4910-9X 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY 

14 CFR PARTS 244, 250, 253, 259 and 399 

Docket No. DOT-OST-2010-0140 

RiNNo. 2105-AD92 

Enhancing Airline Passenger Protections: Limited Extension of Effective Date For Certain 

Provisions 

AGENCY: Office of the Secretary (GST), Department of Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Final Rule, limited extension of effective 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 airiine passenger protections. 

Specifically, the Department is extending the effective date from August 23, 20II to January 24, 

2012, for requirenients pertaining to baggage fees, post purchase price increases, flight status 

changes and holding a reservation without payment for 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 tamiac 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 prominenfly all fees for optional aviation services on 

carriers' websites. 
DATES: This rule is effective on [insert 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 Counsel for Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings, 

U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE, Washington, DC 20590, 202-

366-9342 (phone), 202-366-7152 (fax), 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 passenger rights included in a rule published on 

December 30, 2009. More specifically, the April 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 adopt, follow, and audit customer service plans and establishes 

minimum standards for the subjects all carriers must cover in such plans; (4) adds carriers to 

those required to include their contingency plans and customer service plans on their websites; 

(5) increases the number of carriers that must respond to consumer complaints; (6) enhances 

protections afforded passengers in oversales situations, including increasing the denied boarding 

compensation airlines must pay to passengers bumped from flights; (7) strengthens, clarifies and 

codifies the Department's enforcement policies concerning air transportation price advertising 
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 date of the rule is August 23, 2011, except for the 

full fare advertising amendments which become effective on October 24, 2011. 

We received requests from U.S. carrier associations, foreign carrier associations and a 

travel agent association to extend the effective date of certain provisions in this rule. The Air 

Transport Association of America (ATA), the Regional Airline Association (RAA) and the Air 

Carrier Association of America (ACAA) requested that the Department 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 throughout an itinerary. 

These U.S. carrier associations state that they have limited their request to the four provisions 

that require deployment of additional IT resources, development of new protocols and the 

training of many employees. The National Air Carrier Association (NACA) joined the request to 

extend the effective date and stated that it also 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 programming changes and the need to ensure the 
appropriate offices and employees are aware of and trained on the changes to this rule. The 

carrier associations also ask for additional time to comply with the requirement to disclose 

baggage fees in e-ticket confirmations if detailed baggage fee informafion individualized to a 

particular passenger is required and if the notice of applicable baggage information must be in 

text form and a hyperlink is not allowed. In addition, the U.S. carrier associations 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 additional 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 particularly concerned about the full fare advertising 

requirements, which they contend they cannot meet by the published effective date of October 

24, 20 n . They state that this aspect of the final rule requires the greatest IT investment and that 

carriers are preparing to reprogram and reconfigure their online search 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 associations ask that the Department extend the 

effective date for not only online advertising but also print advertising so that consumers receive 

consistent advertising of fares through all advertising channels. 

The foreign air carrier associations have indicated their strong support of the request by 

the U.S. carrier associations and have asked that the 180-day extension be expanded to cover all 

the requirements being imposed for the first time on non-U.S. airlines. These associations are 

the International Air Transport Association (lAT), Associafion of Asia Pacific Airlines (AAPA), 

Association of European Airlines (AEA), and Lafin and Caribbean Air Transport Association 

(ALTA). They have stated that they believe investments and changes are needed to meet the 
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 airiines, the American Society of Travel Agents (ASTA) has requested 

an extension of the effective date of the final rule. ASTA requests that the Department extend 

the effective date of the requirement in section 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 disclose baggage fee information on all e-ticket 

confirmations. ASTA's request differs from the 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 the 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. carriers, notes its uncertainty as to whether the 

requirement to provide specific information to passengers about baggage allowances and 

baggage fees means providing individualized information 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 method (providing a link to an airline website) "an 

act of commercial suicide'* and believes the second method (referring consumers to its own site 

if it displays airlines' baggage fees) impractical because of the labor cost to achieve it initially 

and to monitor airiine websites constantly for updates. 

