true cost of travel, in cluding ancillary fees, be disclosed earlier in the booking process. For example, CTA states that even if the price advertising rule requires the disclosure of all mandatory fees, consumers may still have trouble finding out the true cost of travel due to the proliferation of many kinds of anc illary fees for optional services. U.S. carriers and carrier associations ge nerally oppose the Department changing its enforcement policy to enforce the full price adve rtising rule as written. ATA states that its members support fare transparency, but notes that the Department d eclined to revise its full-fare rule four years ago and contends that the airfare adve rtising landscape has not changed since that120 time in a manner that would justify a change in 25 years of enforcement policy. ATA notes that

several other industries advertise without in cluding government-imposed taxes and fees, and states that the air transp ortation industry should not be treated differently. It asserts that this policy shift would suppress valuab le information to consumers about how much of their total price consists of government-imposed taxes and fees. In addition, ATA argues that this policy shift would negatively impact competition becau se government-imposed taxes and fees vary from airport to airport and routi ng to routing. ATA contends that this means that an airline that has a competitive fare, but also has a routing that subjects the fare to higher taxes and fees, will be disadvantaged if it is required to include thos e taxes and fees in the advertised price. It remarks that this could negatively impact service to smaller communities. ATA also raised concerns about the cost implica tions of the proposal, because the proposal would require airlines to perform additional route pricing analysis, programming changes, website changes, and auditing and testing of changes. Many U. S. carriers raise sim ilar points. The views of foreign carriers and associat ions varied, with many opposing the proposed

mandate that the advertised fare be the full fare to be paid by the customer but some supporting

it. IATA believes that there is no evidence of widespread ad vertising decepti on to justify a change in the Department’s enforcement policy. Additionally IATA notes th at the complexity of non-airline charges makes listing a full fare with “all mandatory fees” difficult, and would only confuse air travel consumers because this comple xity prevents a true fare comparison as the actual fare is obscured by the additional governme nt-imposed taxes and fees. IATA also notes that passengers are made fully aware of the pur chase price before purchase. Most foreign airlines support IATA’s comment s. Some foreign carriers, such as Singapore Airlines, Qatar Airways, and Jetstar Airways, support the proposed mandate that advertisements state the total121 price to be paid by the consumer. Many of these airlines state that they already advertise the total price to be paid by consumers due to regu lations of other government s. Some foreign carriers expressed concerns about th e applicability of this rule to advertisements on websites that

are not domiciled in the United States or directed to United States customers. Among other industry interests that commen ted, ASTA and ITSA support this policy

shift and note that full fare disclosure is th e best way to eliminate passenger confusion and ensure that passengers understand th e total cost of their air travel. ASTA asserts that the full fare displayed in advertisements shoul d include all mandatory fees, regardless of their source. The United States Tour Operators Association (UST OA) disagrees and states that the proposed change will place costly burdens on travel agen ts while doing very little to ease customer confusion in airline pricing. USTOA contends, as does ATA and many U.S. airlines, that ending the practice of permitting sellers to exclude government taxes and fees from the advertised price is not justified because the airf are advertising landscape has not changed since the Department last declined to revise the full-fare advertising rule. USTOA states that tour operators would be especially negatively affected by this shift in policy because government-imposed fees vary widely depending on where the consumers choose to start their trip, and th erefore a tour operator

would not be able to advertise a tour effectively since the purch aser usually has the option of a number of gateways. DOT Response: The Department has decided to a dopt the proposed policy change in

relation to the full-fare advertis ing rule. We disagree with comme nts that the Department has not shown true harm to consumers in not having th e full price quoted to them up front. On the contrary, comments from indivi dual commenters and persons part icipating in Regulation Room show consumers feel deceived when the total price, including taxes and fees, is not quoted to122 them after an initial fare inquiry. Many consum ers feel that advertis ing fares that exclude mandatory charges is a “bait and switch” tactic by travel sellers. The Department has also received complaints regarding fare advertising, some of whic h specifically mention feeling deceived when they are not quoted the full pri ce to be paid after an initial inquiry. Also, contrary to the assertions of some co mmenters, the Department has seen changes in the advertising methods used by sellers of air tr ansportation since the Department declined to

revise its full-fare rule in 2006. Sellers are now marketing air tr ansportation through a variety of methods that they were not usi ng then. For example, some carri ers have started to sell tickets through Facebook and some have Twitter feeds dedica ted solely to advertising sale fares. Additionally, in recent years, carriers are increasingly unbundling the cost of air travel, which further obscures the total fare to be paid by th e consumer. Carriers and online travel agencies have also started to offer more complicated r outings with multiple connections in order to provide the “lowest” airfare to consumers. However, with thes e changes in routings, taxes and fees can increase and become a significant portion of the price to be paid by consumers. In those cases, consumers need a full picture of the total pr ice to be paid in order to compare fares and routings. In order to understand the true cost of travel, consumer s need to be able to see the entire price they need to pay to get to their destination the firs t time the airfare is presented to

them. We also are not persuaded by argument that the Department should not require that the advertised price for air transportation, a tour or tour component be the total price to be paid by the customer for that transporta tion, tour or tour component b ecause other industries advertise without including government-imposed taxes and fees. Airfares ar e different from products in other industries for a variety of reasons, includ ing the multitude of methods of advertising that123 sellers of air transportation employ and the vari ous taxes and government fees that apply. We believe that consumers are deceived when pres ented with fares that do not include numerous required charges and, in our view , air travelers will be better ab le to make price comparisons when they can see the entire price of the air transportation, tour or tour component being advertised. The advertised fare under this po licy shift must include all government-imposed

taxes and fees as well as mandato ry carrier-imposed charges, in cluding booking fees if the only way the consumer can obtain the air transportatio n is by paying the booking fee. While a carrier or ticket agent generally is not required to includ e a booking fee in its advert ised fare if there are other means for the passenger to obtain the air transportation (e.g., a booking fee only applies for tickets that are purchased over the telephone), where airfares ar e advertised via an Internet site that permits consumers to purchase fares, the fare s advertised on the site must include all charges required to make the purchase on the site. For ex ample, it would be unfai r and deceptive to hold

out on such an Internet site a fare that can be purchased only at airport ticket counters but that

excludes a convenience fee that is applied to Internet sales. In regard to the costs related to this change, online travel agencies that will face many of the same marketing and programming challenges as carriers do, if not more, feel that the operational costs of adhering to the rule will be overly burdensome. Sellers of air transportation are constantly updating their fare matrices and the methods by wh ich they display fares. In addition, we believe many carriers may already have programs in place to accommodate this policy shift, as some foreign gove rnmental entities such as Au stralia and the European Union already require the total price to be shown to consumers. We not e also that the requirement for advertisements to state the total price is limite d to advertisements published in the United States, including via the Internet if accessible in the U.S. Further, recognizing the amount of print124 advertising slated for use by tour operators that would need to be pulled thereby increasing costs of print advertising revision, we have decided th at the new full fare adverting requirements will not take effect until 180 days after the publication of this final rule in the Federal Register. This

should reduce the costs related to this requirement. Some airlines were concerned that passenge rs would not know how much of their total price consists of government imposed taxes and f ees. We want to assure these carriers that nothing in this rule prohibits th em from making this information available to consumers. This

final rule allows carriers to a dvise the public in their fare so licitations about government taxes and fees, or other mandatory carrie r or ticket agent imposed charges applicable to their airfares. Sellers of air transportation may have pop-ups or li nks adjacent to an advertised price to take the consumer to a listing of such charges, or they ma y display these charges on the same page in fine print if they prefer. Such charges must accurate ly reflect the actual cost s to the carrier of the service or matter covered, be displayed on a per passenger basis, and be displayed in a manner

that otherwise does not deceive consumers. Cons equently, the rule requires that any such listing not be displayed prominently and be presented in significantly smaller type than the listing of the total price to ensure that consumers are not confused about the total price they must pay. Also, we are prohibiting the presentation of any “total” fares in advertisi ng that exclude taxes, fees or other charges since the major imp act of such presentations is to confuse and deceive consumers. B. Explicit Inclusion of Ticket Agents

The NPRM: The Department proposed to explici tly apply the price adverting rule to ticket agents. We have fo r years considered ticket agents to be subject to the price advertising rule since the Department’s statutory authority to prohibit unfair and deceptive practices and unfair methods of competition applies to bot h carriers and ticket ag ents. However, the125 Department’s price advertising rule doesn’t specifically indicate that ticket agents are covered by

the rule.

Comments: Comments received from airlines, travel agents, consumer groups and others all supported the inclusion of tic ket agents in the price advertis ing rule. Air New Zealand and Qantas indicate that their support fo r including ticket agen ts in the rule is c ontingent on airlines not being responsible for the co mpliance of ticket agents. DOT Response: The final rule explicitly includes ticket agents in the price advertising rule. This is consistent with longstanding Depa rtment policy and we did not receive any adverse comments. This inclusion will ensure that consumers are more fully protected. With regard to the Air New Zealand and Qantas comment, airlines have always been legally responsible along with their agents for their agents’ advertising vi olations and they will continue to be under the

revised rule. C. Each-Way Advertising

The NPRM: The Department proposed to codi fy its enforcement policy on each-way airfare advertising. Under this pol icy, advertisement of an each-way airfare that is contingent on a round-trip purchase is an unfair and deceptive pr actice unless the airfare is advertised as “each way” and the round-trip purchase requirement is clearly and conspicuously disclosed in a location that is prominent and pr oximate to the advert ised fare amount. The Department invited interested parties to comment on this proposal and on whether the Department should adopt a similar rule for air/hotel packages that advertis e a single price but are so ld at that price on a double occupancy basis, i.e., two individuals must purchase the package to obtain the advertised

fare.126 Comments: Individual consumers and consumer groups had divergent views on whether the Department should allow each-way airfare ad vertising even if the round-trip purchase requirement is clearly and conspicuously di sclosed proximately and prominently to the advertised fare. Flyersrights.org opposes this proposal, believing that disclosure of the full round-trip purchase price is most helpful to consumers. Consumers Union and AAPR support the proposed regulation, as long as the round-trip purchase requireme nt is clear and conspicuous. Most of the commenters on Regulation Room and individual commenters generally support this proposal but some, like Flyersright s.org, suggest the Department re quire that the full round-trip purchase price be disclosed. Airlines, airline associations and travel agency groups express support for the each-way advertising regulation. AT A requests clarification as to whether “one way” advertising would be allowed if there was no round-trip purchas e requirement. ASTA supports this proposal as well, noting that specifically prohibiti ng the use of “one way” to

advertise fares that are conti ngent on round-trip purchases w ill allow consumers to better comparison shop among fare quotes. We received relatively few comments on whet her the Department should adopt a rule requiring specific disclosure for ai r/hotel packages that advertise a single price but are sold at that price only on a double occupancy basis. Some commenters particip ating in the Regulation Room discussion state that clear and conspicuou s disclosure concerning occupancy-related rates should be required. ASTA comments that double occupancy rates should still be allowed, as long as the “per person” requi rement is disclosed. DOT Response: The Department is codifying existing enforcement policy allowing sellers of air transportation to advertise an each -way price that is contingent on a round-trip ticket purchase so long as the round-trip purchase requirement is clearly and conspicuously127 disclosed in a location that is prominent and prox imate to the advertised fare. This codification of longstanding enforcement policy allows sellers of air transportation to be flexible in the way they advertise round-trip fares wh ile still requiring all pe rtinent disclosures to consumers. While the Department understands that some consumers would prefer the full ro und-trip price to be displayed, the Department has not found that the current regime has led to consumer confusion or deception and it does permit certain types of advert ising that are beneficial. We note also that this final rule specifically prohibits referring to such an airfare as “one way” even if the roundtrip purchase requirement is clearly disclo sed, which should minimize or prevent consumer confusion. In response to ATA’s request for clarif ication, we agree that “o ne way” advertising is allowed when purchase of that fare is not conti ngent on a round-trip purchase. We are deferring to a later date any requirement regarding double occupancy advertisements as we received few comments on this matter. We do not have enough information at this point to determine if consumers feel deceived by double occupancy rate s, and consequently we will not formulate a specific regulation regarding the methods of such advertising at this time. “Double occupancy” advertising will still be s ubject to the general provisi ons of 49 U.S.C. §41712. D. Opt-Out Provisions

The NPRM: The Department proposed to prohibit “opt-out” provisions by sellers of air transportation. “Opt-out” provisions involve situations where a cons umer is purchasing air travel or an air tour package online and certain fees for ancillary services or products are pre-selected for the consumer and added to the total price to be paid by the consumer at the end of the

transaction. The consumer is deemed to have se lected these services (and the charges for them)

unless the consumer “unchecks” the pre-selected box or boxes for the relevant services. The NPRM proposed prohibiting this practice as unf air and deceptive in vi olation of 49 U.S.C.128 §41712 and allowing carriers and ticket agents to add an optional service to th e total airfare to be paid by the consumer only if the consumer affi rmatively “opts in” to ac cept and purchase that

service.

Comments: There was wide support among individua l commenters and consumer groups for a prohibition against opt-out provisions. A few individua l commenters noted that this prohibition will allow consumers to avoid unwan ted fees. All of the individuals commenting through the discussion on Regulation Room stated that all optional servi ces should be presented to consumers as an “opt-in” choice. Individu al consumers recounted how they were sometimes faced with paying for travel insurance they did no t need or a seat selec tion fee they were not aware of because those options were “pre-selec ted” by the seller of air transportation. Many industry commenters, though not all, al so agree with a pr ohibition on “opt-out” features in advertising. ATA a nd most U.S. carriers, such as US Airways and Delta Air Lines, support this proposal. American Airlines states that non-aviation servic es should be offered on an “opt in” basis, but that avia tion services that most consumers expect as part of their travel should be pre-selected. American notes that this will allow consumers to customize their travel options. IATA does not oppose the prohibition on opt-out provisions. AEA notes that EU Regulation 1008/2008 already has an opt-in requirement. Qa ntas Airlines opposes this regulation, stating that it feel s customers appreciate pre-select ed options. ASTA supports a prohibition on “opt-out” featur es in price advertising. DOT Response: The Department has decided to prohi bit the use of opt-out provisions by carriers and ticket ag ents. The fact that cons umers often don’t realize th at optional services are included in the total pric e of the ticket due to the deceptive na ture of such opt-out provisions, is borne out by consumer comments. Many industry organizations also support prohibiting opt-out129 provisions. In addition, this action will align the United States with the consumer protection laws of other jurisdictions which prohibit opt- out provisions, including the European Union through its regulation 1008/2008. We do not agree with airline comments that consumers like having certain airline rela ted services preselected for convenien ce sake so that they can see the

total cost of travel with those services. We believe that having opt-in selections achieves the same goals of allowing travelers to customize th eir air transportation packages to their travel

needs and see the total cost of travel with those service while eliminating the unfair and deceptive practice of pre-select ing items that the consumer has not selected and does not necessarily realize are pre-sel ected until late in the process — sometimes after a purchase is complete. This rule would prohibit opt-out pr ovisions for any ancillary fee for an optional service such as seat selection, seat upgrades, pre-boarding, travel insurance, rental cars, and transfers to and from the airport. Under this rule, an optional service can be added to the total airfare to be paid by the consumer only if the consumer affirmativ ely agrees to pay a fee for such service, i.e. by checking a box for that service or other concrete action. 8. Baggage and Other Fees and Related Code-Share Issues

A. Covered Entities

The NPRM: In the NPRM, the Department proposed to require all U.S. and foreign air carriers that have websites accessible to the ge neral public in the United States through which tickets are sold to provide notice to consumer s about baggage fees and allowances and other ancillary fees that the carrier may charge. More specifically, the NPRM proposed: (1) disclosure on the homepage for at least three months of any increase in the fee for passenger baggage or any change in the free baggage al lowance for checked or carry-on baggage; (2)

notice on e-ticket confirmations regarding the free baggage allowa nce for that flight and any130 applicable fee for the first and second checked bag and carry-on bag; and (3) disclosure of all fees for optional services in one central place on th e seller’s website. The Department noted that

the recent trend to unbundle services and charge separate fees for services that may have once been included in the cost of a ticket has led to consumers having difficulty determining the total price they must pay to travel by air. The Department requested comment on whether these requirements to disclose baggage an d other fees should apply to ticket agents as well as carriers. We also invited comment on alternative proposal s, including whether the Department should limit the applicability of the disclosure requirement s to all flights operated by U.S. carriers, U.S. and foreign carriers that operate any aircraft with 60 or more s eats, or U.S. and foreign air carriers that operate any aircraft with or 30 or more seats.

Comments: Many consumers state that the type of fee disclosures contemplated in the proposed rule should apply to all sellers of air transportation. Some consumers relayed experiences where they felt fees were hidden when booking on online travel agency websites.

CTA and BTC state that this secti on should apply to ticket agents as well as carriers, but they both note that the agents need accurate and up to date information from the airlines via the GDSs in order to provide accurate information to consumers.

USTOA contends that the disc losure requirements, as proposed, should not be applied to ticket agents because the airlin es are updating and changing fees constantly, and the cost to agents to ensure that the various airline fees they display are correct would be burdensome. USTOA proposes that instead ticket agents simp ly be required to inform consumers on their websites and on e-ticket confirmations that bagg age and other charges may apply by stating that “airline fees for baggage and ot her optional services may apply to your journey; please consult with your airline for information on those fees.” US TOA further states that in the event that the131 Department concludes that additi onal specific information should be provided by ticket agents, it should allow ticket agents to provide hyperlinks to the locations on the airline websites where specific information may be obtained. ITSA doe s not object to extending the requirements to disclose baggage and other fees to ticket agents, but notes that if the information is not provided to the GDSs, the costs associated with agencies constantly updating information are high and the possibility exists that the information may not be accurate. ASTA takes a similar position to ITSA in regards to applying the disc losure requirements to ticket agents. DOT Response: The Department has decided that th e requirements to provide specific notice to consumers about baggage fees and allowances and other an cillary fees shall apply to all U.S. and foreign carriers that advertise or sell ai r transportation in the U.S. We are not limiting the applicability of the disclosure requirements to flights of only U.S. carriers, as the harm to the

consumer is the same whether the lack of info rmation about baggage a nd other ancillary fees involve flights operated by a U.S. carrier or a foreign carrier. We are also not limiting the applicability of these requirements based on the si ze of the aircraft that carriers operate as we

believe that disclosure of add-on fees is an issu e of sufficient significan ce to warrant application of this requirement to aircraft of all sizes. Cons umers want to be informed of the fees that they will be required to pay for optional services rega rdless of the size of the aircraft on which they

travel. The Department also believes that it is importa nt to ensure that c onsumers are alerted to airline-imposed fees that may be applicable to itineraries purc hased through ticket agencies. However, we are persuaded by USTOA and others to apply a more limited requirement to ticket agents, particularly since the Department is de ferring decision on whether to require U.S. and foreign carriers to give ancillary fee information to GDSs. Therefore, unlike the case for U.S.132 and foreign air carriers, this final rule does not require ticket agents to disclose on their website information about changes in baggage fees or a llowances or to list on their website all of the airlines’ fees for optional servi ces. The final rule does, how ever, require ticket agents (and carriers) to inform passengers on th e first screen in which the ticket agent or carrier offers a fare quotation for a specific itinerary selected by a co nsumer that additional airline fees for baggage may apply and where consumers can go to see th ese baggage fees. This notification on the website must be clear, conspicuous and prominent. To comply with this requirement, ticket agents can choose between referring consumers to their own site where the baggage fees are displayed or to the airline websites where sp ecific information may be obtained. This requirement is consistent with prior guid ance provided by the Department’s Aviation Enforcement Office. See, Notice of the Assi stant 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 . The final rule also requires ticket agents (and carriers) to include on e-ticket confirmations information about the free baggage allowance and the applicable fee fo r the first and second ch ecked bag and carry-on but allows ticket agents, unlike carriers, to do so through a hyperl ink. We also want to make clear that when using the term “ticket agents” we are referring not only to agents of the carriers

but also others who meet the definition of “ ticket agent” contained at 49 U.S.C. 40102 (a)(40), i.e., one who as a principal sells, offers for sale , negotiates for or holds itself out as selling, providing or arranging fo r air transportation. B. Disclosure of Baggage Fees

The NPRM: In 2008, the Department’s Aviatio n Enforcement Office issued guidance concerning the disclosure of baggage fees to the p ublic. In that notice, the office stated that it133 views a carrier’s failure to clearl y disclose significant conditions appl icable to air fares, such as baggage fees, to be an unfair and deceptiv e practice and unfair method of competition in violation of 49 U.S.C. § 41712. It described steps that carriers s hould take to ensure that they are providing prominent and timely notice of thei r baggage policies and charges. For example, the office suggested carriers place a notice on th e home page of their website highlighting new baggage policies and charges. See, Notice of the Assistant General Counsel for Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings, Guidance on Disclosure of Policie s and Charges Associated with Checked Baggage, May 13, 2008, http://airconsumer.dot.gov/ rules/guidance.htm

. In the instant proceeding, the Department proposed to codify this guidance document by requiring carriers that maintain a website that is accessible to th e general public to prominently disclose on the homepage of that website for at least three months any increase in the fee for passenger baggage or any change in the free baggage allowance for checked or carry-on baggage. The Department proposed that this noti ce could appear in its en tirety on the home page or could be accomplished through a prominent, conspicuous hyperlink (e.g., "Revised Baggage Fees") that leads to an explan ation of the carrier’s baggage policies and fees. The Department invited comment on this proposal, including co mment on how long the notice should remain on the page and the best options for displa ying the information to consumers. The NPRM also proposed to requ ire carriers that issue e-tick et confirmations to include information on that confirmation regarding the fr ee baggage allowance for that flight and the applicable fee for the first and second checked bag and carry-on bag. The goal of this proposed rule was to provide the specific information regarding a particular consumer’s baggage

allowance well before that consumer arrives at the airport with bags packed. The Department invited comment on this proposed section.134 Comments: Most individual commenters and comme nters from consumer groups did not address this proposal specifi cally, but overwhelmingly commented that, in general, they supported more disclosures. Individual commen ters, through the Docket and through Regulation Room, noted how they are sometimes surprised by additional baggage fees when they check-in at the airport. CTA states th at two out of three travelers responding to their survey were surprised by fees upon checking in for a flight at the airport. Many commenters wanted the Department to limit the carrier’s ability to unbundle certain fees from the ba se fare, particularly baggage fees for the first checked bag. These commenters feel that carriers are “nickel and diming” passengers instead of trying to improve service. Other commenters found value in the a la carte pricing models of carrier s because the models allow travel ers to customize their trips. The individual commenters who were not opposed to unbundling fees generally support more

disclosure of fees to the consumer before purchase. ATA and most U.S. carriers suppo rt more disclosure regarding changes in baggage fees. ATA supports the proposal to put notice of fee ch anges on a carrier’s homepage and states that the best method for providing this notice is to put a hyperlink on the homepage. ATA notes that three months is a long enough time to require the information on the change to be on the website.

Most U.S. carriers submitted comments similar to ATA’s on the proposal to disclose baggage fee changes. Virgin America states, however, that the Department should re frain from establishing too much specificity or detail because such a regulation would detract from competitive market forces on how airlines design and set up their own websites. Furt hermore, Virgin America notes that many carriers are developing mobile applicat ions where screen space is limited. Allegiant Airlines opposes what it sees as attempts by the Department to micromanage how websites135 appear and how information is shared with consumers in the absence of a clear attempt by

carriers to deceive consumers. Foreign carriers and carrier asso ciations generally were not in favor of what they view as increased U.S. government regulation of the appe arance of websites that are not maintained in

the United States. IATA warns that this proposal could be an extraterritorial application of U.S.

law. IATA further states that most carrier s already have baggage fee information readily available on their website, and most carriers do not charge for one or two checked pieces of baggage to or from the United States, so addi ng extra notice and advert ising requirements to a

carrier’s website would increase costs greatly. The National Air lines Council of Canada agrees with disclosure of fees on websites, but disagr ees with the requirement to place a link to the disclosure on the homepage. Jetstar Airways opposes posting no tice about the change directly on the homepage of the carrier, asse rting that space issues could lim it airlines’ ability to clearly disclose the changes and advertise products and se rvices. Qantas raises similar concerns, noting that the Department should not di ctate the content of a carrier’s website or homepage. Lufthansa believes that the Department did not establish w hy these disclosure rules are necessary, but does note that it already provides most of this information. Condor Flugdienst notes its objection to requiring changes to baggage allowances to be po sted on the homepage, stating that failure to provide notice of a change is a violation of 49 U.S.C. § 41712 under Department guidance and that there is no need, therefore, for the Departme nt to codify this requirement. Air France and KLM contend that having the information rega rding baggage fee changes stand alone on the homepage would be costly. Those carriers s uggest that this information’s location on the

website should be left to the airline’s discre tion and that a time period of one to two months would be enough time for consumers to be aware of the change.136 With regard to disclosure of baggage inform ation on e-ticket confirmations, as with the proposal to disclose such info rmation on carriers’ websites, mo st individual consumers and consumer groups support any provision that provi des the consumer with more information and prevents consumers from being surprised about hidden fees. Some individuals specifically contend that baggage allowance disclosures shou ld also include information regarding excess weight and excess baggage charges. Many consumers feel that th e disclosure of baggage fees should occur earlier in the process, not after purchasing the ticket . One commenter noted that eticket confirmations are not required, and that some carriers still use paper tickets. This commenter noted that any requirement for disclosure of baggage fees on an e-ticket confirmation would not help consumers who are provided pape r tickets because those consumers would not

have that information. This commenter believes that the Department should clearly define what a ticket is, and then require bagg age fee disclosures to be in th e same method as the purchaser

receives the ticket.

ATA and most U.S. airlines do not have an objection to this requirement, as many carriers currently provide this information in th e e-ticket confirmation. US Airways and Delta Air Lines support baggage disclosures on e-tick ets. Spirit Airlines supports baggage fee disclosures on e-tickets through a hyperlink to baggage information. IATA is not opposed to a provision requiring airlines to incl ude information regarding optional services in e-tickets after a purchase is complete. AEA also states that it is not opposed to providing this information on an e-ticket. AEA points out that EU Regulat ion 1008/2008 mandates that optional price supplements be communicated in a “clear, tran sparent and unambiguous way.” Some foreign carriers assert that requiring the information on the e-ticket confirmation is regulatory overkill, as a consumer cannot complete a purchase withou t becoming aware of the fees due to other137 government regulations. Other ca rriers state that due to the a bundance of disclosure prior to completion of purchase, a carrier should not be required to provide all of the information in full

on an e-ticket as that would be costly. All Nippon Airways expr essed concerns about the costs of redesigning their e-ticket c onfirmations, noting that a recen t overhaul cost upwards of $145,000. Some carriers, such as Air France and KLM, note that they already have a system in place to provide information about baggage on the e-boarding pass issued via Internet check-in. DOT Response: The Department has decided to requi re U.S. and foreign carriers that advertise or sell air transportation in the United St ates to promptly and prominently disclose any increase in its fees for carry-on or checked baggage and any change in the checked baggage allowance for a passenger on the carrier’s homepage. Such notice must remain on the homepage for at least three months after the change becomes e ffective. This rule is consistent with current enforcement policies regarding the disclosure of changes in baggage f ees. Additionally, the Department feels that this rule will prevent pass enger surprise about changes in baggage fees or allowances. We agree with consumers and consumer groups, who advocate that greater disclosure of fees, and particularly baggage fees , is needed. Recognizing the concerns raised by carriers, particularly foreign carriers, about space on a carri er’s homepage and a carrier’s legitimate need to be able to design a website th at is competitive and presents information in a clear way, the Department will allow carriers to fulfill the notice requirements by providing a link from the homepage directly to a pop-up or a place on another webpage that details the change in baggage allowance or fees and the e ffective dates of such changes. The link on the homepage needs to be descriptive, clear and co nspicuous, i.e., easy for a consumer to locate. The link need only remain on the homepage for a period of three months after the change138 becomes effective. Most commenters agreed th at three months is a long enough time to ensure that consumers are aware of any change in baggage fees or allowances. The Department disagrees with Air France a nd KLM, which suggest that the carriers be

allowed to decide where on thei r website to display the information and that the information should only remain active on the website for one or two months. Changes that occur need to be posted on the website for a sufficient time in order to allow consumers to review the changes not only prior to choosing a flight but also after they chose a flight a nd are preparing to travel. The Department believes that allowing carriers to d ecide where the notice should be given may result in some carriers placing the information in an inconspicuous location on the website. If such information is difficult for consumers to find, they may not be aware of the change until after arrival at the airport and the cons umer cannot evaluate the impact of the change in baggage fees

and allowances on his or her scheduled tr ansportation, which limits consumer choice. The Department has also determined that there is value in providing a consumer information regarding baggage fees and allowances after the cons umer completes a purchase for air travel. Therefore, the final rule requires U.S. carriers and fo reign carriers and ticket agents that advertise or sell air transportation in th e United States to provide information on e-ticket confirmations regarding the passenger’s free baggage allowance and/or the applicable fee for a carry-on bag and the first and second checked bag. By “applicable fee,” we mean the baggage fee information provided on the e-ticket confirmati on cannot simply be a range of fees but must include information about any price that may ex ist for a carry-on bag a nd the first and second checked bag and any differing price that may exist depending on the passenger’s status (e.g., frequent flyer, military personnel), on when the payment for the bag is made, or and on whether a consumer checks his or her bag on line rather than at the airport. As explained in the section on139 covered entities, because they may not know th e most recent carrier baggage policies, ticket agents may provide details on where to obtain th is information by a hyperlink to the locations on the airline websites where speci fic information may be obtained since the airlines often update and change fees. The Department notes that th is requirement will benefit consumers because it will reduce confusion over whether, and, if so, how much they will have to pay to check or carry-on bags. Additionally, this will save the time of both consumers and airline employees at the airport, because consumers w ill be notified in advance of check-in what the applicable fees are for a carry-on bag and the firs t and second checked bags. The Department notes that carriers are already providing this information to cons umers in compliance with existing enforcement policies. We disagree with th e assertion by some carriers that consumers cannot complete a purchase without first becoming aware of the appli cable baggage fees. Gi ven the advent of new fees, such as fees for carry-on bags, the differing price for first and second checked bags, and the price difference that sometimes exists if a cons umer checks his or her bag online versus checking the bag in at the airport, the Department believes that it is not a simple matter for consumers to determine the total price to transport their baggag e. Additionally, the Department disagrees with airlines that assert that the disclosure require ments are burdensome, as most carriers already provide this information in one form or another. C. Disclosure of all Ancillary Fees

The NPRM: The Department proposed to require carriers that have a website accessible to the general public to disclose all fees for optional aviation services in one central place on their website, so that consumers have an easily accessible reference guide for the cost of these

services. This disclosure was proposed to be made through a link from the carrier’s homepage directly to a listing of those fees. The Depart ment invited general comment on this proposal.140 We also asked for comment on whether only “signi ficant” fees for optional services should have to be listed and, if so, how to define a “sig nificant fee.” The Department also asked for suggestions for alternatives to the easily accessi ble link from the homepage for this disclosure.

Comments: Generally, the majority of consumer s and consumer groups agreed with requiring carriers to disclose ancillary fees on thei r website. They contend that airlines hide their fees, and that requiring disclosure will be nefit consumers' ability to comparison shop and avoid surprise fees. Many consumer commenters ur ge the Department to require that the listing of optional fees on carriers’ websites be st andardized. However, some commenters, commenting through the discussion on Regulation Room, expressed concer n that a large fee table could be confusing to inexperienced or unsavvy casual travelers. Some consumers and consumer organizations assert th at requiring the disclosure of ancillary fees does not go far enough and ask that the Department establish a list of ancillary services for which airlines are prohibited from charging a fee. ATA generally supports the proposal requiring ai rlines to disclose fees for ancillary

services on a carrier’s we bsite through a link, but f eels that disclosure of such fees on e-ticket

confirmations would be burdensome. ATA contends that some fees vary based on the flight and itinerary, such as food and beverage items. ATA, as well as industry groups such as ASTA and ITSA, do not see a reason why the disclosure should be limited to significant fees. US Airways generally supports this proposal, but requests sufficient lead time to fully implement the website changes required to list the fee information. US Airways notes that if the Department requires disclosure of these fees earlier in the process, the programming costs woul d increase to cover the complexity of new programming, and sufficient lead time would be required. Delta states that it141 already has a page that lists th ese fees, and does not object to a requirement that all carriers maintain such pages. DOT Response: The Department has decided to require U.S. and foreign carriers to have one, central webpage on their website, linked fr om the carrier’s homepage, which lists all ancillary fees. The reason for this requirement is that Department considers it too difficult currently for consumers to effectively comparis on shop and determine the total cost for travel, including ancillary fees for optional services. Not all carriers provide information regarding charges for various services, such as seat as signments, extra leg room, priority boarding, telephone reservations, and seat upgr ades in a centralized location so that it is easily accessible for the consumer to review prior to purchase. The Department considers it to be unfair and deceptive to charge an ancillary fee to a consum er, when that consumer had no simple, practical, and reasonable way of knowing about the fee pr ior to purchasing the ticket. Having a single listing of all of the ancillary fees that a carrier charges for optiona l services allows the consumer access to greater information without unduly burdening the carrier or stifling the carrier’s need to compete on such services. The Department agrees with commenters that state that all fees should be listed. We believe that there is no practical way to identify wh at is “significant,” as each traveler, and even airline, might differ over what is significant. Th erefore, the Department believes that to ensure adequate protection of consumers, as well as to ensure a level playing fi eld among airlines, it is best to require carriers to list all fees. This includes, but is not limited to, fees for checked baggage, carry-on baggage, overweight bags, m eals, on-board entertainment, Internet connections, pillows, blankets, advanced or upgraded seating assignments, telephone reservations, early boarding, canceling or changing reservations, unaccompanied minors, and pet142 transportation. ATPCO has identif ied more than a hundred optiona l services and assigned each

of those services a code. While the ATPCO list may not be an exhaus tive list of services that are

now offered or that will in the future be offere d, the Department suggests that carriers may wish to use the ATPCO list of charges as a reference in developing a list of a ll optional services and fees to put on their websites. The Department understands the carriers' concer n that the availability and price of some items vary depending on a number of factors such as the type of aircraft being used, the frequent flyer elite status of a passenger, the flight on which a passenger is booked, or the time at which a passenger pays for the optional service. For non- baggage related optional services, carriers can provide a range of fees, acknowle dging that they vary based on those types of factors. For example, if food and beverage service prices vary among flights, an airline can state that meals or snacks are available for purchase, and then give a range of prices for such meals and snacks. This use of a range of fees would not, howev er, be acceptable under the rule with regard to fees in connection with checked or carry-on baggage, which are so fundamental to air travel and have until relatively recently been included in th e price paid for travel on all carriers. With regard to those fees, we are specifically requiring that ca rriers, at a minimum, provide information about (1) any differing price that ma y exist for the first, second, third, or more checked and carry-on bag or overweight/oversized bag and (2) any differing price and allocation (e.g., whether or not a bag checked for free counts to ward overall allowance) that may exist for each bag depending on the passenger’s status (e.g., frequent flyer, military personnel), on when the payment for the bag is made, or whether a consumer checks his or her bag online versus checking the bag at the airport. If an airline offers discounted baggage fees through status as a member in a paid or unpaid membership “club,” information regarding these programs should be143 offered as well. The Department believes that listing the fees in one place will allow consumers greater access to information, prevent the problem of hidden fees, and prevent confusion at the airport or in-flight due to an unexpected ch arge. It should also enhance competition, as

consumers will be better able to compare costs among carriers for the trip that they plan to take with the services that they would like to have . With regard to commenters who wanted the Department to mandate certain ancillary items that must be free, the law does not provide us the authority to do so.

D. Global Distribution Systems

The NPRM: The Department stated in the NPRM that it was considering requiring carriers to make information about charges for opt ional services availabl e to global distribution systems (GDSs). The Department considered this proposal due to the fact that a significant portion of consumers purchase th eir air travel and air tours th ough travel agencies, both online and traditional brick-and-mortar agencies. The Department invited comments on the ability of carriers to provide this informa tion in a usable format and the potential costs and benefits associated with providing this information to GDSs.

Comments: ATA and most of its members strong ly oppose a requirement that forces airlines to provide ancillary fee information to GDS s. First, ATA notes that this is a competitive issue and would interfere with ongoing negotiations among carriers, GDSs, and travel agents, and would inject government regulation into pr ivate market decision making.. ATA notes that GDSs already have a great share of the market for air transportation book ings, and warns that fares could increase to cover the charges the GD Ss would likely levy on car riers that are required144 to provide this information to them. ATA also questions the existence of any unfair or deceptive practice this requirement would prevent. Most U.S. carriers agree with ATA’s pos ition. US Airways does not believe the Department should mandate disclosure in a partic ular format, seeing this as interference with

market forces. Delta Air Lines believes that th is rule would affect its bargaining position with the GDSs and their ability to explore different opt ions for sharing of this information with the

GDSs. American Airlines contends that a carr ier should have the abilit y and power to decide how to market its ancillary services. American states that requiring di sclosure would unfairly bolster the GDS market power. In a joint filing, American Airlines, Continental Airlines, Delta Air Lines, United Air Lines, and US Airways reite rate the carriers' commitment to providing fee information to consumers, but assert that in terfering in market negotiations would harm competition and ultimately would harm consumers. These airlines note that providing fee information about optional services to consumers is good for the airlines because airlines are in the business of selling tickets and selling these ancillary services . They assert that carriers

should be allowed to market their services how th ey see fit and to decide how to provide their customers with the greatest access to informati on and choice. The carrier s reiterate ATA’s point that requiring airlines to furnish this inform ation to GDSs would harm consumers by increasing airline distribution costs, argui ng that GDSs would charge the airlines fees to upload the information into the GDS system. The carriers note that many travel agents, including online travel agents, already have acces s to and disclose fee informa tion, referring to the Expedia website which has a chart of baggage fees. The carriers contend that the GDS distribution system is anti-competitive and not efficient, a nd that requiring the ai rlines to provide fee145 information will further bolster the market power of the GDSs without allowing for substantive competition from third-party vendors. Two U.S. carriers did not object to providing ancillary fee information to GDSs. Spirit Airlines does not oppose the proposal, unless it w ould impose significant costs on carriers to change the format the carriers already use to pr ovide the information to the GDSs. Southwest Airlines supports limited transmittal of fee information to GDSs in order to provide information to all consumers, regardless of how they book thei r flights. Southwest st ates, however, that the requirement should only obligate carriers to furnis h this information to existing GDS partners. Southwest opposes allowi ng GDSs to charge fees for collec ting data on ancillary services. Southwest notes that carrier participation in GDS s and other distribution ch annels for selling air transportation is a strategic bus iness decision by each carrier. The carrier also supports a provision that would require all ca rrier-imposed surcharges, such as seasonal fare adjustments, to

be included in the fare in formation provided to GDSs IATA and most of the other foreign air carr ier organizations oppose requiring carriers to provide ancillary fee information to GDSs as well, although they support carriers providing information about ancillary fees and services on carrier websites. The National Airlines Council of Canada agrees with the disclo sure of fees in general, but r ecommends that the Department not

mandate the method of disclosure. It notes that th is information is most effective when presented

to the customer within the flow of the transactio n, as Air Canada does on its website. Some carriers, such as Jetstar Airways and Qantas, opp ose providing the fees for optional services to consumers via a static webpage, stating that it is more helpful for consumers and airlines to focus ancillary fee information to a particular booking. Other carriers, such as Virgin Atlantic, note that they already file this information w ith ATPCO, thus allowing for access by GDSs.146 The vast majority of consumers and consum er groups (e.g., BTC, CTA, Flyersrights.org) support the Department requiring air lines to disclose their ancillar y fee information to the GDSs. BTC and CTA urge the Department to establish uniform standards for fee disclosures, on the basis that airlines may add new fees in the future. Both of those organizati ons state that airlines artificially deflate the cost of a fare so that they can tack on high ancillary fee charges that are hidden from the consumer during an initial fare search. ITSA and ASTA implore the Department to requi re airlines to share ancillary fees with the GDSs. ITSA notes that a passenger who want s to search for a fare that includes a checked bag and a pre-assigned seat will have to spend a great deal of time and have to be especially computer savvy to find the total amount he or she would have to pay for their travel because the fees are hidden on carriers' websites. ITSA, representing GDSs, states that at least 50% and possibly as high as 60% of the traveling public relies on travel agents to comparison shop for fares. ITSA argues that without this information from GDSs, br ick and mortar travel agencies and online travel agencies cannot ad equately state the total cost of travel to their clients. ITSA notes that the Department alrea dy requires information beyond the base fare to be provided to the GDSs such as code-share information and change of gauge information. ITSA asserts that the costs of this requirement would be low as it believes the technology is already in place to

distribute the fee information. ITSA further adds that the De partment’s mandate to prevent unfair and deceptive practices trumps claims that disclosure should be left to private market negotiations. ITSA believes that merely requi ring carriers to post the fee information on a webpage is not adequate to alle viate the problems of hidden fare s or reduce the time it takes to comparison shop. Uniglobe Travel, Travizon, Inc., and individual travel ag ents that commented147 in the docket support the proposal to require that carriers provid e ancillary fee information to

GDSs. Many third party commenters submitted commen ts related to providing ancillary fee

information to GDSs. Several members of Congress wrote in support of a requirement obligating carriers to submit their ancillary fee in formation to GDSs. A member of the European Parliament also expressed his support for issu ing a rule so that passengers booking through a GDS system are aware of the tota l price of the ticket before purchase. The New York State Consumer Protection Board states a similar pos ition that information about fees should be distributed to consumers through a wide variet y of channels, not just through a link on the

carrier’s website. Farelogix, a third party di stribution and management technology firm, opposes the proposal to require that the carri ers provide information to GDSs. Farelogix believes that GDSs should coordinate directly with th e airline. The firm does not think that the GDSs should be able

to mandate the format of the information. Fare logix notes that the GDSs are resistant to third party technology to transfer information in order to preserve their place in the travel market, and states that this proposed requirement will furthe r limit third parties from entering the travel technology marketplace. An airlin e consultant makes several sim ilar points. This consultant points out that if the Department requires carrie rs to provide informati on about fees for optional services to GDSs, the airlines’ bargaining leverage is eroded and the higher distribution costs the

airlines will face will be passed on to consumers. The consultant notes that negotiations to sell ancillary services are working in some respec ts, using examples of United Airlines selling Economy Plus service through Sabre, Midwest Air lines selling seat assignments through Sabre, and Finnair selling ancillary serv ices through Amadeus. This indi vidual believes that these fees148 are not hidden, and notes that most of these f ees are not charged until check-in or onboard the flight. A professor at Harvard Business School co mments that compelling airlines to provide fee information to GDSs will have far-reaching and unintended consequences on existing contractual

structures between airlines and GDSs. He believe s that if a requirement to provide fees for optional services is adopted, the GDSs will mark up prices considerably because airlines will be forced to disclose pursuant to government rule. The Airline Tariff Publishing Company (ATPCO), without taking a positio n on the merits of the proposal , notes that it has systems in place that could help implement any requirement regarding carriers sharin g fee information with

GDSs. DOT Response: We have decided to defer fina l action on this proposal. The Department’s goal to protect consumers from hidd en and deceptive fees and to allow consumers to price shop for air transporta tion in an effective manner remain s paramount. The Department’s goal is to provide all air travel consumers with easy access to information about fares and optional fees, particularly baggage fees. As disc ussed earlier, this final rule requires U.S. and foreign carriers to disclose on their website information about changes in baggage fees or allowances and to list on their website all of the airlines’ fees for optional services. The final rule also requires both carriers and ti cket agents to provide informa tion on the first screen in which the ticket agent or carrier offers a fare quotati on for a specific itinerary selected by a consumer that additional airline fees for baggage may apply and where consumers can go to access these baggage fees. In addition, ticket agents and ca rriers must include on e-ticket confirmations information about the free baggage allowance an d the applicable fee for the first and second checked bag and carry-on. We believe that these steps partially address the problem of hidden and deceptive fees and allow consumers to price shop for air transportation. The Department is149 cognizant that some parties feel that requiring carriers to provid e information on their ancillary

fees to GDSs would be a reasona ble way, if not the best way, to ensure consumers can easily comparison shop for air fares. We cannot at this time agree that it is in the public interest to mandate that step, since we lack information criti cal to a decision on the issu e. Thus, in order to permit us time to obtain additional information about costs, benefits and consequences of requiring U.S. and foreign carriers to provide an cillary fee information to GDSs, including those involving competition, the Department is deferring final action on this matter. The Department wants to ensure that any action it takes does not have unintended conseq uences, particularly given the sensitive nature of the market and the negotiations currently taking place between

carriers and the GDSs. E. Display of Two Fares in Advertising

The NPRM: The Department asked for comment on the costs and benefits of displaying two fares in airfare advertising. The first price would be the full fare (i.e., fare with all mandatory charges) and the second price would be th at full fare plus the cost of baggage charges that traditionally have been included in the price of the ticket, if these prices differ. The Department asked whether the second fare shoul d only include the price of baggage charges or

whether it should also include ot her services traditionally included in air travel such as obtaining a seat assignment in advance. The Department also solicited comment on the cost and feasibility of requiring sellers of air tran sportation to allow consumers to conduct fare queries for their specific needs (e.g., airfare and two checked ba gs, or airfare, one checked bag and extra legroom) and select the services they wish to include in the pri ce of the travel.

Comments: Individual consumers and consumer gr oups are divided on the helpfulness of any requirement for a carrier to display two fares in response to a fare inquiry. Some150 commenters and groups asse rt that this type of fare disp lay system could be helpful for comparison shopping. Commenters who participated in the discussion on the Regulation Room

site were divided. Some state that such a dual fa re display could be helpful, but others claim it would be confusing. Individuals commenting to the docket expressed similar opinions. Most

were in favor of more robust di sclosure, especially regarding ba ggage fees. Many who favored a dual fare disclosure disagreed, however, on what should be included in the second fare of a twofare display system. Some state that just the co st of baggage should be included. Others contend that baggage, blankets, pillow, and a seat assi gnment should also be included. The idea that

consumers could select the ancilla ry services they wished before receiving a fare quote had many supporters. CTA supports the appr oach to airfare sear ching that would allow a consumer to select the services and fees they wish to be included in their travel. ATA does not support the two-fare model. ATA states it would be confusing for passengers. It adds that the Department does not have enough information to impose this requirement. ATA and certain U.S. carriers note that there are questions and ambiguities as to what is “traditionally included in the price of a ticket.” As many U.S. carriers noted, each passenger’s needs are different, so the second fare would be confusing or of little help to many

consumers. IATA contends that a two-fare display syst em could be confusing and should not be mandated, as many carriers already have an estab lished online advertising regime that includes an online menu of optional services presented to the consumer through the course of their purchase. IATA asserts that requiring a two-fare model would be an unwarranted government intrusion on business practices. The Arab Air Carri ers Organization states that a two-fare model would be unworkable and prohibitiv ely expensive, as most carrier s’ reservations systems would151 have to be reworked to accommodate a two-fare requirement. Many individual foreign carriers echoed the sentiments of IATA, including South Af rican Airways and Lufthansa, which note that a carrier can always choose to adopt a two-fare system. British Airways states that if this proposal were to become a requ irement, the requirement should only apply to fares that do not include one checked bag, and this requirement s hould apply to GDSs and travel agents as well as carriers. ITSA is not opposed to a two-fare sy stem, as long as the Department is clear about

what would be included in the price. ATPCO notes that it ha s technology that could implement any required two-fare pricing model or a consumer self-selection model. DOT Response: The Department agrees with the comm enters who feel that a “two-fare” display system would be too confusing for travelers. We agree that each traveler is unique with regard to what ancillary services he or she need s or wants on a particular flight, and therefore one “all-inclusive” price that includes baggage and a seat assignment may not be helpful to most passengers. The Department will also not require, at this time, that sellers of air transportation revise their online systems to allow consumers to conduct queries for specific optional services and the fees for those services before displa ying a price. Although the Department understands that some websites may exist that have these capabilities and that some carriers utilize online

menus for consumers from which to choose serv ices during the booking pro cess, the Department does not have enough information regarding the cost s of implementing such a system to require that every carrier implement such an online system. F. Services Provided by Code-Share Partners

The NPRM: The Department sought comments as to whether in a code-share situation the marketing/ticketing carrier should be required to disclose through reservation agents, websites, and/or e-ticket confir mations any differences in services and fees applicable to a152 consumer between the marketing carrier and the op erating carrier. The Department also asked whether there were any ancillary fees for servic es that should not be permitted to vary among code-share partners, such as the allowances and charges for baggage. The Department noted that its policy states 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 provides that the marketing carrier ’s rules take precedence.

Comments: Most individual commenters a nd consumer groups, including Flyersrights.org, favor a rule that would require the marketing or ti cketing carrier’s fees to apply for the whole trip. Some commenters, through Regulation Room, expresse d the opinion that the

lesser of the two fees should a pply if the marketing carrier’s fees differ from the operating carrier’s fees. Most commenters support greate r notice requirements regarding differing fee structures between code-share partners. Some commenters on Regulation Room specifically felt that the marketing carrier should provide greater information, especially if the operating carrier has more stringent or restrictive luggage requirements.

ATA believes that disclosure of fees betw een code-share partners can be accomplished effectively through a hyperlink on the marketing carrier’s website directly to the operating carrier’s fee list. It opposes a ny attempt by the Department to standardize optional fees amongst code-share partners. ATA notes th at attempts at standardization w ould be counter to the goals of deregulation and could be anti-competitive. It furt her states that standardi zation of fees could be impractical and costly for flights that have mu ltiple code-share partners selling tickets on the same flight. US Airways comments that applying the marketing carri er’s rule is not feasible and would create different classes of pa ssengers on the same aircraft. Delta states that ancillary fees153 should not be uniform amongst carriers and code-share partners as that re quirement would stifle competition. IATA states that requiring the marketing carrier to disclose fees of operating carriers is consistent with the Department’s policy regardin g code-share situations . IATA believes this notice can be accomplished through a hyperlink to th e code-share partner’s website that details their fees. Singapore Airlines no tes that it already provides info rmation to consumers regarding significant differences in services and fees amon g partners. It states that the best way to accomplish this is to provide a link to the partner’ s listing. The carrier also notes that its call center agents are trained to provide this informa tion. However, Singapore Ai rlines states that if the Department proposes a harmonized sche me it should incorporate reasonable and commercially viable allowances and fees. Qa tar Airways refers the Department to IATA Resolution 302 (“Baggage Provisions Selection Cr iteria”) which will go into effect in April

2011. The carrier states that under this resolution, there will be no standard baggage allowances or charges, and each carrier will publ ish its own rules. Qatar Airway s notes that in the event of a conflict between baggage allowances, the prov ision of the “Most Significant Carrier,” as determined by the Resolution, would apply. Qata r Airways urges the Department to adopt a similar proposal. Many foreign carriers such as Qantas, Air France, and KLM oppose a Department rule that would pr ohibit differences in baggage f ees between the marketing and operating carrier, but do support disclosure of any differences between the carriers. DOT Response: After considering the comments rega rding the differences between the ancillary services and fees between code-share an d interline carriers, the Department has decided not to require code-share carriers to standardize their optional services an d fees but to specify with respect to baggage which car rier’s allowances and fees apply. We believe that baggage154 rules and fees should be treated differently from f ees for other optional services, as variations in baggage fees among code-share and interline part ners are likely to result in significant inconvenience and confusion for many passengers . The Department has received complaints from consumers who have been faced with multiple, differing, and uncertain baggage allowances and charges on both code-share and interline flights. Passengers experience significant difficulties when the baggage allowances and fees that apply at the beginning of their trip differ from what is applied later because their itinerarie s include sectors where the baggage rules differ, notwithstanding the fact that the passenger was traveling on a single, code-share or interline ticket, service that carriers contin ue to tout as “seamless.” This final rule requires that for passengers w hose ultimate ticketed origin or destination is a U.S. point, the baggage allowances and fees th at apply at the beginning of the itinerary apply throughout the itinerary. In the ca se of code-share flights that fo rm part of an itinerary whose ultimate ticketed origin or destination is a point in the U.S., the final rule requires that the baggage allowances and fees of the marketing carrier apply throughout the itinerary to the extent that they differ between the marketing carrier and the operating carrier. The Department is aware that these requirements may result in th e situation foreseen by ATA and US Airways of consumers on the same flight being subject to different baggage allowances or fees. The Department does not find anything unfair or deceptive about passenge rs on the same flight being subject to different baggage provisions — just as many passengers on the flight would have typically paid different fares. Further, we be lieve this method of determining baggage rules is consistent with Department policy and affords th e greatest protection to consumers from unfair application of baggage rules through out their itineraries. The Department also believes these requirements align with the goals of IATA Resolution 302, which was adopted by IATA155 members to bring transparency and clarity to baggage rules on code-share and interline

itineraries

As to whether in the case of code-share f lights whether the marketing/ticketing carrier should be required to disclose a ll of the operating carrier’s fees for optional services, we have decided to require the marketi ng carrier to disclose on its we bsite any difference between its optional services and fees and those of the carrier operating the flight. This disclosure may be made through providing a hyperlink to the operating carriers’ websites that detail the operating carriers’ fees for optional services, or to a page on its website that lists th e differences in policies amongst code-share partners. A marketing/tick eting carrier may also choose to make this information available to consumers through notice on its own website of differences between its optional services and fees and those of the carri er operating the flight. We are not requiring disclosure of the fees for optional services of the operating carrier through reservation agents or

e-ticket confirmations because we believe the cost s to carriers of providing this information in those formats far outweigh the benefit to consumer s, particularly since th is final rule already requires U.S. and foreign carriers to list on their we bsite all of their fees for optional services. Further, of all the fees for optional services charged by airlines, consumers are generally most interested in fees charged for baggage and the final rule alre ady requires ticket agents and carriers to disclose baggage fees and allowances on e-ticket confirmations. As discussed earlier, the final rule also requires carriers and ticket agents to inform passengers on the first screen in which the ticket agent or carrier offers a fare quotation for a specific itinerary selected by a consumer that additional airline fees for bagga ge may apply and where consumers can go to see these baggage fees.156 9. Post-Purchase Price Increase

The NPRM: The Department proposed to revise its current regulation in 14 CFR 253.7 which allows post purchase price increases as long as the consumer receives direct notice on or with the ticket of any contract of carriage term that allows a ca rrier to increase the price after purchase. Under the proposed rule, the Depa rtment would prohibit a ll post-purchase price increases by carriers, tour operators, or othe r sellers of air trans portation, tours or tour components. The seller would be prohibited from increasing the pri ce after the consumer completes the purchase. The Department as ked for comment on the proposal to ban postpurchase price increases as well as two alternatives. The first proposed alternative would allow post-purchase price increases, as long as the seller of air transportation conspicuously disclosed to the consumer the potential for such an incr ease and the maximum amount of such increase before the consumer purchased the air transporta tion, and the consumer a ffirmatively agreed to such an increase prior to the completion of the purchase. Th e second alternative would allow post-purchase price increases (with disclosure) th at the consumer agrees to in advance of purchasing the ticket, but would proh ibit such an increase within thirty or sixty days of the first flight in the purchased itinerary.

Comments: Individual travelers and consumer or ganizations representing travelers support the proposal to ban post-purc hase price increases in air tran sportation or tours by carriers and ticket agents. Most consumer commenters stat e that an outright ban on post-purchase price

increases is fair. One commenter asserts that the practice of incr easing the price after purchase is egregious, especially in the case of tour operators that raise prices due to fuel surcharges.

Another commenter asks for clarif ication on what an increase in the price of the ticket means, because the commenter is concerned about change fees being applied to an already purchased157 ticket. Most commenters participating in Regul ation Room favor an out right ban, rejecting the alternatives that allow for conspicuous disclosure of a potential price increase. A small number felt that the proposed alternative of requiring conspicuous notice of a potential maximum amount of an increase would adequately protect consumers.