In addition to the requests to extend the effective date of the rule, we received a request 

from Ailegiant Air and Spirit Airiines as well as Southwest Airlines to postpone or stay the 

effective date pending judicial review of various provisions in this regulation by the United 
States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. In June, Ailegiant 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 exclude government taxes and fees from the advertised 

price; (2) prohibits the sale of nonrefundable tickets by requiring airlines to hold reservations at 

the quoted fare without payment or cancel without penalty for at least twenty-four hours after the 

reservation is made if the reservation is made one week or more prior to a flight's departure; (3) 

prohibits post-purchase price increases, including increases in the price of ancillary products and 

services, after the initial ticket sale; (4) requires baggage fees to be disclosed on e-ticket 

confirmations; and (5) mandates notification of flight schedule changes. Spirit's and Allegiant's 

request to the Department to stay the rule pending judicial review covers all the specific 

provisions that are part of the litigation. Southwest is requesting that the Department 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 effecfive date of the rule. The Consumer Travel 

Alliance (CTA) has expressed its opposition to any delay in implementation of the rulemaking. 

CTA appears particularly concerned about requests to delay the requirement to disclose baggage 

fee information to consumers. It notes that airlines have the means through the Airline Tariff 

Publishing Company (ATPCO) to disclose all baggage fee information 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 effective date of the rule but states that it recognizes that the 

Department may determine that the implementation date for some portions of the regulations 
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 commenter 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 strong opposifion to the blanket request for an 

extension of the effective date of all the consumer protection requirements in the rule. This 

individual identified the provisions pertaining to denied boarding compensafion 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. 

At^er carefully considering all the requests and comments provided, the Department has 

decided to extend the effective date of the requirements pertaining 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 pertaining to baggage fees (sections 399.85(b) and (c) and 

399.87), post-purchase price increases (sections 399.88 and 399.89), flight status notifications 

(section 259.8) and holding a reservation 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 deciding to extend certain 

provisions of the rule until January 24, 2011, including 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 allow maximum flexibility to make alterations to 

^"i^""T~~^ ^ 
web sites with minimal disruption. We also believe that we should apply the same effective date 

to print advertising so that consumers do not see different advertising 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 section 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 regarding the free baggage allowance and fee for a 

carry-on bag and the first and second checked bag "as specific charges taking into account any 

factors (e.g., frequent flyer status, early purchase, and so forth) that affect those charges." We 

want to clarify that the rule does not require passenger-specific information concerning baggage 

allowances and baggage fees on e-ticket confirmations or on websites providing fare quotations. 

We used the term "specific charges" to ensure that the regulated entities 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 that 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 sufficient for a carrier to state that the fee for the 

first checked bag ranges from $0 to $50. However, it would acceptable if the 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 the airport. Of course, carriers are free to 

provide individualized baggage charge information to passengers but this is not required by the 

rule. 
Although individualized baggage fee informafion is not required by the final rule, the 

Department sfill sees merit in extending the effective date of the requirements in secfion 

399.85(b) and (c) as the travel agencies need time 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 baggage charges through a hyperlink. However, we 

don't believe that it will be in the best interest of consumers to delay the effective date of these 

provisions until the Department concludes its rulemaking 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 baggage rules across an entire itinerary, the associations have 

adequately demonstrated the difficulties in applying 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 industry standard can be developed. We have also decided to extend the 

effecfive date of the provisions pertaining to post purchase price increases, flight status changes and 

holding a reservation without payment for twenty-four 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 consumers as soon as practical with the capability 

of airlines to comply with the 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. 
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 nofice 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 mle makes no 

substantive changes to the rule, but simply delays the etTective date of certain provisions until 

January 24, 2012. 

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

Policies and Procedures 

This rulemaking acUon is not a significant regulatory acfion under Executive Order 

12866 and the Department of Transportation's Regulatory Policies and Procedures. 

Accordingly, this action has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB). 

C. Regidatory Flexibility Act 

Pursuant to section 605 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 605(b), as 

amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement and Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), 

DOT certifies that this action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small 

enfifies. This action imposes no duties or obligations on small enfifies. 

10 
D. Executive Order 13/32 (Federalism) 

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

between the nafional Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various levels of government, and therefore will not have federalism 

implications. 

E. Executive Order 13084 

This notice has been analyzed in accordance with the principles and criteria contained in 

Executive Order 13084 ("Consuhation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Govemments"). 

Because the provisions for which we are delaying the effective date would not significantly or 

uniquely affect the communities of the Indian tribal govemments or impose substantial direct 

compliance costs on them, the funding and consultation 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 other information collecfion burdens imposed on the 

public and, under the provisions of PRA secfion 3507(d), obtain approval from the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information it conducts, sponsors, or 

requires through regulations. DOT has determined that there are no new information collection 

requirements associated with this acfion. 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. 

II 
G. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

The Department has determined that the requirements of Title II of the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act of 1995 do not apply to this rulemaking. 

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

ORIGINAL SIGNED 

Susan Kurland 

Assistant Secretary for Aviation and International Affairs 

12