We also received comments from carriers and carrier organizati ons regarding this proposal. ATA and its members support the pr imary proposal to ban post-purchase price increases outright, and do not feel that any alte rnative is necessary. ATA states that this is consistent with industry practice. IATA and many foreign carriers are not opposed to this proposal, but they do request that an excep tion be made for post-purchase imposition of government-imposed taxes and fees. AEA, ALTA , and AACO all support a limited exception to a complete ban in the case of an increase in government-imposed taxes an d fees. IACA states that an outright ban on post-purchase increase s is not consistent w ith the European Union regulations which allow post-purchase price increas es in limited circumstances and with certain

disclosures. IACA seems to s upport one of the alternatives whic h would allow some increase in the purchase price after pu rchase is completed. Air France, KLM and Qantas generally s upport the proposal with the exception of government-imposed taxes and fees. Additi onally Air France, KLM and Qantas ask for clarification on when a “purchase” is complete. Both airlines suggest th at a booking that is being “held” by the airline bu t has not been purchased should not be a completed purchase for purposes

of this rule. Air New Zealand further comments that change fees should be allowed because those apply when a consumer is purchasing a new ticket and not traveling on the same ticket. USTOA is against the proposal for an outright ban without some contingency built into the rule regarding tax increases and pa rtial customer payments. US TOA views a purchase as being158 complete if the consumer has paid in full. USTOA also states that an exception to a ban on post-purchase increases should be made for increases in govern ment taxes and fees, provided that the consumer is made aware of such a poten tial increase. USTOA poi nts out that the tour operators have no control over the increase of the price of schedul ed air transportation. USTOA supports the alternatives, but believes that sell ers should not be required to state the maximum amount of a price increase because the tour operator will not know the maximum amount. ASTA contends that in order to protect al l sellers, a post-purchase price increase should only be applied on ticketed reservations, contra cted group travel arrangements, and business to business transactions between tour operators and ai rlines. ASTA states that a travel agent does not impose the additional increases in price; rather , the government or carriers impose taxes, fees and fuel surcharges. ASTA prefers the first alternative which allows a post-purchase price increase with specific notice of the increase and a maximum amount of such increase identified to the consumer. ASTA suggests modifying the first alternative so th at the sellers of air transportation also identify when they have im posed such post-purchase price increases in the past. DOT Response : After fully considering the comments received, the Department has decided to adopt the rule as proposed, but allow for an excepti on related to an increase in government-imposed taxes and fees. Although taxes and fees are not retroa ctively applied in the United States, the Department is aware that government-imposed taxe s and fees levied by entities outside of the United States might be applied retroactively to a completed ticket purchase. As these fees and taxes are outside of the control of the seller of air transportation, the Department agrees with ASTA and foreign carrie rs that sellers should be protected from having to absorb the costs imposed by retroactive appl ication of government taxes and fees. This159 exception to a total ban on post-pur chase price increases is limited to government-imposed taxes and fees imposed on a per-passenger basis. It doe s not include increases in fuel surcharges or other carrier or ticket agent imposed charges. The Department recognizes that changes may be necessary in the way a tour operator prices or ad vertises packages to comply with the prohibition on post-purchase prices increases with an excep tion only for government-imposed taxes and fees imposed on a per-passenger basis. The final rule also requires sell ers of air transportation to disclose the potential for a postpurchase price increase related to an increase in a government-imposed tax or fee in a clear and conspicuous manner to the consumer. The consum er must affirmatively agree to the potential for such an increase prior to the purchase, for example by checking a box on the final page prior to purchase. After purchase, the seller of air transportation can only impose an increase due to government-imposed taxes or fees if such an in crease applies to that pa rticular consumer (e.g.,

the increase cannot be collected from consumer s to whom a general increase did not apply because they had purchased and fully paid for their ticket months earli er, and/or because an

increase has been announced but is not yet in effect). For purpose s of this section, a purchase is

not deemed to have occurred unt il the full amount agreed upon has been paid by the consumer. Therefore, in the context of a t our that contains an air component, a purchase is complete when the consumer tenders the entire amount paid for the tour to the tour operator. The Department

finds it to be unfair for consumers to bear the brun t of any increase in pric e after they have paid the full amount agreed upon for air transportation or a tour. To further protect consumers, the final rule re quires sellers of air transportation, tours or tour components to notify a consumer of the poten tial for a price increase that could take place prior to the time that the full amount agreed upon has been paid by the consumer, including but160 not limited to an increase in the price of the seat , an increase in the pri ce for the carriage of passenger baggage, an increase in an applicable fu el surcharge, or an in crease in a governmentimposed tax or fee. These entities must provi de the consumer an opportunity to decline the purchase without penalty or affirmatively agree to the potential for such an increase prior to making any payment for the schedule d air transportation, or tour or tour component that includes scheduled air transportation. The Department believes that su ch a disclosure will provide consumers with important information to help th em determine whether they want to purchase the air transportation or tour and if so, th e appropriate time to make payment. With regard to the comments relating to change fees, the Department agrees with commenters that change fees do not constitute an increase in the price of an already-purchased ticket, as technically the cons umer is purchasing a new ticket for new travel. However, the Department considers it to be an unfair and de ceptive practice within the meaning of 49 U.S.C. 41712 for a seller of air transportation to impos e any fee on a consumer to change a travel itinerary unless this possibility was disclosed to th e consumer prior to purchase. Additionally, to address the comments about the app licability of this section to tickets marketed and sold in Europe, the final rule specifies that with respect to ticket agents and fo reign air carriers, these requirements only apply to advertising or selling in the United States of air transportation or

tours. 10. Flight Status Change

The NPRM: In the NPRM we proposed to require U.S. carriers that account for at least 1 percent of domestic scheduled passenger revenu es (reporting carriers) to promptly provide passengers and other interested pa rties notice of flight status changes, defined as a cancellation of a flight or a delay of 30 mi nutes or more, for their domestic scheduled passenger flights. We161 proposed to require that this notification take place within 30 minutes af ter the carrier becomes

aware or should have become aware of the status change. A carrier woul d be required to provide such information updates at board ing gate areas, on airport disp lay boards that are under a carrier’s control, on the homepage of a carrie r’s websites and through a carrier’s telephone reservation systems. To the extent that carrier s permit passengers and other interested persons to subscribe to receive flight information updates, we proposed that carri ers provide those updates in a timely fashion, i.e., provi ding the information and subseque nt updates within 30 minutes

after the carrier becomes aware or should have become aware of such information. We sought comments on whether these flight status notification requirements should be

extended to smaller U.S. carriers and/or internat ional operations of U.S. and foreign carriers, particularly since we proposed to require U. S. and foreign air carriers conducting scheduled passenger service with at least one aircraft with 30 or more seats to adopt a customer service plan that pledged to notify consumers in the boarding gate area, on board aircraft, via a carrier’s telephone reservation system a nd on a carrier’s website of know n delays, cancellations and diversions. We specifically asked for informati on about the cost or benefit of applying these requirements to smaller carriers. We also aske d for comments on whether the proposed means of notification, i.e., website, tele phone reservation system, airport display boards under carriers’ control, and boarding area, should be mandatory, or whether we s hould leave it to the carriers to determine what means they prefer to use. With respect to the timeliness standard, we invited the public to comment on whether “w ithin 30 minutes after the carri er becomes aware or should

have become aware” is a reason able standard. We also sought public opinion on whether the proposed requirement that updated information s hould be provided for flight delays of 30 minutes or more is an appropriate standard.162 Comments: Comments from consumers and consumer rights advocacy groups overwhelmingly support our proposal for the larges t U.S. carriers to promptly notify passengers of changes in the status of par ticular flights as a result of de lays or cancellations. The New York State Consumer Protection Board, AAPR, Fl yersRights.org, Consumers Union, and most commenters on RegulationRoom.org support expandi ng the requirements to cover smaller U.S. carriers and international operations of U.S. and foreign carriers. ACI-NA suggests that the rule

should include small carriers that serve small a nd non-hub airports, arguing that the impact of delays and cancellation occurri ng at those airports may have great adverse effect on larger

connection hubs. Several foreign carriers specifically oppose applying the notificati on requirements to

foreign carriers. IACA states that the proposed rule may potentially be an extraterritorial application of U.S. law to activ ities in a foreign jurisdiction. Qantas and JetStar Airways aver that the rule should not apply to foreign marketing code-share pa rtners, as the operating carriers are in the best position to notif y passengers of any flight stat us changes. ATA, on the other hand, states that the marketing carr ier should have the responsibility to update flight information up until the date of flight departure, at which poi nt the operating carrier should be responsible for

the notification. ANA raises the issue of technical difficultie s faced by foreign carriers in complying with the electronic no tification rule when they mu st conduct extensive automation modifications including sharing da ta with code-share partners. Many carriers contend that when information is not timely transmitted to carriers by FAA, carriers should not be held liable. TUI Travel asks that foreign leisure travel charter operators be exem pted from the rule based on its assertion that there are already established communication channels between passengers and carriers through the tour operators.163 With respect to the means of notification, many commenters from the consumer side urge

the Department to mandate all four methods (i .e., at gate boarding areas, on airport display boards that are under carrier’s control, and thr ough carriers’ website a nd telephone reservation systems) . The New York State Consumer Prot ection Board also recommends that we require carriers to offer passengers the opportunity to s ubscribe to flight stat us service updates via voicemail and electronic media. Industry co mmenters, however, argue that the Department should provide carriers flexibility in choosing what means they use. ATA specifically requests that the Department not requi re any new technology or progr am that is not currently implemented by the carriers. ATA raises concern that our proposal on f light status change notification may conflict with the Federal Communication Commission (FCC)’s Telephone Consumer Protection Act rule. In a March 2010 NPRM, the FCC proposed to requi re consumers’ prior written consent for prerecorded calls, eliminating th e exemption for parties that ha ve already established business relationships (75 Fed. Reg. 13471, March 22, 2010). If adopted, the FCC rule would prohibit carriers from leaving prerecorded telephone message s concerning flight delays and cancellations with any passengers from whom carriers do not have prior written consent. Regarding the proposed timeliness standar d, the New York State Consumer Protection

Board states that the 30-minute standard is good but urges the Department to adopt a more stringent standard that requires notification to be pr ovided “no later than 20-minutes” after the

carrier is aware or should have become aware of the flight status change. Other commenters from the consumer side generally welcome the 30-minute standard as being reasonable and not

too burdensome to the carriers. Among the carriers and carrier a ssociations that commented on this proposal, there is little objection to th e “30 minutes after the carrier becomes aware”164 requirement. However, most of those commenters are concerned about th e “30 minutes after the

carrier should have become aware of the flight status change ” standard. IATA asks the Department to clarify the meaning of this sta ndard, and ATA argues that this is a subjective standard that makes compliance difficult. Southwest Airlines s upports ATA’s position and states that this standard is too vague and is likely to be inconsiste ntly applied and enforced. Regarding the proposal that notification s hould be provided to passe ngers for any flight

delays that are expected to la st for 30 minutes or more, both consumers and carrier commenters are supportive of this standard. ATA also recomm ends that the Department require the airports to update display boards under the airports’ cont rol every 30 minutes when a flight’s status changes. ASTA supports ATA’s position and states that it is important that the information provided by the carriers and airpor ts be current in order to avoid passenger confusion. DOT Response: The final rule requires U.S. and foreign carriers conducting scheduled passenger service to and from th e U.S. with any aircraft with 30 or more seats to make information available to passengers and other interest ed parties about a change in flight status. It is important for passengers as well as pers ons dropping passengers off for outbound flights or meeting passengers on incoming flights to stay in formed on a timely basis of delays, diversions or cancellations affecting their flights in order to avoid unnecessa ry waits at, or po intless trips to, an airport. The need for, and importance of timely notification regarding flight delays,

diversions and cancellations exists whether it is a U.S. or foreign carrier operating the flight and whether it is a non-reporting or reporting carrier operating the flight. On code-shares, the final rule leaves it up to the carriers to determine whether the marketing or operating carrier will provide the required notification abou t change in flight st atus. We expect that foreign carriers and non-reporting U.S. carriers will work with thei r code-share reporting-carrier partners, most165 of which already have the necessary systems in place, to comply with the notification requirements contained in this final rule. Fo r enforcement purposes, the Department’s Aviation

Enforcement Office will hold both the code-share marketing carrier a nd the operating carrier responsible, jointly and severally, for failure to comply with this rule. The final rule mandates that the flight stat us notifications be pr ovided through the four methods proposed: at the boarding gate area, on carriers’ websites, thr ough carriers’ telephone reservations systems, and by airpor t display boards that are under the carriers’ control. If an airport-controlled display system accepts flight status updates from carriers, covered carriers must furnish this information to that airport with in the timeframes provided in this rule. We do not believe mandating all four methods is burdensom e to carriers as it is our opinion that these four methods represent the most common ways us ed by carriers to communicate with passengers and other interested parties who seek and obtain information about the status of the schedules for their flights. These varied flight status notification methods make it mo re likely that passengers and other interested parties will be ab le to access this information when they need it. For example,

individuals who do not have acce ss to the Internet may call a carriers’ reservation telephone system to learn about delays, cancellations, or dive rsions. Notification at the airports through the airport display boards and in the boarding gate area is also essent ial when passengers are already at the airports. Regarding notific ation at the boarding ga te area, the responsibi lity of a carrier to notify passengers does not begin until the gate is staffed for the speci fic flight in question. With respect to notification pr ovided through carriers’ telephone rese rvation systems, we clarify that such notification is only required upon the request by a consumer.166 In addition to these four methods, we are al so requiring carriers that offer passengers the opportunity to subscribe to a flight status update service to ensure that required information is provided promptly and accurately. We note that many carriers already have in place subscription services for passengers to receive flight status notifications through variou s widely used media, including computer-generated tele phone/voicemail, text messages and emails. To the extent such services are offered to the public, this final rule requires that the notificati ons be delivered to the passenger by whatever means is available to the carrier and of the passenger’s choice within 30

minutes after the carrier becomes aw are of a change in the status of a flight. We do not believe, as asserted by some commenters, that applying this standard will dissuade carriers from voluntarily providing such subscription services for fear of the potential enforcement consequences. We are confident that market fo rces and competition will continue to be the driving force for carriers to improve the quality of their customer care. In response to ATA’s concern that the Depart ment’s flight status notification requirement may conflict with the FCC’s rule, the Department wishes to provide the following clarification. The Department has submitted comments on th e FCC’s rulemaking, requesting the FCC to maintain its current “established business relationship” exemption to the extent necessary to permit carriers to notify their customers of flight status changes through telephone messages without obtaining each customer's pr ior written consent. To the ex tent FCC adopts a final rule as it proposed, the Department does not see a direct conflict between th e FCC rule and our rule. In this final rule, we do not require carriers to ca ll each passenger on the af fected flight to notify them about the flight status change. Likewi se we do not mandate subscription services. Therefore, if carriers choose to provide subscripti on services, they could e ither eliminate the voice167 message choice from the choices of contact availa ble to subscribers, or obtain the subscribers’ written consent at the time of subscription. Most carriers that commented on the propos als objected to the “30 minutes after the

carrier should have become aware of flight status change” standa rd for notifying consumers about the flight irregularity, arguing that it is vague and subjective. The Department agrees with the concerns expressed that this st andard may become challenging to comply with and enforce. Therefore, we are removing the “should have beco me aware” standard from the final rule. With respect to the “30 minutes af ter the carrier becomes aware” standard, we believe further clarification is necessary. For enforcement purpos e, we consider that the carrier has become aware of the flight status change as soon as the carrier’s system operation control center (SOCC) or equivalent facility, if it goes by another name, learns of it. We r ecognize that carriers cancel, delay and divert flights based on information from many sources, both internal as well as from third parties, such as FAA and airports. What ever the source of information leading to the decision for a flight status change, it is the carrier’s sole responsibility to distribute the information, within 30 minutes, to the downstream operational staff, such as webmasters, airport station managers, reservation system managers, and gate agents. A carrier has an affirmative duty at all times to keep track of flight status ch anges and maintain open ch annels of communication. We consider it an unfair and decep tive practice when the carrier’s failure to obtain and pass on to consumers up-to-date and accurate information is caused by the carrier’s own procedural shortcomings. Much less contested is our proposed standa rd that carriers notif y passengers and other interested parties regarding fli ght delays of 30 minutes or mo re. Many consumer and industry commenters agree that this is a reasonable standa rd that strikes a balance between providing the168 most useful and accurate update to the passengers and the costs incu rred by the carriers associated with providing such information. Consequently, the final rule maintains this standard. We emphasize that this is a minimum standard a nd carriers are free to and urged to provide notification about briefer delays, as many alrea dy have done for their subscription services. Under the final rule, the “30 minutes after the carrier become s aware of the flight status change” standard also applies to any informa tion updates provided to passengers who have already received previous notificatio n regarding the status change of their flights. We disagree with some commenters’ contention that updating flight status change every 30 minutes if the flight is delayed again is not necessary if it is close to th e scheduled departure time and passengers are already at the airport. This info rmation is important for passengers whose flights downline depend on the schedule of ai rcraft used for the flight e xperiencing the irregularity, as well as for persons who may be meeting passengers on the affected flight. Finally, we note that the Department does not directly ha ve the authority to require air ports to provide flight status information to consumers as some commenters suggested.

11. Choice-of-Forum Provisions

The NPRM: The Department proposed to codify th e policy of the Department’s Aviation

Enforcement Office that choice-of-forum provisions are unfair and deceptive for air transportation sold in the U.S. when used to limit a passenger’s legal forum to a particular inconvenient venue. The proposed rule would sp ecifically permit consumer s to file suit where they live provided that the carrier does busin ess within that jurisdiction. The Department requested comments on this proposal and on the use of such choice-of-forum provisions in contracts of carriage.169 Comments : Consumer groups and individual co nsumers support this proposal. Flyersrights.org, while supporti ng the proposal, does not think the proposal goes far enough to

address the real barrier to legal relief for consumers in court, which they say is Federal preemption of state laws. ATA and most carriers support this proposal, most noting that they do not have such restrictive choice-of-forum provisions in their contracts of carri age. Spirit Airlines opposes this provision. Spirit believes small car riers should not have to face the costs and burdens associated with litigating complaints in jurisdictions far from their headquarters location. IATA and IACA, in addition to many foreign air lines expressed, concerns about this provision’s applicability to foreign airlines and interfer ence with European rule s governing the forum for claims. The Air Transport Association of Cana da does not feel the use of choice-of-forum

restrictions should be banned a nd feels that making clear the forum in which consumers must litigate consumer complaints is helpful to consumers. DOT Response: The Department has decided to adopt the rule as proposed, i.e., to prohibit a U.S. carrier from in cluding language in its contract of carriage precluding a passenger from bringing a consumer-related claim involving a domestic flight against the carrier in any court of competent jurisdiction. Th e Department feels that if a car rier reaches out to do business in a particular jurisdiction, i.e ., reaches out to solic it business within that jurisdiction, and sells tickets in a jurisdiction, then it is fair and reasonable to expect that the carrier can defend itself against litigation brought by a consumer who resi des in that jurisdiction. The cost of this proposal is minimal, as most U.S. carriers alre ady face litigation throughout the United States. As a point of clarification, the forum for consumer claims related to travel on international flights to or from the United States is governed by th e Montreal Convention or Warsaw Convention, depending on the type of flight and its originatio n/destination. Additiona lly this change does not170 apply to charter flights. The choice of foru m for charter flights can be addressed in the

individual contracts betw een the charter operator and the participant. 12. Peanut Allergies

The NPRM: In the NPRM, the Department describe d various measures to provide greater

access to air travel for individuals with severe peanut allergies. The Department solicited

comment on several alternatives to accommodate air travelers with severe peanut allergies including (1) banning the serving of peanuts and all peanut products by both U.S. and foreign carriers on flights covered by the Department’s disa bility rule; (2) banning the serving of peanuts and all peanut products on all su ch flights where a passenger with a peanut allergy is on board and has requested a peanut-free f light in advance; or (3) requiri ng a peanut-free buffer zone in the immediate area of a passenger with a medically documented severe allergy to peanuts if the passenger has requested a peanut-fre e flight in advance. The Depa rtment asked several questions associated with accommodating passengers who ha ve a severe peanut allergy on flights. For instance, we asked about the like lihood of a person with a severe allergy experiencing a serious adverse health reaction due to exposure to airbor ne peanut particles onboard an aircraft. The Department asked about steps a person with a seve re peanut allergy could take to prepare for a flight. We also asked about how we should define a peanut product if we chose to take action on

the issue.

Comments: Most of the comments regarding acc ommodations for persons with peanut allergies were from individual consumers who favor a total ban on peanuts and peanut products on aircraft, including peanut products that other passengers bring on board aircraft. Most of these consumers either suffer from a peanut aller gy or are related to some one with an allergy. A smaller number of individual commenters oppose any ban on peanut products while others171 support prohibiting carriers from serving peanuts or peanut products on aircraft. Commenters who oppose a ban on peanut and peanut products as well as comment ers who favor only a service ban on peanut and peanut products co ntend that a total ban on peanuts and peanut products is impractical and une nforceable because there is no way to stop passengers from bringing peanut products into the cabin. There was also disagreement as to whether peanut-free flights or peanut buffer zones are a viable opti on. Many commenters assert that neither peanutfree flights nor peanut buffer zones are a feasible option since the peanut pr otein could be present in the buffer zones or on the ‘peanut free’ flight as residue from previous flights. These

consumers state that it is unreas onable to expect, and unlikely, that a carrier would thoroughly

clean the aircraft between each fli ght to ensure that all peanut re sidue is removed from the cabin. The peanut trade organizations, led by the American Peanut Council (APC), Peanut & Tree Nut Processors Association (PTNPA) a nd the Western Peanut Growers Association (WPGA), oppose any Department action that would limit the availability of peanuts on

commercial aircraft. All three or ganizations point out the Departme nt is restricted from issuing any regulation regarding the se rvice of peanuts on aircraft per Public Law 106-69, which is

discussed below. APC also states that research indicates that a severe anaphylactic reaction to peanuts can only occur when there is oral ingestion. The Food Allergy & Anaphylaxis Network (FAAN) states that the sc ientific l iterature does not, at this time, address whether a pass enger would have a seve re adverse reaction by being exposed to airborne peanut particles but notes that airborne reactions have been anecdotally reported. FAAN, and other allergy support organizations, be lieve that the most practical solution is for carri ers not to serve packaged peanut snacks on flights. FAAN acknowledges that many carriers, both U.S. and foreign, are already taking this approach.172 FAAN is opposed to the crea tion of “buffer zones” as it believes that to be effective the seats in a buffer zone would need to be peanut-free for all flights on a pa rticular aircraft. Twenty-five members of the U.S. House of Representatives submitted a joint letter expressing their opposition to any ban on peanuts and peanut products and requesting that the Department not proceed with a rulemaking or any other anti-peanut measures pending the completion of a peer-reviewed study as descri bed in Public Law 106-69. Senator Christopher Dodd also commented, stating that a complete ba n on peanuts and tree nuts would be the most direct solution but that this step is drastic in nature and impractical. Senator Dodd suggests that DOT encourage a focus on further education an d training for airline employees regarding passengers with peanut allergies as well as a consistent application of policies by individual

airlines. ATA, the Air Transport Associ ation of Canada, and IACA ar e against a ban on peanuts, stating that carriers cannot ensure that other pa ssengers will not bring their own peanut products on board for consumption. ATA and IACA also state that carriers have adopted their own policies and procedures to handl e accommodations for peanut alle rgies. In general, individual carriers have deferred this topic to their respective trade organizat ions. However, some carriers such as Southwest and Delta point out that th ey already have volunt arily adopted policies regarding buffer-zones for peanut al lergy sufferers. Some foreign carriers, such as Lufthansa, Air France and KLM, state that a service ban on p eanut products is not efficient and would create increased burdens and costs for airlines. Additionally Lufthansa points out that the creation of a service ban on peanut products could give a passe nger the false impression that the flight is totally safe and free of peanuts.173 DOT Response: On June 25, 2010, DOT published a clarif ication notice st ating that the Department will comply with the requirements of the Department of Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 2000, Public Law 106-69—Oct. 9, 1999. This law states: Hereafter, none of the funds made available unde r this Act, or any other Act, may be used to implement, carry out, or enforce any re gulation issued under section 41705 of title 49, United States Code, including any regulation co ntained in Part 382 of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, or any other provision of law (including any Act of Congress, regulation, or Executive order or any official guidance or correspondence thereto), that requires or encourages an air carrier (as that term is defi ned in section 40102 of title 49, United States Code) to, on intrastate or inte rstate air transportation (as those terms are defined in section 40102 of title 49, United St ates Code) – (1) provide a peanut-free buffer zone or any other relate d peanut-restricted area; or (2 )restrict the distribution of peanuts, until 90 days after submission to the Congress and the Secretary of a peerreviewed scientific study that determines th at there are severe r eactions by passengers to peanuts as a result of contact with very sma ll airborne peanut part icles of the kind that passengers might encount er in an aircraft. At this time, given the provisions of Public Law 106-69, the Department will decline to take action due to a lack of the peer-review ed study referred to in the law.

13. Effective Date of Rule

The NPRM: In the NPRM, we proposed that the fina l rule take effect 180 days after its publication in the Federal Register . We stated that we believ e 180 days would allow sufficient time for carriers to comply with the various proposed requirements and invited comment on whether 180 days is the appropriate interval for completing the changes.

Comments: We received few comments on the effec tive date of the final rule. Among

carrier and carrier association commenters, RAA states that its members need a minimum of 180 days to implement the new rule. On the consumer side, AAPR supports the Department’s 180- day proposal. FlyersRights.org and its supporters suggest that the effective date should be no longer than 120 days after the final rule’s pub lication date. CTA be lieves the rule should become effective 120-150 days after the publicati on date so it will become effective before the174 summer travel season starts. One consumer stat ed that 180 days is reasonable for implementing most items but carriers may need additional time for some of the proposed changes. DOT Response: Based on our experience in implementing the December 2009 final rule, which became effective on April 29, 2010, we be lieve that 120 days is sufficient for U.S. and foreign carriers to implement the various requirements in this final rule, with the exception of the requirements pertaining to full-fare adver tising. The new full fare adverting requirements will not take effect until 180 days af ter the publication of this final ru le in the Federal Register to mitigate the costs of print advertising revision by reducing the amount of advertising slated for use that will have to be pulled. We are imposing a 120-day effective date for the other requirements in the final rule to enable consumer s to begin benefiting from these requirements as soon as possible.

REGULATORY ANALYSES AND NOTICES A. Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review), DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures, and Executive Order 13563 (Imp roving Regulation and Regulatory Review)

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 in accordan ce with Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) and Executive Order 13563 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review) and is consistent with the requirements in both orders. Executive Order 13563 refers to nonquantifiable values, including eq uity and fairness. This rule promotes such values by improving transparency, and by preventi ng unexpected charges to passengers. The final Regulatory Evaluation concludes th at the monetized benefits of the final rule exceed its monetized costs, even without considering non-quan tifiable benefits. The expected present value175 of monetized passenger benefits from the final ru le over a 10 year period using a 7% discount rate is estimated at $45.0 million and the expected present value of mone tized costs incurred by

carriers and other sellers of air transportation to comply with the final rule over a 10 year period using a 7% discount rate is $30.7 m illion. The present value of m onetized net benefits over a 10 year period at a 7% disc ount rate is $14.3 million. Below, we have included a table outlining the costs and benefits of the requirements in this final rule. A copy of the final Regulatory Evaluation has been placed in the docket. COMPARISON OF REQUIREMENT-SPECIFI C BENEFITS AND COSTS, 2012-2021 (Discounted at 7 percent annually to 2012 $ millions) Area 1: Expansion of tarmac contingency plan requirements and extension of EAPP1 requirements to cover foreign carriers Total Monetized Benefits $1.2 Monetized Costs $3.0 Monetized Net Benefits

‐ $1.8 Additional unquantifiable benefits and costs that are directly or indirectly related to this rulemaking, which result in benefits that the Department has determined justify the costs: 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 toward Carriers Additional Gate Return Costs Incurred by Carriers Time Required for Airport/Terminal Authorities, CBP/TSA to Coordinate Plans Area 2: Expanded tarmac delay reporting and application to foreign carriers Total Monetized Benefits* $0.0 Monetized Costs $0.8 Monetized Net Benefits

‐ $0.8 Additional unquantifiable benefits that are directly or indirectly related to this rulemaking, which result in benefits that the Department has determined justify the costs: Increased Efficiency of US DOT Oversight and Enforcement Office Operations Improved Management of Flight Delays Area 3: Establishment of minimum standards for customer service plans (CSPs) and extension of EAPP1 Final Rule Areas to cover foreign carriers Total Monetized Benefits $7.7 Monetized Costs $7.4176 Monetized Net Benefits $0.3 Additional unquantifiable benefits that are directly or indirectly related to this rulemaking, which result in benefits that the Department has determined justify the costs: Decreased Confusion and Uncertainty Regarding Department CSP Requirements Improved Customer Service from Foreign Carrier Self

‐ Auditing of Adherence to CSPs Improved Customer Good Will toward Carriers Area 4: Foreign carrier posting of tarmac delay contingency plans, CSPs, and contracts of carriage on websites Total Monetized Benefits* $0.0 Monetized Costs $1.0 Monetized Net Benefits

‐ $1.0 Additional unquantifiable benefits that are directly or indirectly related to this rulemaking, which result in benefits that the Department has determined justify the costs: Decreased Occurrence of and Improved Resolution of Customer Complaints Area 5: Extension of EAPP1 Final Rule Areas for carriers to respond to consumer complaints to cover foreign carriers Total Monetized Benefits $0.0 Monetized Costs $1.9 Monetized Net Benefits

‐ $1.9 Additional unquantifiable benefits that are directly or indirectly related to this rulemaking, which result in benefits that the Department has determined justify the costs: Decreased Anger toward Carriers During Resolution of Complaints Area 6: Changes in denied boarding compensation (DBC) requirements Total Monetized Benefits* $0.0 Monetized Costs $1.0 Monetized Net Benefits

‐ $1.0 Additional unquantifiable benefits and costs that are directly or indirectly related to this rulemaking, which result in benefits that the Department has determined justify the costs: Decreased Confusion Regarding DBC Provisions Decreased Resentment among Some Passengers Regarding Different Compensation Received Programming and Training Costs for Foreign Carriers Area 7: Full

‐ fare advertising and prohibition on opt ‐ out provisions Total Monetized Benefits $29.0 Monetized Costs $6.8 Monetized Net Benefits $22.2 Additional unquantifiable benefits that are directly or indirectly related to this rulemaking, which result in benefits that the Department has determined justify the costs: Travelers Less Likely to Mistakenly Purchase Unwanted Services and Amenities Improved Customer Good Will toward Carriers Area 8: Expanded disclosure of baggage and other optional fees Total Monetized Benefits* $0.0177 Monetized Costs $7.9 Monetized Net Benefits

‐ $7.9 Additional unquantifiable benefits that are directly or indirectly related to this rulemaking, which result in benefits that the Department has determined justify the costs: Decreased Time at Check

‐ in Improved Customer Good Will toward Carriers Area 9: Limitations on post ‐ purchase price increases Total Monetized Benefits $7.2 Monetized Costs $1.1 Monetized Net Benefits $6.1 Additional unquantifiable benefits that are directly or indirectly related to this rulemaking, which result in benefits that the Department has determined justify the costs: Improved Customer Good Will toward Carriers Area 10: Prompt passenger notification of flight status changes Total Monetized Benefits* $0.0 Monetized Costs* $0.0 Monetized Net Benefits $0.0 Additional unquantifiable benefits that are directly or indirectly related to this rulemaking, which result in benefits that the Department has determined justify the costs: Greater Comfort and Certainty from Knowing that Information Will Be Available In Timely Manner Area 11: Limitations on venue provisions in contracts of carriage Total Monetized Benefits* $0.0 Monetized Costs* $0.0 Monetized Net Benefits $0.0 Additional unquantifiable benefits and costs that are directly or indirectly related to this rulemaking, which result in benefits that the Department has determined justify the costs: Improved Customer Good Will toward Carriers Reduced Costs for Consumers to File/Adjudicate Claims Increased Costs for Carriers to Settle/Adjudicate Claims Requirement Areas 1 ‐ 11 Total Total Monetized Benefits $45.0 Monetized Costs $30.7 Monetized Net Benefits $14.3 *Monetized estimates could not be developed from the information available on the record. B. Regulatory Flexibility Act The Regulatory Flexibility Ac t (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requi res 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. Our178 analysis identified a total of 50 small U.S. air car riers (i.e., carriers that provide air transportation exclusively with aircraft that s eat no more than 60 passengers), 50 small airports (i.e., privatelyowned airports that have annual revenues of no mo re than $7 million or publicly-owned airports owned by jurisdictions with less than 50,000 i nhabitants) , as many as 11,625 small travel agencies (i.e., travel agencies with no more than $3.5 million in annual revenues) and as many as 2,720 small tour operators (i.e., tour operators with no more than $7.0 million in annual revenues) potentially affected by the requirements of the final rule. While most regulation of the air transportation sector is concerned with carriers, certain elements of this final rule impose new requirements on small travel agents and tour operators. Sm all U.S. carriers will need to comply with additional requirements relating to coordination of tarmac contingency plans, reporting tarmac delays, specific customer se rvice plan provisions, denied boarding compensation, advertising of air fares, and disclo sure of baggage and other optional fees. Small travel agents and tour operators will have to comply with the re quirements relating to advertising of air fares, disclosure of baggage and other optional fees, and pre-purch ase disclosures on price

increases. The Department believes that the economic imp act will not be significant for a number of reasons. First, most small U.S. air carriers op erate passenger service ex clusively with aircraft that have fewer than 30 seats. The requirement s relating to tarmac cont ingency plans, reporting tarmac delays, specific customer service plan provisions, and denied boarding compensation will not apply to these carriers. In addition, the pe r-carrier and per-ticket agent compliance costs estimated in the final regulatory analysis fo r the remaining requirements are very small—less than $17,000 per affected small carrier operating ai rcraft with between 30 and 60 seats, less than $4,500 per small carrier operating aircraft with fewer than 30 seats, and about $3,500 per small179 travel agent or tour operator with online booki ng capability to achieve compliance during the first year the final rule takes effect and no more than a few hundred dollars to maintain compliance in subsequent years. On the basis of this examination, the De partment certifies that this rule will not have a signi ficant economic impact on a substant ial number of small entities. A copy of the Final Regulatory Flexibility An alysis has been placed in docket. C. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism) This Final Rule has been analyzed in accordance with the principles and criteria contained in Executive Order 13132 (“Federalism ”). This final rule does not include any provision that: (1) has substantia l direct effects on the States, the relationship between the national government and the States, or the distri bution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government; (2) imposes substa ntial 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 final rule has been analyzed in accordance with the principles and criteria contained in Executive Order 13084 (``Consultati on and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments''). Because this final rule does not significantly or uniquely affect the communities of the Indian Tribal governments or impose substantial direct compliance costs on them, the funding and consultation requireme nts of Executive Order 13084 do not apply. E. Paperwork Reduction Act As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, DOT has submitted the Information Collection Requests (ICRs) abstract ed below to the Office of Management and180 Budget (OMB). Before OMB decides whether to approve those proposed collections of information that are part of this final rule and issue a control number , the public must be provided 30 days to comment. Organizations an d individuals desiring to submit comments on the collection information requirements should dir ect them to the Office of Management and Budget, Attention: Desk Officer for the Offi ce of the Secretary of Transportation, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Washingt on, D.C. 20503, and shoul d also send a copy of their comments to: Department of Transpor tation, Office of Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings, Office of the General Counsel, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE, Washington, D.C. 20590. OMB is required to make a decision concerning the collection of information requirements contained in this rule between 30 a nd 60 days after publication of this document in the Federal Register. Therefore, a comment to OMB is best assured of having its full effect if OMB receives it within 30 days of publication. We will respond to any OMB or public comments on the information collection requirements contained in this rule. OST ma y not impose a penalty on persons for violating information collection requirements which do not display a current OMB control number, if required. OST intends to renew current OMB control numbers for the three new information collection requirements resulting from this rule making action. The OMB control number, when renewed, will be announced by separate notice in the Federal Register. The ICRs were previously published in the Federal Register as part of NPRM (75 FR 32318, June 8, 2010) and the Department invited in terested persons to submit comments on any aspect of each of these three information colle ctions, including the following: (1) the necessity and utility of the information co llection, (2) the accuracy of the estimate of the burden, (3) ways181 to enhance the quality, utility, a nd clarity of the information to be collected, and (4) ways to minimize the burden of collection without reducing the quality of the collected information.

The final rule contains three new informati on collection requirements. The first is a requirement that foreign air carriers that operate passenger service (schedul ed and charter) to or from the U.S. using any aircraft with 30 or mo re seats collect and retain for two years the following information about any ground delay that lasts at least three hou rs: the length of the delay, the precise cause of the delay, the actions taken to mi nimize hardships for passengers, whether the flight ultimately took of f (in the case of a departure delay or diversion) or returned to the gate; and an explanation for any tarmac dela y that exceeded 3 hours. The Department plans

to use the information to invest igate instances of long delays on the ground and to identify any trends and patterns that may develop. The a ssumptions upon which the calculations for this requirement are based as well as the informa tion collection burden hours have changed. We

have increased our estimate for the maximum numb er of tarmac delays that a single carrier may experience. The second is a requirement that U.S. car riers and foreign carri ers 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 respec t to their operations at a U.S. airport for any tarmac delay of three hours or mo re, including diverted flights. This requirement would apply to reporting carriers under 14 CFR Part 234 only with respect to their public charter service and international service, as reporti ng carriers already submit tarmac delay data to the Department for their domestic scheduled passenger service. The De partment plans to use this information to obtain more precise data to compare tarmac delay incidents by carrier, by air port, and by specific time frame, for use in making future policy de cisions and developing ru lemakings. We have182 modified the information collection burden hours for this requirement because carriers are not required to file negative reports as proposed in the NPRM. Covered carri ers will only need to submit the report if the one or more flight s experience delays that exceed 3 hours. The third is a requirement that any foreign air carrier that operates scheduled passenger service to and from the U.S. using any aircraft with 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. Alth ough we have made some modest changes to the customer service plan requirements from what was proposed in the NPRM, these changes do not impact the assumption upon which the calculations for retaining the result s of each audit are

based. The information collection burden hours have increased slightly as our estimate of the number of carriers covered by th is requirement has changed. 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 informa tion about any ground delay that lasts at least three hours. Respondents: Foreign air carriers th at 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: A maximum of 54 hours per respondent.

Estimated Total Annual Burden: 2,226 hours for all respondents. Frequency: One information set to retain per three hour plus tarmac delay for each respondent. 2. Requirement that carrier report certain tarm ac delay data for tarmac delays exceeding 3 hours 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 passe nger service to and from the United States using any aircraft originally desi gned to have a passenger capacity of 30 or more seats.183 Estimated Annual Burden on Respondents: 0.5 to 10 hours per domestic respondent and 0.5 to 4.5 hours per foreign respondent.

Estimated Total Annual Burden: 134 4 hours for all respondents. Frequency: One information set to submit pe r month for each respondent that experiences a tarmac delay of more than 3 hours at a U.S. airport. 3. Requirement that carrier retain for two yea rs the results of its annual self-audit of its compliance with its Cu stomer Service Plan. Respondents: Foreign air carriers th at operate scheduled passenger service to and from the U.S. using any aircraft originally designed to ha ve 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 25 hours and 15 minutes for all respondents. Frequency: One information set to retain per year for each respondent. F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act The Department has determined that the requirements of Titl e II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 do not apply to this notice.

Issued This 18th Day of April, 2011, in Washington, D.C.

ORIGINAL SIGNED

__________________________ Ray LaHood Secretary of Transportation List of Subjects

14 CFR Parts 250 and 259 Air Carriers, Consumer Protection, Re porting and Recordkeeping Requirements

14 CFR Part 244184 Air Carriers, Consumer Pr otection, Tarmac Delay Data

14 CFR Part 253 Air Carriers, Consumer Prot ection, Contract of Carriage

14 CFR Part 399

Administrative Practice and Proced ure, Air Carriers, Air Rates a nd Fares, Air Taxis, Consumer Protection, Small Businesses. For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Department amends 14 CFR Chapter II as

follows:

1

. Add part 244 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.

Arrival time is the instant when the pilot sets the ai rcraft 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, for purposes of section 244.3 carriers using a Docking Guidance System (DGS) may record the official "g ate-arrival time" when the aircraft is stopped at the appropriate parking mark.185 Cancelled flight means a flight operation that was not opera ted, but was listed in an air carrier or a foreign air carrier’s computer reservation syst em within seven calendar days of the scheduled departure. Certificated air carrier means a U.S. carrier holding a certificate issued under 49 U.S.C. 41102 to conduct passenger service or holding an exem ption to conduct passe nger operations under 49

U.S.C. 40109.

Commuter air carrier means a U.S. carrier that has been found fit under 49 U.S.C. 41738 and is authorized to carry passengers on at least five round trips per w eek on at least one route between two or more points according to a published flight schedule using small aircraft as defined in 14

CFR 298.2.

Covered carrier means a certificated carrier, a commute r carrier, or a foreign air carrier operating to, from, or within the United States, conducting scheduled passe nger service or public

charter service with at least one aircraft ha ving a designed passenger s eating 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 carr ier’s published schedule. For example, a carrier has a published schedule for a flight from A to B to C. If the carrier were to actually fly an A to C operation, the A to B segment is a diverted flight , and the B to C segment is a cancelled flight. The same would apply if the flight were to oper ate from A to an airport other than B or C. 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 author izing direct foreign air transportation.186 Gate departure time is the instant when the pilot releas es the aircraft parking brake after passengers have boarded and aircra ft doors have closed. In cases wh ere the flight returned to the departure gate before wheels-off time and depart s a second time, the reportable gate departure time for purposes of this Part is the last gate departure time before wheels-off time. In cases of a return to the gate after wheels-off time, the reportable gate departure time is the last gate departure time before the gate return. If passe ngers were boarded wit hout the parking brake being set, the reportable gate departure time is the time that the last passenger door was closed. Also, the official "gate-departur e 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 appr opriate parking mark with in 15 seconds. Fifteen

seconds is then subtracted from the record ed time to obtain the appropriate “out” time.

Gate Return time means the time that an aircraft that has left the boarding gate returns to a gate or other position at an airpor t for the purpose of allowing pa ssengers the opportunity to

disembark from the aircraft. Large hub airport means an airport that accounts fo r 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 total enplanements in the United States. Small hub airport means an airport accounting for at leas t 0.05 percent but le ss than 0.25 percent of the total enplanements in the United States.187 Tarmac delay means the holding of an aircraft on th e ground either before taking off or after landing with no opportunity for its passengers to deplane. § 244.2 Applicability. (a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, this part applies to U.S. certificated air carriers, U.S. commuter air carriers and foreig n air carriers that opera te passenger service to or from a U.S. airport with at least one aircraft that has an original manufacturer’s design capacity of 30 or more seats. Covered carri ers must report all pa ssenger operations that experience a tarmac time of 3 hours or more at a U.S. airport. (b) For foreign air carriers that operate charter flights from foreign air ports to U.S. airports, and return to foreign airports , and do not pick up any new passe ngers in the U.S., the charter flights are not flights subject to the re porting requirements of this part. (c) U.S. carriers that submit Part 234 Airlin e Service Quality Performance Reports must submit 3-hour tarmac delay information for public charter flights and in ternational passenger flights to or from any U.S. large hub airport, medium hub air port, small hub airport and non-hub airport. These carriers are al ready required to subm it such information for domestic scheduled flights to or from U.S. large hub airports under art 234 of this chapter. Th ese carriers that are covered by part 234 need only submit information fo r flights with tarmac de lays of more than 3 hours under this part 244 for domestic scheduled passenger flights to or from any U.S. medium hub airport, small hub airport and non-hub airpor t to the extent they do not report such

information under 14 CFR 234.7. § 244.3 Reporting of tarmac delay data. (a) Each covered carrier shall file BTS Form 244 “Tarmac Delay Report” with the Office of188 Airline Information of the Department’s Bureau of Transportation Statistics on a monthly basis, setting forth the information for each of its cove red flights that experienced a tarmac delay of three hours or more, including diverted flight s and cancelled flights on which the passengers were boarded and then deplaned before the cance llation. The reports are due within 15 days after the end of the month during which the carrier ex perienced any tarmac delay of three hours or more. The reports shall be made in the form and manner set forth in accounting and reporting directives issued by the Director, Office of Ai rline Information, and shall contain the following

information: (1) Carrier code (2) Flight number (3) Departure airpor t (three letter code) (4) Arrival airpor t (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 ga te return or canceled flight (13) Three letter code of airport where flight diverted (14) Wheels-on time at diverted airport189 (15) Total time away from gate at diverted airport (16) Longest time away from ga te at diverted airport (17) Wheels-off time at diverted airport (b) The same information required by paragraph (a )(13) through (17) of this section must be provided for each subsequent diverted airport landing.

PART 250 – OVERSALES 2. The authority citation for 14 CFR Pa rt 250 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. chapters 401, 411, 413 and 417. 3. Section 250.1 is amended by removing the defini tion of “sum of the values of the remaining flight coupons” and “comparable air transporta tion,” revising the definition for “confirmed reserved space,” and adding a definition for “altern ate transportation,” “class of service,” “fare,”

and “zero fare ticket” to read as follows: § 250.1 Definitions

* * * * * Alternate transportation means air transportation with a confirmed reservation at no additional charge, operated by a carrier as defined below, or other transportation accepted and used by the passenger in the case of denied boarding.

* * * * * Class of service means seating in the same cabin class such as First, Business, or Economy class, or in the same seating zone if the carrier has more than one seating product in the same cabin such as Economy and Premium Economy class. Confirmed reserved space means space on a specific date and on a specific flight and class of service of a carrier which has been requested by a passenger, including a passenger with a “zero190 fare ticket,” and which the carrier or its agent ha s 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.

Fare means the price paid for air transportation in cluding all mandatory taxes and fees. It does not include ancillary fees for optional services.

* * * * * Zero fare ticket means a ticket acquired without a substant ial monetary paymen t such as by using frequent flyer miles or vouchers, or a consolidator ticket obtained after a monetary payment that

does not show a fare amount on the ticket. A ze ro fare ticket does not include free or reduced rate air transportati on provided to airline employees and guests. 4. Section 250.2b is amended by adding paragraph (c) to read as follows: § 250.2b Carriers to request vol unteers for denied boarding.

***** (c) If a carrier offers free or reduced rate ai r transportation as compen sation to volunteers, the

carrier must disclose all materi al restrictions, including but no t limited to administrative fees, advance purchase or capacity restri ctions, and blackout dates applic able to the offer before the passenger decides whether to give up his or he r confirmed reserved sp ace on that flight in exchange for the free or reduced rate transportation.

5. Section 250.5 is revised to read as follows: § 250.5 Amount of denied boarding compensation for passengers denied boarding involuntarily.191 (a) Subject to the exceptions provided in § 250.6, a carrier to whom this part applies as described in § 250.2 shall pay compensation in inte rstate air transportatio n to passengers who are denied boarding involuntarily from an oversold flight as follows: (1) No compensation is required if the carrier offers alternate transportation that, at the time the arrangement is made, is planned to arrive at the airport of the passenge r’s first stopover, or if none, the airport of the passenger’s final destinat ion not later than one hour after the planned arrival time of the passenge r’s original flight; (2) Compensation shall be 200% of the fare to the passenger’s destin ation or first stopover, with a maximum of $650, if the carrier offers alternate transportation that, at the time the arrangement is made, is planned to arrive at the airport of the passenger’s firs t stopover, or if none, the airport of the passenger’s final destination more than one hour but less than two hours after the planned arrival time of the passenger’s original flight; and (3) Compensation shall be 400% of the fare to the passenger’s destin ation or first stopover, with a maximum of $1,300, if the carrier does not offer alternate transportation that, at the time the arrangement is made, is planned to arrive at th e airport of the passenger’ s first stopover, or if none, the airport of the passenger’s final destinat ion less than two hours af ter the planned arrival time of the passenger’s original flight. (b) Subject to the exceptions provided in § 250.6, a carrier to whom this part applies as described in § 250.2 shall pay compensation to pa ssengers in foreign air transportation who are denied boarding involuntarily at a U.S. air port from an oversold flight as follows: (1) No compensation is required if the carrier offers alternate transportation that, at the time the arrangement is made, is planned to arrive at the airport of the passenge r’s first stopover, or if192 not, the airport of the passenger’s final destina tion not later than one hour after the planned arrival time of the passenge r’s original flight; (2) Compensation shall be 200% of the fare to the passenger’s destin ation or first stopover, with a maximum of $650, if the carrier offers alternate transportation that, at the time the arrangement is made, is planned to arrive at the airport of the passenger’s fi rst stopover, or if not, the airport of the passenger’s final de stination more than one hour but le ss than four hours after the planned arrival time of the passenger’s original flight; and (3) Compensation shall be 400% of the fare to the passenger’s destin ation or first stopover, with a maximum of $1,300, if the carrier does not offer alternate transportation that, at the time the arrangement is made, is planned to arrive at the airport of the pa ssenger’s first stopover, or if not, the airport of the passenger’s fi nal destination less than four hours after the planned arrival time of the passenger’s original flight. (c) Carriers may offer free or reduced rate air transportation in lieu of the cash or check due under paragraphs (a) and (b ) of this section, if— (1) The value of the transpor tation benefit offered, excluding any fees or other mandatory charges applicable for using the fr ee or reduced rate air transportati on, is equal to or greater than the cash/check payment otherwise required; (2) The carrier fully informs the passenger of th e amount of cash/check co mpensation that would otherwise be due and that the passenger may d ecline the transportation benefit and receive the cash/check payment; and (3) The carrier fully discloses all material restri ctions, including but not limited to, administrative fees, advance purchase or capacity restrictions, and blackout dates ap plicable to the offer, on the193 use of such free or reduced ra te transportation before the pa ssenger decides to give up the cash/check payment in excha nge for such transportation. (d) The requirements of this section apply to pa ssengers with “zero fa re tickets.” The fare paid by these passengers for purposes of calcula ting denied boarding compensation shall be the lowest cash, check, or credit card payment charge d for a ticket in the same class of service on that flight. (e) The Department of Transportation w ill review the maximum denied boarding compensation amounts prescribed in this part ev ery two years except for the first review, which will take place in 2012 in order to put the reviews specified in this section on the same cycle as the reviews of domestic baggage liability limits specified in 14 CFR 254.6. The Department will use any increase in the Consumer Price Index fo r All Urban Consumers (C PI-U) as of July of each review year to calculate the increased maximum compensati on amounts. The Department will use the following formula: (1) Current Denied Boarding Compensation li mit in section 250.5(a)(2) 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 [insert month a nd year of the effective date of final rule] when the inflation adjustment provision was added to Part 250.

(2) The Denied Boarding Compensation limit in § 250.5(a)(3) shall be twice the revised limit for § 250.5(a)(2). (f) In addition to the denied boarding compensa tion specified in this part, a carrier shall refund all unused ancillary fees for optional services paid by a passenger who is voluntarily or194 involuntarily denied boarding. The carrier is not required to refund the ancillary fees for services that are provided with respect to the passenger’s alternate tr ansportation. 6 . In § 250.9, the section heading and paragraph (b) are revised and paragraph (c) is added to

read as follows: § 250.9 Written explanation of denied boarding compensation and boarding priorities, and verbal notification of denied boarding compensation.

***** (b) The statement shall read as follows: Compensation For Denied Boarding If you have been denied a reserv ed seat on (name of air carrier), you are pr obably entitled to monetary compensation. This notice explains the airline’s obligation and the passenger’s rights in the case of an oversold flight , in accordance with regulations of the U.S. Department of Transportation

. Volunteers and Boarding Priorities If a flight is oversold (more passengers hold confirmed reserv ations than there are seats available), no one may be denied boarding against his or her will until airline personnel first ask for volunteers who will give up their reserv ation willingly, in exchange for compensation of the airline’s choosing. If there are not e nough volunteers, other passengers may be denied boarding involuntarily in accordance with the fo llowing boarding priori ty of (name of air carrier): (In this space the carrier inserts its boarding priority rules or a summary thereof, in a manner to be understandable to the average passenger.) Compensation for Involuntary Denied Boarding If you are denied boarding invol untarily, you are entitled to a payment of “denied boarding compensation” from the airline unless: (1) you have not fully complied with the ai rline’s ticketing, check-i n and reconfirmation requirements, or you are not acceptable for trans portation under the airline’s usual rules and practices; or (2) you are denied boarding because the flight is canceled; or (3) you are denied boarding because a smaller cap acity aircraft was substituted for safety or operational reasons; or (4) on a flight operated w ith an aircraft having 60 or fewe r seats, you are denied boarding due to safety-related weight/balance rest rictions that limit payload; or195 (5) you are offered accommodations in a section of the aircraft other than specified in your ticket, at no extra charge (a pa ssenger seated in a section for which a lower fare is charged must be given an appr opriate refund); or (6) the airline is able to place you on another flig ht or flights that are planned to reach your next stopover or final destinati on within one hour of the planned arrival time of your original flight. Amount of Denied Boarding Compensation Domestic Transportation Passengers traveling between points within the United States (includi ng the territories and possessions) who are denied board ing involuntarily from an overs old flight are entitled to: (1) no compensation if the carrier offers alternat e transportation that is planned to arrive at the passenger’s destination or first stopover not later than one hour afte r the planned arrival time of the passenger’s original flight; (2) 200% of the fare to the passe nger’s destination or first stopover, with a maximum of $650, if the ca rrier offers alternate transportation that is planned to arrive at the passe nger’s destination or first stopover more than one hour but less than two hours after the planne d arrival time of the passenger’s original flight; and (3) 400% of the fare to the passenger’s destination or first stopover, with a maximum of $1,300, if the carrier does not offer alternate transportation that is planned to arrive at the airport of the passenger’s destination or first stopover less than two hours afte r the planned arrival time of the passenger’s original flight. 0 to 1 hour arrival delay No compensation 1 to 2 hour arrival delay 200% of one-way fare (but no more than $650) Over 2 hours arrival delay 400% of one-way fare (but no more than $1,300) International Transportation Passengers traveling from the United States to a foreign point w ho are denied boarding involuntarily from an oversold flight originatin g at a U.S. airport are entitled to: (1) no compensation if the carrier offers alternate transportation that is planned to arrive at the passenger’s destination or first st opover not later than one hour after the pl anned arrival time of the passenger’s original flight ; (2) 200% of the fare to the passenger’s destination or first stopover, with a maximum of $650, if the carrier offers alternate tr ansportation that is planned to arrive at the passe nger’s destination or first stopover more than one hour but less than four hours after the planne d arrival time of the passenger’s original flight; and (3) 400% of the fare to the passenger’s destination or first stopover, with a maximum of $1,300, if the carrier does not offer alternate transportation that is planned to arrive at the airport of the passenger’s destination or first st opover less than four hours afte r the planned arrival time of the passenger’s original flight. 0 to 1 hour arrival delay No compensation 1 to 4 hour arrival delay 200% of one-way fare (but no more than $650)196 Over 4 hours arrival delay 400% of one-way fare (but no more than $1,300) Alternate Transportation “Alternate transportation” is air transportation with a confirmed reservation at no additional charge (by any schedul ed airline licensed by DOT ), or other transportation accepted and used by the passenger in the case of denied boarding. Method of Payment Except as provided below, the airline must give each passenger who qualifies for involuntary denied boarding compensation a payment by cash or check for the amount specified above, on the day and at the place the involuntary denied boarding occurs. If the airline arranges alternate transportation for the passenger’s conv enience that departs before the payment can be made, the payment shall be sent to the pa ssenger within 24 hours. The air carrier may offer free or discounted transportation in place of the cash payment. In that event, the carrier must disclose all material restrictions on th e use of the free or discounted transportation before the passenger decides whether to accept the transportation in lieu of a cash or check payment. The passenger may insist on the cas h/check payment or refuse all compensation and bring private legal action. Passenger’s Options Acceptance of the compensation may relieve (nam e of air carrier) from any further liability to the passenger caused by its failure to honor the confirmed reservation. However, the passenger may decline the payment and seek to re cover damages in a court of law or in some other manner. (c) In addition to furnishing passengers with th e carrier’s written stat ement as specified in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section, if the carrier oral ly advises involuntarily bumped passengers that they are entitled to receive free or discounted transportati on as denied boarding compensation, the carrier must also orally advise the passengers of any mate rial restrictions or conditions applicable to the free or discounted tr ansportation and that they are entitled to choose a check instead (or cash if that opt ion is offered by the carrier).

7. Section 250.10 is revised to read as follows: § 250.10 Report of passengers denied confirmed space.197 Every reporting carrier as defined in §234.2 of th is chapter and any carri er that voluntarily submits data pursuant to §234.7 of this chapter shall file, on a qua rterly basis, the information specified in BTS Form 251. The reporting basis shall be flight segments originating in the United States. The reports are to be submitted within 30 days after the end of the quarter covered by the report. The calendar quart ers end March 31, June 30, September 30 and December 31. "Total Boardings" on Line 7 of Form 251 shall include only passengers on flights

for which confirmed reservations are offere d. Data shall not be included for inbound international flights.

PART 253 – NOTICE OF TERMS OF CONTRACT OF CARRIAGE 8. 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.

9. Section 253.7 is revised to read as follows: §253.7 Direct notice of certain terms. A carrier may not impose any term s restricting refunds of the ticket price, imposing monetary penalties on passengers, or raisi ng the ticket price cons istent with §399.87 of the chapter, unless the passenger receives conspicuous written notice of th e salient features of those terms on or

with the ticket.

10. Section 253.10 is added to read as follows: § 253.10: Notice of contract of carriage choice-of-forum provisions. No carrier may impose any contract of carriag e provision containing a ch oice-of-forum clause that attempts to preclude a passenger, or a pers on who purchases a ticket for air transportation on behalf of a passenger, from bringing a claim against a carrier in a ny court of competent198 jurisdiction, including a c ourt within the jurisdic tion of that passenger’s residence in the United States (provided that the carrier does business within that jurisdiction).

PART 259 – ENHANCED PROTECTI ONS FOR AIRLINE PASSENGERS 11. 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.

12. Section 259.2 is revised to read as follows: §259.2 Applicability. This part applies to all the flights of a certificated or commuter air carrier if the carrier operates scheduled passenger service or public charter serv ice using any aircraft originally designed to have a passenger capacity of 30 or mo re seats, and to all flights to and from the U.S. of a foreign carrier if the carrier op erates 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, except as otherwise provided in this part. This part does not apply to foreign carrier charters that operate to and from the United States if no new passengers are picked up in the United

States.

13. Section 259.3 is revised to read as follows: §259.3. Definitions. Certificated air carrier means a U.S. carrier holding a ce rtificate issued under 49 U.S.C. 41102 to conduct passenger service or holding an exem ption to conduct passe nger operations under 49

U.S.C. 41102.

Commuter air carrier means a U.S. carrier that has been found fit under 49 USC 41738 and is authorized to carry passengers on at least five round trips per w eek on at least one route between199 two or more points according to a published flight schedule using small aircraft as defined in 14

CFR 298.2.

Covered carrier means a certificated carrier, a commute r carrier, or a foreign air carrier operating to, from or within the United States, conducting scheduled passe nger service or public charter service with at least one aircraft having a designed seating 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 author izing direct foreign air transportation. Large hub airport means an airport that accounts fo r 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 leas t 0.05 percent but le ss than 0.25 percent of the total enplanements in the United States. Tarmac delay means the holding of an aircraft on th e ground either before taking off or after landing with no opportunity for its passengers to deplane.

14. 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 ad opt a Contingency Plan for Lengthy Tarmac Delays for its scheduled and public charter flights at each U.S. la rge hub airport, medium200 hub airport, small hub airport and non-hub airport at which it operates or markets such air service and shall adhere to its plan’s terms. (b) Contents of Plan . Each Contingency Plan for Lengt hy 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 th an three hours before allowing passengers to deplane unless: (i) The pilot-in-command determines there is a safety-related or security-related 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 four hours before allowing passengers to deplane,

unless: (i) The pilot-in-command determines there is a safety-related or security-related reason why the aircraft cannot leave it s 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 ai rport operations.201 (3) For all flights, assuran ce that the carrier will provi de adequate food and potable

water no later than two hours after the aircraft leaves the gate (in th e 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 secu rity considerations preclude such service; (4) For all flights, assura nce of operable lavatory faci lities, 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 de lay every 30 minutes while the aircraft is delayed, including the reas ons for the tarmac delay , if known; (6) For all flights, assurance that th e passengers on the delayed flight will be notified beginning 30 minutes after scheduled depart ure time (including a ny revised departure time that passengers were notified about befo re boarding) and every 30 minutes thereafter that they have the opportunity to deplane from an aircraft th at is at the gate or another disembarkation area with the door open if the opportunity to deplane actually exists; (7) Assurance of sufficient res ources to implement the plan; and (8) Assurance that the plan has been coor dinated with airport authorities (including terminal facility operators where applicable) at each U.S. large hub airport, medium hub airport, small hub airport and non-hub airport that the carrier serves, as well as its regular U.S. diversion airports; (9) Assurance that the plan has been coordinated with U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) at each large U.S. hub airpor t, medium hub airport, small hub airport and non-hub airport that is regularly used for that carrier’s international fl ights, including diversion airports; and202 (10) Assurance that the plan has been co ordinated with the Tr ansportation Security Administration (TSA) at each U.S. large hub airport, medium hub airport, small hub airport and non-hub airport th at the carrier serves, incl uding diversion airports. (c) Code-Share Responsibility . The tarmac delay contingenc y plan of the carrier under whose code the service is marketed governs, if different from the ope rating carrier, unless the marketing carrier specifies in its contract of ca rriage that the operating carrier’s plan governs. (d) 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 th is rule), in which case the amended plan shall apply only to departures that are first offered fo r sale after the plan’s amendment. (e) Retention of records . Each carrier that is required to adopt a Contingency Plan for Lengthy Tarmac Delays shall retain for two year s the following information about any tarmac delay that lasts more than three hours: (1) The length of the delay; (2) The precise cause of the delay; (3) The actions taken to minimize hardship s for passengers, including the provision of food and water, the mainte nance and servicing of lavatories, and medical assistance; (4) Whether the flight ultimately took off (in the case of a departure delay or diversion) or return ed to the gate; and203 (5) An explanation for any tarmac delay th at exceeded 3 hours (i.e., why the aircraft did not return to the gate by the 3-hour mark). (f) Unfair and deceptive practice . A carrier’s failure to comply with the assurances required by this rule and contained in its Contingency Pl an for Lengthy Tarmac Delays will be considered to be an unfair and deceptive pr actice within the mean ing of 49 U.S.C. 41712 that is subject to enforcement action by the Department.

15. 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 sha ll adhere to the plan’s terms. (b) Contents of Plan . Each Customer Service Plan sha ll address the following subjects and comply with the minimum standards set forth: (1) Disclosing on the carrier’s website, at the ticke t counter, or when a customer calls

the carrier’s reservati on center to inquire about a fare or to make a rese rvation, that the lowest fare offered by the carrier may be available elsewhere if that is the case; (2) Notifying consumers of known delays, can cellations, and diversions as required by 14 CFR 259.8 of this chapter; (3) Delivering baggage on time, including ma king every reasonable effort to return mishandled baggage within twenty-four hour s, compensating passengers for reasonable expenses that result due to delay in deliver y, as required by 14 CFR part 254 for domestic flights and as required by applicable internat ional agreements for international flights, and reimbursing passengers for any fee charged to transport a bag if that bag is lost;204 (4) Allowing reservations to be held at th e quoted fare without payment, or cancelled without penalty, for at least twenty-four hour s after the reservati on is made if the

reservation is made one week or mo re prior to a flight’s departure; (5) Where ticket refunds are due, providing prompt refunds, as required by 14 CFR 374.3 and 12 CFR part 226 for credit card purchas es, and within 20 days after receiving a complete refund request for cash and check purchases, including refunding fees charged to a passenger for optional services that the passenger was unable to use due to an

oversale situation or flight cancellation; (6) Properly accommodating passe ngers with disabilities, as required by part 382 of this chapter, and other special-needs passengers as set forth in the carrier’s policies and procedures, including duri ng lengthy tarmac delays; (7) Meeting customers’ essential needs duri ng 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 fa irness and consistency in the case of oversales as required by part 250 of this ch apter and as described in each carrier’s policies and procedures for de termining boarding priority; (9) Disclosing cancellation policies, fre quent flyer rules, aircraft seating configuration, and lavatory av ailability on the se lling carrier’s website, and upon request, from the selling carrier’s te lephone reservations staff; (10) Notifying consumers in a timely manner of changes in their travel itineraries; (11) Ensuring responsiveness to consumer problems as required by § 259.7 of this chapter; and205 (12) 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 aud it its own adherence to its plan annually. Carriers shall make the

results of their audits available for the Department’s revi ew upon request for two years following the date any audit is completed.

16. Section 259.6 is revised to read as follows: §259.6 Posting of Contracts of Carriage, Tarm ac Delay Contingency Plans and Customer

Service Plans on websites. (a) Each U.S. air carrier that has a website a nd each foreign air carrier that has a website marketed to U.S. consumers, and that is require d to adopt a contingency plan for lengthy tarmac delays, shall post its current contingency pl an on its website in easily accessible form. (b) Each U.S. air carrier that has a website a nd each foreign air carrier that has a website marketed to U.S. consumers, and that is require d to adopt a customer service plan, shall post its current customer service plan on it s website in easily accessible form. (c) Each U.S. air carrier that has a website a nd each foreign air carrier that has a website marketed to U.S. consumers shall post its curren t contract of carriage on its website in easily

accessible form.

17. 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 re sponsible for monitoring the effects of flight206 delays, flight cancellations, and lengthy tarmac de lays on passengers. This employee shall have input into decisions on which flights to can cel 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 de signated department in the airline with which to file a complaint about its scheduled service. This information shall be provided on the U.S. carrier’s website (if any) and the foreign carrier’s website (if marketed to U.S. consumers), 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 ac knowledge in writing receipt of each complaint regarding its scheduled service to the complainant within 30 days of receiving it and shall send a substantive written 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 usi ng or attempting to use an airline’s services. (d) Social networking sites. Each covered carrier that us es a social networking site (e.g. Facebook, Twitter) and that does not intend for that site to be a vehicle for receipt of written consumer complaints subject to this section sh all clearly indicate on the carrier’s primary page on that social networking site that it will not reply to consumer complaints on that site and shall direct consumers to the carrier’s mailing address and e-mail or website location for filing written complaints.

18. Section 259.8 is added to read as follows: § 259.8 Notify passengers of known del ays, cancellations, and diversions. (a) Each covered carrier for its scheduled flights to, from or w ithin the U.S. must promptly provide to passengers who are tick eted or hold reservations, and to the public, information about207 a change in the status of a flight within 30 minutes after the carrier becomes aware of such a change in the status of a flight. A change in the status of a flight means, at a minimum, cancellation of a flight, a delay of 30 minutes or more in the pla nned operation of a flight, or a diversion. The flight st atus information must at a minimum be provided in the boarding gate area for the flight at a U.S. ai rport, on the carrier’s website, and via the ca rrier’s telephone reservation system upon i nquiry by any person. (1) With respect to any U.S. carrier or foreign air carrier that permits passengers to subscribe to flight status notification services, the carrier must 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 beco mes aware of such a change in the status of a flight. (2) The U.S. carrier or foreign air carrier shall incorporate such notification service

commitment into its Customer Service Plan as specified in section 259.5 of this chapter. (b) For its scheduled flights to, from or within the U.S, within 30 minutes after the carrier becomes aware of a flight cancella tion, a flight delay of 30 minutes or more, or a flight diversion, each covered carrier must update all flight status displays and othe r sources of flight information

that are under the carrier’s contro l at U.S. airports with informa tion on that flight irregularity. (c) If an airport-controlled disp lay system at a U.S. airport ac cepts flight status updates from carriers, covered carriers must provide flight irregularity information to that airport for the carrier’s scheduled flights to, from or within th e U.S. within 30 minutes after the carrier becomes aware of such a change in the stat us of a flight. Flight irregularity refers to flight cancellations, flight delays of 30 minutes or more, and diversions.

PART 399—STATEMENTS OF GENERAL POLICY208 19. The authority citation for 14 CFR Part 399 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 40101 et seq. 20. Effective [insert date 180 days after date of publication in the Federal Register], § 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 transpor tation, a tour (i.e., a combination of air transportati on and ground or cruise accommodations) or tour component (e.g., a hotel stay) that must be purchased with air transportation that states a price for such air transportation, tour, or tour component to be an unfair and deceptive practi ce 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 transpor tation, tour, or tour component. Although charges included within the single total price listed (e.g., government taxes) may be stated separately or through links or “pop ups” on websites that display the total price, such charges ma y not be false or misleading, may not be displayed prominently, may not be presen ted in the same or larger size as the total price, and must provide cost information on a per passenger basis that accurately reflects the cost of the item covered by the charge. (b) The Department considers any advertising by the entities listed in paragraph (a) of this section of an each-way 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 manner so that the disclo sure of the round-trip purchase requirement is clearly and conspicuously noted in the advertisement and is stat ed prominently and proximately to the each-way fare amount. The Department c onsiders it to be an unf air and deceptive practice209 to advertise each-way fares conti ngent on a round-trip purchase requirement as “one-way” fares, even if accompanied by prominent and proximate disclosure of the round trip purchase requirement. (c) When offering a ticket for purchase by a c onsumer, for passenger air transportation or for a tour (i.e., a combination of air transporta tion and ground or cruise accommodations) or tour component (e.g., a hotel stay) that must be purchased with air tran sportation, a direct air carrier, indirect air carrier, an agent of either, or a tick et agent, may not offer additional optional services in connection with air transporta tion, a tour, or tour component whereby the optional service is automatically added to the consumer’s purchase if the consumer takes no other action, i.e., if the consumer does not opt out. The consumer must a ffirmatively “opt in” (i.e., agree) to such a

service and the fee for it before that fee is ad ded to the total price for the air transportationrelated purchase. The Department considers the use of “opt-out” pr ovisions to be an unfair and deceptive practice in violation of 49 U.S.C. 41712.

21. Section 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 we bsite accessible for ticket purchases by the general public in the U.S., the carrier must promptly and prominently disclose any increase in its fee for carry-on or first and second checked bags and any change in the fi rst and second checked bags or carry-on allowance for a passenger on the homepage of that website (e.g., provide a link that says “changed bag rules” or similarly descrip tive language and takes the consumer from the homepage directly to a pop-up or a place on anothe r webpage that details the change in baggage

allowance or fees and the effective dates of such changes). Such notice must remain on the homepage for at least three months after the change becomes effective.210 (b) If a U.S. carrier, a foreign air carrier, an agent of either, or a ti cket agent has a website accessible for ticket purchases by the general public in the U.S., the carrier or agent must clearly and prominently disclose on the first screen in wh ich the agent or carrier offers a fare quotation for a specific itinerary selected by a consumer th at additional airline fees for baggage may apply and where consumers can see these baggage fees. An agent may refer consumers to the airline websites where specific baggage fee information may be obtained or to its ow n site if it displays airlines’ baggage fees. (c) On all e-ticket confirmations for air trans portation within, to or from the United States, including the summary page at the completion of an online purc hase and a post-purchase email confirmation, a U.S. carrier, a foreign air carrier, an agent of either, or a ticket agent that advertises or sells air transportation in the Unite d States must include information regarding the passenger’s free baggage allowance and/or the applicable fee for a carry-on bag and the first and second checked bag. Carriers must provide this information in text form in the e-ticket confirmation. Agents may provide this information in text form in the e-ticket confirmations or through a hyperlink to the specifi c location on airline we bsites or their own website where this information is displayed. The fee informati on provided for a carry-on bag and the first and second checked bag must be expressed as specif ic charges taking into account any factors (e.g., frequent flyer status, early purchase, and so forth) that affect those charges. (d) If a U.S. or foreign air carrier has a website marketed to U.S. consumers where it

advertises or sells air trans portation, the carrier must promin ently disclose on its website information on fees for all optional services th at are available to a passenger purchasing air transportation. Such disclosure must be clea r, with a conspicuous link from the carrier’s homepage directly to a page or a place on a pa ge where all such optiona l services and related211 fees are disclosed. For purposes of this secti on, the term “optional services” is defined as any service the airline provid es, for a fee, beyond passenger air tran sportation. Such fees include, but are not limited to, charges for checked or carry -on baggage, advance seat selection, in-flight beverages, snacks and meals, pillows and blankets and seat upgrades. In general, fees for particular services may be expressed as a range; however, baggage fees must be expressed as specific charges taking into account any factors (e.g., frequent flyer status, early purchase, and so forth) that affect those charges. (e) For air transportation wi thin, to or from the United Stat es, a carrier marketing a flight under its identity that is operate d by a different carrier, otherwis e known as a code-share flight, must through its website disclose to consumer s booked on a code-share flight any differences between its optional services and related fees and those of the car rier operating the flight. This disclosure may be made through a conspicuous noti ce of the existence of such differences on the marketing carrier’s website or a conspicuous hyperl ink taking the reader di rectly to the operating carrier’s fee listing or to a page on the marketing carrier’s website that lists the differences in policies among code-share partners. (f) The Department considers the failure to give the appropriate notice described in paragraphs (a) through (e) of this section to be an unfair and deceptive practice within the meaning of 49 U.S.C. 41712.

22. Section 399.87 is added to read as follows: § 399.87 Baggage allowances and fees. For passengers whose ultimate ticketed origin or destination is a U.S. point, U.S. and foreign carriers must apply the baggage al lowances and fees that apply at the beginning of a passenger's itinerary throughout his or her entire itinerary. In th e case of code-share fli ghts that form part of212 an itinerary whose ultimate ticketed origin or des tination is a U.S. point, U.S. and foreign carriers must apply the baggage allowances and fees of the marketing carrier throughout the itinerary to the extent that they differ from those of any operating carrier.

23. Section 399.88 is added to read as follows: § 399.88 Prohibition on post-purchase price increase. (a) It is an unfair and deceptive practice within the meaning of 49 U.S.C. 41712 for any seller of scheduled air transportation within, to or from the United States , or of a tour (i.e., a combination of air transporta tion and ground or cruise accomm odations), or tour component (e.g., a hotel stay) that includes sc heduled air transportation within, to or from the United States, to increase the price of that ai r transportation, tour or tour co mponent to a consumer, including but not limited to an increase in the price of the seat, an increase in the price for the carriage of passenger baggage, or an increase in an applicable fuel surcharge, after the air transportation has been purchased by the consumer, except in the case of an increase in a government-imposed tax or fee. A purchase is deemed to have occurr ed when the full amount agreed upon has been paid by the consumer. (b) A seller of scheduled air transportation withi n, to or from the United States or a tour (i.e., a combination of air transportation and ground or cruise accommodations), or tour component (e.g., a hotel stay) that includes sc heduled air transportation within, to or from the United States, must notify a consumer of the potential for a post- purchase price increase due to an increase in a government-imposed tax or fee and must obtain th e consumer’s written consent to the potential for such an increase prior to pur chase of the scheduled air trans portation, tour or tour component

that includes scheduled air tran sportation. Imposition of any such increase without providing the213 consumer the appropriate notice and without obtai ning his or her written consent of the potential increase constitutes an unfair and deceptive pr actice within the meaning of 49 U.S.C. 41712.

24. Section 399.89 is added to read as follows: § 399.89 Disclosure of potential for price increase before payment. Any seller of scheduled air transportation within, to or from the United States, or of a tour (i.e., a combination of air transporta tion and ground or cruise accomm odations), or tour component (e.g., a hotel stay) that includes sc heduled air transportation within, to or from the United States, must notify a consumer of the potential for a price increase that could take place prior to the time that the full amount agreed upon has been paid by the consumer, including but not limited to an increase in the price of the seat, an increase in the price for the carriage of passenger baggage, an increase in an applicable fuel surcharge, or an increase in a government -imposed tax or fee and

must obtain the consumer’s written consent to the potential for such an increase prior to accepting any payment for the scheduled air transportation, or tour or tour component that includes scheduled air transportation. Impositi on of any such increase without providing the consumer the appropriate notice and obtaining his or her written consent to the potential increase constitutes an unfair and deceptive practi ce within the meaning of 49 U.S.C. 41712.COMP 1656 Attachment B COMP 1656 Attachment B 

### UNITED STATES OF AMERICA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF AVIATION ENFO RCEMENT AND PROCEEDINGS WASHINGTON, DC

______________________ ___________________ Issued August 19, 2011; revised Se ptember 6, 2011 and October 19, 2011 Answers to Frequently Asked Questions Co ncerning the Enforcement of the Second Final Rule on Enhancing Airlin e Passenger Protections (EAPP #2) [Note: This document includes updated questio ns and answers to the FAQs covering EAPP #1 published on April 28, 2010, and that are amended by this second rule to enhance airline passenger protections. New FAQs will be added to the document when completed.]



### I. Overview

1. What are the main provisions of the second final rule on enhancing airline passenger protections? The following chart summarizes th e rule’s main provisions: Subject Final Rule

Tarmac Delay Contingency Plans • Requires foreign air carriers operating to or from the U.S. with at least one aircraft with 30 or more passenger seats to adopt and adhere to tarmac delay contingency plans.

• Requires U.S. and foreign air carrie rs to not permit an international flight to remain on the tarmac at a U.S. airport for more than four hours without allowing passengers to deplane subject to safety, security, and ATC exceptions.

• Expands the airports at which airlines must adhere to the contingency plan terms to incl ude small hub and non-hub airports, including diversion airports.

• Requires U.S. and foreign carriers to coordinate plans with Customs and Border Protection (CBP) a nd the Transportation Security Administration (TSA).

• Requires notification regarding the st atus of delays every 30 minutes while aircraft is delayed, incl uding reasons for delay, if known.

• Requires notification of opportunity to deplane from an aircraft that is at the gate or another disemb arkation area with door open if the2 opportunity to deplane actually exists.

Tarmac Delay Data • Requires all carriers that must a dopt tarmac delay contingency plans to file data with the Departme nt regarding lengthy tarmac delays.

Customer Service Plans • Requires foreign air carriers that operate scheduled passenger service to and from the U.S. with at least one aircraft with 30 or more passenger seats to adopt, follow and audit customer service plans.

• Establishes standards for the subjec ts U.S. and foreign air carriers must cover in customer service plans. Examples include:

• delivering baggage on time, including reimbursing passengers for any fee charged to transport a bag if the bag is lost;

• where ticket refunds are due , providing prompt refunds including refund of optional f ees charged to a passenger for services that the passenger was unable to use due to an oversale situation or f light cancellation; and

• allowing reservations to be he ld at the quoted fare without payment, or cancelled without penalty, for at least twentyfour hours after the reservation is made if the reservation is made one week or more prior to a flight’s departure date . Posting of Customer Service Plans and Tarmac Delay Contingency Plans • Requires foreign carriers to post th eir required contingency plans, customer service plans, and contract s of carriage on their websites as is already required of U.S. carriers.

Response to Consumer Problems • Expands the pool of carriers that must respond to consumer problems to include foreign air carriers operating scheduled passenger service to and from the U.S. with at least one aircraft with 30 or more passenger seats (i.e., monitor the effect s of irregular flight operations on consumers; inform consumers how to file a complaint with the carrier, and provide substantives re sponses to consumer complaints within 60 days).

Oversales

• Increases the minimum denied boarding compensation limits to3 $650/$1,300 or 200%/400% of the one-way fare, whichever is smaller.

• Implements an automatic inflation adjuster for minimum DBC limits every 2 years.

• Clarifies that DBC must be offere d to “zero fare ticket” holders (e.g., holders of frequent flyer awar d tickets) who are involuntarily bumped.

• Requires that a carrier verbally o ffer cash/check DBC if the carrier verbally offers a travel vouche r as DBC to passengers who are involuntarily bumped.

• Requires that a carrier inform pa ssengers solicited to volunteer for denied boarding about all material restrictions on the use of transportation vouchers offe red in lieu of cash.

Full Fare Advertising • Enforces the full fare advertising ru le as written (i.e., ads which state a price must state the full price to be paid). Carriers currently may exclude government taxes/fees imposed on a per-passenger basis.

• Clarifies the rule’s applicability to ticket agents.

• Prohibits carriers and ticket agents from advertising fares that are not the full fare and imposes stringen t notice requirements in connection with the advertisement of “each-way” fares available for purchase only on a round-trip basis.

• Prohibits opt-out provisions in ads for air transportation.

Baggage and Other Fees andRelated CodeShare Issues • Requires U.S. and foreign air carrie rs to disclose changes in bag fees/allowances on their homepage for three months, to include information regarding the free baggage allowance.

• Requires carriers (U.S. and foreign) and ticket agents to include on eticket confirmations information about the free baggage allowance and applicable fees for the first and second checked bag and carry-on but allows ticket agents, unlike ca rriers, to do so through a hyperlink.

• Requires carriers (U.S. and forei gn) and ticket agents to inform passengers on the first screen on wh ich the ticket agent or carrier offers a fare quotation for a specific itinerary selected by a consumer that additional airline fees for baggage may apply and where consumers can go to see these baggage fees.4 • Requires U.S. and foreign air carriers to disclose all fees for optional services to consumers through a pr ominent link on their homepage.

• Requires that the same baggage al lowances and baggage fees apply throughout a passenger’s journey.

• Requires the marketing carrier to disclose on its website any difference between its optional serv ices and fees and those of the carrier operating the f light. Disclosure may be made through a hyperlink to the operating carriers’ we bsites that detail the operating carriers’ fees for optional services, or to a page on its website that lists the differences in policies among code-share partners.

Post-Purchase Price Increases • Bans the practice of post-purch ase price increases in air transportation or air tour s unless the increase is due to an increase in government-imposed taxes or fees and only if the passenger was provided full disclosure of th e potential for the increase and affirmatively agreed to the potential for such an increase prior to purchase.

• Requires any seller of scheduled air transportation to notify a consumer of the potential for a price increase for the scheduled air transportation prior to the time that the full amount agreed upon has been paid by the consumer and to obtain the consumer’s written consent to the potential for such an increase prior to accepti ng any payment, including a partial payment.

Flight Status Changes • Requires U.S. and foreign air carr iers operating scheduled passenger service with any aircraft with 30 or more seats to notify consumers through whatever means is availabl e to the carrier for passengers who subscribe to the carrier’s flight status notifica tion services, in the boarding gate area, on a carri er’s telephone rese rvation system and on its website of delays of 30 minutes or more, cancellations and diversions within 30 minutes of the carrier becoming aware of a change in the status of a flight.

Choice-ofForum Provisions • Prohibits U.S. and foreign air carriers from limiting a passenger’s forum to pursue litigation to a particular inconvenient venue

2. When will these passenger protections become effective?5 Most provisions in the second final rule on enhanc ing airline passenger protections (EAPP #2) become effective on August 23, 2011. The Department delayed th e effective date from August 23, 2011, to January 24, 2012, for requirements pertaining to baggage fees, pos t purchase price increases , flight status changes and holding a reservation wit hout payment for twenty-four hours. The Department also delayed the effective date from October 24, 2011, to January 24, 2012, for requi rements pertaining to full fare advertising. The effective date remains August 23, 2011, for all the others requirement in the final rule. 

### II. Reporting Tarmac Delay Data (14 CFR Part 244)

1. When is the first tarmac delay report due? Must a covered carrier include any reportable tarmac delay that occurred be tween August 1, 2011, and August 22, 2011, in the first report? The first tarmac delay report is due on or before Oc tober 17, 2011. This report mu st include data for any reportable tarmac delay incident that occurred between August 23, 2011, and September 30, 2011. If you do not have any reportable tarmac delay incident during this period, or your Part 234 report already includes data for that incident, you do not ne ed to file a report under Part 244. Ta rmac delay incidents that occurred before August 23, 2011, are not to be reported under Part 244. 2. What is a “reportable tarmac delay”? When does the 3-hour clock start to run? A reportable tarmac delay is a tarmac delay at a large, medium, small, or non-hub U.S. airport that lasts for more than three hours. The 3-hour limit begins when pa ssengers no longer have the option to get off of the aircraft, which usually occurs when the doors of the aircraft are closed. However, if an aircraft is at the gate with the doors open, and passengers are not allowed off the aircraft, the time limit would start at the point when passengers were no longer permitted to deplane. If the flight that expe rienced the re portable tarmac delay is reported under the Airline Service Quality Reports required by 14 CFR Part 234, the data for that flight should be reported under Pa rt 234 instead of Part 244. In the final rule, we state that covered carriers should f ile Part 244 reports for any re portable tarmac delay of

“ three hours or more .” This standard is inconsistent with th e tarmac delay contingency plan requirements under Part 259 and the existing repo rting requirements of the Departme nt’s Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS), both of which use a “ more than three hours ” standard. We intend to correct this inconsistency in a future rulemaking to make it clear that ca rriers do not need to f ile a report for a tarmac delay of exactly three hours. In the meantime, as a matter of enforcement policy, we will accept reports under Part 244 that meet the “ more than three hours ” criteria. For additional information, please refer to BTS Accounting and Reporting Directive No. 303A, issued on August 12, 2011.

3. On a flight operated under a code-share or wet le ase arrangement, who has the duty to file a Part 244 tarmac delay report

― the marketing carrier or the operating carrier? With respect to code-share arrangement, we state in the preamble that it is up to th e code-share partners to decide who has the responsibility to f ile the report. Based on each carrier ’s resources and ability, it may be more convenient for a foreign carrier to have its U.S. code-share partner f ile the reports, but the Department will not dictate which carrier must file the report and we will hold both marketing and operating carriers legally responsible if data for reportable tarmac delays are not timely or accurately fi led. Consistent with the BTS reporting directive noted above in question #1, we will apply the same principle to other joint service operations, such as wet lease servi ces and substitution of services.6 

### III. Oversales (14 CFR Part 250)

1. If a passenger purchased a ticket before August 23, 2011, but the travel will not commence until on or after August 23, 2011, do the new Part 250 provisions (e.g., DBC formula and limits) apply if that passenger is bumped involuntarily? The new Part 250 provisions apply to any flight that commences on or after August 23, 2011, even if the ticket for that travel was purchased before that date.

2. Does the Department’s definition for “zero fare tickets” include free or reduced-rate travel vouchers that carriers provide to ticket agents as incentives based on their volume of sales?

Discounted or free travel ear ned by ticket agents through a carrier’s wholesale/retail incentive programs (e.g., incentives earned based on the volum e of an agent’s sales of the airlin e’s tickets) are deemed internal to the industry, similar to the free or discounted travel vouchers offered to airline employees. Air transportation obtained by these travel agents or tick et agents are not considered “zero fare tickets” and therefore the DBC rule does not apply.

3. Does the Department consider a ticket offered to the public through an auction or a raffle drawing in a charity event a “z ero fare ticket” for denied boar ding compensation purposes? Yes. Although the recipients of these tickets sometimes may not pay anything in exchange for these tickets, carriers do gain publicity and establish public goodwill from offering these tickets. In addition, there is an expectation by the recipients of the tickets that they are like any other ticket and the re cipients may incur other expenses associated with the travel or the expectation of the tr avel. These passengers should be, and are, protected by the DBC rules. Carriers may not impose conditions on those ti ckets that preclude the application of DBC rule.

4. What is a “substantial monetary payment” as refer red to in the definition of “zero fare ticket”? A “zero fare ticket” is a ticket acqui red without substantial monetary pa yment. The word “zero” should not be construed literally because a ticket that carries a partial monetary payment could still qualify as a “zero fare ticket.” To determine whether the monetary paymen t is substantial we focus on various factors such as the total market value of the ticket, the service( s) acquired with each kind of consideration, and the proportion of the value acquired with each kind of consid eration in comparison to that total value. For example, if a passenger used freque nt flier miles to obtain a ticket and paid cash for the requisite administrative fee, that ticket is s till a “zero fare ticket.” On the othe r hand, if the passenger paid cash for a coach class ticket and used frequent flier miles to upgrade to a business cl ass seat, that ticket will not be considered a “zero fare ticket.” In the latter example, when calculating DBC for that passenger the base fare should be the one-way fare for that coach ticket. Ho wever, if the carrier did not provide business class service on the alternate flight, it must credit the fr equent flier miles used fo r the upgrade back to the passenger’s account.

5. When calculating the base fare for DBC for a “zero fare ticket”, should carriers use the lowest fare ever offered to the public on th e same flight as the base fare? When calculating the base fare for DBC for a zero fare ticket holder, carriers must use an amount no lower than the lowest cash, check, or credit card payment charged for the same class of se rvice on the sa me flight, i.e., paid by a passenger. If there wa s a lower fare available but no purchas e at that price was ever made, the carrier may not use that lower fare as the base for calculating DBC.7 6. Must a carrier offer “zero fare ti cket” holders DBC by cash or ch eck at the airport following an involuntary denied boarding? If the carrier is unabl e to determine the lowest cash, check or credit card payment for a ticket in the same class of serv ice on the bumped passenger’s original flight at the airport, how can the carrier present to the bumped passenger meaningful options between DBC based on cash/check vs. travel vouchers? To the extent feasible, a carrier s hould offer a bumped zero fare ticket holder DBC by cash or check at the airport following the involuntary denied boarding. If th e carrier is unable to do so at that time, our rule allows the carrier up to 24 hours after the denied boarding occurs (or by th e next business day if the denied boarding occurs on a Friday or a day before a federal holiday) to send a check by mail or other means to the passenger. If the carrier wishes to offer the passenger a travel voucher as an alternative to DBC, it must do so at the same time it makes the cash/check offer, by including in the same maili ng a travel voucher with clear disclosure of any material re strictions, and instructing the passenge r to mail back the check should he or she wish to accept the travel voucher offer.

7. What are “unused ancillary fees” referred to in section 250.5(f) that a carrier must refund to passengers who are denied boarding involuntarily? “Unused ancillary fees” are any anci llary fees for optional services pa id by a passenger who is denied boarding (either voluntary or involunt ary) where the services covered by the fees were not received on the alternate transportation provided the bumped passenger. For example, if a passenger paid $25 for a checked bag, and the bag was transported on the alternate flight that has the same baggage fee without additional cost to the passenger, the baggage transpor tation service is ultimately used by the passenger and the carrier does not need to refund the baggage fee. On the other hand, if the passenger paid $10 for extra leg room on the original flight, and did not receive th e extra leg room on the alte rnative flight, that $10 fee must be refunded.

8. If an involuntarily bumped passenger is put on a flight of another carrier, and the passenger has to pay more for ancillary services on the altern ative flight, is the first carrier responsible for the additional fees? What if the second carrier’s anc illary fees are less than that of the first carrier? In order to limit its DBC liability, a carrier must offer alternate transportation, in the form of “air transportation” with a confirmed reservation at no additional charge to the passenger, or in the form of other transportation accepted and used by the passenger. We c onsider the transportation of baggage a part of the “air transportation” of the bumped passenger. If this passenger must pay more for his or her substitute air transportation (including bagga ge), then this passenger ha s not received “alternate transportation” as defined in Part 250 and consequently is en titled to the 400% denied boardi ng compensation rate. If the second carrier’s fees for checked or carryon baggage are higher than the first carrier ’s charges, the first carrier must cover the difference or the passenge r would be entitled to the maximu m DBC (e.g., 400% of one-way fare up to $1,300). If the second carrier’s ba ggage charges are lower than those of the first carrier, the first carrier must refund the difference. With re spect to other ancillary fees such as food, beverage, seat selection, and in-flight entertainment, because they are not considered part of the “air transportati on,” the first carrier would not be responsible for any additional charges that the second carrier may impose. To the extent the first carrier had collected fees for such optional services fr om the passenger in advance of the flight from which he or she is bumped and those serv ices are not appli cable to the alternate tran sportation (e.g., the alternate transportation is on another carrier or on the same carrier but not available on the alternate aircraft), a carrier must refund those fees to the bumped passenger.8 9. Must a carrier disclose any additional ancillary fees that a passenger will pay on an alternative flight when offering such flight to a passeng er (either a volunteer or an involuntarily bumped passenger)? As a general matter, a carrier does not need to disclo se to a bumped passenger any fee for which it assumes responsibility. For example, as discussed above in response to question #9, in an involuntary denied boarding situation, because the carrier that bumped the passenger from its flight is responsible for any additional baggage fees charged by th e second carrier, the first carrier does not need to disclose such difference in fees to the passenger. For other anci llary fees, in a voluntary de nied boarding situation, a carrier must disclose any ancillary fees the passenger may have to pay (and any fee difference, if applicable) so the passenger can make an informed decision about whether to volunteer.

10. When a carrier verbally offers tr avel vouchers to passengers that are solicited to be volunteers, does the carrier have to verbally disclose all mat erial restrictions for the use of the travel vouchers? According to 14 CFR § 250.9(c), when a carrier verbally offers a travel voucher as DBC to a passenger who is involuntarily denied boarding, the carrier must verbally disclose all material restrictions for the use of that travel voucher. In the preamble of the rule, we discussed extensively the reason for applying such a requirement to both involuntary and vo luntary denied boarding situations. However, inadvertently, the rule text in 14 CFR 250.2b(c) does not specify the “verbal” disclosure requirement a pplicable to voluntarily denied boarding. Therefore, we are not requiring that when th e carrier verbally offers vouchers to a potential volunteer, it must verbally disclose any material restri ctions on the use of such vouchers. However, if verbal disclosure is not provided, written di sclosure of material restrictions must be included in the voucher solicitation documents that the carrier hands to any volunteers. Under section 250.2b(c), when offering travel vouchers to prospective volunteer s, the carrier must disclose all ma terial restrictions on the vouchers

“ before the passenger decides whether to give up his or her confirmed re served space on that flight in exchange for the free or reduced rate transportation (e mphasis added).” We will consider addressing this matter in a future rulemaking to reflect our intent as discussed in the preamble.

11. Must a carrier verbally describe all material restrictions on a travel voucher in detail when verbally offering such voucher to each pa ssenger who is involuntarily denied boarding? We are mindful that in an involuntary denied boardi ng situation, the gate agents are often under tremendous time pressure to resolve the oversales situation as well as handle the boarding proces s. Thus, the carrier is not required to give each indivi dual who is denied boarding invol untarily a personal presentation. The disclosure briefing can be conducted in a group setti ng with all passengers i nvoluntarily denied boarding present. The description of the materi al restrictions can be general as lo ng as the passengers are aware of the nature of each restriction. For ex ample, a sentence like the following ca n be used: “The number of seats on each flight for which these travel vouchers can be us ed is limited, the vouchers cannot be transferred to another person, and they expire in two years.”

12. If a carrier decides that it will not verbally make a travel voucher offer to a bumped passenger at all, how can the carrier communicate with the passenger regarding what options he or she has? If a carrier does not want to make any verbal offer at all, it can simply put all offe rs (including cash or check DBC and the travel voucher option) a nd restrictions associated with thos e offers in writing and verbally inform the passenger that he or she has been involuntar ily denied boarding and has certain options. Then the carrier can hand over the written notice and statements to the passenger and request that the passenger review the material and advise the agent of his/her choices.9 13. With respect to the revised wr itten statement in 14 CFR 250.9 th at a carrier must provide to bumped passengers, and to any other interested person upon request at an airport, may a foreign air carrier that solely markets and op erates international flights to and from the United States edit the text of the statement to om it the text that solely deals with deni ed boarding compensation for domestic flights? Yes. On August 5, 2011, the Department issued a no tice that permits a foreign air carrier to omit the “Domestic Transportation” portion of the “Amount of Denied Boardi ng Compensation” section of the written explanation, and requires that the remainder of the written explana tion must be the verbatim text of the notice that appears in 14 CFR 250.9. The Notice is available at http://airconsumer.ost.dot.gov/

.



### IV. Tarmac Delay Contingency Plans (14 CFR 259.4) 1. Which carriers must have contingency plans for lengthy tarmac delays? The rule requires a U.S. carrier a nd foreign carrier operating passenger se rvice (scheduled or charter) using any aircraft with a design capacity of 30 or more passenger seats to adopt a contingency plan for lengthy tarmac delays. The requirement to develop and implement contingency plans would a pply to all aircraft of those carriers, including those with fewer than 30 seats. 2. Which airports must be covered by the contingency plans adopted by U.S. carriers? A covered U.S. and foreign carrier must have a con tingency plan covering each large, medium, small and non-hub airport at which it operates. A large hub airport means an ai rport accounting for at least 1.00 percent of the total enplanements in the United States. A 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. A small hub airport means an airport accounting for at least 0.05% , but less than 0.25% of the total enplanements in the United States. A non hub airport means an airpor t accounting for enplanemen ts of more than 10,000 passengers but less than 0.05% of the total enplanements in the United St ates. Information about airport sizes is available at http://www.f aa.gov/airports/planning_cap acity/passenger_allcargo_stats/categories/. 3. How many large, medium, small, and non-hub airports are there? According to the Department’s Bureau of Transportati on Statistics (BTS) data, in calendar year 2009 (latest available data), there were 29 large hub airpor ts, 36 medium hub airports, 72 small hub, and 231 non hub airports. A list of airport information, including name, location, and size is available on the web at http://www.faa.gov/airports /planning_capacity/p assenger_allcargo_stats/passe nger/media/cy09_cs_enplane ments.pdf . Note that for purposes of this rule, in defining the hub size of an airport, the Department uses the airport-specific enplanement thresholds published by BT S and does not aggregate airport enplanement data on a community basis as is done for other purposes. 4. What must be included in the contingency plans?

– Assurance that a U.S. carrier will not permit airc raft to remain for more than three hours on the tarmac for domestic flights without providi ng passengers an opportunity to deplane, subject to safety, security and Air Traffic Control (ATC)-related exceptions;10 – Assurance that a U.S. or foreign carrier will not permit aircraft to remain on the tarmac for more than four hours for international flight s without providing passengers an opportunity to deplane, subject to safety, s ecurity, or ATC-related reasons;

– Assurance of food and water for passengers af ter 2 hours without a chan ce to deplane, unless safety or security considerat ions preclude such service;

– Assurance of operable lavatory facilities while on the tarmac, and adequate medical attention if needed;

– Assurance of sufficient res ources to carry out the plan;

– Assurance of coordination with ai rport authorities (including term inal facility operators where applicable) at all large, medium, small, and non-hub air ports, including diversion airports;

– Assurance of coordination with Customs and Bo rder Protection (CBP) and the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) at all large, medium, small and non-hub airports, including diversion airports;

– Assurance that passengers on the delayed flight will receive notifications regarding the status of the delay every 30 minutes whil e the aircraft is delayed; and

– Assurance that the passengers on the delayed flight will be notified beginning 30 minutes after the scheduled departure time and every 30 minutes thereafter th at they have the opportunity to deplane from an aircraft that is at the gate or another disembarkation area with the door open if the opportunity to deplane actually exists.

5. Is a carrier in compliance with th e requirement in the tarmac delay rule to provide passengers an opportunity to deplane after three hours fo r domestic flights if the aircraft begins the process of returning to the gate or another dise mbarkation point at the three-hour mark for domestic flights or the four-hou r mark for international flights? No. A carrier must give passengers an opportunity to de plane at the three-hour mark for domestic flights or at the four-hour mark for internationa l flights. It is not sufficient fo r a carrier to begin the process of returning to the gate or another di sembarkation point at that time. 6. Should carriers record the door closing time in order to keep track of the “clock” for purposes of a lengthy tarmac delay? There is no requirement in the tarmac delay rule that a carrier record the door closing time. What is important to note, however, is that the clock on a tarmac delay during departure starts running from — and thus carriers should keep track of — the last time that passengers had an opportunity to deplane, which could be when the door is closed or even before the door ha s been closed if passengers have been boarded but the aircraft does not push back and, despite the doors re maining open, the passengers are not provided the opportunity to deplane. In the event that the Department determines it ne cessary to investigate an incident involving a lengthy tarmac delay, we e xpect that carriers will have ade quate information to provide a timeline of events.11 7. For a departure delay, if the aircraft is not allowed to "remain on the tarmac" longer than three hours for domestic flights or four hour s for international flig hts without providing passengers an opportunity to deplane, does this me an that it must return to the gate, even if just momentarily, to let passengers off but can then return to the tarmac or taxiway?

Yes. The aircraft must return to the gate or another disembarkation point before three hours elapses for domestic flights or four hour s as determined by a U.S. or foreign carri er for international flights if passengers have not been provided the opportunity to deplane unless there is a valid safety, security or ATC reason not to do so. Once the aircraft returns to the gate or another disembarkation point and passengers are permitted to deplane, a carrier may decide to continue the flight’s ope ration immediately, reschedule it for a later time, or cancel the flight. When the plane returns to the gate, any passenger who wishes must have the chance to deplane, after which the carrier may c ontinue the flight with those passenger s who decide not to deplane. Of course, once the flight leaves the ga te again, the clock begins anew. In other words, the passengers who decided not to deplane must be given another opportunity to deplane if the aircraft is subsequently delayed on the tarmac for another three hours in the case of a domestic flight or four hours in the case of an international flight. 8. For a departure delay, is a flight required to return to the terminal to deplane passengers within the 3-hour (domestic fligh t) or 4-hour (international flight) limit if it appears the flight may be next in line for take-off or passeng ers do not want to return to the terminal? Regarding the “next in line” issue, carriers must take in to account the time needed to taxi back to the gate or other disembarkation point in order to comply with th e applicable time limit. All facts involving a given situation, including a carrier’s decisions, and when it made them, will be taken into account in determining whether an actionable violation of the rule occurred. Re garding the desire of passengers to wait out a delay that may extend past the applicable time limit, carriers have always b een able to poll passengers regarding whether or not they would like to retu rn to the gate in the event of a long tarmac delay and the rule does not change this fact. The Department deliberated on whether to include a requirement to poll passengers but determined that it may not be practicable to require polling in every case. Ho wever, in the event of a question about compliance with the rule, we have the disc retion to consider the totality of the circumstances and would take into account all matters brought to our attention, such as all passengers agreeing to forego their right to deplane. 9. If a carrier offers passengers the opportunity to deplane consistent with this rule and the flight subsequently prepares to depart again, does the carrier have to re-board passengers or wait for passengers that chose to deplane? No, but should the carrier choose not to do so, we recommend that a carrier advise any passenger who desires to deplane that the flight ma y or will leave without him or her. 10. For a departure delay, what are carriers’ resp onsibilities to passenger s once an aircraft returns to the gate? After an aircraft returns to the gate , the decision whether to re-board pass engers and operate the same aircraft or to cancel the flight is an operational matter left to the carrier. The carrier does have a responsibility to follow any policy and procedures in its contract of carriage for rebooking passengers and providing amenities and refunds. A carrier is not required to re -board a passenger who chooses to deplane the aircraft. We encourage carriers to announce to de planing passengers that the flight w ill or may leave without him/her.12 11. Does a carrier have to offload checked bags for passengers who opt to deplane because of tarmac delays? We are not requiring carriers to do so. However, enti ties such as CBP, TSA, or a foreign government may have rules requiring deplaned passeng ers’ luggage to be off-loaded al ong with the passenger and carriers should check with those entities for th eir requirements. We do recommend that, even in the absence of any government requirement to off-load luggage , carriers do so if circumstances permit. 12. Are there other requirements the carrier must co mply with to deal with lengthy tarmac delays?

Yes. A carrier must assure that it has sufficient res ources to carry out the plan and that it will coordinate with airport authorities, CBP , and TSA at all large, medium, small, and non-hub airports that the carrier serves, including diversion airports . A carrier must also make announ cements every 30 minutes regarding the status of the delay and of the opport unity to deplane, where applicable. 13. The rule requires carriers to coordinate their plans with “diversion” ai rports. Which diversion airports are expected to be included in this process? We expect carriers to work with large, medium, sma ll, and non-hub airports to which they regularly divert aircraft when an irregular operation exists.

14. How can a carrier demonstrate that it has ade quately coordinated its tarmac delay contingency plan with airports authorities (including term inal operators where applicable), CBP and TSA? We expect carriers to provide the ap propriate government personnel/office or airport authority with a copy of its contingency plan and to ask those entities to advise it on the adequacy of the plans, as related to that agency’s responsibilities. We suggest that a carrier retain evidence of its efforts to coordinate with the airport authority (including terminal facility operato rs where applicable), CBP, and TSA to facilitate any review of such information by the Department and help demonstrate co mpliance with the rule.

15. Does a carrier have an obli gation to coordinate its contingenc y plan with Fixed Base Operators (FBOs) or another carrier that may assist with deplaning passengers that experience a lengthy tarmac delay? The rule does not require a carrier to coordinate its plans with such entities, but the Department recommends that carriers do so in the event that such an entity may be able to a ssist with an incident involving a lengthy tarmac delay (e.g., deplaning passe ngers, providing ground handling services). Evidence of such coordination will also assist the Department in determin ing if a carrier is meeting the requirement that it has “sufficient resources to implement the plan.” 16. The rule requires that a carrier notify passen gers about the status of a delay every 30 minutes while the aircraft is delayed. What if at the en d of a 30 minute period the aircraft is in taxi mode, a time during which the flight deck crew members are concerned wi th other matters that would prevent them from maki ng public announcements? Would the carrier be excused from complying with the rule under that scenario? To the extent FAA rules prohibit extraneous conversa tions by flight crew, they need not make the public announcements. For example, a carrier may be able to make announcements while holding in a queue on an13 active taxi way, but not while actively taxiing or waiting for takeoff clearan ce at the front of the line if FAA rules prohibit such activity. 17. The rule requires that passengers on a delayed flight receive noti fication regarding the status of the delay every 30 minutes while the aircraft is delayed. Does this requirement primarily apply to arrival delays? Was the De partment’s intent to require an announcement to be made 30 minutes from the time the aircraft touched do wn if it is delayed getting into a gate? The requirement to make public announcements at 30-minute interv als applies to both inbound and outbound tarmac delays. 18. Does the requirement to notify passengers on a delayed flight 30 minutes after scheduled departure time and every 30 minutes thereafter th at they have the opportunity to deplane apply only to passengers onboard an aircraft (as opposed to those still in the terminal)? This requirement applies only to passengers aboard an aircraft after they have been boarded but before the aircraft closes its doors. This rule covers situations where after the boardi ng process, a flight will sit at the gate for a lengthy period of time with the door open and pa ssengers, particularly passe ngers in the rear of the aircraft, have no idea whether they are free to deplane. All passengers should be told they can deplane if that is the case. If after all passengers are boarded, the doors remain open but passengers are not free to deplane, the tarmac delay clock is running. 19. Did the Department intend for the clock to start based on the ti me of scheduled departure, as that scenario could result in carriers having to announce to passengers that they have the opportunity to deplane while passengers are still boarding? The rule specifies that the 30-minute period begins af ter scheduled departure ti me “(including any revised departure time that passengers were notified about prior to boarding).” Since the carrier has discretion to announce any changed departure time at the gate eith er before or during boar ding, the first announcement regarding deplaning should be within 30 minut es of that last a nnounced departure time. 20. In the event of a lengthy tarmac delay on a code-share flight, which carrier is responsible for implementation of the plan? Generally, the plan of the carrier und er whose code the service is marketed governs (if different from the operating carrier), unless the marketing carrier specifies in its contract of carriage that the operating carrier’s plan governs. 21. Is a carrier required to retain certain information “about any ta rmac delay that lasts more than three hours,” even for a tarmac delay on an international flight that lasts more than three hours but less than the allowed four hours? Yes. The requirement that carriers retain data for tarmac delays lasting more th an three hours is the same for domestic and international flights. In addition to desiring to have c onsistent data for both types of operations, the Department plans to use this informati on to determine the effect of lengthy tarmac delays and its rules on consumers and carriers.14 

### V. Carriers’ Adherence to Customer Service Plans (14 CFR 259.5) 1. Which carriers must comply with the re quirement to adopt and adhere to their customer service plans? This rule applies to all the flights of a U.S. or foreign carrier if th e carrier operates scheduled passenger service using any aircraft with a desi gn capacity of 30 or more passenger seats. It applies to all of a covered U.S. carrier’s flights, both domestic and international, and to all of a fore ign carrier’s flights to and from the U.S. including those involving aircraft with fewer than 30 seats if the carrier operate s any aircraft with 30 or more passenger seats. 2. Does the rule specify consumer protection req uirements that carriers must follow as part of their customer service plans? The rule effective August 23, 2011 requires that covered U.S. and foreign carriers adopt customer service plans and that those plans address the 12 subjects below. The rule also sets forth minimum standards for each of those subjects. Other DOT rules cover some of these subjects, e.g., accommodating the needs of disabled air travelers, mee ting customers’ essential need s, and oversale situations.

1. Offering the lowest fare available and notif ying the consumer that the fare may be available elsewhere, if that is the case; 2. Notifying consumers of known de lays, cancellations, and diversions; 3. Delivering baggage on time, including maki ng reasonable efforts to return mishandled baggage within twenty-four hours; 4. Allowing reservations to be held or cancelled for at least twenty-four hours w ithout penalty if the reservation is made one week or mo re prior to a flight’s departure; 5. Providing prompt ticket refunds, including re funding fees charged for optional serv ices if a passenger was unable to use those services due to an oversale situ ation or a flight cancellation; 6. Properly accommodating disabled and sp ecial-needs passengers, including during tarmac delays; 7. Meeting customers’ essential needs during long on-aircraft delays; 8. Handling “bumped” passengers with fairness and consistency in the case of oversales; 9. Disclosing cancellation po licies, frequent flyer rules, ai rcraft seating c onfiguration, and lavatory availability; 10. Notifying consumers in a timely manner of changes in their tr avel itineraries; 11. Ensuring responsiveness to customer complaints; and 12. Identifying the services it provides to mitigate passenger inconveniences resulting from cancellations and misconnects. 3. How will the Department ensure that carriers are complying with their customer service plans?15 The rule requires each carrier to aud it its adherence to its plan annually a nd retain the results of its audit for two years following the date any aud it is completed. These audit result s must be provided upon request to the Department, including its Aviation Enforcement Offi ce, for review. We encourage carriers to use the audit to monitor their own level of comp liance with the provisions of the rule. 4. Is a carrier required to inform a consumer where he or she can find the lowest fare that may be available? Airlines are required to disclose that the lowest fa re offered by the carrier may be offered by the carrier elsewhere if this is the case. Whet her or not carriers are required to state where the fare may be found (e.g., website or airport ticket counter) depe nds on the nature of a given carrier’s business model. For example, in many cases, a carrier’s lowest fare may be purchased through any of its outlets, with the exception of occasional sales that may only be found elsewhere, e.g., vi a Twitter or on its website, in which case it will be sufficient for carriers to provide no tice to consumers by stating, on their telephone reservations systems and at airport ticket counters, that “low er fares may be available via our webs ite” (or Twitter, as the case may be). On the other hand, the fares of some carriers are for the most part lower if purchased at their airport ticket counters, as opposed to being purchased via the Internet or thr ough a telephone reservation agent, due to carrier-imposed fees associated wi th the website or telephone purchases . In those cases, carriers should advise consumers on their website and during calls to their reservations ce nter, that “lower fares generally are available” through purchases at air port ticket counters. The notice should be provided either at the outset of the communication (e.g., during the in itial recording in tele phone reservation calls) or commensurate with a fare solicitation or quote (e.g., the first web page on wh ich a fare is stated). This notice requirement does not apply to lower fares for a carrier’s flights that may be available from a source other than the carrier itself, e.g. from a consolidator. 5. If the airline delivers a passenger’s bag a w eek late (e.g. after a passenger has arrived home from vacation), must it refund any bag f ee that this passenger had paid? The Department’s rule does not requir e a refund of baggage fees in the ev ent of a delay in delivery of the bag. A carrier must reimburse passenge rs for fees charged to transport a ba g only if that bag is lost. Carriers should note, however, that under the Department’s baggage liability rule, 14 CFR Part 254, carriers are responsible for provable direct or consequential damage s resulting from loss, damage, or delay in delivery of luggage, up to certain limits. 6. In the case of a lost bag, do the airlines have a specific amount of time to find it before the mandatory refund on the checked-bag fee kicks in? We have not defined “lost” for purposes of the new rule mandating a refund of the baggage fee for lost bags, just as we have never defined the term “loss” for our long-standing rule stating th at carriers are responsible for damages occasioned by loss, damage, or delay in deli very of luggage, up to certain limits. However, if a carrier unreasonably refuses to consider a bag to be lost after it has been missing for a considerable period of time, it could be subject to enfor cement action for violating the stat utory prohibition against unfair and deceptive practices. 7. At what point is a carrier required to hold a reservation and fare fo r 24 hours without payment or to permit the consumer to cancel without penalty? A carrier is not required to hold a reservation and fare without payment or to permit the purchaser to cancel without penalty on reservations made le ss than a week prior to that flight ’s scheduled departure time. This16 rule does apply if a consumer make s the reservation one week or more prior to a flight’s scheduled departure.

8. Does a carrier have to offer a consumer the opportunity to either “h old a reservation for 24- hours without payment” or to “cancel a re servation within 24 hours without penalty?” No, a carrier is not required to offer both options. But if a carrier accepts reserv ations without payment, it must allow the consumer to cancel th e reservation within 24 hour s without penalty, and if the carrier requires payment with a reservation, it must allow the consum er to cancel the payment and reservation within 24 hours and receive a full refund. 9. Does the requirement to allow a consumer to hold a reservation without payment or cancel without penalty for 24 hours apply to ticket agents? No. This requirement stems from th e customer service plans covered carr iers are required to follow and does not apply to ticket agents, a lthough to maintain equivalent customer service levels agents may wish to apply the same or similar procedures. 10. What are some examples of situations where “optional fees” must be refunded to a passenger under section 259.5(b)(5)? If a passenger pays for a seat with more leg room (e .g. economy plus) on one flight and then he or she is bumped and placed on an aircraft where that type of s eat is not provided to that passenger, the carrier must refund the fee the passenger paid for the seat upgrade. Another example of where the rule would require a refund would be where a passenger paid to be able to choose a seat but, due to a flight irregularity or bumping situation, was unable to use the service for which he or she had paid. 11. Are carriers required by section 259.5(b)(9) to disclose on their own websites the cancellation policies, frequent flyer rules, aircraft seatin g configuration and lavatory availability of codeshare partners? If so, may this be done by a hyperlink to the code-share partner's website? No. The customer service plan requirements in secti on 259.5 apply only to the sche duled flights operated by the selling carrier and not the flights operated by its code-share partners. 12. What does the Department mean by notifyin g passengers “in a timely manner” of a change in their itinerary? The phrase “in a timely manner” depends on the circumst ances of the passenger involved. In general, the closer in time to a passenger’s scheduled flight an itinerary change occurs, the earlier a passenger should be notified. For example, the phrase must be read in conjunction with section 259.8, which requires that all passengers be notified about a change in the status of a flight within 30 minutes after the carrier becomes aware of any such change. A carrier must notify passengers of the change within 30 minutes if that flight is scheduled to occur in the next seve n days. For travel itinerary change s involving passengers whose flights are scheduled more than a week in the future, notification should be pr ovided to the passengers as soon as practical. In such circumstances, if notification is made less than 48 hour s after the carrier becomes aware of such change, we would consider the notification to be timely.17 

### VI. Posting of Contracts of Carriage, Cust omer Service Plans and Tarmac Delay Contingency Plans on Websites (14 CFR 259.6)

1. Which carriers are required to post copies of th eir contracts of carriage, customer service plans and tarmac delay contingency plans on their websites? The requirement to post contracts of carriage as well as customer service plans and tarmac delay contingency plans applies to all U.S. carriers that are required to adopt such plans a nd that have a website, and to all foreign carriers that are required to adopt such plans a nd that have a website marketed to U.S. consumers. The rule applies to carriers that operate any aircraft with 30 or more seats, includi ng aircraft with less than 30 seats. 2. The rule (259.6(b)) requires each U.S air carri er with a website and each foreign air carrier that has a website marketed to U.S. consumers a nd that is required to adopt a customer service plan to post that plan on its website. As the customer service provisions regarding placing a 24- hour hold on reservations (259.5(b)(4)) and notify ing consumers of known delays, cancellations, and diversions (259.8) are not effective until Ja nuary 24, 2012, is a carrier required to post the entire customer service plan on its website by August 23, 2011? Carriers are required to post on th eir websites by August 23, 2011, only those provisions that are effective as of that date. Since the two provi sions noted above are not effective until January 24, 2012, it is not necessary for a carrier, either foreign or U.S., to post them on th eir websites until that time. Should an air carrier choose to do so, it can add a “place holder” for those provisions, advisi ng consumers of the date on which those provisions become effective. 3. How does the Department define “marketed to U.S. consumers” for purposes of determining when a provision of the rule is applicab le to a foreign carri er (e.g., 259.6 and 259.7)? The Department has not defined this term specifica lly, but will make the determination on a case-by-case basis. Among the things we will look for when evaluati ng whether a site is marketed to U.S. consumers are 1) if the website is in English, 2) if tickets are sold in U. S. dollars, 3) if it lists flights to or from the U.S., 4) whether sales are blocked for customers with U.S. addresse s or telephone numbers, and 5) even if a site is in a language other than English, if the site is marketed toward a particul ar segment of the U.S. market (e.g., website in Spanish and geared toward consumers in Miami). 

### VII. Response to Consumer Problems (14 CFR 259.7) 1. Which carriers must comply with the requirement to respond to consumer problems? All U.S. and foreign carriers that operate scheduled passenger service using any aircraft with a design capacity of 30 or more passenger se ats must respond to consumer problems as required by the rule.

2. Where does the employee designated to monitor th e effects of irregular flight operations on passengers need to be located and what is th e Department’s intent regarding her or his function? The employee designated to monitor the effects of irre gular flight operations on passengers does not need to be located in the United States as long as he or sh e has the ability to provid e input to company personnel18 regarding any flight delay at issue. Nor does the carrier need to hi re a new employee to perform this task. The requirement is intended to ensu re that passenger inte rests are considered by carriers when making decisions on irregular fli ght operations. The rule does not require that the designated employee be available to speak with passengers.

3. Section 259.7(b) requires a carri er to make information availa ble to a consumer regarding where to file a complaint about its scheduled s ervice on all e-ticket confirmations. Is it acceptable for a carrier to provi de the consumer with two separa te receipts (e.g., one containing payment information and one containing itinerary information), as long as the carrier provides the required information in one of the e-ticket confirmations? A carrier may provide a consumer with separate receipts covering payment information and itinerary information, but the information about where to file a complaint must be located on the e-ticket confirmation that provides information regarding the passenger’s i tinerary and ticket number. The Department would view a document containing information such as a passenge r’s name and credit card information as a receipt for payment, rather than a “confir mation” for purposes of the rule.

4. How does the Department define “substa ntive response” in section 259.7(c)? By “substantive response” we mean a response that addresses the sp ecific problems about which the consumer has complained. This type of response often re sults in a resolution of the complaint. We are also clarifying that by “complaint” we mean a specific written expressi on of dissatisfaction concerning a difficulty or problem which the person experienced when using or attempting to use an airline’s services and that contains sufficient information for the carrier to identify the passenger.

5. How should a carrier address a consumer’s concerns when there are multiple issues in the complaint? When an individual complains in wri ting about more than one issue, th e rule requires carriers to respond substantively to each specific allegation. For example, in the event of an incide nt involving a lengthy tarmac delay incident, if a passenger were to allege that a car rier held passengers onboard an aircraft without the opportunity to deplane for more than three hours on a domestic fight and also did not provide passengers with food and water, the rule woul d require the carrier to address s ubstantively both the length of delay complaint and the food and water complaint. A carrier ’s failure to address subs tantively either of those complaints would violate the rule.

6. Does a carrier need to send a “final” reply within 60 days? No, for difficult cases involving comple x issues a carrier can provide a substantive re sponse to the passenger within 60 days based on what the carrier knows at that tim e, continue its investiga tion, if necessary, and send a final reply once the investigation is complete. 7. The Department requires that ackn owledgments and substantive responses to passenger complaints must be in writing. Some carriers have a practice of calling certain complainants to address the issues. Does this practice sa tisfy the requirements of this provision? As a matter of policy, the Enforcement Office will not pursue enforcement action fo r telephone replies if the carrier retains a record of the conve rsation(s), including the name of the carrier employee, the name of the individual that the employee spoke w ith, the date and time of the call, a nd a summary of the substance of the19 conversation sufficient to permit a reviewer to determin e whether the principal issues in the complaint were addressed as required by the rule. By rule such records must be retained by the carrier for at least three years, the record-ret ention period for consumer complaints as sp ecified in 14 CFR 249.20. However, if the carrier calls a passenger who had s ubmitted a written complaint and during the call the complainant requests a written reply, the carrier should comply with the request or face possible enforcement action. 8. Is a carrier required to respond to a consumer’s complaint if that complaint is filed using Facebook or Twitter? No, under section 259.7(d), a carrier is not required to respond to all written complaints concerning a difficulty or a problem which a person experienced when using or attempting to use an airline’s services on its social networking site. However, if the social networking site is not intended to be a vehicle for written consumer complaints, the carrier must clearly indicate on that website’s prim ary page that it will not reply to consumer complaints on that site a nd the carrier must direct consumers to the carrier’s mailing address and email or website location for filing written complaints. 

### VIII. Notifying Passengers of Flight Status Changes (14 CFR 259.8)

1. What are the differences in the various 30-mi nute thresholds and deadlines under Part 259 in the new rules ? 14 CFR 259.4 sets forth provisions th at carriers must comply with dur ing a lengthy tarmac delay and there are two provisions that contain a 30-minute time limit. Accordi ng to 14 CFR 259.4(b)(5), after the passengers have boarded the aircraft and before the aircraft takes off (departure tarmac delay) or after the aircraft has landed and before the passengers are perm itted to deplane (arrival tarmac delay), carriers are required to make announcements every 30 minutes while the delay continues in order to notify passengers of the status of the delay, and to provide the reason for the delay, if known. Pursuant to 14 CFR 259.4(b)(6), if after the passengers have boarded th e aircraft for departure the aircraft remains at the gate with its doors open, carriers must notify passengers that they may still deplane, if that is the case, starting at least 30 minutes after the scheduled departure time, and every 30 minutes thereafter. In th e absence of such notice, the Enforcement Office could consider th e tarmac-delay cloc k to be running. In contrast, the various notification requirements set forth in 14 CFR 259.8 relate to notifying passengers and the public about flight irregularities of all types, including cancellations, dive rsions, and delays that are over 30 minutes (not only tarmac delays). The notifications under this section must be provided within 30 minutes after a carrier become s aware of any such change to the flight status.

2. Do the notification requirements in 14 CFR 259.8 a pply to all flight schedule changes that occur before the scheduled departure? As a matter of enforcement policy, the Enforcement Of fice will enforce section 259. 8 only with regard to flight status changes that occur within 7 days of the scheduled date of the flight in question. As stated in the preamble, the main purpose of this rule is to avoid unnecessary wait s at, or pointl ess trips to, an airport. Flight cancellations or changes in departure or arrival time that occur far in advance of the date of departure are more likely to have much less imp act on the passengers’ and ot her persons’ schedules and planning than changes that occur clos er to departure time. The Enforcement Office considers flight changes outside of the 7-day time period to be “schedule changes” that amount to “changes in a travel itinerary” to20 which section 259.5(b)(10) applies. Under that provision, carriers must provide “timely” notice, which we interpret to mean “as soon as practic able.” The itinerary ch ange notification provision would also apply to schedule changes not covered by the 30-minute notification rule (e.g., flight number changes involving no time changes and changes involving earli er arrival or departure times.)

3. How is the “seven-calendar-day” time period computed? To determine the seven-calendar-day period for a partic ular flight, carriers should start from the midnight on the date of the scheduled operation, counting backwards se ven full calendar days. For instance, if a flight’s scheduled departure time is at 2:00 p.m. on August 7, the seven-calendar-day span will start at 12:01 a.m. on August 1. Under this scenario, for example, notice must be provided in accord with section 259.8 of any changes in flight status, such as a flight cancellation or chan ge in departure time of 30 minutes or more that occurs after 12:01 a.m. on August 1. Any flight status change that oc curs before 12:01 a.m. on August 1 would be considered a “travel itinerary change” for which reasonably timely notice must be provided.

4. Does the “seven-calendar-day” timeframe apply to all mandatory means of notification (i.e., boarding gate area, airport display, carrier’s website and telephone reservation system)? The notification requirements of section 259.8 apply to any notification mean s by which a carrier is providing schedule information regarding that flight at the time of the status change. For example, in the absence of displays under a carrier’s control at the boarding gate, notificat ion at the boarding gate area is not required until the boarding gate is sta ffed for the affected flight, which ma y be several hours before departure time on the date of the scheduled operation. Notification via an airport display is not required until th e information for the affected flight begins to appear on that media, usually on the day of the scheduled operation, or the night befo re for an early morning operation. For notification through a car rier’s telephone reservati on system, carriers must upda te the system with any known flight status changes according to the “within 30 minutes after the carrier be comes aware of a flight status change” standard for any status changes th at occur within the seven calendar day timeframe. Any schedule information that a carrier has on its website must be updated to reflect a flight status change (i.e., cancellation, diversion, or delay of 30 minutes or more). This must be accomplished within 30 minutes of the time the carrier becomes aware of the change in the case of f lights within the seven-calendar-day timeframe, and in a timely manner in the case of flights operating beyond the seven-calendar-day timeframe. Such schedule information includes, for example, a ge neral schedule database that can be queried to produce information for a specific flight and date, as well as a “flight status” or similar feature where the carrier offers schedule status for a timeframe of several days (for example, a “yesterday-t oday-tomorrow” format or “yesterday- today- tomorrow- the day after tomorrow” fo rmat). A carrier is not required to implement such flight status or schedule informati on services on its website nor to expa nd the time span it currently has in place regarding flight status or schedule information.

5. Does the requirement in 14 CFR 259.8 apply to flight status changes that occur after the flight departed on time (e.g., tarmac delay aft er landing at the destination airport)? Yes. The requirements of section 259.8 cover flight st atus changes, including dive rsions and arrival delays that occur after a flight has departed.21 6. Does the requirement in 14 CFR 259.8 apply to any flight status changes involving departures earlier than shown in the schedule? No, but it would be considered to be an itinerary change requir ing timely notification under 14 CFR 259.5(b)(10).

7. How does the Department interpret the “tim ely” standard when applying the requirement regarding notification of travel itin erary change under 14 CFR 259.5(b) (10)? The term “timely” in section 259.5(b)(10) means “as soon as practicable.” In any event, a notification that takes place more than 48 hours after the carrier becomes aware of such change would likely not be viewed as timely.

8. For a passenger who purchased his or her ticket from a travel agent or other ticket agent, if the carrier has no contact information for that passeng er on record is the carrier still responsible for providing travel itinerary change notifica tions as required by 14 CFR 259.5(b)(10)? No, but we would expect the carriers to notify the ag encies through which the tickets were purchased.

9. How do carriers comply with the notification requirement for telephone reservation systems? A carrier must implement a mechanism within its te lephone reservation system for any person to call and inquire about the status of a specific flight. The fli ght status change notifica tion can be provided by an automated system or a live person. The carrier does not need to set up a separate telephone number for the notification service and the te lephone number does not have to be a toll-free number.

10. Under the new rule, a carrier is required to provide notification to subscrib ers of flight status notification systems within 30 minutes after the carri er learns of the flight status change. How may a carrier avoid upsetting a customer who subscribed to receive live phone call updates when the flight status change occurs during the middle of the night? A carrier is not required to provide notification subs cription services th at include notification by live phone calls. If a carrier chooses to provide such serv ice, it may avoid unnecessary “midnight” phone calls by prescribing a “blackout” tim e period during which all live phone calls will be suspended. The carrier should provide conspicuous disclosure to su bscribers about the blackout time peri od at the time of subscription, and the notification must be provided to all subscribers by telephone calls as soon as practical after the blackout period ends.

11. What are the specific requirements regarding updating flight stat us change information that has already been provided to the passengers and other interested parties? If there are further changes to a flight for which a st atus change has previously been provided, carriers must provide updated information consiste nt with the requirements of secti on 259.8. The update notification must be provided through all mandatory methods.

12. Who has the duty to provide flight status change notification for a flight operated under a codeshare arrangement?22 The final rule leaves it up to the carriers to determine whether the marketing or operating carrier will provide the required notification about the ch ange of flight status. For enfo rcement purpose, the Department will hold both carriers responsible for failu re to comply with the rule.

13. If a carrier is expecting a “rolling delay” si tuation caused by bad weather or air traffic congestion, how can the carrier comply with the notification requirement yet avoid prematurely notifying passengers of any expected delay that ultimately fails to materialize? Carriers are required to notify passeng ers and others of any “known” dela y, diversion, and cancellation. We do not consider that a carrier has become aware of a delay or cancellation when th e carrier is still in the process of determining whether such a change may o ccur. Furthermore, when providing notification to passengers of any known status change, carriers are free to add a remark th at, as with all schedules, flight status may change again, and encourage the passengers and other persons to check back with the carrier. 

### IX. Price Advertising and Opt-out Provisions (14 CFR 399.84) 1. To whom does the full fare rule apply? Section 399.84 applies to U.S. and fore ign air carriers and ticket agents th at advertise in the U.S., including via the internet, for air transportation within, to or from the United States and U.S. and foreign tour operators that advertise in the U.S. including via the internet t ours with air transportation within, to or from the United States. The Enforcement Office will l ook at a number of factor s such as whether the fares are displayed in U.S. dollars and whether sales can be made to persons with addresses or telephone numbers in the U.S. to determine if an advertisement via the internet is being marketed to the general public in the U.S. and thus occurred in the U.S. The Enforcement Office does not inte nd to apply the rule to advertising that takes place solely outside the United States and is not directed at consumers in the U.S.

2. When is the new section 399.84 effective? The effective date for the entire new section 399.84 is January 24, 2012. However, the Enforcement Office will continue to enforce the existing price advertising rule as it has in the past until that date. Information on how the Enforcement Office has been enforcing secti on 399.84 and related enforcement orders are detailed elsewhere on this website.

3. Under section 399.84(a), sellers of air transportation must state th e entire price to be paid by a passenger, including government-imposed taxes and fees and mandatory carrier- or agentimposed fees, but the rule does permit a separa te statement of such fees if they are not “prominent.” What are acceptable methods of brea king out the taxes and fees as permitted by this section? What does “prominent” mean? Under the full fare rule, a seller of air transportation must always list the total price to be paid by the consumer, inclusive of all taxes, fees, and other manda tory charges. Because several commenters to the proposed rule expressed an interest in informing the consumer of the sour ce of the total price, so that the consumer can see the base fare as well as the taxes and fees, the Department decided to include a provision permitting a seller of air transportation to break-out thes e charges while still displaying the total price to be paid by the consumer. A separate statement of th ese taxes and fees, however, must not be false or misleading, must be provided on a per-p assenger basis and must accurately re flect the cost of the charge to23 the carrier, and may not be displayed prominently. The purpose of the rule is to ensure consumers are not misled regarding the total cost of the purchase.

“Prominent” under this rule means that the break-out of per-person charges cannot be in a more prominent place on a web page or in a print a dvertisement than the advertised tota l fare. For example, the break-out cannot be at the top of the page, ahead of the total price. The total price should be in larger font. The breakout of charges should not have specia l highlighting that sets it apart and makes it more prominent than the total price (e.g., bold font, unde rlined, or italicized).

4. What website advertisements are covered by the full fare rule? Are only websites marketed to United States consumers covered? As outlined in the answer to question number 1, above, advertisements marketed to United States consumers for air transportation within, to or from the U.S. are covered by the rule. With regard to the marketing of fares via websites, the Enforcement Office will look at a variety of fact ors to determine if a website is marketed to United States consumers, including but not limited to whether the website is in English, whether the seller of air transportation displays prices in U.S. dollars, whether the seller uses banner advertisements or highlights special deals for flight s to or from the United States, and whether the seller has an option on its website that differentiates site s or pages designed for U.S. and for other consumers.

5. How can a carrier display frequent-flyer award ticket costs when the consumer must “pay” in miles and separately pay for taxes and fees?

In the case of an award tic ket, the full fare would be the total amount of miles a consumer needs to redeem an award ticket plus any monetary amount the consumer must pay in or der to redeem the award ticket. Therefore, the mileage amount and the cash amount must be in equal prominence in th e display, as they are both components of the full fare. The monetary amount must include any mandatory charge that the carrier imposes in order to redeem the award amount, includi ng service/processing char ges, taxes, and fees.

6. How can a tour package that includes airfare be advertised when the taxes and fees will vary based on the passenger’s selected origin city? The Enforcement Office foresees two alternatives for print advertisements and Internet banner advertisements that advertise a tour p ackage that includes an air component. First, the seller could advertise the total price from a specific city with disclosure th at the advertisement applies to tour packages that originate in that specific gateway city and that pr ices from other cities ar e higher or “may differ.” Alternatively, a tour operator could list a range of pri ces, but the range must be accurate and reflect the full price from the various cities. This means that the lowest price advertised must be an actual total price for an actual origin-destination and must be availa ble for purchase in reasonable quantities. 7. How can a carrier or agent that advertises airf ares on a per-leg basis comply with the rule? (e.g., consumers are offered separate lists of depart ure flights and return flights, and they select a departure flight first and then a return flight , and then at the bottom of the screen a total price is displayed.) The rule requires that wherever a selle r of air transportation advertises a fa re, that fare must be the full fare the consumer pays inclusive of taxes, fees, and mandatory charges. Theref ore, if a seller decides to advertise24 airfares on a per-leg basis, the fare displayed for each leg must be the full price for the leg, including all taxes, fees and mandatory charges a pplicable to that leg, an d state prominently that “prices are quoted for each leg of travel but are only available for a roundtrip purchase.” A carrier could also choose not to display any price until a consumer chooses an outbound flight and a return flight.

8. Does the new rule allow for minor variations in advertised prices to account for currency exchange rate fluctuations? This question a pplies in the context of post-purchase price increases as well. Yes. Longstanding Enforcement Office policy allows for such minor variations, as long as they are adequately disclosed to the consumer and are actual variations based on the currency exchange rate. This latitude continues to be permitted under the new rule. 9. Does the new section 399.84(a) apply to government taxes and fees applicable to transportation that are not collected by the airline? For exampl e, some countries have a departure tax that is payable at the airport directly to a government official or gov ernment agent. Would carriers or ticket agents be required to include these ty pes of taxes and fees in the advertised fare amount? The new section 399.84(a) applies only to taxes and fees collected by the seller of the air transportation. This rule does not apply to government taxes and fees that the seller does not collect. Taxes and fees that the seller does not collect are not required to be included in the advertised fare. Nevert heless, as we have in the past, we continue to advise se llers of air transportation that it is in th eir best interest and the best interests of their customers to provide their customers notice of any such charges that are known, in order to avoid confusion and complaints. 

### X. Baggage Issues and Fees (14 CFR 399.85) Questions regarding Section 399.85(a) 1. Does the requirement in section 399.85(a) to prom ptly and prominently disclose on a website’s homepage any increase in fees for carry-on or first and second checked bag and any change in the carry-on or first and second checked bag allowa nce for a passenger apply to ticket agents or only carriers? It applies only to U.S. and foreign carriers with websites marketed toward s the general public in the U.S. In section 399.85(a) and 399.85(b), the fina l rule inadvertently refers to we bsites “accessible” in the United States. It was the Department’s intent, and it remain s our intention as a matter of enforcement policy, to apply these provisions to websites marketed towards U.S. consumers (language that is used elsewhere in the rule). The incorrect reference to websites that are “accessible for ticket purchases by the general public in the U.S.” will be corrected.

2. What is the effective date for section 399.85(a)? Section 399.85(a) became effective on August 23, 2011.25 3. If a carrier already has a link on its homepage to baggage informat ion, is that link sufficient as long as the baggage information is updated when any changes to carry-on, first and second checked bag allowance and fees are made? No, the required link about a change in these baggage al lowances or fees must be descriptive, e.g., “changed bag rules,” and link directly to a pop-up or the specific location on a nother webpage that describes the changes in bag allowance and/or fees and the effective dates of the changes. 4. If the increase in fees for carry-ons and first and second checked bags and the change in allowance is minor and would not impact a significant number of passengers, can a carrier remove the link on its homep age in less than 3 months? No, the link to the page or window disclosing changes to the carrier’s baggage fees or allowance must remain on the carrier’s homepage for at least 3 months if it impacts the general public in the U.S. To the extent the information is only applicab le to a limited number of passengers, the link can be specific and descriptive about the change, e.g., “Changed baggage allowa nce on flights to Mexico and the Caribbean.” 5. Is it acceptable to provide mu ltiple links to changes to b aggage information so that the consumer can select the link that they are inte rested in (e.g., a link to baggage information, a link to changed carry-on, first and second bag a llowance and fees, and a link to other changes in baggage fees)? As long as the links are adequately descriptive and a consumer can link “d irectly” (i.e., in one click and no scrolling) to the changed carry-on, first and second bag allowance and fee information, multiple links would be acceptable. However, the information should not be provided in such a manner that the consumer must “click through” multiple pages to arrive at the page that has information regarding changed fees or allowances. 6. Is a link to a page or window that only describe s any changes to carry-on , first and second bag allowance and fees sufficient even if it does not provide the carrier’s complete rules regarding baggage fees and allowances? Section 399.85(a) only requires disclosu re of any increases in fees and changes in baggage allowance for carry-ons and first and second check ed bags, but under section 399.85(d), a carrier is required to provide a conspicuous link from the homepage directly to a page that lists the fees for al l optional services, including baggage. If information regarding an y increase in fees and changes in baggage allowance for carry-on, first and second bags is on the same webpage as all other baggage allowance and fees information, the link on the homepage to those changes must take a consumer dire ctly to those changes and not simply to the page containing the carrier’s comple te baggage rules and fees. Questions regarding Section 399.85(b) 7. Section 399.85(b) requires U.S. and foreign carrier s, agents of either, and ticket agents that advertise or sell air transportation in the United States and maintain a website to clearly and prominently disclose, on the first screen where a fare quotation for a specific itinerary is provided, that additional airline fees for bagg age may apply and where consumers can see these baggage fees. Does this rule apply to carrier or agent websites available in the U.S. but not marketed to U.S. consumers?26 The websites of U.S. and foreign carri ers, agents of either, and ticket ag ents that are marketed to U.S. consumers should have the required information and disclosu res if those carriers or ti cket agents advertise or sell air transportation in the United States. To the exte nt that carriers and ticket agents to whom this rule applies maintain, in addition to their website(s) that ar e marketed to U.S. consumers, any websites that are not marketed to U.S. consumers but can be accessed from the United States, it is sufficient to have the required information and disclosures on only the website marketed to U.S. consumers. In section 399.85(a) and 399.85(b), the final rule incorrectly refers to websites “accessible” in the United States but, as stated above in the response to question on e, the Department plans to amend this language to refer to websites marketed towards United States consumers

― language that is used elsewhere in the rule

― and in the meantime we shall apply the latter la nguage as a matter of enforcement po licy. Indicia of whether a website is marketed to U.S. consumers include, but are not lim ited to, whether the website is in English, whether the seller of air transportation displays prices in U.S. dollars, whether the seller uses banner a dvertisements or highlights special deals for flights to or from the United States, and whet her the seller has an option on its website that differentiates site s or pages designed for U.S. and for other consumers. 8. What is the effective date for section 399.85(b)? Section 399.85(b) is eff ective on January 24, 2012. 9. Are ticket agents required to provide links to carrier websites for baggage fee information? Ticket agents that have their own websites marketed to ward U.S. consumers that provide fare quotes must comply with section 399.85(b). Thes e ticket agents are free to do this by referring consumers to the website of the appropriate airline, although they are not required to do s o. If they do not provide a link to a carrier website, ticket agents must displa y baggage fee information on their own websites and it must remain complete and reasonably accurate at all times. To the exte nt ticket agents direct pass engers to a chart, they should direct or link the passenger to the correct carrier on th e chart and not require the passenger to scroll down through a lengthy list of carriers and rules. Additionally, where a pa ssenger’s itinerary involves flights operated by more than one carrier (e.g., codeshare or interline servic e), the ticket agent must provide information to that passenger about the baggage allo wance and fees that will apply to the passenger’s transportation pursuant 14 CFR 399.87. 10. Is a summary of baggage fees suffi cient under section 399.85(b) or is it necessary to provide all possible baggage fees? Under section 399.85(b) carriers and ticke t agents must state that baggage fees may apply and state where specific baggage fee information may be obtained in response to a specific itinerary request from a consumer. Section 399.85(b) does not limit the obligati on to provide baggage fee information to a summary or to a certain type of bag fee. Nevertheless, as a matter of enforcement policy we would not take action against ticket agents for providing more limited baggage information in recognition of the fact that ticket agents would have a harder time compiling the informa tion regarding all baggage charges for all carriers for which they sell tickets and putting the information in to a usable and consumer-friendly format. More specifically, the Enforcement Office would not pursue en forcement action against ti cket agents who provide information regarding the standard checked baggage allowance (including size and weight limitations), the standard allowance (and fee, if appl icable) for carry-on baggage, and the standard fee for the first and second checked bag, along with the information that addi tional discounts may apply depending on flyer-specific factors (e.g., frequent flyer status, military, credit card used for purchase, early purchase over the internet, etc.).27 11. Is the disclosure provided by ticket agents in sea rch results limited to the cost of a carry-on bag and first and second checked bag or do agents have to disclose size and weight limitations as well? Please see the answer to question numb er ten, above. An agent must disclose the standard size and weight limits for baggage and that the fact that ex cess and overweight bagga ge charges may apply. 12. If a ticket agent provides a summary page of baggage information based on the information it gathers and a carrier does not provide real-ti me updates to its agents, will an agent face enforcement action? The Department will consider the facts on a case-by-case basis. For example, we do not anticipate real-time updates by ticket agents where carrier s themselves have not made the information readily available. However, if the information on an agent’s website is outdated by several weeks or is not updated on a routine basis, the agent’s summary would not be compliant with the rule. 13. Some ticket agents advertise and sell air tran sportation for hundreds of different carriers. Does a ticket agent have the option to provi de its own summary page for certain carriers and link to the websites of other carriers? It may be easier for ticket agents to obtain the in formation for their largest-volume carriers but, for other carriers for which they do not sell as many tickets, it ma y be easier to provide a li nk. A ticket agent may use hyperlinks to some carriers’ websites and summarize othe r carriers’ information so long as the information is accurate. Questions regarding Section 399.85(c) 14. When must U.S. and foreign carriers, agents of either, and ticket agents begin including information regarding the passenger’s free baggage allowance and/or the applicable fees for a carry-on bag and the first and second checked bag on e-ticket confirmations for air transportation within, to or from the Unit ed States as set forth in section 399.85(c)? Section 399.85(c) is effective on January 24, 2012. 15. Is it acceptable for a carrier to simply lis t the carrier’s standard bag gage fees or to provide a range for carry-on, first and second checked bag fees on the e-ticket confirmation? No, neither is acceptable. A carrier must provide specifi c information to consumers about all the factors that cause the fee for a carry-on bag and the first and second checked bag to vary so passengers can determine for themselves the fees that would apply to them. A range is not sufficiently specific. For example, it woul d not be sufficient for a carrier to state that the fee for the first checked bag ranges from $0 to $50. However, it would be acceptable for the carrier to state that the fee for the first checked bag would be $0 for its el ite frequent flyer passengers or those who purchased their ticket with a spec ified credit card, $25 for passengers who pay for baggage online, and $50 for those passengers who pay at the airport.28 Carriers are encouraged to provide in dividualized baggage charge informati on to passengers but this is not required by the rule. 16. On e-ticket confirmations, a re ticket agents required to provi de specific baggage information by providing a link to a carrier’s we bsite or is it acceptable for a ti cket agent to link to a display page on the ticket agent’s website? Under section 399.85(c), a ticke t agent is required to provide specifi c baggage information on the e-ticket information but may provide the information in text fo rmat or through a hyperlink to the specific location on airline websites or their own website where this in formation is displayed. However, as a matter of enforcement policy and for the reasons explained above, we would not take action agai nst a ticket agent that does not provide specific baggage information on the e-ticket confirmation for ca rry-on and first and second checked bag so long as a ticket agent provides informa tion regarding the standard first and second checked baggage allowance (including size and weight limitations), the standard allo wance (and fee, if applicable) for carry-on baggage, and the standard f ee for the first and second checked bag, along with the information that additional discounts may apply dependi ng on flyer-specific factor s (e.g., frequent flyer st atus, military, credit card used for purchase, early purchase over the internet, etc.). 17. Are carriers or ticket agents responsible for providing information on e-ticket confirmations regarding baggage fees on code-s hare or interline itineraries? Under section 399.85(c), both ticket ag ents and carriers are responsible for providing correct, specific baggage allowance and fee information on e-ticket conf irmations sufficient for consumers to determine the allowances and fees that apply to th eir travel, including travel on code-share and interline itineraries. Under section 399.87, the baggage allowances and fees that apply at the beginning of an itinerary must apply throughout. Therefore, any disclosure under section 399.85(c) must take into account the fees that apply to that itinerary pursuant to section 399.87. As a matter of enforcement policy, we would not take action agai nst ticket agents for not providing specific baggage allowance and fee information for code-share or interline itineraries so l ong as the standard baggage allowance (including size and wei ght limits) and fees for carry-on a nd first and second bag for the passenger’s code-share or interlin e itinerary is provided on the e- ticket confirmation and it includes information regarding additional factors, e.g., frequent flyer status, credit card used for purchase, early purchase over the internet, etc., that may apply. 18. To the extent a ticket agent or carrier makes a passenger’s flight information accessible to the passenger via an online account after the booking, is the ticket agent or carrier required to display baggage allowance and fee information on the online account page(s) that contain the customer’s flight information? No, the requirement only applies to the summary page at the end of a purchase and the e-ticket confirmation emailed to the consumer. 18a Do the provisions of 14 CFR Pa rt 399.85(c) apply to transactions that occur in a foreign country on a website that is not directed towards US consumers? Under section 399.85(c), once a consumer has bought air tran sportation within, to or from the United States, baggage information must be provided to the consum er by the seller of air tran sportation on any e-ticket confirmation, to include any summary page at the co mpletion of an online purch ase and any post-purchase29 email confirmation. Several non-U.S. ai r carriers have raised concerns ab out the cost to comply with this section with respect to re-programmi ng websites that have the capability of selling air transportation to or from the U.S. but that are not directed towards U.S. consumers. After reviewing the matter, the Enforcement Office has, as a matter of policy, decided to limit the application of section 399.85(c) to websites marketed towards U

. S

. consumers. This enforcement policy interp retation aligns section 399.85(c) with sections 399.85(a) and 399.85(b) and addresse s concerns raised by non-U.S. carriers and ticket agents with respect to their websites directed only to the general public outside of the U

. S. The Enforcement Office believes that this enforcement policy still achieves the goa l of 399.85(c) which is to ensure that U

. S

. -based consumers are not surprised by baggage fees at the ai rport at the beginning of their journey.

Questions regarding Section 399.85(d) 19. Does the requirement in section 399.85(d) to prom inently disclose on a website the fees for all optional services that are available to a passeng er purchasing air transportation apply to ticket agents? No, ticket agents are not required to disclose carriers’ fees for all op tional services on their websites. However, a ticket agent is subject to the requirements in sections 399.85( b) and (c) to provide information about baggage fees on the firs t screen in which it offers a fare quotati on for a specific itin erary and in e-ticket confirmations. Ticket agents are free to satisfy thes e requirements by linking to the appropriate airline web page where this information is available or its own web page if it displays the rele vant airline baggage fees. 20. When is section 399.85(d) effective? Section 399.85(d) became effective on August 23, 2011. 21. On the web page referred to in section 399.85(d), can fees (other than baggage fees) be disclosed in a range? Yes, fees for optional services (other than baggage) ma y be disclosed as a range. Examples of optional fees that may be listed as a range are: advance seat selectio n; in-flight beverages, snack s, or meals; pillows and blankets and similar amenities; inte rnet access; seat upgrades, etc. Questions regarding Section 399.85(e)

22. What is the effective date of the requirement in section 399.85( e) that a marketing/ticketing carrier disclose through its websites to consumers booked on a code-share flight any differences between its optional services and related fees and those of the carrier operating the flight? Section 399.85(e) became effective on August 23, 2011. 23. If a carrier code-shares with many different ca rriers, is the marketing carrier responsible for disclosing the differences between its optional services and fees and those of each of its codeshare partners? Yes. The marketing carrier must di sclose the differences between its op tional services and related fees and those of each of its code-share partners. The disclo sure may be through a notice of the differences on the marketing carrier’s website. That notice could provide a hy perlink taking the reader directly to each30 operating carrier’s fee listing, or to a page on the marketing carrier’s website that lists the differences in policies among code-share partners. For example, the marketing carrier can provide an explanatory statement that the operating carrier’s optional services and fees apply to flights operated by a code-share partner, provided that the marketing carrier also lists each code-share partner and pr ovides a hyperlink to the page on the operating carrier’s website that li sts its optional services and fees.

24. To the extent that there are no differences in optional services a nd fees, does the carrier have to disclose that fact? If there are no differences in services or fees, there is no requirement to disclose the lack of difference. Questions regarding section 399.87

25. What is the effective date of the requirement that U.S. and foreign carriers apply the baggage allowances and fees that apply at the beginning of a passenger’s itinerary throughout his or her entire itinerary as se t forth in section 399.87? Section 399.87 is effective on January 24, 2012. 26. Does Section 399.87 apply to multip le-ticket itineraries in which there is not a single PNR? In the case of a passenger itinerary composed of more than one ticket, the rule does not require a downline carrier to apply the baggage allowances or fees of the first carrier if the flight of the first carrier is on a separate ticket from the other flights. Example 1: Passenger books a round tr ip ticket on Carrier A from Dallas to New York, returning to Dallas and books a separate round trip ticke t on Carrier B from New York to Paris, returning to New York. Because those are two separate tickets, the passenger is subject to Carrier A’s baggage fees and allowances for flights operated by Carrier A and to Carrier B’s ba ggage fees and allowances on the flights operated by Carrier B. When there is a single ticket, one set of baggage a llowances and fees apply throughout the itinerary, as discussed below. 27. How is the rule applied to domestic single -ticket interline and co de-share itineraries? Example 2 (domestic interline): Passenger books a ticket from Miami, with a stopover in Washington, continuing to New York, and returning to Miami via New York. The ticket indicates the operating carrier’s code and flight number for each segment. Carrier A operates the Miami-Washington and New York-Miami segments, and Carrier B operates the Washington-New Yo rk segment. The baggage allowances and fees of Carrier A, the first operating carri er, apply throughout the itinerary. Example 3 (domestic code-share): As in exampl e 2, Carrier A operates the Miami-Washington and New York-Miami segments, and Carrier B operates the Wash ington-New York segment. However, Carrier B’s code and flight number are shown on the ticket for the Miami-Washington and Washington-New York segments, and Carrier A’s code and flight number are shown for the New York-Miami segment. Because the first flight is a code-share and Carrier B is the ma rketing carrier for that flight, Carrier B’s baggage allowances and fees apply throughout the itinerary.31 28. On a domestic itinerary with multiple carriers , which carrier’s baggage rules apply if there is a stopover? The baggage allowances and fees that apply at the be ginning of a passenger’s itin erary apply to the entire itinerary, regardless of whether there are any stopovers in the itinerary. 29. The Department has accepted, with some cond itions, the “most signif icant carrier” (MSC) methodology set forth in IATA Resolution 302. Does section 399.87 permit carriers to use the MSC methodology to determine which carrier’s b aggage rules apply to international singleticket interline and code-share itineraries? The section 399.87 requirement that U.S. and foreign carriers apply the ba ggage allowances and fees that apply at the beginning of a passenger’s itinerary throughout his or her entire itiner ary does not prohibit carriers from using the “most significant carrier” (MSC ) methodology for internationa l flights set forth in IATA Resolution 302, as conditioned by DOT Order 2009-9-20, to determine which carrier’s baggage rules apply to international itineraries. However, as is th e case with all IATA resolutions, Resolution 302 is not binding on IATA or non-IATA carriers. Accordingly, if the first segment of a ticket is not a c ode-share flight, then the ai rline operating that segment determines the baggage fees and allowances that appl y throughout that passenger’s j ourney/itinerary. If the first segment of a ticket is a code-share flight, then the marketing carrier for that segment determines the baggage allowances and fees th at would apply on all the rema ining flights on that ticket. The carrier for the first flight on the ticket is free to apply the MSC approach, as conditioned by DOT. In that event, the MSC carrier’s baggage allowances and f ees apply to all segments on that ticket, including the first segment. Note, however, that whatever methodol ogy the carrier follows to determine the applicable baggage allowance and fees, the baggage information must be disclosed in a number of different ways --- on the first screen where a fare quotation for a specific itinerary is provided as required in section 399.85(b), on e-ticket confirmations as required in section 399.85 (c), and on the website wher e fees for optional services are listed as required in section 399.85(d). Example 4 (international interline): Passenger books a ticket from Dallas, changing planes in New York, with a stopover in Amsterda m, continuing to Madrid , and returning to Dallas via Amsterdam and New York, with no stopovers on th e return. The ticket indica tes the operating carrier’s co de and flight number for each segment (there are no code-shares).

• Dallas

‐ New York segment is operated by Carrier A (outbound and return)

• New York

– Amsterdam segment is operated by Carrier B (outbound and return)

• Amsterdam

‐ Madrid segment is operated by Carrier C (outbound and return) The first carrier (Carrier A), ha s the option to use the MSC methodol ogy to determine which carrier’s baggage allowance and fees to a pply. If Carrier A chooses to ap ply the MSC methodology, as conditioned, Carrier B’s baggage allowances and fees would apply for the entire i tinerary. The MSC in this example would be Carrier B, the carrier opera ting across the Atlantic. Alternatively, Carrier A could choose to apply its own, and not the MSC, baggage allowances and fees , and those would apply for the entire itinerary. Example 5 (international code-share): Same as exam ple 4, except that Carrier B’ s code and flight number are shown on the ticket for the Dallas to New York segment.32 Carrier B, as the marketing carrier whose code appear s on the ticket for the first segment, has the option to use the MSC methodology, as conditioned by DOT, to determ ine which carrier’s baggage allowance and fees to apply. The baggage allowances and fees determin ed by Carrier B would apply to the entire itinerary regardless of whether it a pplied an MSC methodology.

30. In many parts of the world small carriers that do not file tariffs with the US government are “feeding” passengers onto flights operated by a larg er carrier with transatl antic or transpacific routes. Those small carriers gene rally have not filed a tariff or in any other way “identified” their baggage rules to the U.S. government. Could such a carrier whose code and flight number was shown on the first segment of a passe nger’s ticket on an in ternational itinerary decide not to use the MSC methodology to determine which baggage allowance and fees to apply and instead apply its own baggage policy? The Department of Transportation permits but does not require carrie rs to use the MSC methodology set forth in IATA Resolution 302, as conditioned by DOT, and section 399.87 does not limit carriers to baggage rules that are contained in tariffs that have been filed with, or have been “identified” to, the U.S. government. The carrier whose flight number and code is on the ticket for the first f light is responsible for determining which carrier’s baggage rules to apply. It is the marketing or selling carrier’ s responsibility to ensure that it has the relevant baggage information and discloses wh ich baggage rules apply in instances such as those outlined in the question. Specifically, the carrier selling the ticket must provide proper disclosure regarding baggage allowances and f ees to the consumer. To the extent that carriers are marketing or selling itineraries that include fli ghts on other carriers, the carriers presumably have a commercial relationship, such as a ticketing and baggage agreement, and are jointly responsible for sharing information regarding the baggage rules that will apply to those itineraries and ensuring that passengers are not charge d additional or higher ba ggage fees than those th at were disclosed at the time of sale.

31. In the case of a carrier th at charges a baggage “handling” fee, may the carrier charge the fee regardless of which carrier’s baggage fee rules apply and must that fee be disclosed? All fees for baggage, includi ng “handling” fees, are treat ed the same under the rule . All baggage fees are subject to the disclosure requirements in section 399.85. In addition, the requirement in section 399.87 to apply the baggage fee that applies at the beginning of a passenger’s itiner ary to all of the remaining flights includes any baggage “handling” fees. 32. Are there disclosure requirements regarding taxes on baggage fees? Government imposed taxes on baggage fees are subject to the disclosure requirements in section 399.85. 33. Some carriers’ baggage fees vary based on the currency of the flight’s departure city. For example, the checked bag fee may be $25.00 for fl ights originating in the United States and €25.00 for flights originating in the European Union. Charging the bag fee in different currencies depending on a passenger’s departure city is permitted but the fee applied at the beginning of the passenger’s itinerary (or its close equivalent in another currency) must apply throughout. In the example above, the carrier is not permitted to charge a fee that is higher than the $25.00 fee that applies for U.S.-originating passengers on the passenger’s return flight from Europe.33 Similarly, carriers are not permitted to char ge a fee that is higher than the €25.00 fee that applies for a Europe-originating passenger on that passe ngers return flight from the U.S. In each case, the carrier could collect the fee for the return flight in the national curre ncy at the point of check-i n, converted at the current exchange rate from the fee applied at the beginning of the passenger’s itinerary. 34. Does the rule apply to excess, oversize, and special baggage fees, in addition to standard checked baggage fees? Yes. One carrier’s allowance and fees, including ex cess and oversize and special baggage fees, must apply for the entire itinerary. 35. Can a passenger be charged an additional bag f ee when that passenger adds a bag during the journey or adds more items to his/her bag maki ng the bag an overweight bag (e.g., a passenger has a stopover and checks an additional bag for the next segment)? If yes, which carrier’s baggage fee applies? Yes. A passenger can be charged fo r an additional bag or a bag that has become overweight because of additional items being placed in the bag. The baggage rules selected by the first carrier (the marketing carrier in the case of a code-share on the first flight) would apply. The purpose of the rule is to ensure passengers are not surprised by higher fees or more restrictive allowances part of the way through their journey; therefore, the same carri er rules that apply at the beginni ng of the journey apply throughout the journey including fees for an additiona l or overweight bag. Th e purpose of the rule w ould not be served if consumers were expected to know all airlines’ baggage ru les, e.g., to understand that if they purchased items on their journey and checked an additional bag, they w ould have to pay a different carrier’s bag fee. 36. On a domestic itinerary with more than one le g each way, is there a limit to the number of times a carrier can charge a baggage fee, for example, if the pa ssenger re-checks a bag after a stopover? The rule does not prevent a carrier from charging a ba ggage fee each time the baggage is re-checked for domestic itineraries. 37. On an international itinerary, is there a limi t to the number of times a carrier can charge baggage fees in the event of a stopover? On round-trip international itineraries, industry practice and carriers’ filed tariffs often apply baggage fees one time in each direction, even if there are sto povers; however, section 399.87 does not prohibit carriers from charging an additional baggage fee in the event of a stopover, provided that the passenger is notified of multiple charges at the time of fare quote and ticketing, as required by section 399.85. That said, if a carrier’s contract of carriage, filed tariff, or published policy is to charge baggage fees only one time in each direction on international itineraries, then it must co mply with its own policy. If a carrier that currently charges baggage fees once per direction changes its policy, it must re-file its tariff rules and alter its website disclosures. Failure to comply with the terms of a contract of carriage, filed tariff, and/or published policy to the disadvantage of a consumer could be considered to be an unfair and deceptive practice under 49 U.S.C. § 41712. Questions regarding baggage rules in post-ticketing situations:34 38. If a carrier makes changes to a passenger’s itinerary after a passeng er books a flight - for example, if there is an equipment downgrad e and the replacement aircraft has a reduced checked and/or carry-on baggage allowance - ho w can a carrier comply with sections 399.85 and 399.87? A carrier cannot apply a reduced allowa nce or charge higher baggage fees after a tic ket is purchased. To change the applicable baggage ru les post-purchase would violate the post-purchase changes provision of 14 CFR 399.88. In the situation described above, a carri er must accommodate a passenger’s baggage at no additional cost. For example, if the substitute equipment cannot a ccommodate a passenge r’s carry-on bag that would have been accommodated w ithout charge in the overhead bin of the aircraft orig inally scheduled for the flight and the bag must be checked, a carrier may not charge the passenger to check the bag. Similarly, if safety reasons (e.g., weight restri ctions) prevent a passenge r’s baggage from being accommodated on the passenger’s flight, then the carrier should transport the bagga ge on another flight, but may not charge an additional fee for such transportation. Although a carrier may not charge additional baggage f ees in the situations outlined above, a carrier may provide post-purchase notice regarding si ze and weight restrictions , so that passengers may plan accordingly. For example, passengers may be provided with adva nce notice when there has been a post-purchase equipment downgrade and the replacement aircraft has a reduced carry-on baggage allowance so that passengers have the opportunity to p ack fewer or smaller carry-on bags, or make similar adjustments. However, any such advance notice should make clear to passengers that they will only be charged in accordance with the originally applicable baggage fees . For example, if a large carry-on bag would have been permitted without a fee before the equipment dow ngrade but after the downgrad e it must be checked, the notice should make clear that the large carry-on bag will be carried as checked baggage for no additional fee. 39. If a passenger requests post-purchase itinerary changes that affect the applicable baggage rules, e.g., the passenger requests an itinerary chan ge that results in a different first carrier, can the carrier change the applicable baggage f ees, and is the carrier required to notify the passenger? Yes to both questions. The baggage allowances and fees applicable to the new itinerary may be applied, as this is a passenger-driven change in the itinerary. Additionally, the consumer must be informed about the change in baggage fees that will result from his or her voluntary change in itinerary.



### XI. Post-Purchase Price Increases (399.88 and 399.89)

1. What entities are covered by the sections 399.88 and 399.89? Both sections 399.88 and 399.89 apply to U.S. and foreign carriers and ticket agents (including travel agents) that sell scheduled air transportation within, to or from the United States and tour operators that sell tours with scheduled air tran sportation as a component within, to or from the United States.

2. When are sections 399.88 and 399.89 effective? Both sections 399.88 and 399.89 are effective on January 24, 2012.35 3. Certain entities subject to this rule, especially tour operators, note that currently payment is often accepted over the telephone, and an email or rec eipt is subsequently sent to the consumer. When a transaction occurs over the telephone, ho w can a seller of scheduled air transportation comply with the requirement in the new sect ions 399.88 and 399.89 that written consent of the consumer be obtained in order to pass along a post-purchase price increase? Section 399.88 prohibits an incr ease in the price of air travel or an ai r tour after a consum er has fully paid. This section allows a limited exception for an increase in government taxes and fees if a consumer is notified of the potential for such an increase and gives his or her written consent to such an increase prior to full payment of the purchase price. Section 399.89 deals with price increases in air tran sportation for consumers who have not paid the full amount (e.g., consumers who have paid a deposit to re serve an air tour). S ection 399.89 allows increases prior to the time of full payment as long as the potenti al for such an increase is clearly disclosed to the consumer and the consumer consents to such an increase in writing prior to accepting any payment.

If the seller of scheduled air transportation does not pass on an in crease to consumers who purchase over the telephone, then written consent is not needed. Howeve r, if the seller wishes to pass on an increase to a consumer who pays over the telephone, the seller must obtain the consumer’s written consent. As a matter of enforcement policy, the following methods of obtaining consent would be consider ed to be equivalent to obtaining a written consent and would be acceptable to the Enforcement Office. a) If a seller chooses to record a reservation teleph one call with a consumer in which the disclosure for a potential increase is clea r and unambiguous and the consumer’s oral consent is also clear and unambiguous, the Enforcement Office would consider that to be an equi valent alternative to the written consent requirement and would not take enforcement action in such a case if a postpurchase price increase is impose d. In this scenario, the consum er must consent in advance to such a recording, and the seller must maintain record s of the recording to s how that it received the consent of the consumer (or have the consumer repeat the consent once the recording begins). b) A seller may take a passenger’s payment informa tion over the telephone af ter explaining to the passenger that the reservation will be held, wit hout charging for the payment, for a specified period of time (e.g., 72 hours, 7 days) until written consent to a potential increase is received. The seller can release the reservation after the specified period of time if the written consent is not received. c) A seller may take a passenger’s payment informa tion over the telephone, after explaining that the credit card will be charged immediately, but that the reservation will be canceled and the charge will be automatically credited (refunded) if writte n consent is not received within a specified short time period (e.g., 72 hours, 7 days).

4. Sections 399.88 and 399.89 state that a seller of sc heduled air transportation must notify a consumer of the potential for a price increase th at can take place before departure and must obtain the consumer’s written consent to the pote ntial for such an increase prior to purchase. Does this mean that sellers must obtain this writte n consent even if it is their policy not to pass along such increases? No. If a given seller does not pass along such increas es, there is no “potential for a price increase” and consequently the seller need not request or obtain th e consumer’s written consent to such increases. This policy can be applied on a passenger-specific basis, e.g., a seller can solicit written consent from all of its36 customers and would comply with the rule so long as th e seller applied any subsequent increase only to those customers who have appropriately consented to such increase. 5. Section 399.88(b) states that in order to pass along a post-purchase price increase due to an increase in a government-imposed tax or fee, a seller must “obtain the consumer’s written consent to the potential for such an increase prior to purchase of the scheduled air transportation, tour or tour component that includes scheduled air transportation.” What should a carrier do if a government-imposed tax or fee increases after purchase and the increase is implemented just before the passenger travels? So long as the seller has obtained th e passenger’s written consent to pass along any such increase, the seller may collect the increase in taxes from the consumer. If not, the seller may not impose the new government taxes/fees and must “swallow” those charges.

6. How can a tour operator who sells packages to consumers via a third-party agent obtain written consent when it does not have contact information for the passengers or the means to obtain the written consent? It is important to note that, in all cases where a tour package including scheduled air transportation is sold, including those sold th rough an agent, a passenger’s consent must be obtained in order for the tour operator to collect any price increase from a passenger permitted by the rules. No such consent is required if the operator does not intend to pass through to the consum er any price increase. The relationship between a particular tour operator and any par ticular agent that sell its tours is a commercial matter between those companies. Accordingly, the Enforcement Office ca nnot describe all methods by which compliance with the rule can be effected. However, the following are examples of how written consent required by DOT rules may take place in a transaction i nvolving a third-party agent. a) The tour operator could make the written consent a mandatory part of selling the tour package, i.e., include the consent language in every package sold, and require the agent, who presumably is in direct contact with the consumer, to obtai n the consent as a condi tion of each sale. b) A tour operator could accept payment information fr om the agent, but inform the agent that the passenger’s reservation is being held for a specified period of time and the credit card will not be processed until the agent obtains the written consent of the passenger. Under this arrangement, neither the operator nor the agent can charge th e credit card or collect any money until the consent is received by th e tour operator. c) A similar acceptable “reservation hold arrangement ” would permit the agent to take a passenger’s payment information, after explaining that the cr edit card will be charged immediately, but that the reservation will be canceled and the charge will be automatically credited (refunded) if written consent is not received by the agent within a s hort specified time period (e.g., 72 hours, 7 days).

7. Does section 399.88(a) prohibit an increase in th e price of ancillary s ervices an airline may charge to a passenger? What if the ancillary services are not purch ased at the same time as the ticket? Yes. Section 399.88(a) prohibits an in crease in the price of air transpor tation and related charges that has been purchased by a consumer, except for an increas e in a government-imposed tax or fee where the purchaser has given written consent to such an increase. The rule text specifically states that this prohibition on post-purchase price increases includes, but is not limited to , increases on the price for the carriage of37 passenger baggage, the price of a seat, or an increase in an applicable fuel surcharge. With regard to other ancillary services, the Enforcement Office realizes that there are many services related to air transportation that a passenger might not purchase until cl oser to the date of travel or on the date of travel. Under the rule, however, an increase in the prices of those services cannot be app lied to a passenger who has previously purchased a ticket. Under se ctions 399.85(b), (c), and (d) a carrier must inform consumers of the price of all ancillary services, including the pric e for first and second checked bags. These notices come in the form of web pages and hyperlinks on the carrier’s website and on al l e-ticket confirmations. A consumer bases his or her purchase decision on this information. If, after the purchase, the information th e consumer relied on is retroactively changed, the Enforcement Office would consid er that to be an unfair and deceptive practice. Carriers are allowed to present most ancillary services as a range of prices that can vary based on the passenger’s status, the type of flight, the duration of fli ght, etc. (only baggage fees must be presented in a more specific manner). As long as the range is accurate and truthful, section 399.88 does not prevent a carrier from charging a passenger a fee within that range of prices for an ancillary service that was made available to the consumer at the time of ticke t purchase but was not pur chased at that time.

Originally issued on 08/19/2011 by the Office of the Assist ant General Counsel for Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings.