Vol. 79 Friday, 

No. 100 May 23, 2014 

Part III 

Department of Transportation 

14 CFR Parts 234, 244, et al. 

Transparency of Airline Ancillary Fees and Other Consumer Protection 

Issues; Proposed Rule 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
29970 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 100 / Friday, May 23, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Office of the Secretary 

14 CFR Parts 234, 244, 250, 255, 256, 

257, 259, and 399 

[Docket No. DOT–OST–2014–0056] 

RIN 2105–AE11 

Transparency of Airline Ancillary Fees 

and Other Consumer Protection Issues 

AGENCY: Office of the Secretary (OST), 

Department of Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: The Department is seeking 

comment on a number of proposals to 

enhance protections for air travelers and 

to improve the air travel environment, 

including a proposal to clarify and 

codify the Department’s interpretation 

of the statutory definition of ‘‘ticket 

agent.’’ By codifying the Department’s 

interpretation, the Department intends 

to ensure that all entities that 

manipulate fare, schedule, and 

availability information in response to 

consumer inquiries and receive a form 

of compensation are adhering to all of 

the Department’s consumer protection 

requirements that are applicable to 

ticket agents such as the full-fare 

advertising rule and the code-share 

disclosure rule. 

This NPRM also proposes to require 

airlines and ticket agents to disclose at 

all points of sale the fees for certain 

basic ancillary services associated with 

the air transportation consumers are 

buying or considering buying. 

Currently, some consumers may be 

unable to understand the true cost of 

travel while searching for airfares, due 

to insufficient information concerning 

fees for ancillary services. The 

Department is addressing this problem 

by proposing that carriers share realtime, accurate fee information for 

certain optional services with ticket 

agents. 

Other proposals in this NPRM to 

enhance airline passenger protections 

include: Expanding the pool of 

‘‘reporting’’ carriers; requiring enhanced 

reporting by mainline carriers for their 

domestic code-share partner operations; 

requiring large travel agents to adopt 

minimum customer service standards; 

codifying the statutory requirement that 

carriers and ticket agents disclose any 

airline code-share arrangements on their 

Web sites; and prohibiting unfair and 

deceptive practices such as undisclosed 

biasing in schedule and fare displays 

and post-purchase price increases. The 

Department is also considering whether 

to require ticket agents to disclose the 

carriers whose tickets they sell in order 

to avoid having consumers mistakenly 

believe they are searching all possible 

flight options for a particular city-pair 

market when in fact there may be other 

options available. Additionally, this 

NPRM would correct drafting errors and 

make minor changes to the 

Department’s second Enhancing Airline 

Passenger Protections rule to conform to 

guidance issued by the Department’s 

Office of Aviation Enforcement and 

Proceedings (Enforcement Office) 

regarding its interpretation of the rule. 

DATES: Comments must be received by 

August 21, 2014. Comments received 

after this date will be considered to the 

extent practicable. 

ADDRESSES: You may file comments 

identified by the docket number DOT– 

OST–2014–0056 by any of the following 

methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 

http://www.regulations.gov and follow 

the online instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• Mail: Docket Management Facility, 

U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 

New Jersey Ave., SE., Room W12–140, 

Washington, DC 20590–0001. 

• Hand Delivery or Courier: The 

Docket Management Facility is located 

on the West Building, Ground Floor, of 

the U.S. Department of 

Transportation,1200 New Jersey Ave. 

SE., Room W12–140, between 9 a.m. 

and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

except Federal holidays. 

• Fax: 202–493–2251. 

Instructions: You must include the 

agency name and the Docket Number 

DOT–OST–2014–0056 or the Regulatory 

Identification Number (RIN) for the 

rulemaking at the beginning of your 

comment. All comments received will 

be posted without change to http://

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided. 

Privacy Act: Anyone is able to search 

the electronic form of all comments 

received in any of our dockets by the 

name of the individual submitting the 

comment (or signing the comment if 

submitted on behalf of an association, a 

business, a labor union, etc.). You may 

review DOT’s complete Privacy Act 

statement in the Federal Register 

published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 

19477–78), or you may visit http://

DocketsInfo.dot.gov. 

Docket: For access to the docket to 

read background documents or 

comments received, go to http://

www.regulations.gov or to the street 

address listed above. Follow the online 

instructions for accessing the docket. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Kimberly Graber or Blane A. Workie, 

Office of the Assistant General Counsel 

for Aviation Enforcement and 

Proceedings, U.S. Department of 

Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Ave. 

SE., Washington, DC 20590, 202–366– 

9342 (phone), 202–366–7152 (fax), 

kimberly.graber@dot.gov or 

blane.workie@dot.gov (email). 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Executive Summary 

1. Purpose of the Regulatory Action 

The U.S. Department of 

Transportation (DOT) is issuing this 

notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) 

to improve the air travel environment of 

consumers based on its statutory 

authority to prohibit unfair or deceptive 

practices in air transportation, 49 U.S.C. 

41712. The Department is taking action 

to strengthen the rights of air travelers 

when purchasing airline tickets from 

ticket agents, ensure that passengers 

have adequate information about 

regional carriers’ operations to make 

informed decisions when selecting 

flights, increase notice to consumers of 

some of the fees carriers charge for 

optional or ancillary services, and 

prohibit unfair and deceptive practices 

such as post-purchase price increases 

and undisclosed biasing in fare and 

schedule displays. 

2. Summary of Regulatory Provisions 

Subject Proposed rule 

1 .......... Codification of the Department’s Interpretation of ‘‘Ticket Agent’’.Codifies the Department’s broad interpretation of the statutory definition of the term 

‘‘ticket agent’’ to include Global Distribution Systems (GDS), websites with flight 

metasearch engines, and similar intermediaries in the sale of air transportation, if the 

intermediary is compensated in connection with the sale of air transportation. 

2 .......... Disclosure of Certain Ancillary Fee Information to Consumers (‘‘GDS Issue’’).Two alternative proposals regarding disclosure of fee information for basic ancillary 

services. 

• Proposal #1: Requires carriers to disclose fee information for basic ancillary services to all ticket agents to which a carrier provides its fare information, including 

GDSs. 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 100 / Friday, May 23, 2014 / Proposed Rules 29971 

Subject Proposed rule 

• Proposal #2: Requires carriers to disclose fee information for basic ancillary services to all ticket agents to which a carrier provides its fare information and which 

sell air transportation directly to consumers; this would exclude ticket agents that 

arrange but don’t sell air transportation, such as GDSs. 

Both proposals would: 

• Define basic ancillary services as first checked bag, second checked bag, one 

carry-on item, and advance seat selection, to the extent these options are offered 

by the carrier. 

• Not require a carrier to allow ticket agents to sell these services; or if a carrier 

permits ticket agents to sell those services, it would not require carriers to charge 

the same fee for the service as the agents. If a carrier is not selling the service 

through a ticket agent, the carrier and ticket agent are responsible for disclosing 

to consumers when and how fees should be paid, and for baggage fees, must 

honor the fee quoted at the time of purchase. 

• Require all ticket agents and airlines that provide fare information to consumers 

to also provide fee information for basic ancillary services to consumers. This information should be made available to the consumer at the point in which fares 

are being compared. 

• Prohibit ticket agents with existing contractual agreements with a carrier for the 

distribution of the carrier’s fare and schedule information from charging additional 

or separate fees for distribution of information about basic ancillary services—i.e., 

a ticket agent cannot unilaterally change contract terms to require additional payments to upload and disseminate the required ancillary service fee information. 

Existing contracts should be honored until the contract expires unless mutually 

renegotiated by the parties. 

3 .......... Expansion of Reporting Carriers for Service 

Quality Data.

Expands the pool of reporting carriers from any carrier that accounts for at least 1% of 

domestic scheduled passenger revenue to any carrier that accounts for at least 0.5% 

of domestic scheduled passenger revenue. 

(This definition would cover carriers such as Spirit Airlines, Allegiant Airlines, and Republic Airlines.) 

4 .......... Data Reporting for Domestic Code-Share 

Partner Operations.

Requires reporting carriers to include data for their domestic scheduled flights operated 

by their code-share partners: 

• On-time Performance 

• Mishandled Baggage 

• Oversales 

5 .......... Customer Service Commitments (Large 

Ticket Agents).

Requires large ticket agents (those with annual revenue of $100 million or more) to 

adopt certain customer service commitments, including a commitment to: 

• Provide prompt refunds where ticket refunds are due, including fees for optional 

services that consumers purchased from them but were not able to use due to 

flight cancellation or oversale situation; 

• Provide an option to hold a reservation at the quoted fare without payment, or to 

cancel without penalty, for 24 hours; 

• Disclose cancellation policies, seating configurations, and lavatory availability on 

flights; 

• Notify customers in a timely manner of itinerary changes; and 

• Respond promptly to customer complaints. 

6 .......... Transparency in Display of Code-Share Operations as Required by 49 U.S.C. 

41712(c).

Amends the Department’s code-share disclosure regulation to codify the statutory requirement that carriers and ticket agents must disclose any code-share arrangements 

on their Web sites. Requires disclosure on the first display presented in response to a 

search of a requested itinerary for each itinerary involving a code-share operation. 

Disclosure must be in a format that is easily visible to a viewer. 

7 .......... Disclosure of the Carriers Marketed (Applies to Large Travel Agents Only).Seeks comments regarding whether: 

• To require large ticket agents to maintain and display lists of carriers whose tickets they market and sell; and if required, how to disclose the carriers that are 

marketed and sold by the ticket agent. 

8 .......... Prohibition of Display Bias ........................... Prohibits undisclosed biasing by carriers and ticket agents in any Internet displays of 

the fare and schedule information of multiple carriers. 

9 .......... Prohibition on Post-Purchase Price Increases For Ancillary Services.Revises the existing prohibition on post-purchase increases with respect to the price of 

ancillary services that are not purchased with the air transportation so carriers and 

other sellers of air transportation are only prohibited from increasing the price for the 

carriage of baggage. The price for other ancillary services not purchased at the time 

of ticket purchase may be increased until the consumer purchases the service itself. 

3. Summary of Preliminary Regulatory 

Analysis 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
29972 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 100 / Friday, May 23, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

SUMMARY OF MONETIZED COSTS AND MONETIZED BENEFITS OVER 10 YEARS, DISCOUNTED AT 7 PERCENT

[Millions $] 

Provisions Costs Benefits 

1: Definition of ticket agent ...................................................................................................................................... N/A N/A 

2: Disclosure of certain ancillary fees information to consumers ........................................................................... $ 46.15 $ 25.1 

3 & 4: Reduce reporting threshold to 0.50% and submit additional set of reports that includes code-share partners ...................................................................................................................................................................... 29.75 N/A 

5: Minimum customer service standards for ticket agents ...................................................................................... 2.97 N/A 

6: Display bias prohibition ....................................................................................................................................... N/A N/A 

7: Disclosure of code-share segments in schedules, advertisements and communications with consumers ....... N/A N/A 

8: Disclosure of carriers marketed .......................................................................................................................... N/A N/A 

9: Prohibition of post-purchase price increase for ancillary services ...................................................................... N/A N/A 

Total (Proposed Provisions) ............................................................................................................................. 80.51 25.1 

The quantifiable costs of this 

rulemaking exceed the quantifiable 

benefits. However, when unquantified 

costs and benefits are taken into 

account, we anticipate that the benefits 

of this rulemaking would justify the 

costs. It was not possible to measure the 

benefits of the proposals in this 

rulemaking, except for the benefits for 

provision 2. For example, there are a 

number of unquantified benefits for the 

proposals such as improved on time 

performance for newly reporting carriers 

and code-share flights of reporting 

carriers, improved customer goodwill 

towards ticket agents, and greater 

competition and lower overall prices for 

ancillary services and products. There 

are also some unquantified costs such as 

increased management costs to improve 

carrier performance, increased staff time 

to address consumer complaints, and 

decreased carrier flexibility to 

customize services, though we believe 

these costs would be minimal. If the 

value of the unquantified benefits, per 

passenger, is any amount greater than 

one cent and the unquantified costs are 

minimal as anticipated, then the entire 

rule is expected to be net beneficial. 

Background 

This NPRM addresses several 

recommendations to the Department 

regarding aviation consumer protection 

as well as two issues identified in the 

second Enhancing Airline Passenger 

Protections final rule. In that final rule, 

the Department instituted many 

passenger protections including 

expanding the rules regarding lengthy 

tarmac delays to non-U.S. carriers, 

requiring U.S. and non-U.S. carriers to 

adopt and adhere to minimum customer 

service standards, increasing the 

amounts of involuntarily denied 

boarding compensation, enhancing Web 

site disclosures for baggage fees and 

other ancillary service fees, and 

prohibiting post-purchase price 

increases. See 76 FR 23110 (April 25, 

2011). However, the Department 

declined to impose a requirement on 

airlines to provide their fee information 

for ancillary services to Global 

Distribution Systems (GDSs), stating 

that the Department needed to learn 

more about the complexities of the 

issue. This NPRM addresses the issue of 

disclosure of ancillary services fee 

information. Additionally, subsequent 

to the publication of the 2011 final rule, 

in response to questions received 

regarding the post-purchase price 

increase rule, the Department’s Office of 

Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings 

(Enforcement Office) issued Guidance 

on Price Increases of Ancillary Services 

and Products not Purchased with the 

Ticket on December 28, 2011 available 

at http://www.dot.gov/airconsumer. In 

that guidance, the Enforcement Office 

noted the Department’s decision to 

revisit in this NPRM the rule as it relates 

to post-purchase price increases for 

certain ancillary services not purchased 

with the ticket. 

This NPRM also addresses certain 

recommendations made by two Federal 

advisory committees—the Future of 

Aviation Advisory Committee (FAAC) 

and the Advisory Committee on 

Aviation Consumer Protection. The 

FAAC was established on April 16, 

2010, with the mandate to provide 

information, advice, and 

recommendations to the Secretary of 

Transportation on ensuring the 

competitiveness of the U.S. aviation 

industry and its capability to address 

the evolving transportation needs, 

challenges, and opportunities of the 

global economy. On December 15, 2010, 

the FAAC delivered a report to the 

Secretary with 23 recommendations. 

FAAC Recommendation 11 addressed 

disclosure of ancillary service fees, 

code-share operations, and air travel 

statistics. This NPRM incorporates 

many aspects of FAAC 

Recommendation 11. For more 

information regarding the FAAC, please 

visit http://www.dot.gov/faac. 

More recently, on May 24, 2012, the 

Advisory Committee on Aviation 

Consumer Protection was established to 

advise the Secretary in carrying out 

activities related to airline customer 

service improvements. On October 22, 

2012, this Committee submitted its first 

set of recommendations to the Secretary 

on a wide range of aviation consumer 

issues, including adopting FAAC 

Recommendation 11, which urged 

greater transparency in the disclosure of 

ancillary fees and code-share 

operations. This NPRM addresses the 

recommendations by the Committee to 

ensure transparency in air carrier 

pricing, to require on-time performance 

data be reported to the Department for 

all flights and airlines, and to mandate 

disclosures by online travel agencies 

and other agents as to which carriers’ 

services they sell. Records relating to 

the advisory committee, including a 

transcript and minutes of its meetings 

and its full recommendation report, are 

contained in the Department’s docket, 

which is available at http://

www.regulations.gov under docket 

number DOT–OST–2012–0087. 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

1. Clarifying the Definition of ‘‘Ticket 

Agent’’ 

This NPRM proposes a regulatory 

definition for the statutory term ‘‘ticket 

agent’’ to clarify for the industry what 

type of entity the Department considers 

to be a ticket agent and to ensure that 

its consumer protection regulations 

apply to all entities that hold out airfare, 

schedule, and availability information 

to consumers. Consumers and 

stakeholders in the air transportation 

industry have identified relatively new 

entities, such as meta-search engines, as 

primary information sources and entry 

points for the purchase of air 

transportation. However, such entities 

do not consistently provide the 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 100 / Friday, May 23, 2014 / Proposed Rules 29973 

information that the Department views 

as vital to consumer protection such as 

code-share disclosure. For example, 

consumers may begin their search for air 

transportation options by selecting their 

flights on one Web site and then 

completing their purchase on another 

Web site and, in the process, not be 

provided disclosures regarding codeshare operations, baggage fee 

information, and other consumer 

protection information that the 

Department requires air carriers, foreign 

air carriers, and ticket agents provide to 

consumers early in the process. 

The Department is considering 

codifying in its regulations its 

interpretation of the statutory definition 

of ‘‘ticket agent’’ to make clear that all 

entities involved in the sale or 

distribution of air transportation, 

including those intermediaries that do 

not themselves sell air transportation 

but arrange for air transportation and 

receive compensation in connection 

with the sale of air transportation, are 

ticket agents subject to the Department’s 

regulations regarding the display of 

airfare information. The definition 

would include all commercial entities 

that are involved in arranging for the 

sale of air transportation through the 

Internet (among other channels), 

regardless of whether an entity received 

a share of revenue from a third party for 

transactions that originated on the 

entity’s Web site, or the entity charged 

a commission for each transaction that 

originated on its Web site, or the entity 

was simply compensated on a cost-perclick for advertisements, or was 

compensated on some other basis. 

The means by which airline 

itineraries are commonly displayed and 

sold has changed dramatically and 

continues to evolve. New entities that 

were not previously involved in the 

distribution of air transportation are 

now an important source of information 

for consumers as well as a means of 

distribution for carriers. Online entities, 

such as Web sites that provide a variety 

of travel information, advertising, and 

links as well as meta-search engines that 

provide flight search tools including 

fare and schedule information, are now 

frequently used by consumers to 

research airfares and schedules and to 

connect to the airline or travel agent 

Web site that ultimately books and/or 

fulfills the consumer’s ticket purchase. 

Meanwhile, some airlines provide direct 

electronic access to their own internal 

systems providing fare, schedule, and 

availability information to certain 

Internet entities with the condition that 

when displaying that carrier’s flight 

itineraries in flight search results, the 

entity must provide a link only to the 

airline’s Web site and not to travel agent 

Web sites that have similar information. 

Staff members from the Department 

have been informed that, in some cases, 

entities such as meta-search engines and 

other Web sites that operate flight 

search tools receive a commission or 

some other compensation for 

transactions that originate on their Web 

sites, for example, from a flight search 

tool that allowed the consumer to select 

a particular itinerary. However, in other 

cases, entities that are involved in 

arranging for air transportation by 

allowing a consumer to select an 

itinerary using a flight search tool are 

compensated for advertising and not for 

the individual transaction. But 

regardless of the manner of 

compensation, consumers are 

increasingly relying on those Internet 

entities in making their air 

transportation purchasing decisions. In 

some cases, these Internet entities 

display schedules, fares and availability 

but direct consumers to other Web sites 

to purchase and are not the final point 

of sale for an airline ticket. They may be 

earning revenue through advertising 

sales and providing flight search 

capabilities based on data gathered from 

other sources. These entities would be 

included under our proposed definition 

of ticket agent along with traditional 

ticket agents. The Department seeks 

comment on the differences between 

traditional ticket agents and entities that 

provide flight search tools but direct 

consumers to another site to finalize 

their purchase. Are there considerations 

regarding entities that are not the final 

point of sale for air transportation that 

should be considered in connection 

with the regulations proposed in this 

rulemaking? DOT also seeks comment 

on the impact on these entities of 

complying with the Department’s 

existing regulations applicable to ticket 

agents. For example, what are the 

impacts on ticket agents that are not the 

final point of sale for air transportation 

of the regulations in 14 CFR 399.80 (e.g., 

prohibition against misrepresentation of 

quality or kind of service, type or size 

of aircraft, time of departure or arrival, 

and so forth; prohibition against 

misrepresentation of fares and charges)? 

Are those impacts different from the 

impacts on traditional ticket agents or 

other agents that have a different 

business model? 

As noted above, consumers may begin 

their search by selecting their flights on 

one Web site and then completing their 

purchase on another Web site and, in 

the process, bypass the pages containing 

disclosures regarding code-share 

operations, baggage fee information, and 

other consumer protection information 

that the Department requires air carriers, 

foreign air carriers, and ticket agents to 

provide to consumers before an air 

transportation purchase is finalized. 

Accordingly, the Department is 

considering a definition of ‘‘ticket 

agent’’ that would clarify that global 

distribution systems, meta-search 

Internet sites that offer a flight search 

tool and are compensated for 

advertisements that are displayed on the 

same Web site (even if the advertising 

content is not directly related to air 

travel), and other such compensated 

intermediaries, regardless of the manner 

in which they are compensated for their 

role in arranging air transportation, are 

ticket agents for the purposes of the 

Department’s air transportation 

consumer protection regulations. Such a 

broad definition would ensure that all 

commercial entities that receive 

compensation in connection with air 

transportation advertising/marketing 

and that are involved in arranging for air 

transportation would be required to 

provide consumers with certain 

essential information early in the 

process (e.g., information regarding 

code-share operations, disclosure about 

baggage fees). A broad definition of 

‘‘ticket agent’’ would better ensure 

passengers are protected regardless of 

the path they choose to arrange for air 

transportation. Additionally, this 

rulemaking proposes to prohibit ticket 

agents from incorporating undisclosed 

bias into their displays, and solicits 

comment on whether ticket agents 

should be required to disclose 

information about incentive payments 

and/or identify the carriers the ticket 

agent markets or does not market. 

We are not aware of whether there is 

a widespread problem of consumers 

being confused by Web sites that do not 

sell tickets but do provide fare, 

schedule, and availability information 

that consumers are relying on in 

planning their travel. However, we 

believe that there is a risk of harm 

because some Web sites do not provide 

all of the disclosures required by the 

Department. We seek comment from any 

consumers who have faced these types 

of problems. 

Past litigation has made clear that 

GDSs are ticket agents. Sabre v. 

Department of Transportation, 429 F.3d 

1113 (D.C. Cir. 2005). However, metasearch engines that offer a flight search 

tool have entered into the marketing and 

distribution of fare and schedule 

information. In addition, new entities 

have emerged that receive direct or 

indirect compensation from the 

advertising and/or sale of air 

transportation, while offering flight 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
29974 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 100 / Friday, May 23, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

1According to estimates by PhoCusWright (2011), 

31 percent of passengers purchased tickets through 

Travel Management Companies (TMCs) (e.g., 

American Express, Carlson Wagonlit), and 16 

percent via an online travel agency (OTA). Since 

both TMCs and OTAs use GDSs to book air tickets, 

the share of passengers who will benefit from 

improved salience on ancillary service fees would 

be the total of both ticket distribution channels (47 

percent), unless TMCs or OTAs connect directly to 

airlines. Other higher proxy estimates were also 

found. InterVISTAS estimated that 50 percent of US 

national round trip passengers book their ticket via 

a GDS. 

search tools and fare displays. The 

Department sees a benefit in clarifying 

that those entities are ticket agents, 

regardless of whether or not they are the 

final point of sale for air transportation, 

and are required to comply with air 

transportation consumer protection 

regulations that apply to ticket agents. 

Additionally, at this point, the 

Department cannot predict the new 

types of entities that will engage in the 

marketing and distribution of fare and 

schedule information or how the 

marketing and distribution of fare and 

schedule information will change with 

new developments in technology. 

However, it appears that some of these 

entities may have taken, or will take in 

the future, a quasi-GDS role. 

Accordingly, the Department believes 

its regulations should be clear and 

should apply equally to entities that are 

new to the air transportation 

marketplace as well as existing entities 

already involved in the marketing and 

distribution of air transportation. To be 

clear, only entities operating Web sites 

that provide flight search tools that 

manipulate, manage, and display fare, 

schedule, and availability information 

and are tools that the Web site operator 

creates or manipulates and has ultimate 

control over would be covered. For 

example, entities such as Kayak and 

Google that offer flight search tools with 

fare, schedule, and availability 

information would be covered. An 

entity that operated a Web site that 

simply displayed airfare advertisements 

without actual flight search capability 

under its control would not be covered. 

The Department seeks comment on 

whether the definition of ‘‘ticket agent’’ 

should be codified in the regulation so 

as to clarify the Department’s view that 

it is a broad term and includes entities 

such as meta-search engines that 

provide a flight search tool and other 

Web sites that act as intermediaries 

between consumers and the ultimate 

entity that sells the air transportation, 

whether an airline or another ticket 

agent. The Department also seeks 

comment on whether the proposed 

definition of a ticket agent, which 

includes an entity that arranges for or 

sells air transportation for compensation 

(regardless of the form of 

compensation), is sufficiently broad and 

meets the Department’s goal of 

encompassing the variety of entities that 

use the Internet to arrange for the sale 

of air transportation. For example, 

under the proposed definition, an entity 

that provides a flight search tool that 

allows consumers to select an itinerary 

that can be purchased on another site 

and displays air transportation 

advertisements for which the entity is 

compensated on a ‘‘cost-per-click’’ basis 

would fall under the definition of a 

ticket agent. The Department also seeks 

comment on whether the definition of a 

ticket agent should include all entities 

that operate flight search tools that 

display itineraries and allow consumers 

to begin the booking process but are not 

compensated for the specific 

transaction. We also request comments 

on the costs and benefits to consumers, 

airlines, meta-search engines, and other 

entities involved in arranging for and 

selling air transportation, of codifying 

the definition of ‘‘ticket agent’’ to 

include air transportation 

intermediaries such as meta-search 

engines that offer a flight search tool. 

As a related matter, the Department is 

considering whether carriers should be 

prohibited from restricting the 

information provided by ticket agents 

when those ticket agents do not sell air 

transportation directly to consumers but 

rather provide consumers with different 

airlines’ flight information for 

comparison shopping. For example, the 

Department has been informed that 

some carriers may not allow certain 

entities with Web sites that operate 

flight search tools to display the 

carrier’s fare, schedule and availability 

information. Should carriers be 

prohibited from imposing restrictions 

on ticket agents that prevent ticket 

agents from including a carrier’s 

schedules, fares, rules, or availability 

information in an integrated display? 

Also, we understand that a number of 

carriers restrict the links ticket agents 

may place next to a particular flight 

itinerary on a display, and in many 

cases only permit a link to the carrier’s 

own Web site. Why might carriers place 

such restrictions on travel agents? 

Should the Department require carriers 

to allow ticket agents to provide links to 

the Web sites of the entities listed in an 

integrated display, including non-carrier 

Web sites? 

2. Display of Ancillary Service Fees 

Through All Sales Channels 

Need for Rulemaking 

Many services or products previously 

included in the price of an airline ticket 

such as checked baggage, advance seat 

assignments and priority boarding are 

now sold separately. Traditional and 

online travel agents generally access 

their airline ticket inventory through 

large Global Distribution Systems 

(GDSs) and often do not have access to 

the fees associated with ancillary 

services/products and thus cannot 

disclose this information to consumers 

without looking directly at carriers’ Web 

sites. In discussions with the 

Department, consumers and corporate 

travel companies have identified the 

lack of complete transparency of fees for 

unbundled services and products as a 

problem. Specifically, when consumers 

are making decisions on whether to 

purchase air transportation and if so, 

from which entity, they continue to 

have difficulty determining the total 

cost of travel because the fees for the 

basic ancillary services are not available 

through all sales channels. This lack of 

transparency also creates challenges in 

the corporate and managed travel 

community. Currently, approximately 

50% of air transportation is booked 

through a channel that involves a ticket 

agent rather than the airline’s own 

reservation agents or its Web site, 

whether it is through a traditional brickand-mortar travel agency, a corporate 

travel agent, or an online travel agency.1

Consumers and corporate travel 

companies often search various Web 

sites to try to determine the fees for 

ancillary services. They have raised 

concerns with the Department regarding 

how the lack of clear disclosure of 

ancillary fees makes it difficult to 

determine the true cost of travel and 

compare different airline flight and fare 

options. 

In the NPRM that led to the second 

Enhancing Airline Passenger Protections 

rule, the Department reiterated its goal 

of increasing notice to consumers of the 

fees carriers charge for optional or 

ancillary services, including checked 

baggage fees and carry-on baggage fees, 

by proposing a series of disclosure 

requirements related to ancillary service 

fees. When drafting the disclosure 

regime in the second Enhancing Airline 

Passenger Protections rule, the 

Department recognized that a problem 

in the marketplace existed because 

ticket agents did not have access to realtime and accurate fee data for ancillary 

services. Therefore, in the NPRM, the 

Department asked whether it should 

require that carriers provide fee 

information for ancillary services and 

products to the GDSs in which each 

carrier participates, in an up-to-date and 

useful fashion. Although the 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 100 / Friday, May 23, 2014 / Proposed Rules 29975 

Department did not propose rule text, it 

invited comment on the ‘‘GDS 

proposal.’’ The comment period closed 

on September 24, 2010. 

The Department received numerous 

comments regarding the GDS proposal 

from interested industry parties and 

consumer advocacy groups both before 

and after the closing of the comment 

period. The comments demonstrated to 

the Department that before it issued a 

final rule it needed more information on 

the contractual and historical 

relationships between the GDSs and the 

carriers, as well as an in-depth costbenefit analysis of such a requirement. 

Therefore, in the Final Rule for 

Enhancing Airline Passenger Protections 

published in the Federal Register on 

April 25, 2011, 76 FR 23110, the 

Department did not include a 

requirement that carriers provide all 

ancillary service fee information to 

GDSs. Instead, it stated that it would 

continue to consider the issue, gather 

more information, and defer final action 

on this topic. 

In the 2011 final rule, the Department 

did impose various disclosure 

requirements on both carriers and travel 

agents via the new 14 CFR 399.85. 

However, in recognition of the fact that 

the Department had not required the 

dissemination of ancillary service fee 

information through GDSs and, 

therefore, agents would not necessarily 

have access to the most up-to-date and 

accurate ancillary service fee 

information, the Department 

promulgated different baggage 

disclosure requirements for ticket agents 

from those required of carriers. For 

example, the rule allows ticket agents 

with Web sites marketed to consumers 

in the United States to disclose baggage 

fees through hyperlinks displayed with 

itinerary search results and included in 

e-ticket confirmations which link to 

static lists. Also, 14 CFR 399.85(a) 

requires carriers but not ticket agents to 

disclose on their homepage for three 

months any change to their baggage fees. 

Additionally, under 14 CFR 399.85(d), 

carriers must provide a listing of all 

optional service fees on one Web page. 

There must be a link to that listing on 

the homepage. Agents are not required 

to have this listing, as they do not 

necessarily have access to all carriers’ 

current optional service fee information 

on a real-time basis. 

While the Department considers the 

disclosure requirements in its 2011 final 

rule to be a step in the right direction, 

these requirements do not fully address 

the problem of lack of transparency of 

ancillary services and products. 

Consumers who book transportation 

through a ticket agent still do not 

receive accurate and real-time 

information about fees for ancillary 

services and products and are unable to 

determine the total cost of travel. 

Consumers also can’t use the list of 

optional services and fees that airlines 

post on their Web site to determine the 

cost of travel since airlines generally 

provide a range of fees for ancillary 

services aside from baggage and 

acknowledge that the fees vary based on 

a number of factors such as the type of 

aircraft used, the flight on which a 

passenger is booked or the time at 

which a passenger pays for the service 

or product. Further, the list of optional 

services and fees that the airlines post 

on their Web sites are static lists. In 

many cases, it is not possible for 

consumers to know the specific fees that 

would apply to them based on these 

lists as there are numerous possible fare 

and fee combinations and routings for 

any given trip. With respect to baggage, 

the existing disclosure requirements 

mandate specific information, but 

passengers must still review lengthy and 

complex charts to determine the exact 

fee that they would be charged for their 

baggage. 

The Department remains of the view 

that as carriers continue to unbundle 

services that used to be included in the 

price of air transportation, passengers 

need to be protected from hidden and 

deceptive fees and allowed to price 

shop for air transportation in an 

effective manner. However, we lack 

sufficient data to be able to quantify the 

extent of this problem for consumers. 

We request comment from consumers 

about whether it is difficult to find 

baggage and seat assignment fee 

information and how much of an impact 

this has on their ability to comparison 

shop among carriers. The Department 

also requests comment from consumers 

on whether and how much the fee 

disclosures required of carriers and 

travel agents in Passenger Protections II 

have improved their ability to find 

information on fees. 

Consumers and consumer groups 

have reiterated to the Department 

through comments in the second 

Enhancing Airline Passenger Protections 

rulemaking and comments to the docket 

for the Advisory Committee on Aviation 

Consumer Protection the difficulty in 

determining the specific fees that apply 

to ancillary services. Additionally, 

members of Congress, representing their 

constituents, have expressed support for 

full disclosure of ancillary fees during 

the rulemaking period for the second 

Enhancing Airline Passenger Protections 

rule. The Department also receives 

consumer complaints that reflect the 

confusion consumers experience 

regarding fees for ancillary services, 

particularly in connection with baggage 

and seat assignments. For example, 

consumers complain that when 

shopping for air transportation they do 

not know how much it will cost them 

to book seats together for family 

members or to transport all of their 

baggage. Similarly, representatives of 

business travelers complain that it is 

difficult to advise clients on the best 

and most cost-effective flights because 

the fee information for seat assignments 

or baggage is not readily available. 

Additionally, the issue has been raised 

at meetings of the Advisory Committee 

on Aviation Consumer Protection by 

various industry stakeholders and 

consumer advocates. The Department 

believes that regulation is needed to 

address the lack of transparency 

regarding the true cost of air 

transportation and is proposing to 

require that fees for certain ancillary 

services be disclosed to consumers 

through all sale channels. The 

Department seeks input on this proposal 

as well as any innovative solutions that 

we may not have considered to address 

the problem of lack of transparency. 

Current Airline Distribution System 

In the final rule that was issued on 

April 25, 2011, the Department 

announced its intention to address in a 

future rulemaking the transparency of 

ancillary fees at all points of sale. Since 

that time, the Department has met with 

numerous stakeholders with an interest 

in the distribution of ancillary service 

fee information and conducted an 

inquiry regarding current distribution 

models as well as the contractual and 

historical relationships between the 

GDSs and the carriers. Representatives 

of carriers, GDSs, consumer advocacy 

organizations, and trade associations, as 

well as other interested entities, 

including third-party technology 

developers, have met with Department 

staff to explain their views. They have 

also provided information to the 

Department’s economists. The 

description of the current airline 

distribution system provided below is 

largely based on the information that the 

Department received from these 

stakeholders. 

Today, airlines sell airfares in two 

ways: Directly through their Web sites, 

call centers, or employees at airports or 

indirectly through ticket agents. 

Approximately 50% percent of airline 

tickets are purchased indirectly through 

ticket agents, whether it is through a 

traditional brick-and-mortar travel 

agency, a corporate travel agent, or an 

online travel agency. Ticket agents that 

display or sell air transportation 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
29976 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 100 / Friday, May 23, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

2Low-cost carriers operate under a generally 

recognized low-cost business model, which may 

include a single passenger class of service, limited 

in-flight services, and use of smaller and less 

expensive airports. 

3 GDSs process 64 percent of the total U.S. airline 

gross sales by revenue. PhoCusWright, The Role 

and Value of the Global Distribution Systems in 

Travel Distribution, 2009. 

typically get the fare, schedule and 

availability information about the air 

transportation through a GDS. In the 

United States, three GDSs (Sabre, 

Travelport and Amadeus) control the 

distribution of the airline product for 

the ticket agent channel. In recent years, 

Sabre had more than 50 percent of the 

market, Travelport had approximately 

40 percent and Amadeus had less than 

10 percent of the market in the U.S. 

though Amadeus has a much larger 

percentage of the market worldwide. 

Most U.S. airlines use GDSs to 

distribute their products. Some low cost 

carriers 2 such as Southwest participate 

on a selective basis in GDSs while other 

low cost carriers do not use GDSs, 

presumably because there are costs 

attached to each transaction. GDSs 

charge airlines a booking fee based on 

the total number of flight segments in 

the consumer’s itinerary. Airlines 

presently pay booking fees that can 

range from a few dollars to much more 

for each flight segment. For example, if 

a booking fee is $5 per segment and a 

passenger purchases an itinerary that 

consists of four flight segments, the 

airline will be charged approximately 

$20 in booking fees. A transaction 

through an airline’s own system costs 

the carrier less. However, GDSs have 

emphasized that there have been 

substantial discounts of domestic 

booking fees for the major airlines since 

2005. 

Nevertheless, airlines have expressed 

frustration about paying what they view 

as more in fees to GDS than the value 

they feel they receive now that 

technology provides new ways of selling 

fares and ancillary services. Still these 

airlines are not able to forgo using GDSs 

to aggregate flight schedule and fare 

information because airlines earn a large 

percentage of their revenue from 

business travelers, and the majority of 

the world’s managed business travel is 

booked through travel management 

companies which use GDSs. Unlike 

Southwest, the legacy carriers do not 

have the option to participate on a 

selective basis in GDSs (i.e., only for 

business travel). Overall, airline revenue 

from the GDS channel is higher than 

direct channels mainly due to the 

greater proportion of high-yield 

business bookings.3

Airlines’ efforts to reduce their 

reliance on GDSs and transition to 

direct connections with travel agents 

have also been difficult. By direct 

connect, we are referring to agreements 

between an airline and a travel agent in 

which the airline provides fare, 

schedule and availability information to 

the travel agent directly, bypassing 

GDSs. Various airlines have reported to 

the Department that they as well as 

new-entrant travel technology firms, 

such as Farelogix, have had difficulty in 

facilitating direct connections to ticket 

agents because of highly restrictive 

agreements between GDSs and ticket 

agents. Similar assertions were made by 

other third party technology providers. 

GDSs have contracts with both airlines 

and travel agents for use of their 

services. These contracts tend to be 

long-term agreements that are renewed 

every 3 to 5 years. Historically, contracts 

between carriers and the GDSs generally 

provided that carriers compensate the 

GDSs per flight segment booked. These 

contracts also generally require that 

carriers offer the same fares through 

GDSs that are offered through other 

channels, even if it is cheaper for the 

carrier to distribute the fares in a 

different manner, such as direct 

connect. Contracts between travel 

agencies and GDSs generally provide for 

incentive payments to travel agencies 

for booking travel through GDSs. GDSs 

also provide travel agencies with the 

technology used for mid- and backoffice solutions such as quality control 

and office accounting. GDSs do not view 

the contracts as a barrier to entry for 

travel technology firms. They assert that 

the direct connect services will succeed 

or fail based on whether they meet the 

needs of travel agencies and the 

consumers they serve. 

It is also worth noting that IATA has 

filed an application with the 

Department for approval of its 

Resolution 787, the agreement that 

establishes the framework for its New 

Distribution Capability (NDC). NDC 

would be based on a common XML 

based technical standard for direct 

connect services. Airlines contend that 

this new standard would allow airlines 

to custom-tailor product offers that 

would include different combinations of 

ancillary services in addition to air 

transportation and would include a total 

price. The new standard, if approved by 

the Department, will be available for use 

by any party. While the Department 

acknowledges that carriers are working 

towards technological solutions to 

distribute information, such solutions 

are prospective. Additionally, even if a 

standard is agreed upon, its use is 

optional and the information 

transmitted using the standard would be 

determined by each carrier. 

Accordingly, the development of a 

standard would not solve the immediate 

problem that some current consumers 

are not receiving the information that 

they need to determine the total cost of 

travel including the cost of certain 

ancillary services. 

While fare, schedule, and availability 

information is currently provided by the 

airlines to the GDSs, and by GDSs to the 

agents that display and sell to 

consumers, information about the cost 

of ancillary services is not typically 

shared. One reason, as it has been 

explained to Department staff by airline 

representatives, is that GDSs do not 

have the modern technology airlines 

need to merchandise and sell their 

products the way they choose. The 

GDSs disagree with the airlines’ 

assessment and contend that they are 

capable of handling the most complex 

airline transactions and have worked 

with airlines, airline associations, and 

airline-owned intermediaries like 

ATPCO, ARC and IATA to establish 

technical standards for the distribution 

of their products, including ancillary 

offerings. While expressing a general 

willingness to distribute ancillary 

products to travel agents subject to 

assurances that the technology is in 

place to conduct transactions in an 

efficient and cost-effective manner, 

airlines expressed the need for the 

flexibility to do so on terms that meet 

their business needs. Airlines prefer to 

negotiate with the GDSs for the business 

terms acceptable to them. They argue 

that market forces and not government 

mandates are the best way to ensure that 

information about ancillary services and 

fees reaches consumers using the travel 

agent channel. 

Various airlines and airline 

associations have also asserted to the 

Department that if it were to require 

carriers to provide ancillary service fee 

information to all ticket agents that the 

carrier permits to distribute its fare and 

schedule information, including GDSs, 

the Department would reinforce the 

existing distribution patterns and stifle 

innovation in the air transportation 

distribution marketplace. These carriers 

argue that since existing business 

arrangements provide significant 

benefits to most ticket agents, including 

GDSs, those entities would strive to 

retain existing distribution technology 

and transaction patterns. The carriers 

have also expressed concern that if they 

are required to provide information to 

GDSs, the GDSs will use existing 

contractual agreements and market 

power to pressure carriers to provide the 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 100 / Friday, May 23, 2014 / Proposed Rules 29977 

information in the existing format for 

fare filing. If that occurs, some 

stakeholders allege that carriers would 

no longer have sufficient financial 

incentive to invest in new distribution 

technologies which might ultimately 

provide more useful and responsive 

information to consumers by allowing 

carriers to differentiate their services 

from competitors. GDSs have disputed 

the carriers’ assertions and contend that 

Department action is needed because 

airlines and ticket agents have been 

unable come to agreements that would 

allow fee information about ancillary 

services to be disclosed to consumers at 

all points of sale. 

We agree with the GDSs that there is 

a need for rulemaking because we 

believe that consumers continue to have 

difficulty finding ancillary fee 

information. The Department is striving 

to find the most beneficial disclosure 

rule for consumers while avoiding any 

adverse impact on innovations in the air 

transportation marketplace, contract 

negotiations between carriers and their 

distribution partners, and a carrier’s 

ability to set its own fees and fares in 

response to its own commercial strategy 

and market forces. Also, despite the 

disputes regarding contract terms and 

distribution methods, both carriers and 

GDSs have assured the Department that 

they share our goal of transparency of 

ancillary service fee information. 

Request for Public Input on Airline 

Fees 

Given our continuing concern that 

consumers may not be getting sufficient 

information about carriers’ fees, we 

solicit comment from consumers on the 

following questions: 

• Do you have a problem finding fee 

information? And if so, how significant 

is that problem? If you have a problem 

finding fees, how does it affect your 

ability to comparison shop? 

• What types of fees would you most 

like to have more information about 

during the shopping process, prior to 

purchase? 

• When would you like to see that 

information displayed in your search 

process—as soon as you see a list of 

fares or later in the process? How would 

you like to see the information regarding 

ancillary fees displayed—as a link, as a 

specific dollar amount shown with the 

airfare quote, as a table or menu on the 

homepage or flight search results list? 

Should the Department require a 

standardized format for disclosure? 

• Do you feel that our proposed 

disclosure requirements would improve 

your search experience? Have we 

selected the most ancillary fees that are 

most important to your decision making 

process? Will disclosure of all these fees 

at the point of search cause further 

confusion on ticket agent Web sites (as 

defined in this proposal), or diminish 

your user experience (because of screen 

clutter, diminished usability features, 

etc.)? 

• Is either of our co-proposals 

outlined below likely to make fees easy 

to find? 

Proposed Solutions and Alternatives 

Considered 

Based on the information gathered, 

the Department is co-proposing two 

regulatory texts and seeking input 

regarding those two proposals. One 

proposal is to require each carrier to 

distribute certain ancillary service fee 

information to all ticket agents 

(including GDSs) that the carrier 

permits to distribute its fare, schedule, 

and availability information. Carriers 

would not be required to distribute 

ancillary fee information to any GDS or 

other ticket agent that the carrier did not 

permit to distribute its fare, schedule, 

and availability information. 

Additionally, under this proposal, the 

Department would not require carriers 

to allow ticket agents to sell/transact its 

ancillary services to consumers but 

rather would require carriers to provide 

‘‘usable, current and accurate’’ 

information on fees for certain ancillary 

services to all ticket agents so this 

information can be disclosed to 

consumers at all points of sale. Each 

airline would continue to determine 

where and how its ancillary services 

may be purchased. For instance, if a 

carrier chooses to allow a ticket agent to 

sell its ancillary services directly to 

consumers, we expect that the carrier 

and ticket agent would determine 

through negotiation whether the ticket 

agent would offer the ancillary services 

at the same prices that the carrier offers 

those services. In other words, the 

proposal would require airlines to 

provide certain ancillary fee information 

to ticket agents, including GDSs, in 

order to enable disclosure to consumers 

of fees associated with certain ancillary 

services at all points of sale but would 

not require that these ancillary services 

be transactable. Carriers and ticket 

agents would negotiate regarding the 

ability of ticket agents to sell a carrier’s 

ancillary services and the price at which 

those services would be sold. 

The second proposal is similar to the 

first in all ways except one. Unlike the 

first proposal, the second would omit 

the requirement that the information on 

ancillary fees be distributed to GDSs or 

other intermediaries since GDSs and 

similar intermediaries would not be 

subject to any direct consumer 

notification requirements. Instead, the 

second alternative would require 

carriers to distribute certain ancillary 

service fee information to all ticket 

agents that the carrier permits to 

distribute its fare, schedule, and 

availability information if the ticket 

agent sells the carrier’s tickets directly 

to consumers. Although this proposal 

would not require carriers to provide 

ancillary fee information to entities that 

act as intermediaries and do not deal 

directly with the public such as GDSs, 

GDSs are the source through which 

most travel agents obtain their fare 

information, so as a practical matter, 

they may be the most efficient vehicle 

currently available for carriers to use for 

dissemination of information on 

ancillary fees. Additionally, the second 

proposal would not require carriers to 

provide ancillary fee information to 

entities such as meta-search tools like 

Kayak and Google. 

The Department has proposed these 

two options as it remains of the view 

that as carriers continue to unbundle 

services that used to be included in the 

price of air transportation, passengers 

need to be protected from hidden and 

deceptive fees and allowed to price 

shop for air transportation in an 

effective manner. The Department 

believes that failing to disclose basic 

ancillary service fees in an accurate and 

up-to-date manner before a consumer 

purchases air transportation would be 

an unfair and deceptive trade practice in 

violation of 49 U.S.C. 41712. 

Under both proposals, the Department 

recognizes that not all ancillary service 

fee information needs to be available 

through all channels. However, there are 

certain basic services that are intrinsic 

to air transportation that carriers used to 

include in the cost of air transportation 

but that they now often break out from 

the airfare, and the cost of those services 

is a factor that weighs heavily into the 

decision-making process for many 

consumers. We consider these basic 

ancillary services to consist of the first 

and second checked bag, one carry-on 

item and advance seat selection. This 

rulemaking would require U.S. and 

foreign air carriers to distribute to ticket 

agents the fees for these basic ancillary 

services. However, carriers would not be 

required to provide ticket agents 

information about individual customers, 

such as their frequent flyer status or 

type of credit card though these factors 

may impact the fee for an ancillary 

service. Carriers would, of course, be 

required to provide ticket agents the fee 

rules for particular passenger types (e.g., 

military, frequent flyers, or credit card 

holders). Under the proposal, the failure 

of airlines to share this fee information 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
29978 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 100 / Friday, May 23, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

in an up-to-date and accurate fashion 

would be considered an unfair and 

deceptive trade practice in violation of 

49 U.S.C. 41712. 

As the requirement for carriers to 

distribute this information to agents 

would not be helpful to consumers 

without a disclosure requirement, the 

Department is also proposing to require 

all carriers and agents to disclose the 

fees for these basic ancillary services 

before the passenger purchases the air 

transportation. Airlines and agents that 

have Web sites marketed towards U.S. 

consumers must disclose, or at a 

minimum display by a link or rollover, 

the fees for these basic ancillary services 

on the first page on which a fare is 

displayed in response to a specific flight 

itinerary search request in a schedule/

fare database. To comply with this 

proposed requirement, airlines and 

agents would have to modify their Web 

sites to display these basic ancillary 

service fees adjacent to the fare 

information on the first page on which 

a fare for the requested itinerary is 

displayed. We solicit comment on 

whether the Department should require 

the ancillary service fee information to 

be disclosed only upon the consumer’s 

request, or require that the information 

be provided in the first screen that 

displays the results of a search 

performed by a consumer. The 

Department also seeks comments on 

whether it should limit the applicability 

of the disclosure requirement only to 

agent and carrier Web site displays 

marketed to members of the general 

public, or whether the disclosure 

requirement should include agent and 

carrier Web site displays that are not 

publicly available (e.g., displays used by 

corporate travel agents). 

Under both co-proposals, the fee 

information disclosed to consumers for 

a carry-on bag, the first and second 

checked bag, and advance seat 

assignment would need to be expressed 

as specific charges. Airlines would be 

required to disclose customer-specific 

fees for these services to the extent the 

customer provides identifying 

information, and if the customer does 

not provide that information, must 

disclose itinerary-specific fees. Ticket 

agents would be required to disclose 

itinerary-specific fees for these services. 

Ticket agents may also arrange/negotiate 

with the airlines to obtain data that 

would enable them to give customerspecific fees for basic ancillary services. 

‘‘Customer-specific’’ refers to variations 

in fees that depend on, for example, the 

passenger type (e.g., military), frequent 

flyer status, method of payment, 

geography, travel dates, cabin (e.g., first 

class, economy), ticketed fare (e.g., full 

fare ticket—Y class), and, in the case of 

advance seat assignment, the particular 

seat on the aircraft if different seats on 

that flight entail different charges. In 

other words, the response to a specific 

flight itinerary search request by a 

consumer on a carrier’s Web site would 

need to display next to the fare the 

actual fee to that consumer for his or her 

carry-on bag, first and second checked 

bags, and advance seat assignment. 

Nothing in this proposal would require 

carriers to compel consumers to provide 

the passenger-specific details before 

searching for airfare. Providing such 

details before conducting a search 

should be an option and not a 

requirement for consumers. We note 

that many carriers already offer seat 

maps during the online booking process 

on their Web site that permit consumers 

to obtain a seat assignment at that time 

and that disclose the charge for each 

seat. This process would comply with 

the proposed rule as long as there is a 

statement adjacent to the fare on the 

first screen where an itinerary-specific 

fare is displayed that informs the 

consumer that there are fees for advance 

seat assignments and direct links to the 

seat map. 

The fee information that ticket agents 

would be required to display to 

consumers differs from what would be 

required of airlines in that ticket agents 

would not be required to include 

variations in fees that depend on the 

attributes of the passengers such as the 

passenger type (e.g., military), frequent 

flyer status, or method of payment. 

Ticket agents would be required to take 

into account variations in fees that are 

related to the itinerary such as travel 

dates, geography, ticketed fare and 

cabin. In addition to providing itineraryspecific fees for a first checked bag, a 

second checked bag, a carry-on bag and 

an advance seat assignment, ticket 

agents would also be required to clearly 

and prominently disclose that these fees 

may be reduced or waived based on the 

passenger’s frequent flyer status, 

method of payment or other 

characteristic. Ticket agents who have 

not negotiated an agreement with the 

airlines to sell advance seat assignments 

would also be required to disclose that 

seat availability and fees may change at 

any time until purchase of the seat 

assignment. In addition, it is worth 

noting that carriers and agents would be 

permitted to offer an ‘‘opt out’’ option 

for consumers who prefer to search for 

fare information only, without any 

ancillary fee information, and when this 

option is selected carriers and agents 

would not be required to present the fee 

information. 

We ask for comment on whether the 

Department should only require carriers 

and agents to provide information on 

standard baggage fees without taking 

into account variations based on 

frequent flyer discounts, loyalty card 

discounts, geography, ticketed fare, etc. 

If all of the varieties of baggage fees are 

displayed, how should the varying fees 

be arranged? Regarding advance seat 

assignments, the charges for which also 

may vary considerably based on, among 

other things, the location of the seat and 

how far in advance the seat assignment 

is purchased, should carriers and agents 

be required to display all possible 

advance seat assignment fees, or a range, 

or the fee for each seat assignment 

available at the time of the search for a 

particular city-pair? What is the 

technological feasibility and cost of 

providing this information to consumers 

in a usable fashion, particularly for 

ticket agents? 

As discussed earlier, neither of the 

Department’s two alternative proposals 

would require that carriers enable 

agents to sell the carrier’s ancillary 

services; in industry idiom, we are not 

proposing to require that the fees be 

‘‘transactable.’’ The Department is 

addressing the harm caused to 

consumers of not knowing the true cost 

of travel before purchasing air 

transportation. Under the proposed 

disclosure regime, every point of sale for 

a particular carrier’s fares would also 

provide access to the carrier’s fee 

information for first and second checked 

bag, one carry-on bag, and an advance 

seat assignment. This requirement 

would place a legal obligation on 

carriers to disseminate this information 

to all of their agents; however, the 

Department is not stating the method 

the carriers must use to distribute the 

information, as long as it is in a form 

that would allow the fee information to 

be displayed on the first itineraryspecific results page in a schedule/fare 

database. Carriers would be free to 

develop cost-effective methods for 

distributing this information to their 

agents. Carriers could use existing 

channels, such as filing the fee 

information through the ATPCO, or they 

could develop their own systems to 

disseminate the information, in 

conjunction with the agents who would 

receive the information. 

Although neither of the Department’s 

alternative proposals dictate the method 

that carriers must use to distribute the 

information, carriers should be mindful 

that whatever distribution method they 

might choose must be usable, accurate, 

and current so the information is 

accessible in real-time. Similarly, ticket 

agents must work in good faith with 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 100 / Friday, May 23, 2014 / Proposed Rules 29979 

carriers to come to agreement on the 

method used to transmit the ancillary 

service fee information. For example, 

ticket agents should not use contractual 

restrictions to prohibit travel agents, 

carriers, or applications software 

providers from integrating the ancillary 

fee information with information 

obtained from the GDSs. Since the 

Department’s proposal would require 

ticket agents to provide the ancillary fee 

information to consumers, in cases 

where carriers and ticket agents are able 

to agree on a transmission mode for 

ancillary fee information other than 

through a GDS, we would expect GDSs 

to work in good faith with carriers and 

other ticket agents to permit the 

integration of information obtained from 

other sources with information obtained 

through the GDS and allow the 

distribution of fee information directly 

to the agents. Additionally, under the 

proposed disclosure requirement, to the 

extent that carriers have existing 

contractual relationships with ticket 

agents acting as intermediaries, such as 

GDSs, to distribute fare information, 

those ticket agents would be prohibited 

from imposing charges for the 

distribution of ancillary service fee 

information that are separate from or in 

addition to the existing charges for the 

distribution of fare information as it 

would be unlawful to provide fare 

information that does not include the 

fees for the basic ancillary services. The 

Department invites comments regarding 

the two proposals: (1) Requiring a 

carrier to disseminate certain ancillary 

service fee information to the agents that 

distribute the carrier’s fare, schedule, 

and availability information and 

requiring both carriers and agents to 

disclose accurate and up-to-date fee 

information to consumers, or (2) 

requiring a carrier to disseminate certain 

ancillary service fee information to the 

agents that distribute the carrier’s fare, 

schedule, and availability information 

and are a point of sale for the carrier’s 

tickets to consumers, and requiring both 

carriers and agents to disclose accurate 

and up-to-date fee information to 

consumers. What are the costs and 

benefits of requiring carriers to provide 

ancillary fee information to all ticket 

agents, including entities that have not 

previously considered themselves to be 

regulated but would fall under the 

proposed definition of ‘‘ticket agent,’’ 

described above, and what are the costs 

and benefits of requiring carriers to 

provide ancillary fee information only 

to ticket agents that act as sales outlets? 

If DOT requires disclosure of certain 

ancillary service fees, but does not 

require the ability to purchase these 

services at the time of booking, what 

would be the preferred way for carriers 

to collect payment for such services? On 

the Internet through the airline Web 

sites prior to check-in, at the airport at 

the time of check-in, etc.? 

Proponents of the first alternative 

have argued that, because most carriers 

already rely on GDSs to transmit 

information to ticket agents that act as 

a point of sale, the Department could 

ensure that the information was 

disseminated in a quick and efficient 

manner by requiring carriers to provide 

the information to GDSs. They also 

assert that such a proposal would 

resolve the ‘‘market failure’’ that has 

prevented carriers and ticket agents 

from coming to agreements that would 

allow the information to be provided to 

consumers. Advocates of the second 

alternative state that permitting carriers 

to decide which intermediaries, if any, 

to use to provide ancillary fee 

information to ticket agents acting as 

sales outlets still provides for consumer 

disclosure but minimizes government 

interference with business 

arrangements. Additionally, they 

contend that the second proposal 

provides opportunities for the 

development of new and innovative 

technologies and methods of 

distribution of air transportation while 

allowing carriers the freedom to use 

traditional methods if it makes 

commercial sense for them to do so. 

In addition to the two alternative 

proposals under consideration, we also 

solicit comment on whether any of the 

alternatives rejected earlier in the 

rulemaking process better address the 

problem of lack of transparency of fees 

associated with ancillary services. For 

example, should the Department set 

design standards (e.g., filing of fees for 

ancillary services through ATPCO, 

EDIFACT, XML or some other 

technology) rather than using 

performance standards for transmission 

of ancillary fee data from airlines to 

ticket agents or from airlines and ticket 

agents to consumers? Under both 

alternative proposals, the Department 

does not prescribe particular standards 

in order to avoid stifling innovation and 

imposing more of a burden on industry 

participants than is necessary to solve 

the transparency problem. However, we 

are interested in comments on whether 

setting a specific technological/

information standard could potentially 

enhance innovation and improve 

transparency, and if so, how. Would 

selecting a specific standard allow for 

new market entrants in the transmission 

or display of air travel information, by 

making fare and fee information more 

open and accessible? 

The Department also solicits comment 

on the issue of whether the basic 

ancillary services that are disclosed to 

consumers should also be transactable. 

Although the Department has 

tentatively determined that it would be 

sufficient to require carriers and agents 

to disclose certain basic ancillary fee 

information to consumers, it has not 

closed the door on the possibility of also 

requiring that those ancillary services be 

available for purchase through all 

channels that carriers decide should sell 

their fares. In other words, should we 

require these ancillary services to also 

be ‘‘transactable’’? 

Representatives of certain consumer 

advocacy groups and trade associations 

have argued to the Department that if 

consumers are not entitled to purchase 

the ancillary services at the time of 

booking air transportation, the carrier 

may increase the price of those ancillary 

services before the consumer has a 

chance to purchase the ancillary service 

on the carrier’s Web site or through its 

reservation center. In the case of 

advance seat assignments, the problem 

is particularly acute because in addition 

to price increases, the consumer risks 

the possibility that the advance seat 

assignment that he or she wished to 

purchase will no longer be available. 

Carriers are prohibited from 

increasing the price of baggage fees after 

a consumer purchases air transportation 

under the current 14 CFR 399.88, but 

under the Guidance on Price Increases 

of Ancillary Services and Products not 

Purchased with the Ticket issued by the 

Enforcement Office on December 28, 

2011, and under the proposed change to 

section 399.88 discussed below, carriers 

would not be prohibited from increasing 

the price of an advance seat assignment 

until the seat assignment itself is 

purchased. Prices for advance seat 

assignment are often dynamic and 

change based on route, aircraft size, 

availability, and time of purchase. 

Proponents of transactability argue that 

without the ability to purchase the seats 

at the time of ticket purchase, 

consumers will be further harmed 

because desired seats may not be 

available when the passenger decides to 

purchase them or is allowed by the 

carrier to purchase them or they may 

cost more. The Department seeks 

comment on requiring disclosure plus 

transactability of advance seat 

assignment fees at all points of sale. We 

also seek information on the costs and 

benefits of requiring transactability and 

how requiring transactability would 

affect existing contracts between the 

GDSs and the airlines. We also invite 

interested persons to provide their 

views on whether disclosure plus 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
29980 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 100 / Friday, May 23, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

4On June 29, 2012, the Department issued a 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (RIN 2105–AE07, 

Docket No. DOT–OST–2010–0211), seeking 

comments on whether the Department should 

expand the reporting carrier pool for reporting 

animal death, loss and injury incidents to cover all 

U.S. carriers operating domestic and international 

scheduled passenger air transportation using at 

least one aircraft with a design capacity of more 

than 60 seats. See 77 FR 38747 (June 29, 2012). 

Because our determination on the scope of 

reporting carrier with respect to animal death, loss 

or injury incidents will be addressed separately in 

the final rule of that rulemaking, interested parties 

should provide comments regarding animal 

reporting to the Department through the docket 

designated for RIN 2105–AE07. 

transactability should be required not 

only for advance seat assignments but 

also for fees associated with first and 

second checked bags and carry-on bags. 

As noted above, of the ancillary services 

traditionally included in the price of a 

ticket, the Department views the first 

and second checked bag, one carry-on 

bag, and an advance seat assignment as 

the services that are intrinsic to air 

transportation and of primary 

importance to many consumers when 

making air transportation purchasing 

decisions. The Department invites 

comments on whether the list should be 

expanded to include services such as inflight wireless Internet access, seating 

section upgrades, food and beverages, or 

priority boarding. If the list should be 

expanded, how should carriers and 

agents display the information related to 

these additional services? 

The Department also solicits comment 

on leaving the disclosure requirements 

established in 14 CFR 399.85 unchanged 

instead of adopting new proposed 

requirements for customer-specific 

information about one carry-on bag, the 

first and second checked bag, and an 

advance seat assignment. Under the 

existing regulation, consumers may visit 

individual carrier Web sites to ascertain 

all of the fees associated with ancillary 

services. This information is in a 

centralized location accessible from a 

link on each carrier’s homepage. 

Leaving the existing requirements in 

place would not require carriers to 

enable agents to provide up-to-date and 

real-time pricing for ancillary services, 

but it would still require that passengers 

be made aware that ‘‘baggage fees may 

apply’’ on the first page on which a fare 

quote is given for a flight search. The 

Department asks consumers to comment 

on the existing requirements, 

particularly whether the disclosure 

requirements under section 399.85 have 

aided in their ability to price shop and 

their ability to understand the true cost 

of travel before purchasing. The 

Department also asks carriers and ticket 

agents to comment regarding whether 

they believe the current disclosure 

requirements are sufficient and effective 

and why or why not. The Department 

also asks agents to comment on how the 

current disclosure requirements are 

affecting their businesses and whether 

consumers are aided under the 

disclosure requirements. If the 

Department decides to maintain the 

current disclosure requirements, should 

the Department require carriers to list 

the fees for advance seat assignments in 

a more specific manner, rather than a 

range, on the page listing ancillary fees 

and on e-ticket confirmations? 

Comments on the cost and benefits of 

the proposal and all of the alternatives 

are invited. Further, we encourage 

interested parties to provide comment 

regarding any innovative alternatives/

solutions that Department may not have 

considered but that would address the 

lack of disclosure of ancillary service 

fees in all sales channels. 

3. Expanding the Definition of 

‘‘Reporting Carrier’’ Under 14 CFR Part 

234 

In 14 CFR Part 234, the Department 

sets forth requirements for ‘‘reporting 

carriers’’ to file certain performance data 

with the Department and provide flight 

on-time performance information to the 

public. ‘‘Reporting carrier’’ is defined in 

14 CFR 234.2 as an air carrier 

certificated under 49 U.S.C. 41102 that 

accounts for at least one percent of 

domestic scheduled-passenger revenues. 

In addition to reporting carriers, any 

carrier that does not reach the reporting 

carrier threshold may voluntarily file 

Part 234 reports, provided that the 

Department’s Bureau of Transportation 

Statistics (BTS) is advised beforehand 

and such data will be submitted 

voluntarily for 12 consecutive months. 

Pursuant to Part 234, reporting 

carriers are required to submit to BTS’ 

Office of Airline Information their 

domestic scheduled passenger on-time 

performance data and mishandled 

baggage information, and provide ontime performance codes to computer 

reservation systems (CRS). These 

carriers also must disclose to consumers 

the on-time performance code, on a 

flight-by-flight basis, for all domestic 

scheduled flights that they market to the 

public, including the flights operated by 

code-share partners. The on-time 

performance codes must be disclosed to 

consumers during in-person or 

telephone communication (including 

but not limited to reservations or 

ticketing transactions) upon reasonable 

inquiry. For flight schedule Web site 

displays, the on-time performance 

information must be provided either on 

the initial listing of the flights or via a 

prominent hyperlink. Furthermore, to 

implement a statutory requirement of 

the Wendell H. Ford Aviation 

Investment and Reform Act for the 21st 

Century (Pub. L. 106–81), the 

Department amended Part 234 in 2005 

to require all U.S. air carriers (not only 

‘‘reporting carriers’’) to file a report with 

the Department’s Aviation Consumer 

Protection Division on any incident 

involving the loss, injury, or death of an 

animal during air transportation.4

Additionally, under 14 CFR Part 250, 

reporting carriers are also required to 

submit to the Department information 

on passengers denied boarding on their 

domestic and outbound international 

scheduled flights. 

Since their implementation, Parts 234 

and 250 have been effective tools for the 

Department to collect on-time 

performance, mishandled baggage, and 

oversales data and use these data to 

monitor the quality of service provided 

by each reporting carrier to the flying 

public and to provide such information 

to consumers. On October 22, 2013, BTS 

issued a Technical Reporting Directive 

(Technical Directive #23) to update the 

list of reporting air carriers that are 

required to file ‘‘Airline Service Quality 

Performance Reports’’ under 14 CFR 

Part 234 for calendar year 2014. 

Technical Directive #23 identified the 

following 14 air carriers that reached the 

reporting threshold of one percent of 

domestic scheduled-passenger revenue 

in the 12-month period ending June 30, 

2013: AirTran Airways, Alaska Airlines, 

American Airlines, American Eagle 

Airlines, Delta Air Lines, ExpressJet 

Airlines, Frontier Airlines, Hawaiian 

Airlines, JetBlue Airways, SkyWest 

Airlines, Southwest Airlines, United 

Airlines, US Airways, and Virgin 

America. 

The one percent domestic scheduledpassenger revenue threshold for 

reporting carriers was set in a final rule 

that initiated the reporting requirements 

contained in Part 234. 52 FR 34056 

(September 9, 1987). In that final rule, 

the Department considered some 

comments asserting that flight delays 

affect passengers without regard to the 

size of the carrier or the length of the 

flight. The Department concluded, 

however, that compliance with the rule 

was likely to be much more costly for 

small carriers than for large carriers, 

particularly due to the fact that, at the 

time when the rule was finalized, large 

carriers were more likely than small 

carriers to maintain their flight 

performance data in a computerized 

form. Therefore, the Department made 

the determination that as an initial 

matter, it would limit the application of 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 100 / Friday, May 23, 2014 / Proposed Rules 29981 

5A ‘‘legacy’’ airline is a carrier that was operating 

when the industry was deregulated. They are 

typically large airlines with a hub-and-spoke route 

system. 

this rule to large air carriers. 

Nonetheless, the Department noted that 

it would continue to review the carriers 

covered and would extend the reporting 

requirements to smaller carriers if it 

became necessary. 

Twenty-five years have passed since 

the issuance of that final rule. 

Technology innovations that have 

fundamentally reshaped our world in 

many ways have also profoundly 

changed almost every aspect of the 

commercial aviation industry’s 

operations. In 1987, for a small carrier 

to file data with the Department, it had 

to commit to either a significant capital 

investment in a comprehensive 

computer data tracking system or to a 

significant human resource investment 

so it could compile and file reports 

manually. Conversely, in this day and 

age, virtually all air carriers are using 

computerized recordkeeping methods to 

store and distribute data to file reports 

with the Department or are conducting 

internal performance evaluations, or 

both, which makes reporting data a 

much easier and less costly task. 

Moreover, we believe that requiring 

smaller carriers to report service quality 

data to the Department will greatly 

benefit the public in several ways. First, 

adding these smaller carriers’ 

performance data to the data currently 

collected by BTS will enable the 

Department to obtain and provide to the 

flying public a more complete picture of 

the performance of scheduled passenger 

service in general. These data will, in 

turn, provide consumers with more 

meaningful information on which to 

base their purchasing decisions. For 

example, based on BTS-provided 

domestic scheduled passenger revenue 

and enplanement data for 2010, the 

carriers that reach the one percent 

threshold represent approximately 90 

percent of total domestic scheduled 

passenger revenue, and 80 percent of 

total domestic scheduled passenger 

enplanements. If we were to lower the 

threshold to 0.5 percent of domestic 

scheduled passenger revenue, the 

reporting carrier pool would capture 

approximately 98 percent of domestic 

scheduled passenger revenue and 94 

percent of the domestic scheduled 

passenger enplanements. 

Further, the public benefits of 

including smaller carriers in the 

reporting pool were also recognized and 

supported by a September 2011 Report 

to Congressional Requesters prepared by 

the Government Accountability Office 

(GAO). In the report titled Airline 

Passenger Protections, More Data and 

Analysis Needed to Understand Effects 

of Flight Delays, GAO recommended 

that in order to enhance aviation 

consumers’ decision-making, the 

Department should collect and 

publicize more comprehensive on-time 

performance data to include information 

on most flights, to airports of all sizes. 

GAO specifically recommended that one 

way this goal could be accomplished 

was by requiring airlines with a smaller 

percentage of total domestic scheduled 

passenger service revenue, such as 

airlines that operate flights for other 

airlines, to report flight performance 

information. Furthermore, expanding 

the reporting carrier pool would 

enhance the Department’s ability to 

analyze the cause of flight disruptions 

such as delays and cancellations, 

particularly with respect to airports in 

smaller communities and smaller 

airlines. For example, according to 

GAO’s analysis of the performance 

record of two legacy airlines 5 and their 

regional partners, the regional partners 

generally have worse on-time 

performance records. GAO further notes 

that while flight cancellations to smaller 

communities may inconvenience a 

relatively small number of passengers, 

they may result in long trip delays if 

those smaller communities have 

infrequent service. What’s more, 

requiring smaller carriers to file on-time 

performance, mishandled baggage, and 

oversales data with the Department will 

increase the level of public scrutiny of 

these carriers’ performance, which in 

turn will function as an incentive for 

these carriers to continuously improve 

the quality of their service. The 

enhanced service quality will increase 

these carriers’ competitiveness and 

benefit the regional markets that they 

primarily serve. 

For these reasons, we are proposing in 

this NPRM to amend the definition of 

‘‘reporting carrier’’ under Part 234 to 

include carriers that account for at least 

0.5 percent of annual domestic 

scheduled-passenger revenue. 

Additionally, since for years BTS has 

been using June 30, instead of March 31, 

as the cutoff date to compile a carrier’s 

annual domestic scheduled-passenger 

revenue percentage, we propose to 

codify this change in the definition of 

‘‘reporting carrier.’’ We seek public 

comments on whether 0.5 percent is a 

reasonable threshold to achieve our goal 

of maximizing the scope of data 

collection from the industry while 

balancing that benefit against the 

burden of increasing reporting 

requirements on carriers, particularly 

small businesses. If 0.5 is not the most 

reasonable threshold, we seek comment 

on an even larger expansion, e.g., to 0.25 

percent of domestic scheduled 

passenger revenue, or a smaller 

expansion to 0.75 percent of domestic 

scheduled passenger revenue. 

Additionally, we seek comment on 

whether we should require that all 

carriers that provide domestic 

scheduled passenger service report to 

the Department. We especially welcome 

comments that provide specific cost 

estimates or analysis by small carriers 

that would potentially be impacted by 

this proposal. We also request 

comments regarding whether a carrier’s 

share of domestic scheduled passenger 

revenue remains an appropriate 

benchmark. Should we use a carrier’s 

share of domestic scheduled passenger 

enplanements instead? If so, what 

percentage is a reasonable threshold for 

triggering the reporting obligation? 

Finally, in relation to the burden 

associated with implementing a 

reporting mechanism within a carrier’s 

operation system, what is the 

approximate time period that a newly 

reporting carrier will likely need to 

prepare for the new reporting duties? 

Although not proposed in the rule text, 

we are contemplating that should this 

proposal be finalized, we would permit 

carriers that otherwise would not have 

been reporting carriers but become a 

reporting carrier under a new threshold 

to file their first Part 234 report by 

February 15 for the first January that is 

at least six months after the effective 

date of this rule. We believe this would 

provide carriers adequate time to 

implement necessary procedures for 

filing the reports and amending their 

Web sites to comply with the flight ontime performance disclosure 

requirements contained in section 

234.11, to the extent that the Web sites 

directly market flights to consumers. 

Having the initial reports start in 

January would provide the added 

benefit of preserving the consistency of 

the Department’s data for a full calendar 

year during the transition. We seek 

comments on whether this rationale for 

determining the compliance date for the 

reporting requirement would be helpful 

to newly reporting carriers. 

In addition to expanding the pool of 

reporting carriers, we are also 

contemplating expanding the scope of 

‘‘reportable flights’’ in relation to 

airports. The current rule only requires 

reports for flights operated to and from 

U.S. airports that count for at least 1% 

of domestic enplanements (large hub 

airports). However, since the inception 

of the rule, the reporting carriers have 

chosen to file reports for scheduled 

passenger flights to all U.S. airports 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
29982 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 100 / Friday, May 23, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

where they operate. In this NPRM, we 

seek comments on whether we should 

eliminate the concept of reportable 

flights and simply mandate reports for 

all scheduled flights operated by 

reporting carriers to and from all U.S. 

airports. Without this amendment, the 

expansion of ‘‘reporting carrier’’ to 

include smaller carriers could be 

rendered less meaningful because a 

large percentage of flights operated by 

these smaller carriers are not to or from 

large hub airports. In addition to 

comments on whether and how such 

expansion of scope of reportable flights 

may benefit different stakeholders, we 

also welcome information on cost 

comparisons for carriers to report only 

flights to and from (1) large hub airports, 

(2) large, medium, small, and non-hub 

U.S. airports, and (3) all airports. 

4. Carriers To Report Data for Certain 

Flights Operated by Their Code-Share 

Partners 

The Department of Transportation 

provides information each month on the 

quality of services provided by the 

airlines through its Air Travel Consumer 

Report (ATCR). This Report is divided 

into six sections: Flight delays, 

mishandled baggage, oversales, 

consumer complaints, customer service 

reports to the Transportation Security 

Administration, and airline reports of 

the loss, injury, or death of animals 

during air transportation. The sections 

that deal with flight delays, mishandled 

baggage, and oversales are based on data 

collected by BTS pursuant to 14 CFR 

Part 234 and Part 250. The section that 

deals with animal incidents during air 

transport is based on reports required by 

section 234.13 and collected by the 

Aviation Consumer Protection Division. 

With respect to flight delay 

information, in addition to the monthly 

overview of each reporting carrier, the 

ATCR also ranks each reporting carrier’s 

performance at all large hub U.S. 

airports from which it operates. These 

performance tables, particularly the 

rankings, are widely accepted as 

important indicators of the carriers’ 

quality of service, and are frequently 

referred to in news reports, industry 

analyses, and consumer commentaries 

and forums. Moreover, it is not 

uncommon that these rankings are used 

as the key references in institutional 

studies, the results of which are often 

cited in news reports with attentiongrabbing headlines such as ‘‘The Best 

and Worst Airlines of the U.S.’’ 

Although headlines like this tend to 

over-simplify the complexity of airline 

operations, being named as one of ‘‘the 

best’’ or ‘‘the worst’’ airlines in the 

country in a national news outlet does 

have a significant impact on a carrier’s 

image and brand identity and either 

affords the carrier a great marketing tool 

or causes some consumers to avoid 

selecting that carrier’s flights when 

making purchase decisions which acts 

as an incentive for the carrier to 

improve its performance. 

Because of the influence of the ATCR 

on consumer perception of carriers as 

well as its effect on the perception of 

carriers within the industry, it is vitally 

important that the information provided 

by these reports remains accurate. Since 

the Department began to issue the 

ATCR, the Aviation Consumer 

Protection Division and BTS have been 

working closely to ensure that the 

published reports accurately reflect the 

data received by the Department. 

However, this continuing effort does not 

address the growing problem of an 

inadequate scope of data collection, the 

most significant area being that a 

marketing carrier’s data do not include 

its flights operated by code-share 

partners. 

The data that carriers file under Part 

234 and Part 250 are the primary source 

from which each monthly ATCR is 

developed. A ‘‘reportable flight’’ under 

Part 234 refers to any domestic 

scheduled nonstop flight reported to the 

Department by a reporting carrier 

pursuant to 14 CFR Part 241, Uniform 

System of Accounts and Reports for 

Large Certificated Air Carriers. Part 241 

in turn defines a ‘‘reporting carrier’’ for 

the purpose of Form T–100 (U.S. air 

carrier traffic and capacity data by 

nonstop segment and on-flight market) 

as ‘‘the carrier in operational control of 

the flight, i.e., the carrier that uses its 

flight crew under its own FAA operating 

authority.’’ Therefore, the on-time 

performance and mishandled baggage 

data collected under Part 234 from each 

reporting carrier are limited to the data 

for a reporting carrier’s domestic 

scheduled passenger nonstop flight 

segments operated by that reporting 

carrier. Part 250 also limits the oversales 

reporting requirement to reporting 

carriers, although it is not limited to 

domestic flights (see 14 CFR 250.10). 

If the reporting carrier engages in 

code-sharing arrangements in which the 

reporting carrier is the marketing carrier 

but not the operating carrier, the 

performance data for those flights are 

not included in the reporting carrier’s 

Part 234 and Part 250 reports. If the 

operating carrier of a code-share flight is 

a reporting carrier itself, the 

performance data for its code-share 

flights that are also marketed by another 

carrier will be reported to the 

Department, but data for those flights 

will not be attributed to the marketing 

carrier. What’s more, some operating 

carriers of code-share flights marketed 

by larger carriers do not meet the 

current reporting threshold of Part 234, 

and a certain number of operating 

carriers of code-share flights marketed 

by larger carriers would not meet the 

proposed lower reporting threshold of 

0.5 percent of annual domestic 

scheduled passenger revenue. 

Therefore, the on-time performance, 

mishandled baggage, and oversales data 

for those flights are not currently 

reported to the Department at all and, 

even under a revised reporting 

threshold, not all of those operating 

carriers of code-share flights marketed 

by larger carriers would necessarily be 

required to report performance data. 

The Department considers the current 

scope of reportable flights under Part 

234 inadequate to truly capture many 

carriers’ quality of service, so as to be 

accurately reflected in the ATCR. The 

limited scope of the current reporting 

requirements may result in consumer 

confusion or misperception. We note 

that the majority of legacy/mainline U.S. 

carriers continue to seek brand 

consolidation, while still maintaining 

the ‘‘hub and spoke’’ operation 

structure. For economic reasons, those 

legacy carriers’ regional short-haul 

flights are operated, in many markets, 

by code-share partners on a fee-for-flight 

basis and these operating carriers do not 

engage in the sale of tickets at all. 

According to the data contained in the 

FAA’s Aerospace Forecast for fiscal 

years 2012–2032, mainline carriers 

provided 16 percent less domestic 

passenger capacity in 2011 than they 

did in 2001. Over the same ten-year 

period, however, regional carriers’ 

capacity overall has increased to 153 

percent of the 2001 level. Further, a 

recent Official Airline Guide (OAG) 

survey provides a snapshot of the 

current operations of mainline carriers 

and their regional partners and indicates 

the comparative scope of code-share 

operations. It shows that in 2011, each 

of the top five legacy carriers had more 

than 45% of its domestic scheduled 

flights operated by code-share regional 

partners, with the carrier on the top of 

the survey list having almost 70% of its 

domestic scheduled flights operated by 

code-share regional partners. The 

service quality data for these codeshared flights are not reported by the 

legacy carriers and are not attributed to 

these carriers’ records and rankings in 

the ATCR. However, those flights are 

marketed by the legacy carriers with 

their own airline designator codes and 

usually their own brands, sometimes 

bearing trademarks such as 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 100 / Friday, May 23, 2014 / Proposed Rules 29983 

‘‘Connection’’ or ‘‘Express’’ in addition 

to the mainline carriers’ trade names. In 

many instances, the mainline carriers 

also handle virtually all aspects of 

ground operations including scheduling 

and customer service related issues, 

such as dealing with oversales 

situations, providing denied boarding 

compensation, and resolving baggage 

claims. Consumers may consider these 

code-share flights operated by codeshare regional partners to be air 

transportation service provided by the 

mainline carrier just as much as the 

flights actually operated by the mainline 

carriers. 

The Department is also concerned 

that the inadequacy of the scope of 

service quality reports may hinder 

competition. The Department is mindful 

that on-time performance data in the 

ATCR may have a limited influence on 

a consumer’s purchase decision 

regarding a particular flight, because the 

consumer is more likely to refer to that 

specific flight’s on-time performance 

record, which under 14 CFR 234.11 

must be provided on a marketing 

carrier’s Web site, regardless of whether 

it is operated by a code-share partner. 

Nonetheless, a carrier’s ATCR ranking 

speaks of the carrier’s performance 

quality from a macro perspective, and is 

often used by carriers as a powerful 

marketing tool in developing brand 

loyalty, recruiting talented employees, 

and negotiating with suppliers and 

airports, as well as promoting its service 

in a newly developed or targeted 

geographic market. Most importantly, 

the ATCR numbers and rankings are 

benchmarks carriers use to assess their 

performance among competitors and to 

seek effective ways to improve. As 

stated above, recent numbers show that 

virtually all legacy carriers have at least 

45% of their domestic scheduled 

passenger flight segments operated by 

code-share partners, which means data 

for those flights are not reported by the 

marketing carriers under Part 234 and 

Part 250 or attributed to the carrier in 

the ATCR. By contrast, most relatively 

new carriers that are ranked in the 

ATCR operate a ‘‘point-to-point’’ 

network and follow a different business 

model, the so-called ‘‘low cost’’ model. 

Under this business model, carriers 

engage in very few, if any, code-share 

arrangements. As a result, the ATCR is 

comparing the service quality of all 

flights marketed by a low-cost carrier 

with the service quality of 55% or less 

of the flights marketed under legacy 

carriers’ brands and codes. We will not 

seek to determine how including codeshare flight records in the ATCR would 

affect legacy carriers’ rankings, but we 

are of the tentative opinion that 

requiring all reporting carriers to report 

data for all flights marketed under that 

carrier’s name and code would put 

carriers on an equal footing in this 

important competitive arena. 

Additional support for our proposal 

comes from the aforementioned final 

report by FAAC, which noted that the 

Competitiveness and Viability 

Subcommittee recommended that the 

Department should continue to require 

marketing carriers to provide clear and 

transparent notification of operations 

conducted by an air carrier other than 

the marketing carrier. Further, some 

subcommittee members also believed 

that more detailed disclosure regarding 

regional carriers’ operations should be 

included in the ATCR, and that the 

report should include metrics organized 

not only by operating air carrier, but by 

the marketing air carrier. 

For the reasons stated above, we are 

proposing to expand the scope of 

‘‘reportable flight’’ under Part 234, and 

consequently under Part 250. Pursuant 

to this proposal, a reporting carrier 

would continue to file Form 234 and 

Form 251 (the oversales report required 

by Part 250) with respect to nonstop 

scheduled flights operated by the 

reporting carrier. In addition, each 

reporting carrier would file a separate 

Form 234 and a separate Form 251 to 

include both flights that are operated by 

the reporting carrier itself and all 

nonstop scheduled flights that are 

operated by a code-share partner and 

sold under the reporting carrier’s code. 

Reportable flights under Part 234 (ontime performance and baggage data) are 

limited to domestic nonstop flight 

segments. The Form 251 oversales 

report has always included data for 

outbound international flights from the 

United States, and that will continue to 

be the case for the proposed new report 

that would include service operated by 

code-share partners. However, this new 

report, like the original report, would be 

limited to service operated by ‘‘a 

certificated carrier or commuter air 

carrier’’—both of which are U.S. air 

carriers—and consequently the new 

report would not collect data on codeshare flights operated for a reporting 

carrier by a foreign-carrier code-share 

partner. Our primary regulatory interest 

at this time is collecting and publishing 

data on code-share service operated by 

the regional-carrier partners of the larger 

U.S. airlines. We are not proposing at 

this time to collect oversales data for 

flights from the United States (the 

oversales rule doesn’t apply to inbound 

international flights to the United 

States) that are operated by large foreign 

carriers that do not already report these 

data. 

For this purpose it is irrelevant 

whether the actual operating carrier in 

the code-share arrangement is a 

reporting carrier itself and is required to 

file data for that flight under the 

reporting requirements applicable to the 

operating carrier. Under our proposed 

rule, the marketing carrier reporting 

data on flights operated by another 

carrier would not need to distinguish 

flights operated by different code-share 

partners. We are proposing to require 

the marketing carrier to provide 

aggregated consumer statistics for all 

flights operated under its code (i.e., 

flights it operates and flights operated 

by its code-share partners). This would 

be an additional reporting requirement 

(second set of reports) and is not 

intended to replace the existing 

requirement for a reporting carrier to 

provide separate data for flights it 

operates. We seek comment on whether 

the second sets of reports should only 

contain the performance records of all 

flights operated for the reporting carrier 

by its code-share partners but not the 

flights operated by the reporting carrier. 

Alternatively, rather than having all 

code-share partners’ records in 

aggregation, we ask if we should require 

the marketing carrier to provide separate 

data on flights operated by each of its 

code-share partner’s operations. What 

are the benefits of separating each codeshare partner’s records and what are the 

costs, if any, added to the reporting 

carriers? Finally, since many regional 

carriers operate flights under the code of 

more than one large carrier, we seek 

comment on whether ‘‘doublecounting,’’ i.e., situations where a given 

flight carries the code of more than one 

large carrier, is an issue and if so, how 

to avoid it. Do regional carriers that 

have code-share agreements with more 

than one large carrier ever operate a 

given flight for more than one marketing 

carrier, or on the other hand, do these 

flights always operate in discrete citypair markets? How should we deal with 

the situation of large U.S. carriers that 

code-share with each other? 

Our proposal to expand the scope of 

reportable flights will necessitate 

amendments to the rule text of 14 CFR 

234.6, Baggage Handling Statistics. On 

July 15, 2011, the Department issued an 

NPRM, Reporting Ancillary Airline 

Passenger Revenues (RIN 2105–AE31, 

Docket No. DOT–RITA–2011–0001) that 

proposes, among other things, to amend 

section 234.6 by changing the way it 

computes mishandled baggage rates, 

from mishandled baggage reports per 

unit of domestic enplanements to 

mishandled baggage per unit of checked 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
29984 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 100 / Friday, May 23, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

bags. The proposed amendments to 

section 234.6 also include a new and 

separate requirement for collecting 

statistics for mishandled wheelchairs 

and scooters used by passengers with 

disabilities. In this NPRM, our proposed 

amendments to section 234.6 are 

tentatively based on the proposed rule 

text in the ancillary revenues reporting 

NPRM. Our adoption of the rule text as 

proposed in RIN 2105–AE31 in this 

rulemaking is not indicative of whether 

we are going to adopt the text as 

proposed in the final rule for the 

ancillary revenue reporting proposal. 

Further, although that NPRM’s comment 

period has ended, any comments 

regarding the proposed computation 

method for mishandled baggage and the 

proposed inclusion of mishandled 

wheelchairs and scooters in the 

reporting should be submitted to the 

ancillary revenue reporting rulemaking 

docket and will be considered to the 

extent practicable. 

We note that if the operating carrier 

is already a reporting carrier, the data 

for the code-share flights that will be 

added to the marketing carrier’s report 

will have to be prepared and submitted 

to the Department by the operating 

carrier to meet the existing reporting 

requirement. In these instances, we 

expect that the cost to the marketing 

carrier to obtain this data would be 

negligible. With respect to flights 

operated by a code-share partner that is 

not a reporting carrier, we believe the 

cost of obtaining data would be higher 

but not significant, as most carriers, 

large or small, already have internal 

systems in place that track the major 

elements of flight performance quality. 

There are also costs related to compiling 

data for the code-share flights and 

setting up the reporting infrastructure to 

file the compiled report with the 

Department. We seek comments from 

carriers and the public regarding the 

costs associated with adding data on 

flights operated by code-share partners 

to reports filed with the Department. We 

further note that 14 CFR 234.8 requires 

reporting carriers to calculate and assign 

an on-time performance code for each 

‘‘reportable flight.’’ Currently section 

234.8 only covers domestic scheduled 

flights operated by a reporting carrier, so 

our proposal to expand the scope of 

‘‘reportable flight’’ under Part 234 will 

require that reporting carriers also 

calculate and assign an on-time 

performance code for each domestic 

scheduled flight operated by a codeshare partner. However, since April 29, 

2010, all current reporting carriers have 

been required by section 234.11 to 

disclose on their Web sites that provide 

schedule information detailed on-time 

performance records, on a monthly 

basis, for each domestic scheduled 

flight, including each domestic codeshare flight. In this regard, we expect 

that these current reporting carriers are 

already adequately prepared to comply 

with requirement of section 234.8 with 

respect to code-share flights. Finally, we 

ask what the reasonable implementation 

period should be if this proposal 

becomes a final rule. 

5. Minimum Customer Service 

Standards for Ticket Agents 

In the Department’s first Enhancing 

Airline Passenger Protections final rule, 

74 FR 68983, the Department required 

U.S. carriers in 14 CFR 259.5 to adopt 

a customer service plan. In the second 

Enhancing Airline Passenger Protections 

final rule, 76 FR 23110, the Department 

extended this requirement to foreign 

carriers and required both U.S. and 

foreign carriers to adopt minimum 

standards for their customer service 

plans. Among other standards, the 

Department requires carriers to provide 

prompt ticket refunds where ticket 

refunds are due, in accordance with 

existing Department rules; hold a 

reservation at the quoted fare or permit 

the reservation to be cancelled without 

penalty for at least 24 hours after a 

customer books the ticket; disclose 

cancellation policies, seating 

configuration, and lavatory availability 

to consumers; notify travelers of 

changes in travel itineraries; and 

respond to consumer-related complaints 

in a timely manner. Section 259.5 only 

applies to U.S. and foreign carriers that 

provide scheduled passenger service 

using at least one aircraft with an 

original designed passenger capacity of 

30 or more seats. In a Frequently Asked 

Questions guidance document issued by 

the Department’s Enforcement Office, in 

response to questions regarding whether 

section 259.5 applies to ticket agents, 

the Enforcement Office clarified that 

these customer service provisions are 

not applicable to agents. Therefore, 

agents are not currently required to hold 

a reservation for 24 hours or respond to 

consumer complaints or notify 

passengers of changes to travel 

itineraries. 

The Department is proposing to 

amend 14 CFR 399.80, which addresses 

unfair and deceptive practices by ticket 

agents, because the Department believes 

that all airline passengers should benefit 

from certain customer service plan 

protections. Not all of the customer 

service standards set forth in 14 CFR 

259.5 should apply to agents, but the 

Department sees no reason not to extend 

the standards related to ticket purchases 

and information dissemination to ticket 

agents that sell air transportation. As 

such, the Department is proposing to 

require these ticket agents to adopt 

minimum customer service standards in 

select areas. The customer service 

standards would not apply to ticket 

agents that don’t sell air transportation 

but rather arrange for air transportation 

and receive compensation in connection 

with air transportation sold by others. 

Additionally, as proposed, the standards 

would only apply to those ticket agents 

with annual revenue of $100 million or 

more that market to the general public 

in the United States. A majority of U.S. 

travelers who bought their airline tickets 

through an avenue other than a carrier 

used large ticket agents. 

As carriers are already required to 

allow reservations to be held at the 

quoted fare without payment or 

cancelled without penalty for at least 24 

hours after a reservation is made if the 

reservation is made one week or more 

prior to a flight’s departure, the 

Department is proposing to extend this 

requirement to ticket agents that sell air 

transportation. The Department feels 

that such agents should be able to allow 

reservations to be held at the quoted 

fare, as carriers are already required to 

provide this option. Moreover, through 

this proposal, the benefits of reserving 

without payment or canceling without 

penalty will reach consumers who use 

an agent to book air transportation. 

Similar to carriers, this proposal would 

only require ticket agents that sell air 

transportation to hold the fare at the 

quoted price. The proposal would not 

require agents to hold for 24 hours the 

price for other related items such as fees 

associated with ancillary services or 

tour components (e.g., hotel stay) 

although agents are, of course, free to do 

so if they wish. We solicit comment on 

whether the Department should require 

specific disclosure by agents and 

airlines about what is and is not being 

held for 24 hours. 

The Department also seeks comments 

on requiring both agents and carriers to 

inform consumers, when engaging in 

oral communications with them about 

changes to a reservation, of the 

consumer’s right to cancel without 

penalty if applicable. The Department 

has received complaints alleging that 

airlines are not disclosing to consumers 

when they are eligible to change their 

reservation without penalty and 

charging consumers change fees when 

consumers are unaware that they can 

cancel without penalty and rebook. 

Should carriers and agents be required 

to disclose the 24-hold policy to a 

consumer who is making a change 

within 24 hours of booking? Should the 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 100 / Friday, May 23, 2014 / Proposed Rules 29985 

Department require that the policy be 

prominently disclosed during the 

booking process? Currently, many 

carriers only disclose the policy in their 

‘‘Customer Service Commitment’’ but 

not during the booking process. Would 

it be beneficial for consumers to have 

this information during booking? 

Additionally the Department is 

proposing to require agents to provide 

prompt refunds where ticket refunds are 

due. This requirement would mirror 14 

CFR 259.5(b)(5), which requires carriers 

to submit a refund for a credit card 

purchase within 7 days of the complete 

refund request, and in the case of cash 

or check purchases, within 20 days of 

receiving a complete refund request. 

Oftentimes, if a consumer has to cancel 

a trip, and a refund is due, they find 

themselves going between the airline 

and the agent for the refund in cases 

where the passenger purchased the 

airline ticket through an agent. This 

requirement would prevent this type of 

hassle and back-and-forth for consumers 

and clarify the agent’s responsibility in 

assisting consumers when ticket refunds 

are due. 

The Department is also proposing that 

agents disclose cancellation policies, 

seating configuration, and lavatory 

availability upon request to a passenger 

before a consumer books a selected 

flight. Many consumers who choose to 

book through a ticket agent are unaware 

of restrictions or fees associated with 

canceling the ticket. Additionally, 

consumers are not always aware that 

they are booking a flight on a smaller 

aircraft or an aircraft that may not have 

a bulkhead seat or lavatory available. As 

carriers are required to provide this 

information to consumers on their Web 

sites and upon request from their 

telephone reservation staff, the 

Department feels agents should also 

provide the information. Under this 

proposal, agents would have to make 

this information available on their Web 

sites that are marketed to U.S. 

consumers, and upon request for 

reservations made over the telephone. 

The Department invites interested 

parties to comment on this proposal, 

specifically whether agents already have 

this information to share with 

consumers. If agents do not have 

information about carriers’ cancellation 

policies, aircraft seating configurations 

and lavatory availability, should the 

Department impose a requirement for 

carriers to provide their agents this 

information or should agents be 

required to provide links so that 

consumers can obtain that information? 

The Department also invites comments 

regarding the methods for disclosing 

cancellation policies, seating 

configurations, and lavatory availability 

information to consumers. Should the 

Department require that this 

information be placed at a particular 

location on a carrier’s Web site, e.g., 

next to every flight in a search-result list 

for a particular itinerary? 

The Department is also proposing that 

agents adopt a customer service 

standard to notify consumers of changes 

in travel itineraries in a timely manner. 

A carrier is not required to notify a 

consumer about a change in his or her 

travel itinerary if the carrier does not 

have contact information for that 

individual, and an agent is not required 

to provide a client’s contact information 

to an airline. Therefore, consumers who 

use agents that do not provide contact 

information to carriers may not receive 

direct or timely notice of changes to 

their itinerary. This requirement is 

intended to ensure that consumers are 

timely notified of such changes. 

Finally, the Department is proposing 

that agents be required to substantively 

respond to consumer complaints. 

Agents would be required to 

acknowledge receipt of a consumerrelated complaint within 30 days of 

receipt of the complaint. Where the 

complaint (in whole or in part) is about 

the agent’s service, the agent must 

substantively respond to the complaint 

within 60 days. If all or part of the 

complaint is about services furnished 

(or to be furnished) by an airline or 

other travel supplier, the agent must 

forward the complaint to that supplier 

for response. If no part of the complaint 

is about the agent’s service and the 

agent sends the complaint to the 

appropriate supplier(s), the agent’s 

substantive reply can consist of the 

agent informing the passenger that his 

or her complaint has been forwarded to 

the appropriate party and providing 

contact information to the passenger for 

that entity. This proposal closes the gap 

that exists in 14 CFR 259.5(b)(11) and 

259.7, which require carriers to respond 

to consumer complaints but do not 

provide for complaints related to a 

ticket agent’s services. 

Although the subjects that we are 

proposing that ticket agents that sell air 

transportation address in their customer 

service plans are identical to those that 

carriers are already required to include 

in their customer service plans with 

respect to ticket purchases and 

information dissemination, we request 

comment on whether any of these 

subjects would be inappropriate if 

applied to ticket agents. Why or why 

not? Some of these items may be under 

direct control of the air carrier, and not 

the ticket agent. In commenting on these 

customer service commitments, large 

ticket agents should address the extent 

to which they are responsible for each 

of these items. Moreover, we seek 

comment on whether the Department 

should require that ticket agents address 

any other subjects in their customer 

service plans. For example, should 

ticket agents be required to prominently 

disclose to individuals who will be 

issued more than one ticket for their trip 

that their bags may not be checked 

through, as airlines typically check a 

passenger’s baggage between the origin 

and destination points that are issued 

on a single ticket? Should ticket agents 

also be required to disclose to such 

individuals that they may have to pay 

multiple and different bag fees if 

ticketed separately as the Department’s 

requirement for one set of baggage 

allowances and fees throughout a 

passenger’s itinerary only applies when 

there is a single ticket? If so, when 

should this disclosure occur—before or 

after a ticket is purchased? We also seek 

comment on the appropriate form for 

such a disclosure (e.g., orally, on the 

ticket agent’s Web site, on e-ticket 

confirmation). The Department is 

proposing to apply these customer 

service standards only to large ticket 

agents (those with annual revenue of 

$100 million or more) that market to the 

general public in the United States. The 

Department invites comment on 

whether the applicability should be 

expanded to cover other ticket agents, 

e.g., smaller ticket agents, or ticket 

agents who do not sell to members of 

the general public. 

The Department recognizes that 

requiring these minimum customer 

service standards for agents would place 

a cost burden on these agencies. 

However, the Department believes that 

the benefits to consumers of receiving 

timely information, permitting 

reservations to be held for 24 hours 

without risk, and having their 

complaints addressed outweigh the 

costs. These proposals put all airline 

passengers on an equal footing when it 

comes to customer service standards, 

regardless of how they purchased their 

tickets. 

The Department invites comments on 

the costs and benefits of these proposed 

customer service standards. For 

consumers who use agents, have you 

had problems in the past determining 

the cancellation policies associated with 

your ticket or being informed of changes 

in travel itineraries? For carriers, do you 

see any cost in sharing the information 

with the agents that the agents would be 

required to provide to consumers? For 

agents, what are the costs and benefits 

that you see in the proposal? Are you 

already receiving the information that 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
29986 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 100 / Friday, May 23, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

you would have to disclose to 

consumers from carriers? Should agents 

also be required to review their 

adherence to the customer service plans 

each year and retain the records of the 

audits for two years following the date 

of any audit, just as carriers are required 

to do today? Should agents be required 

to post their customer service plans on 

their Web sites if the Web sites are 

marketed towards U.S. consumers? Are 

there unforeseen consequences of the 

proposal, and, if so, what are they? 

6. Codifying 49 U.S.C. 41712(c) 

Regarding Web site Disclosure of CodeShare Service and Other Amendments 

to 14 CFR Part 257 

Code-sharing is an arrangement 

whereby a flight is operated by a carrier 

other than the airline whose designator 

code is used in schedules and on 

tickets. The Department’s current 

regulation on the disclosure of codesharing and long term wet lease 

arrangements, 14 CFR 257.5, was 

initially issued in 1999. Based on the 

statutory prohibition against unfair and 

deceptive practices in the sale of air 

transportation, 49 U.S.C. 41712, the 

purpose of § 257.5 is to ensure that 

consumers are aware of the identity of 

the airline actually operating their flight 

in code-sharing and long-term wet lease 

arrangements in domestic and 

international air transportation. See 64 

FR 12838 (March 15, 1999). The 

Department has long recognized the 

economic benefits of airline codesharing and long term wet lease 

arrangements but has been aware that 

such arrangements may cause consumer 

confusion regarding the identity of the 

operating carrier of a flight. For 

simplicity, we refer to both code-sharing 

arrangements and long term wet lease 

arrangements (covered in Part 258) as 

‘‘code-share’’ arrangements, as the 

disclosure requirements for both types 

of operations are essentially identical. 

Code-share disclosure is important 

because the identity of the operating 

carrier is a factor that affects many 

consumers’ purchasing decisions. In 

that regard, we believe that 

strengthening the code-share disclosure 

requirements by codifying requirements 

in Part 257 is an effective way to 

prevent potential consumer confusion. 

Pursuant to § 257.5, carriers and ticket 

agents are required to inform 

consumers, when engaging in oral 

communications with the public, of 

code-share service ‘‘before booking 

transportation’’ and to ‘‘identify the 

transporting carrier by its corporate 

name and any other name under which 

that service is held out to the public’’ 

(section 257.5(b)). Written notice of 

code-sharing arrangements is also 

required when a ticket purchase is 

made, regardless of whether an itinerary 

is issued (section 257.5(c)). In ‘‘printed’’ 

advertisements, including those 

appearing on a Web site, the codesharing relationship must be 

‘‘prominently’’ disclosed and an 

abbreviated notice must be included in 

any radio or television advertisement 

(section 257.5(d)). With respect to all 

schedule information that is publicly 

available in writing, including on Web 

site displays, section 257.5(a) requires 

that any code-share service be indicated 

with ‘‘an asterisk or other easily 

identifiable mark and that the corporate 

name of the transporting carrier and any 

other name under which that service is 

held out to the public’’ also be 

disclosed. As a matter of enforcement 

policy, since the issuance of section 

257.5, we have permitted entities 

providing schedules on Web sites to 

provide disclosure of an operating 

carrier’s corporate name and other 

pertinent names through rollover or 

hyperlinked displays. 

In February 2009, a flight operated by 

a regional air carrier under a mainline 

air carrier’s code crashed during 

landing. In the aftermath of that fatal 

incident, family members of some 

victims questioned the adequacy of 

disclosure regarding the code-sharing 

nature of that operation. In response to 

these concerns and in recognition of the 

necessity of further strengthening the 

disclosure requirements of code-sharing 

arrangements, Congress amended 49 

U.S.C. 41712 in August 2010 to add a 

subsection (c) that requires that in any 

oral, written, or electronic 

communications with the public, U.S. 

and foreign air carriers and ticket agents 

disclose the name of the carrier 

providing the air transportation for each 

flight segment prior to the ticket 

purchase. In addition, subsection (c) 

provides that if an offer to sell tickets is 

provided on a Web site, such 

information must be disclosed ‘‘on the 

first display of the Web site following a 

search of a requested itinerary in a 

format that is easily visible to a viewer.’’ 

Airline Safety and Federal Aviation 

Administration Extension Act of 2010, 

Public Law 111–216, Title II, section 

210, 124 Stat. 2362 (August 1, 2010). In 

light of Congress’ specific requirement 

regarding Web site ticket offer 

disclosure, on January 14, 2011, the 

Department’s Enforcement Office issued 

Guidance on Disclosure of Code-Share 

Service Under Recent Amendments to 

49 U.S.C. 41712, in which the 

Enforcement Office revised its 

enforcement policy and explained that 

under the statute any disclosure of codeshare service in the context of Web site 

displays by carriers and ticket agents 

must be on the same screen as the 

itinerary and immediately adjacent to 

that itinerary and to each alternative 

itinerary, if any. The guidance provided 

notice that carriers or ticket agents 

whose Web sites failed to provide full 

disclosure of code-share service 

arrangements or that provided 

disclosure only through rollovers or 

hyperlinks would potentially be subject 

to enforcement action. 

In this NPRM, we are proposing to 

amend 14 CFR 257.5 to codify the 

requirements of 49 U.S.C. 41712(c) and 

the Department’s current enforcement 

policy with respect to Web site 

disclosure of code-share and long term 

wet lease arrangements. In addition, we 

are proposing to update certain other 

disclosure requirements of 14 CFR 257.5 

in order to reflect the technology 

changes in the airline industry’s 

reservation and ticketing systems that 

have resulted in the predominance of 

electronic ticketing and the significant 

use of online transactions. As noted in 

the background section of this NPRM, 

these proposals are also intended to 

implement the Future of Aviation 

Advisory Committee and the Advisory 

Committee on Aviation Consumer 

Protection recommendation that the 

Secretary should ensure transparency 

regarding flight operators, such as 

disclosure of the identity of the operator 

on regional-carrier code-share flights. 

See FAAC Final Report, April 11, 2011. 

It is important to emphasize that we 

believe the changes proposed in this 

NPRM to the text of section 257.5 are 

primarily non-substantive and would 

not affect what carriers and ticket agents 

are already obligated to do under the 

combination of the current section 

257.5, the amended 49 U.S.C. 41712, 

and the Department’s guidance 

document. 

(a) Disclosure in Flight Itinerary and 

Schedule Displays 

14 CFR 257.5 contains subsections (a) 

through (d), which deal with disclosure 

in schedule displays, oral notice to 

prospective consumers, written notice 

to ticket purchasers, and disclosure in 

advertisements, respectively. Most codeshare disclosure requirements under 14 

CFR 257.5 cover both carriers and ticket 

agents, but section 257.5(a), notice in 

schedules, only covers U.S. air carriers 

and foreign air carriers. On the other 

hand, 49 U.S.C. 41712(c) (enacted in 

2010), as well as the January 10, 2011, 

notice issued by the Department’s 

Enforcement Office, are explicit that the 

same heightened requirements regarding 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 100 / Friday, May 23, 2014 / Proposed Rules 29987 

code-share disclosure, including Web 

site schedule display disclosure, apply 

to both carriers and ticket agents. As a 

result of this inconsistency, under the 

current rule, ticket agents that fail to 

adequately disclose code-share 

arrangements in schedule displays 

would violate section 41712 but not 

section 257.5(a). 

The inclusion of ticket agents in 

section 41712(c) reflects the fact that, 

through the growth and development of 

the Internet and related technologies, 

more and more ticket agents, especially 

online travel agencies (OTAs), are able 

to provide flight schedules and itinerary 

search functions to the public. The 

Department applauds new technologies 

that increase the number of venues from 

which consumers can search and 

compare airfares and schedules and 

perform one-stop shopping for airfares 

along with other components of travel 

packages. However, it is our firm belief 

that information is useful and beneficial 

to the public only if it is accurate and 

complete. As a result, we are proposing 

to codify the code-share disclosure 

requirement in section 41712(c) 

concerning schedule displays and make 

it applicable to both carriers and ticket 

agents doing business in the United 

States with respect to flights in, to, or 

from the United States. Although the 

rule text and the preamble of the final 

rule issued in 1999 did not specify what 

constitutes ‘‘doing business in the 

United States,’’ we are tentatively of the 

opinion that any ticket agent that 

markets and is compensated for the sale 

of tickets to consumers in the United 

States, either from a brick-and-mortar 

office located in the United States or via 

an Internet Web site that is marketed 

towards consumers in the United States, 

would be considered as ‘‘doing business 

in the United States.’’ This 

interpretation would cover any travel 

agent or ticket agent that does not have 

a physical presence in the United States 

but has a Web site that is marketed to 

consumers in the United States for 

purchasing tickets for flights within, to, 

or from the United States. We also note 

that with the usage of mobile devices 

gaining popularity among consumers, 

our code-share disclosure requirement 

with respect to flight schedule and 

itinerary displays covers not only 

conventional Internet Web sites under 

the control of carriers and ticket agents, 

but also those Web sites and 

applications specifically designed for 

mobile devices, such as mobile phones 

and tablets. 

Furthermore, the text of section 

257.5(a) states that any code-sharing 

arrangements must be disclosed in flight 

schedules provided to the public in the 

United States, which we interpret to 

include electronic schedules on Web 

sites marketed to the public in the 

United States, by an asterisk or other 

easily identifiable mark. As discussed 

above, the new amendment to section 

41712 and the guidance provided by the 

Enforcement Office make it clear that for 

schedules posted on a Web site in 

response to an itinerary search, 

disclosure though a rollover, pop-up 

window or hyperlink is no longer 

sufficient. Moreover, as stated in the 

rationale behind our recently amended 

price advertising rule, 14 CFR 399.84, 

which ended the practice of permitting 

sellers of air transportation to disclose 

airfare taxes and mandatory fees 

through rollovers and pop-up windows, 

we believe that the extra step a 

consumer must take by clicking on a 

hyperlink or using a rollover to find out 

about code-share arrangements is 

cumbersome and may cause some 

consumers to miss this important 

disclosure. 

Our proposal codifies the requirement 

of section 41712(c)(2) that the codeshare disclosure must appear on the first 

display of the Web site following an 

itinerary search. Further, section 

41712(c)(2) requires that the disclosure 

on a Web site must be ‘‘in a format that 

is easily visible to a viewer.’’ In that 

regard, we are proposing that the 

disclosure must appear in text format 

immediately adjacent to each code-share 

flight displayed in response to an 

itinerary request by a consumer. We ask 

whether the proposed requirement is 

sufficient to meet the statutory 

requirement that the disclosure must be 

in a format that is easily visible by a 

viewer. We further seek comments on 

whether we should specify minimum 

standards on the text size of the 

disclosure in relation to the text size of 

the schedule itself. As an alternative to 

the proposed standard, we ask whether 

a code-share disclosure appearing 

immediately adjacent to the entire 

itinerary as opposed to appearing 

immediately adjacent to each code-share 

flight would be a sufficient way to meet 

the ‘‘easily visible’’ standard. 

With regard to flight schedules 

provided to the public (whether the 

schedules are in paper or electronic 

format), we propose that the code-share 

disclosure be provided by an asterisk or 

other identifiable mark that clearly 

indicates the existence of a code-sharing 

arrangement and directs the readers’ 

attention to another prominent location 

on the same page where the identity of 

the operating carrier is fully disclosed. 

We seek public comments on whether 

we should impose the same standard for 

flight schedules as for flight itineraries 

provided on the Internet in response to 

an itinerary search, i.e., requiring that 

the disclosure be provided immediately 

adjacent to each applicable flight. 

(b) Disclosure to Prospective Consumers 

in Oral Communications 

Section 257.5(b) requires that carriers 

and ticket agents must identify the 

actual operator of a code-share flight the 

first time that a code-share flight is cited 

to a consumer in person, over the 

telephone, or through other means of 

oral communication. With respect to 

covered entities, this section currently 

applies to, and, under this proposal, 

will continue to apply to, both U.S. and 

foreign air carriers, as well as ticket 

agents doing business in the United 

States. We are not proposing any 

changes to this provision, but we 

propose to interpret the phrase ‘‘ticket 

agent doing business in the United 

States’’ in the same manner as described 

in the discussion of that phrase in 

section 259.5(a) above. Consequently, a 

ticket agent that sells air transportation 

via a Web site marketed toward U.S. 

consumers (or that distributes other 

marketing material in the United States) 

is covered by section 259.5(b) even if 

the agent does not have a physical 

location in the United States, and such 

an agent must provide the disclosure 

required by section 259.5(b) during a 

telephone call placed from the United 

States even if the call is to the agent’s 

foreign location. 

(c) Disclosure of Code-Share at Time of 

Purchase 

With respect to written notice of codeshare arrangements provided to ticket 

purchasers, we propose to retain the 

basic requirements listed in 14 CFR 

257.5(c)(1) but delete the language in 14 

CFR 257.5(c)(3). The basic requirements 

in section 257.5(c)(1) are as follows: if 

a code-share flight segment has its own 

designated flight number, the codeshare disclosure must be immediately 

adjacent to that flight number; if a 

single-flight number service involves 

one or more code-share segments, each 

code-share segment must be identified 

immediately adjacent to that flight 

number in the format ‘‘Service between 

XYZ City and ABC City will be operated 

by Jane Doe Airlines d/b/a ORS 

Express.’’ Section 257(c)(3) states that 

the written code-share notice required 

by section 257.5(c) must accompany the 

ticket if the transportation is purchased 

far enough in advance of travel to allow 

for advance delivery of the ticket. If time 

does not allow for advance delivery of 

the ticket, ‘‘or in the case of ticketless 

travel,’’ the required written notice is to 

be provided no later than the time that 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
29988 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 100 / Friday, May 23, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

the consumer checks in at the airport for 

the first flight in his or her itinerary. 

The first part of section 257.5(c)(3) 

appears to refer to paper tickets, as it 

speaks of the time required for delivery 

of the ticket, and it draws a contrast 

with ‘‘ticketless travel’’ in the next 

sentence. (Ticketless travel is a term that 

used to be used for what is now referred 

to as electronic ticketing or e-tickets.) 

We believe that the required written 

notice should in all cases be provided 

‘‘at the time of purchase’’ as indicated 

at the beginning of section 257.5(c), 

regardless of whether a paper ticket is 

subsequently issued or the consumer 

will receive an e-ticket. Section 

257.5(c)(2) states that if a consumer does 

not receive an itinerary, the selling 

carrier or ticket agent must provide a 

separate written notice that identifies 

the operating carrier. Thus, the existing 

rule anticipates situations in which the 

required written code-share notice is not 

automatically generated by industry 

purchase/ticketing systems and states 

that in such cases the selling carrier or 

ticket agent must manually generate and 

furnish a written disclosure of the 

identity of the carrier(s). We do not 

believe that a written code-share notice 

that is provided at the airport is 

sufficient though currently permitted 

under section 257.5(c)(3) for passengers 

who purchase their air transportation in 

advance but do not receive a paper 

ticket until a date close to the scheduled 

departure date and for e-ticketed 

passengers including those who have 

purchased their transportation weeks or 

months in advance. Accordingly, we 

propose to make it clear that written 

code-share disclosure must be provided 

at the time of purchase. 

(d) Disclosure in City-pair Specific 

Advertisements 

Subsection (d) deals with disclosure 

requirements in city-pair specific 

advertisements. We are proposing to use 

the phrase ‘‘written advertisement’’ to 

replace the phrase ‘‘printed 

advertisement,’’ which in the current 

rule text refers to both advertisements 

printed in paper and advertisements 

published on the Internet. We believe 

the word ‘‘written’’ is more accurate in 

describing both formats of 

advertisements. 

In addition, we are proposing to add 

a descriptive phrase to specify the scope 

of the disclosure requirements on 

Internet advertisements in an effort to 

eliminate any possible ambiguity. 

Specifically, the current rule states that 

our requirements cover advertisements 

‘‘published in or mailed to or from the 

United States’’ including those 

published on the Internet. As the 

Internet is a global information network, 

this language may leave it unclear what 

would constitute an Internet 

advertisement that is ‘‘published’’ in the 

United States. For example, a Web site 

that is hosted on a server located in the 

United States could arguably fall within 

the scope of our rule. Conversely, a Web 

site hosted on a server located outside 

of the United States could still be 

marketing airfares to consumers in the 

United States. For this reason, and to 

achieve consistency with the 

Department’s other airline consumer 

protection rules, we are proposing to 

specify that our code-share disclosure 

requirements regarding advertisements 

published on the Internet would apply 

to advertisements for service in, to or 

from the United States that are marketed 

to consumers in the United States. This 

standard is consistent with the recently 

amended full-fare advertising rule, 14 

CFR 399.84, which only covers Internet 

advertisements published on Web sites 

marketed to United States consumers. 

As explained in a Frequently Asked 

Questions document issued by the 

Department’s Enforcement Office 

following the publication of that rule, 

we will look at a variety of factors to 

determine whether a Web site is 

marketed to United States consumers, 

such as whether the Web site is in 

English, whether the seller of air 

transportation displays prices in U.S. 

dollars, or whether sales can be made to 

persons with addresses or telephone 

numbers in the United States. 

We note that this proposed standard 

will cover all advertisements appearing 

on a carrier’s or a ticket agent’s own 

Web site, as well as advertisements that 

are presented to U.S. consumers through 

other paid advertising venues on the 

Internet (such as a news media Web site 

or a travel blog Web site) and social 

media Web sites (such as Facebook or 

Twitter). We seek comments with regard 

to whether imposing the same standard 

to advertisements on all of these Web 

sites is reasonable and technically 

practical. We specifically ask what type 

of code-share disclosure is considered 

adequate from a consumer’s point of 

view, in light of the brevity of the 

Facebook and Twitter posting formats. 

Finally, we are proposing some editorial 

changes to 14 CFR 257.5. First, we 

propose to replace the term 

‘‘transporting carrier’’, which is used 

throughout section 257.5, with the term 

‘‘operating carrier’’ to refer to the carrier 

in a code-share or wet lease arrangement 

that has the operational control of a 

flight but does not market the flight in 

its own name. In doing so, we are trying 

to achieve consistency with other 

recently amended consumer protection 

rules, see, e.g., 14 CFR 259.4(c) (codeshare partners’ responsibilities in 

tarmac delay contingency plans) and 14 

CFR 399.85(e) (notice of baggage fees for 

code-share flights). Another stylistic 

change proposed in this NPRM concerns 

the example disclosure statement that a 

seller of air transportation must include 

in a radio or television broadcasting 

advertisement. The current sample 

statement includes the phrase ‘‘[s]ome 

services are provided by other airlines.’’ 

Because the words ’’ services’’ and 

‘‘provided’’ cover a wide range of 

activities, including ground operations, 

customer service, etc., they do not 

accurately convey the information we 

intended to relate, which was regarding 

the actual operation of a flight. 

Accordingly, we propose to change the 

sentence to read ‘‘[s]ome flights are 

operated by other airlines.’’ 

7. Disclosure That Not All Carriers are 

Marketed and Identification of Carriers 

Marketed on Ticket Agent Web sites 

The Department is considering 

requiring large travel agents to disclose 

in online displays the fact that not all 

carriers that serve a particular market 

are marketed by the travel agent if that 

is the case. Consumers deserve complete 

information regarding whether a 

particular ticket agent provides flight 

and fare information for all carriers or 

just a subset of carriers. Many online 

travel agents provide flight and fare 

information for a significant number of 

carriers serving a particular city-pair 

market but not all carriers that serve that 

market. In some markets, they may not 

provide information regarding any 

carrier serving the market. Online travel 

agents do not necessarily identify the 

carriers whose schedule and fare 

information is or is not provided in 

search results. As a result, consumers 

may believe they are searching all 

possible flight options for a particular 

city-pair market when in fact there may 

be other options available. The Advisory 

Committee for Aviation Consumer 

Protection recommended that DOT 

require ticket agents, including online 

ticket agents, to disclose the fact that 

they do not offer for sale all airlines’ 

tickets, if that is the case, and that 

additional airlines may serve the route 

being searched, so that consumers know 

they may need to search elsewhere if 

they want to find all available air travel 

options. Accordingly, the Department is 

considering requiring large ticket agents, 

such as online travel agents, that operate 

Web sites that display schedules or fares 

and/or sell tickets for air transportation 

of more than one carrier to disclose 

whether they display the airfares of all 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 100 / Friday, May 23, 2014 / Proposed Rules 29989 

carriers serving any market that can be 

searched on the travel agent’s Web site. 

One alternative would be to merely 

require travel agents to prominently 

note on their Web sites that not all U.S. 

air carriers and non-U.S. air carriers 

serving the U.S. are displayed on the 

Web site or marketed by the travel 

agent. Another option would be to 

prominently display a statement in 

connection with a search of a particular 

city pair that not all air carriers serving 

those cities are displayed on the Web 

site or marketed by the travel agent. 

Alternatively, online travel agents could 

be required to specifically identify all of 

the air carriers that are marketed by the 

travel agent. 

The Department is not providing rule 

text for this proposal. Instead, it seeks 

comment on how such a requirement 

should be implemented. For example, 

should the disclosure be made with a 

general statement on the travel agent’s 

home page with a link to more detailed 

information? Or should the disclosure 

be made through a statement on the 

search results page that displays 

itineraries in response to a consumer 

search? If the general disclosure 

statement is linked to a page with more 

detailed information, what additional 

information should be provided? 

Additionally, the Department seeks 

comment on whether such a rule should 

be limited to ticket agents of a certain 

size or should include all ticket agents, 

and if the rule should be limited to 

ticket agents of a certain size, what 

parameters should the Department use 

to define the ticket agents included in 

the requirement. The Department also 

seeks comment on the costs and benefits 

of requiring Web sites to state whether 

a particular carrier’s schedule 

information is provided on that Web site 

and of identifying those air carriers that 

must be included in such disclosure. 

For example, what are the costs and 

benefits of a disclosure that says, ‘‘These 

schedules do not include all carriers in 

these markets’’ versus a disclosure that 

would list the carriers that are included? 

8. Prohibition on Undisclosed Airfare 

Display Bias by Ticket Agents and 

Carriers 

In connection with electronic displays 

of multiple carriers’ airfares and 

schedules, the Department is proposing 

to prohibit any undisclosed bias in any 

presentation of carrier schedules, fares, 

rules or availability. A Department 

prohibition on airfare display bias is not 

unprecedented. In the past, Department 

regulations contained a limited 

prohibition on bias of computer 

terminal displays provided to travel 

agents by computer reservation systems 

(CRSs), the precursors to GDSs. At that 

time, there was a concern that the 

owners of the CRSs (initially airlines 

and, subsequently, other entities) would 

potentially engage in display bias or 

other unfair, deceptive, predatory, or 

anticompetitive practices absent 

Department regulation of their 

operations (14 CFR Part 255). This rule 

prohibited CRSs used by travel agents 

from using factors relating to carrier 

identity in determining how airfares 

were displayed. Among other things, the 

CRSs were required to use the same 

editing and ranking criteria for ‘‘both 

on-line and interline connections and 

not give on-line connections a systemimposed preference over interline 

connections.’’ 14 CFR 255.4(a)(1). 

However, Part 255 sunset on July 31, 

2004 (see 14 CFR 255.8). 

Recently, the Enforcement Office has 

been informed of allegations that certain 

ticket agents, including GDSs, have 

biased their displays to disadvantage 

certain airlines in the course of hardfought contract negotiations. Those 

ticket agents have allegedly biased the 

listing of available itineraries displayed 

in response to searches by consumers or 

travel agents on their Web sites. The 

display bias allegedly resulted in 

consumers and travel agents being 

presented with favored carriers’ fare and 

schedule information first. 

Complainants also assert that although 

some ticket agents may have received 

limited disclosure regarding certain 

instances of display bias, the general 

public received no notice or disclosure. 

Moreover, we are concerned that GDSs 

and other ticket agents could sell bias to 

certain airline competitors or bias 

displays toward carriers that pay higher 

segment fee compensation to GDSs and 

such bias could be difficult to detect. 

The prohibition would also apply to 

flight search tools operated by metasearch engines and similar entities 

engaged in the distribution of certain air 

transportation information. As 

discussed earlier, the Department would 

view such entities as being ticket agents. 

The Department is considering a 

regulation that would require any 

carrier or ticket agent that provides 

electronic display of airfare information 

to provide unbiased displays or disclose 

the biases in the display. The regulation 

would apply to all electronic displays of 

multiple carriers’ fare and schedule 

information, whether the display is 

available on an unrestricted basis, e.g., 

to the general public, or is only 

available to travel agents who sell to the 

public. The requirement to provide 

unbiased displays or disclose biases in 

the display would also apply to 

electronic displays used for corporate 

travel unless a corporation agrees by 

contract to biases in the display used by 

its employees for business travel. If not, 

the regulation would require carriers 

and ticket agents that provide airfare 

information electronically to display the 

lowest generally available airfares and 

most direct routings that meet the 

parameters of the search in response to 

an inquiry for an airfare quotation for a 

specific itinerary. It would also prohibit 

biasing displays such that less direct 

routings that are equivalently priced, or 

more expensive fares with an equally 

direct routing, and that meet the 

parameters of a search, are displayed 

more prominently or earlier in the 

search results list than a more direct 

routing or a lower fare simply to benefit 

a particular favored carrier or penalize 

a disfavored carrier. In the alternative, 

carriers and ticket agents could provide 

biased displays so long as they have 

prominent and specific disclosure of the 

bias. The requirements would apply to 

displays in response to airfare inquiries 

by a consumer for a particular itinerary 

and displays in response to airfare 

inquiries made by a travel agent or other 

intermediary in the sale of air 

transportation for a particular itinerary. 

Under this proposal, undisclosed 

display bias would not be permitted on 

displays publicly available directly to 

consumers or displays directed toward 

travel agents, such as those working for 

corporations or other travel management 

companies. To the extent the consumer 

or travel agent placed restrictions on the 

search, for example, by limiting to one 

or more specific carriers or classes of 

service, the display would not be 

considered to contain undisclosed 

display bias as long as the display 

disclosed the lowest available fares and 

most direct itineraries that met the 

search parameters. In addition to 

prohibiting display bias, the Department 

is considering requiring any ticket agent 

that decided to bias its displays and 

disclose the existence of bias to also 

disclose any incentive payments it is 

receiving. We seek comment on what 

kind of disclosure of the existence of 

incentive payments would be most 

helpful for consumers. When providing 

notice, should the ticket agent list the 

companies, air carriers, and foreign air 

carriers offering the incentives? If so, 

should the list rank companies in order 

of the company providing the incentives 

of the greatest monetary value? Or 

should it group them based on whether 

the incentive is provided in the form of 

payments, rebates, discounts, 

commissions, volume-based 

compensation, or another method? 

Should the requirement apply to 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
29990 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 100 / Friday, May 23, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

incentives earned by the travel agent in 

the previous calendar year or some 

other time period? Should it be limited 

to incentives with a certain monetary 

value? 

The Department seeks comment on 

whether the prohibition on display bias 

should be limited to airfare and 

routings. We also seek comment on the 

costs and benefits of a prohibition on 

display bias. 

9. Prohibition on Post-Purchase Price 

Increases for Baggage Fees 

In the second Enhancing Airline 

Passenger Protections rule, the 

Department prohibited an air carrier or 

agent from increasing the price of air 

transportation after the passenger 

purchases a ticket. Under 14 CFR 

399.88, carriers and other sellers of air 

transportation are now prohibited from 

increasing the price of air transportation 

to a particular passenger after the 

purchase of a ticket, including but not 

limited to the price of a seat, the price 

for the carriage of passenger baggage, 

and the price for any applicable fuel 

surcharge. The rule includes a limited 

exception for an increase in a 

government-imposed tax or charge. In 

response to questions received after 

publication of the final rule, the 

Department’s Enforcement Office 

clarified that there could not be an 

increase to a particular passenger in the 

charge for any ancillary service after a 

ticket is purchased, including services 

not purchased with the ticket. The 

reasoning behind this was twofold. 

First, by using the phrase ‘‘including but 

not limited to’’ when describing the 

types of items that sellers of air 

transportation are prohibiting from price 

increases after ticket purchase, the 

Department made it clear that these 

items are simply examples and not an 

exhaustive list. Second, under the 

disclosure requirements of 14 CFR 

399.85(c), sellers of air transportation 

are required to inform passengers about 

baggage charges on their e-ticket 

confirmations as a means of preventing 

consumers from being surprised about 

hidden fees. If these fees could change 

after the passenger purchases the ticket, 

the information provided in the e-ticket 

would be useless. 

However, after the rule became final, 

certain carriers raised concerns that had 

not been raised previously: That a 

prohibition on an increase in the price 

of any ancillary service after a ticket 

purchase could prove cumbersome for 

carriers in practice. For example, one 

passenger might be entitled to pay a 

lesser amount for a drink or a snack 

than the passenger sitting next to him or 

her. They contended that the cost of 

developing systems to keep track of the 

price of every ancillary service at the 

time of passenger purchase and charging 

those prices on an individualized basis 

would be prohibitive. 

In light of the problems in application 

of the rule as it relates to ancillary 

services that are not purchased with the 

ticket, the Enforcement Office issued 

Guidance on Price Increases of 

Ancillary Services and Products not 

Purchased with the Ticket on December 

28, 2011. In that guidance, the 

Department’s Enforcement Office noted 

that the Department had decided to 

revisit the issue through a further 

rulemaking to examine the application 

of the rule to fees for ancillary services 

not purchased with the ticket. The 

Department also announced that with 

respect to fees for ancillary services that 

were not purchased with the air 

transportation, it would only enforce the 

prohibition on post-purchase price 

increases for carry-on bags and first and 

second checked bags. The application of 

the prohibition of the post-purchase 

price increase was also at issue in a 

lawsuit filed by two airlines against the 

Department. The court considered the 

rule as applied under the December 28, 

2011, guidance and upheld the 

Department’s rule prohibiting postpurchase price increases as it is 

currently being applied. Spirit Airlines, 

Inc., v. U.S. Dept. of Transportation 

(D.C. Cir. July 24, 2012), slip op. at 20– 

21. Petition for Writ of Certiorari denied 

on April 1, 2013. 

The Department is now proposing to 

modify 14 CFR 399.88 to prohibit a 

price increase after the purchase of air 

transportation for any mandatory charge 

the consumer must pay (such as the air 

fare or an applicable fuel surcharge), 

and the price for the carriage of any 

passenger baggage. Sellers of air 

transportation would also continue to be 

prohibited from increasing the price of 

any ancillary service after it is 

purchased. The logistical and financial 

burdens placed on carriers related to 

ancillary services other than baggage 

that are not purchased with the ticket 

are too great. Ensuring that in-flight 

crew have the information and tools to 

impose varying service fees depending 

on when a passenger purchased a ticket 

would likely lead to unreasonable costs 

for carriers, significant confusion, and 

ultimately consumer harm by 

incentivizing carriers to set prices for 

ancillary services artificially high. 

However, the Department believes that 

transporting baggage is intrinsic to air 

transportation and baggage fees are a 

major factor for consumers when 

deciding which air transportation to 

purchase, and should be subject to the 

rule prohibiting post-purchase price 

increases. Therefore, under the 

proposed rule, the price for the 

transportation of passenger baggage that 

applies when a passenger buys a ticket 

is the price that they will pay, even if 

they do not pay for the transportation of 

baggage at the time they purchase the 

ticket. This interpretation is consistent 

with guidance given by the Department 

in 2008 which states that ‘‘[i]n no case 

should more restrictive baggage policies 

or additional charges be applied 

retroactively to a consumer who 

purchased his or her ticket at a time 

when the charges did not apply, or 

when a lower charge applied.’’ Notice of 

the Assistant General Counsel for 

Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings, 

‘‘Guidance on Disclosure of Policies and 

Charges Associated with Checked 

Baggage,’’ May 13, 2008. 

In addition, under the revised 14 CFR 

399.88, after a ticket is purchased, 

carriers and other sellers of air 

transportation would continue to be 

prohibited from raising the price of the 

air transportation or of ancillary services 

that are purchased with the ticket. For 

example, if a passenger buys a ticket 

that costs $200 (total fare, inclusive of 

taxes and fees) and pays an additional 

$25.00 for a priority boarding pass, and 

the carrier subsequently increases the 

price of a priority boarding pass 

effective on a date before this passenger 

travels, the carrier cannot retroactively 

increase the price for the consumer who 

already purchased their priority 

boarding pass. The new 14 CFR 399.88 

would still allow for the limited 

exception of an increase in the price of 

a ticket if there is an increase in a 

government-imposed tax or fee; that tax/ 

fee could still be retroactively applied to 

the passenger’s travel if the required 

notice is provided to consumers prior to 

the ticket purchase. However, any other 

increase in price of any already 

purchased ancillary service would 

constitute an unfair and deceptive 

practice. 

The Department is also considering 

the alternative of keeping the original 

interpretation of the rule. Under this 

interpretation, the price of ancillary 

services and products for a given 

consumer is capped at the time that he 

or she purchases the air transportation 

whether or not these items are 

purchased along with the air 

transportation, as the existence of a fee 

for other services or products related to 

the air transportation, as well as the 

amount of any such fee, can influence 

a customer’s purchasing decision. The 

Department invites comments on the 

costs and benefits of retaining the rule 

as originally interpreted and on the new 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 100 / Friday, May 23, 2014 / Proposed Rules 29991 

proposal to prohibit only an increase in 

the price of the carriage of baggage if not 

purchased with the fare. 

Finally, the Department is also 

contemplating revising the postpurchase price provision to better 

address the issue of ‘‘mistaken fares.’’ 

As explained above, section 399.88 

essentially bans sellers of air 

transportation from increasing the price 

of an airline ticket to a consumer who 

has purchased and paid for the ticket in 

full. As a result, the Department’s 

Enforcement Office explained in a 

guidance document that, under section 

399.88, ‘‘if a consumer purchases a fare 

and that consumer receives 

confirmation (such as a confirmation 

email and/or the purchase appears on 

their credit card statement or online 

account summary) of their purchase, 

then the seller of air transportation 

cannot increase the price of that air 

transportation to that consumer, even 

when the fare is a ‘mistake.’ ’’ Since 

then, the Enforcement Office has 

investigated a number of incidents 

where passengers complained that 

airlines or ticket agents would not honor 

tickets that had been paid for in full 

because the sellers of the air 

transportation erroneously let them 

book flights for less than the actual 

value. The Enforcement Office has 

become concerned that increasingly 

mistaken fares are getting posted on 

frequent-flyer community blogs and 

travel-deal sites, and individuals are 

purchasing these tickets in bad faith and 

not on the mistaken belief that a good 

deal is now available. We solicit 

comment on how best to address the 

problem of individual bad actors while 

still ensuring that airlines and other 

sellers of air transportation are required 

to honor mistaken fares that were 

reasonably relied upon by consumers. 

Additionally, industry and consumers 

have raised questions regarding when 

transportation is considered to touch 

upon the United States and thus 

covered by the prohibition on postpurchase price increases. Currently, 

section 399.88 states that it is an unfair 

and deceptive practice for any seller of 

scheduled air transportation within, to, 

or from the United States or of a tour or 

tour component that includes scheduled 

air transportation within, to, or from the 

United States, to increase the price of 

that air transportation to a consumer 

after the air transportation has been 

purchased by the consumer, except in 

the case of a government-imposed tax or 

fee and only if the passenger is advised 

of a possible increase before purchasing 

a ticket. We are considering defining the 

phrase ‘‘air transportation within, to, or 

from the United States’’ for the purposes 

of this section to mean any 

transportation that begins or ends in the 

United States or involves a connection 

or stopover in the United States that is 

24 hours or longer. We ask for 

comments on whether this new 

definition would provide greater clarity 

to members of the public and the 

regulated entities on when sellers of air 

transportation would be required to 

honor mistaken fares. 

10. Amendments/Corrections to Second 

Enhancing Airline Passenger Protections 

Rule and Certain Other Provisions 

In response to questions and concerns 

from airlines and other regulated 

entities, the proposed amendments to 

the rules described below are intended 

to correct drafting errors, provide 

clarifications and reflect minor changes 

to the second Enhancing Airline 

Passenger Protections rule to increase 

consistency and conform to guidance 

issued by the Department’s Enforcement 

Office regarding its interpretation of the 

rule. On its own initiative, the 

Department is also making 

administrative changes to another rule. 

a. Baggage Disclosure Requirements 

Under Sections 399.85(a) and (b) 

In sections 399.85(a) and 399.85(b) 

the final rule inadvertently refers to 

Web sites that are ‘‘accessible’’ from the 

United States. In this NPRM, we are 

proposing to codify the guidance given 

in Frequently Asked Question #25, page 

25, and amend sections 399.85(a) and 

399.85(b) to reflect the intended 

applicability of those sections to Web 

sites ‘‘marketed to’’ U.S. consumers. 

This change also makes sections 

399.85(a) and 399.85(b) consistent with 

the other provisions in 14 CFR 399.85 

that apply to Web sites that market air 

transportation to U.S. consumers. The 

Department invites comment on this 

proposal. 

In further regard to section 399.85(b), 

after issuing the rule and assisting 

carriers and online travel agents with 

their efforts to come into compliance, it 

became clear that the Enforcement 

Office needed to clarify two aspects of 

this disclosure rule. The first issue is 

when a carrier or agent needs to notify 

a passenger that ‘‘baggage fees may 

apply.’’ The rule text states that an agent 

or carrier must ‘‘clearly and 

prominently disclose on the first screen 

in which the 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 see these baggage 

fees.’’ Although section 399.85(b) may 

be amended in accordance with the 

proposal regarding the ‘‘[d]isplay of 

ancillary service fees through all sales 

channels,’’ if the Department decides 

not to adopt that proposal it would 

amend section 399.85(b) to conform to 

the guidance previously issued. In that 

case, section 399.85(b) would state that 

the first screen on which the carrier 

offers a fare quotation after a passenger 

initiates a search for flight itineraries 

must include notification that baggage 

fees may apply. For example, if a 

passenger performs a search for flights 

from San Francisco to Dallas on a carrier 

or agent’s Web site, the first page 

displayed in response to that search that 

includes a fare quote must also note that 

baggage fees may apply. The second 

issue is that the Department wishes to 

clarify that in showing ‘‘where 

consumers can see these baggage fees,’’ 

the search results screen of the Web site 

of the agent or carrier must include a 

hyperlink that takes the consumer to the 

up-to-date and accurate baggage fee 

listings. An agent may link to a chart of 

information that it generates itself, to a 

third party site containing the 

information, or to the carrier’s page, as 

it is allowed to do under the current 

rule. 

b. Standard Applicable to Reportable 

Tarmac Delays Under Part 244 

In 14 CFR Part 244, the Department 

requires U.S. and foreign air carriers to 

file Form 244 ‘‘Tarmac Delay Report’’ 

with the Department with respect to any 

covered flight that experienced a 

lengthy departure or arrival delay on the 

tarmac at a large, medium, small, or 

non-hub U.S. airport. A ‘‘lengthy’’ 

tarmac delay for purposes of this report 

is defined in Part 244 as any tarmac 

delay that lasts ‘‘three hours or more.’’ 

This standard is inconsistent with the 

standard applicable to the tarmac delay 

contingency plan requirements under 14 

CFR Part 259 and the existing reporting 

requirements of BTS, both of which 

refer to any tarmac delay of ‘‘more than 

three hours.’’ In a Frequently Asked 

Questions document issued by the 

Department following the issuance of 

the final rule for Part 244, we 

acknowledged this discrepancy and 

stated that we intend to correct it in a 

future rulemaking. In this NPRM, we are 

proposing to amend the rule text of Part 

244 and to adopt the ‘‘more than three 

hours’’ standard so this Part would be 

consistent with other Parts of our rules. 

Under this proposal, any tarmac delay 

that lasts exactly three hours would not 

be covered under the requirements of 

Part 244. 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
29992 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 100 / Friday, May 23, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

c. Civil Penalty for Tarmac Delay 

Violations 

In the first and second Enhancing 

Airline Passenger Protections final rule, 

the Department stated that failure to 

comply with the assurances required by 

the tarmac delay rule will be considered 

an unfair and deceptive practice within 

the meaning of 49 U.S.C. 41712 that is 

subject to enforcement action by the 

Department. Under 49 U.S.C. 46301, the 

Department has authority to impose a 

civil penalty of ‘‘of not more than 

$27,500’’ for each violation of the 

specifically listed aviation-related laws 

and regulations, which would include 

DOT’s tarmac delay rule. Nevertheless, 

in recent years, there have been 

questions raised as to whether the 

Department has the authority under the 

civil penalty statute (49 U.S.C. 46301) to 

assess a civil penalty on a per passenger 

basis for tarmac delay violations. As 

such, we are amending the tarmac delay 

rule to clarify that the Department may 

impose penalties for tarmac delay 

violations on a per passenger basis. 

It has long been the Department’s 

policy that each consumer affected by 

an unlawful carrier practice is a separate 

violation. For example, if a flight is 

canceled and ten people on that flight 

cannot be rerouted and thus are entitled 

to a refund of their unused 

transportation, and the carrier fails to 

comply with the Department’s refund 

rules, each person whose refund was 

not provided in compliance with our 

rules would constitute a separate 

violation. Similarly, if five people were 

involuntarily denied boarding from an 

oversold flight and none were paid 

denied boarding compensation as 

required by our oversales rule that 

would be five violations. Our authority 

to calculate a civil penalty on a per 

passenger basis for tarmac delay 

violations is just as clear. Each 

passenger on a flight that experiences a 

tarmac delay that exceeds three hours 

for domestic flights or four hours for 

international flights experiences the 

inconvenience that this rule was 

designed to prevent and gives rise to a 

separate violation. Likewise, each 

passenger who is not offered food and 

water at the two-hour mark during a 

tarmac delay gives rise to a separate 

violation. Indeed, a number of carriers 

have recognized this fact and 

complained in public filings and press 

reports of the prospect of incurring 

$27,500 per passenger in fines for 

tarmac delay violations. 

The purpose of the tarmac delay rule 

is clearly to mitigate hardships for 

individual airline passengers during 

lengthy tarmac delays. To that end, the 

rule requires carriers to develop 

contingency plans for lengthy tarmac 

delays, and to provide an assurance that 

the carrier will not allow an aircraft to 

remain on the tarmac for more than 

three hours for domestic flights and for 

more than four hours for international 

flights without each passenger being 

given an opportunity to deplane. The 

preambles to both the first and second 

Enhancing Airline Passenger Protections 

final rules refer to protecting individual 

passengers. Carriers are also required to 

tell passengers what they can expect by 

posting their contingency plans on their 

Web site. To the extent that carriers do 

not live up to the assurances that they 

provided to any passenger, it is an 

unfair and deceptive practice with 

respect to each affected passenger and 

therefore a separate violation of 49 

U.S.C. 41712 with respect to each such 

passenger. 

d. Required Oral Disclosure of Material 

Restrictions on Travel Vouchers Offered 

to Potential Volunteers in Oversale 

Situations Under Part 250 

Another inconsistency in the second 

Enhancing Airline Passenger Protections 

final rule concerns the requirement in 

14 CFR Part 250 to provide oral 

disclosure of any material restrictions 

on travel vouchers offered to any 

passenger a carrier solicits to voluntarily 

give up his or her confirmed reservation 

on an oversold flight. The preamble to 

the final rule discussed extensively the 

reason for requiring such oral disclosure 

to both voluntarily and involuntarily 

bumped passengers who are orally 

offered a voucher, but inadvertently, the 

new Part 250 rule text only requires oral 

disclosures to passengers who are 

involuntarily denied boarding. The rule 

text, as it currently stands, allows 

carriers to provide such disclosure 

solely by written notice to passengers 

who are orally solicited to be volunteers 

in exchange for travel vouchers. 

However, for the reasons discussed in 

the preamble to the second Enhancing 

Airline Passenger Protections rule, we 

are unconvinced that such written 

notice alone is adequate at times when 

the solicitation itself is oral and 

passengers are constrained by time 

pressure to make a quick decision as to 

whether to volunteer. Many times, the 

written notice is incorporated in the 

printed contents of the travel voucher, 

and the passenger frequently would not 

have time to review the notice before he 

or she commits to the acceptance of the 

voucher. We continue to believe that a 

brief oral summary of the material 

restrictions applicable to the travel 

vouchers that are orally offered to 

potential volunteers (as well as 

continuation of the requirement to 

orally disclose this information to 

involuntarily bumped passengers who 

are offered the option of a travel 

voucher) will provide further 

protections to these passengers so they 

can make an informed decision. As 

such, we are proposing to amend 

section 250.2b(c) to reflect this notion. 

Under this proposal, when carriers 

orally solicit volunteers and offer travel 

vouchers as incentives, they would also 

be required to orally describe any 

material restrictions applicable to the 

travel vouchers. 

e. Limitation of Flight Status 

Notification Requirement of 14 CFR 

259.8 

Section 259.8 requires that covered 

carriers must notify passengers and 

other interested persons of flight status 

changes within 30 minutes after the 

carrier becomes aware of such changes. 

Flight status changes in this section 

include a flight cancellation, a delay of 

more than 30 minutes, or a diversion. 

Although the preamble and rule text did 

not specify how far in advance of the 

date of the scheduled operation carriers 

must comply with the notification 

requirements, the Frequently Asked 

Questions guidance document issued by 

the Enforcement Office in relation to the 

second Enhancing Airline Passenger 

Protections rule stated that, as an 

enforcement policy, the rule applies to 

any flight status changes that occur 

within seven calendar days of the 

scheduled date of the operation. See 

Frequently Asked Questions, Section 

VIII, #2. We further explained that the 

purpose of this rule is to avoid or reduce 

unnecessary waits at, or pointless trips 

to, an airport, which are most likely to 

occur on the date of the scheduled 

travel. Therefore, the closer to the date 

of the scheduled operation, the more 

important it is for carriers to provide 

notice of a flight status change 

promptly. In this NPRM, we propose to 

codify this ‘‘seven-calendar-day’’ 

timeframe as we believe that requiring 

carriers to provide notifications of 

schedule changes within 30 minutes 

after they become aware of such changes 

is not necessary if the changes occur 

more than seven days before the date of 

the operation. To require notifications 

within 30 minutes for changes occurring 

more than seven days in advance of the 

date of operation would likely greatly 

increase carriers’ burden yet result in 

little additional benefit to the public. 

We do emphasize, however, that 

notifications of changes that occur 

earlier than the seven-day threshold are 

still required to be delivered to the 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 100 / Friday, May 23, 2014 / Proposed Rules 29993 

passengers in a timely manner; see 14 

CFR 259.5(b)(10). 

We are also proposing some editorial 

changes to section 259.8 to clarify that 

flight status change notifications 

required in this section should be 

provided not only to passengers, but 

also to any member of the public who 

may be affected by the changes, 

including persons meeting passengers at 

airports or escorting them to or from 

airports. This is a point we made clear 

in the preamble of the final rule 

document but not in the rule text. In 

this regard, we are proposing to change 

the word ‘‘passengers’’ to ‘‘consumers’’ 

in the title of section 259.8, to change 

the first instance of the word 

‘‘passengers’’ in subsection 259.8(a)(1) 

to the phrase ‘‘passengers and other 

interested persons,’’ and to change the 

second instance of that word to 

‘‘subscribers.’’ 

f. Removing the Rebating Provision in 

Section 399.80(h) 

Section 399.80(h) states that it is an 

unfair or deceptive practice or unfair 

method of competition for a ticket agent 

to advertise or sell air transportation at 

less than the rates specified in the tariff 

of the air carrier, or offer rebates or 

concessions, or permit persons to obtain 

air transportation at less than the lawful 

fares and rates. This provision is a 

vestige of the period before deregulation 

of the airline industry. Domestic air 

fares were deregulated effective 1983, 

and in most cases international air fares 

to and from the United States are no 

longer contained in tariffs that specify 

‘‘lawful’’ fares. In those markets where 

international fares are still subject to 

regulation, carriers that do not comply 

with their tariff are potentially subject to 

enforcement action under 49 U.S.C. 

41510 concerning adherence to tariffs or 

49 U.S.C. 41712 concerning unfair or 

deceptive practices and unfair methods 

of competition (the statutory basis for 

section 399.80(h)). The Department’s 

Enforcement Office has said that it will 

pursue enforcement action against a 

carrier that does not comply with its 

tariff when there is clear evidence of a 

pattern of direct consumer fraud or 

deception, invidious discrimination, or 

violations of the antitrust laws. It has 

been the longstanding policy of that 

office to decline to prosecute instances 

of noncompliance with tariff obligations 

that result in benefits to consumers 

absent clear evidence of such behavior. 

(See the Frequently Asked Questions for 

‘‘Rule #2’’ of the Enhancing Airline 

Passenger Protections regulation, 

www.dot.gov/individuals/air-consumer/

aviation-rules, section X, question 38a, 

footnote 1.) There have been no 

enforcement actions solely for tariff 

compliance for over 20 years, and 

should such action become appropriate 

in the future it can proceed under the 

authority of sections 41510 or 41712. 14 

CFR 399.80(h) is not necessary, and 

consequently we are proposing to 

remove this provision. 

Regulatory Analyses and Notices 

A. Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory 

Planning and Review) and DOT 

Regulatory Policies and Procedures 

This action has been determined to be 

significant under Executive Order 12866 

and the Department of Transportation’s 

Regulatory Policies and Procedures. It 

has been reviewed by the Office of 

Management and Budget under that 

Executive Order. The Regulatory 

Evaluation finds that the costs for the 

proposed rule exceed the monetized 

benefits as the benefits from all 

provisions, with the exception of 

provision 2, could not be measured and 

valued with confidence. The benefits 

which could be estimated for provision 

2 do not include the value of all likely 

benefits, as values for some of those 

could not be adequately estimated. The 

total present value of monetized 

passenger benefits from the proposed 

requirements over a 10-year period at a 

7% discount rate is $25.1 million and 

the total present value of monetized 

costs incurred by carriers and other 

sellers of air transportation over a 10- 

year period at a 7% discount rate is 

$80.5 million. The net present cost of 

the rule for 10 years at a 7% discount 

rate is $53.8 million. However, if the 

value of the unquantified benefits, per 

passenger, is any amount greater than 

one cent, and unquantified costs are 

minimal, then the entire rule is net 

beneficial. In other words, if passengers 

are willing to pay, on average, one 

penny per trip for all eight provisions of 

the proposal, then the value of the 

proposal outweighs its costs. 

Below, we have included a table 

outlining the projected costs and 

benefits of this rulemaking. 

TABLE—SUMMARY OF COSTS AND BENEFITS OVER 10 YEARS, DISCOUNTED AT 7 PERCENT

[Millions $] 

Provisions 

10 Year analysis period 

7% Discount rate 

Costs Benefits Net benefits 

1 Definition of Ticket Agent 

Monetized Costs and Benefits ..................................................................................................... N/A N/A N/A 

2 Carriers provide ancillary fee information to ticket agencies for display 

Monetized Costs and Benefits ..................................................................................................... $46.2 $25.1 ($21.1) 

Unquantified/non-monetized benefits or costs Value of Unquantified Benefits per PAX Needed 

Greater Competition and Lower Overall Prices for Ancillary service fees for Benefits to Equal or Exceed Costs. 

Greater Efficiency by Consumers in Flight Purchases Less than $0.00 (21.06 M net cost/1,666 M 

Unquantified/non-monetized Costs: travelers purchasing via internet—10 yrs). 

May Inhibit New Entrants 

May Decrease Carrier Flexibility to Customize Services 

3 & 4 Expand reporting threshold to 0.50% and reporting as mainline carriers and code-share partners combined 

Monetized Costs and Benefits ..................................................................................................... $29.8 N/A ($29.8) 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
29994 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 100 / Friday, May 23, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE—SUMMARY OF COSTS AND BENEFITS OVER 10 YEARS, DISCOUNTED AT 7 PERCENT—Continued 

[Millions $] 

Provisions 

10 Year analysis period 

7% Discount rate 

Costs Benefits Net benefits 

Unquantified/non-monetized benefits: Value of Unquantified Benefits per PAX Needed 

Improved On-Time Performance for Newly Reporting Carriers and Code-Share Flights for Benefits to Equal or Exceed Costs. 

for All Reporting Carriers $0.7 ($29.75 M net cost/43.9 M PAX on newly 

Improved Handling of Baggage for Newly Reporting Carriers and Code-Share Flights reporting carriers 10 yrs) to Less than $0.00 

for All Reporting Carriers ($29.75M net cost/7,335 M all domestic PAX 

Decrease in Oversales 10 yrs). 

Improved Customer Good Will Towards Carriers 

Insurance Value 

Improved Public Oversight of the Industry 

Unquantified/non-monetized Costs: 

Increased Training Costs for Gathering Data to Report (some carriers only) 

Increased Management Costs To Improve Carrier Performance 

5 Minimum customer service standards for ticket agents 

Monetized Costs and Benefits ..................................................................................................... $3.0 N/A ($3.0) 

Unquantified/non-monetized benefits: Value of Unquantified Benefits per PAX Needed 

Improved Customer Good Will Towards Ticket Agents for Benefits to Equal or Exceed Costs. 

Reduced Legal and Administrative Costs to Manage Complaints Less than $0.00 (2.95 M net cost/3,405 M 

Faster Resolution of Complaints/Refunds domestic PAX purchasing via travel agents 

Potential Increase in Competitiveness of Travel Agents vs. Carriers with Customer 10 yrs). 

Protections Similar to Carriers 

Unquantified/non-monetized Costs: 

Increased Training Costs 

Increased Management Costs 

Increased Staff Time 

6 Disclosure of code-share segments in schedules, advertisements and communications with consumers 

Monetized Costs and Benefits ..................................................................................................... N/A N/A N/A 

7 Disclosure of carriers marketed by ticket agents (no proposed rule text—seeking comments) 

8 Prohibition on undisclosed biasing 

Monetized Costs and Benefits ..................................................................................................... N/A N/A N/A 

Unquantified/non-monetized benefits: 

Decrease in Incentive Payments to Ticket Agents from Carriers Potentially Leading to Lower Costs to Consumers 

Potential Decrease in Consumers Not Noticing Flights which Better Meet Their Criteria 

Unquantified/non-monetized Costs: 

Programming Costs to Change Ranking Software/Systems or to Post Notice 

Legal Costs to Adjust Existing Contracts Currently Requiring Preferential Display 

9 Prohibition of post-purchase price increase for ancillary service fees 

Monetized Costs and Benefits ..................................................................................................... N/A N/A N/A 

Unquantified/non-monetized benefits: 

Improved Customer Good Will Towards Ticket Agents 

Reduced Legal and Administrative Costs to Manage Complaints 

TOTAL (All Proposed Provisions)* ....................................................................................... $80.5 $25.1 ($53.8) 

Value of Unquantified Benefits Per Passenger Needed for ........................................................ ........................ $0.01 ........................

* Note: Details may not sum to totals in table due to rounding. 

We invite comment on the 

quantification of costs and benefits for 

each provision, as well as the 

methodology used to develop our cost 

and benefit estimates. We also seek 

comment on how unquantified costs 

and benefits could be measured. More 

detail on the estimates within this table 

can be found in the preliminary 

Regulatory Impact Analysis associated 

with this proposed rule. 

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires an agency to 

review regulations to assess their impact 

on small entities unless the agency 

determines that a rule is not expected to 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

The regulatory initiatives discussed in 

this NPRM would have some impact on 

some small entities. A direct air carrier 

or foreign air carrier is a small business 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 100 / Friday, May 23, 2014 / Proposed Rules 29995 

if it provides air transportation only 

with small aircraft (i.e., aircraft with up 

to 60 seats/18,000 pound payload 

capacity). See 14 CFR 399.73. A travel 

agency is considered to be small if it 

makes $3.5 million or less in annual 

revenues. While most of the proposals 

in this rulemaking impact carriers, 

certain elements also impact ticket/

travel agents. 

The Initial Regulatory Flexibility 

Analysis found that there are some 

costs, though not substantial, to certain 

small entities from provision 3 which 

would expand the definition of a 

reporting carrier to one that accounts for 

at least 0.5% of domestic scheduled 

passenger revenues; provision 4, which 

would expand the reporting 

requirements for reporting carriers to 

include an additional, combined set of 

reports for both the carrier’s own flights 

and its code-share partner flights; and 

provision 2, which would require that 

U.S. and foreign air carriers and ticket 

agents disclose certain ancillary service 

fees to a consumer who requests such 

information. 

Our analysis estimates that a total of 

87 small U.S. and foreign air carriers 

may be impacted by this rulemaking. 

We believe that the economic impact on 

these entities would not be significant. 

The estimated cost to small carriers 

from all the provisions would be $5.1 

million for the first year and $24.7 

million for a 10-year period discounted 

at 7 percent. On the basis of this 

examination, I certify that this 

rulemaking would not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. A copy of the 

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

has been placed in docket. 

C. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism) 

This NPRM has been analyzed in 

accordance with the principles and 

criteria contained in Executive Order 

13132 (‘‘Federalism’’). This notice does 

not propose any provision that (1) has 

substantial direct effects on the States, 

the relationship between the national 

government and the States, or the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government; (2) imposes 

substantial direct compliance costs on 

State and local governments; or (3) 

preempts State law. States are already 

preempted from regulating in this area 

by the Airline Deregulation Act, 49 

U.S.C. 41713. Therefore, the 

consultation and funding requirements 

of Executive Order 13132 do not apply. 

D. Executive Order 13084 

This NPRM has been analyzed in 

accordance with the principles and 

criteria contained in Executive Order 

13084 (‘‘Consultation and Coordination 

with Indian Tribal Governments’’). 

Because none of the options on which 

we are seeking comment would 

significantly or uniquely affect the 

communities of the Indian tribal 

governments or impose substantial 

direct compliance costs on them, the 

funding and consultation requirements 

of Executive Order 13084 do not apply. 

E. Paperwork Reduction Act 

This NPRM proposes two new 

collections of information that would 

require approval by the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) under 

the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

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

Under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 

before an agency submits a proposed 

collection of information to OMB for 

approval, it must publish a document in 

the Federal Register providing notice of 

the proposed collection of information 

and a 60-day comment period, and must 

otherwise consult with members of the 

public and affected agencies concerning 

the proposed collection. 

The first collection of information 

proposed here is a requirement that 

more carriers report on-time 

performance, mishandled baggage, and 

oversales data to the Department (i.e., 

expansion of reporting carriers from any 

U.S. airline that accounts for at least one 

percent of annual domestic scheduled 

passenger revenue to any U.S. airline 

that accounts for at least 0.5 percent of 

annual domestic scheduled-passenger 

revenues). The second information 

collection is a requirement that 

mainline carriers provide enhanced 

reporting for their domestic code-share 

partner operations including requiring 

reporting carriers to separately report 

on-time performance, mishandled 

baggage, and oversales data for all 

domestic scheduled passenger flights 

marketed by the reporting carriers. 

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 for More Carriers To 

Report On-Time Performance, 

Mishandled Baggage, and Oversales 

Data to the Department 

Respondents: U.S. carriers that 

operate passenger service and account 

for at least 0.5 percent of domestic 

passenger service, but less than 1 

percent of domestic passenger service 

(eight new reporting carriers, among 

which five carriers do not market 

directly to consumers and three carriers 

market directly to consumers). 

Estimated Annual Burden on 

Respondents: The first-year cost for 

eight new reporting carriers would total 

26,877 hours, or 3,360 hours on average 

(for eight carriers). For each of the five 

new reporting carriers that do not 

market directly to consumers, the costs 

would include the following: (1) Onetime cost to set up systems to collect 

and report the data for each newly 

reporting carrier of 1,118 hours (set-up 

costs of $100,762 divided by hourly cost 

of $90.10, both figures derived from 

respondent interviews); and (2) an 

annual cost for each newly reporting 

carrier to report data regarding on-time 

performance, baggage, and oversales of 

496 hours (480 hours to collect data for 

form 234 and 16 hours to collect data for 

form 251). For each of the three new 

reporting carrier that market directly to 

consumers, the costs would include the 

following: (1) One-time cost to set up 

systems to collect and report the data for 

each newly reporting carrier of 1,118 

hours (set-up costs of $100,762 divided 

by hourly cost of $90.10, both figures 

derived from respondent interviews); (2) 

an annual cost for each newly reporting 

carriers to report data regarding on-time 

performance, baggage, and oversales of 

496 hours (480 hours to collect data for 

form 234 and 16 hours to collect data for 

form 251); and (3) one-time cost for 

setting up systems to post flight on-time 

performance information on the carrier’s 

Web site of 4,655 hours (set-up costs of 

$419,394 divided by hourly cost of 

$90.10). 

Estimated Total Annual Burden: First 

year costs total 26,877 which would 

include the system set-up costs for new 

reporting carriers of 8,944 hours (8 

carriers times 1,118 hours each), annual 

labor cost for new reporting carriers to 

report data of 3,968 hours (8 carriers 

times 496 hours each), 13,965 hours (for 

three carriers to set up systems to post 

on-time performance data on their Web 

sites). Burdens for subsequent years 

would be 4,528 hours on average 

annually for reporting carriers to collect 

and report their own data regarding ontime performance, baggage, and 

oversales. 

Frequency: Monthly for on-time 

performance and baggage reports and 

posting on-time performance on 

marketing carriers’ Web sites; quarterly 

for filing oversales report; estimates of 

burden are annual. 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
29996 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 100 / Friday, May 23, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

2. Requirement for Reporting Carriers 

That Market Code-Share Flights To 

Report Their Code-Share Flights in 

Addition to Their Own Flights To 

Provide Enhanced Reporting for 

Domestic Code-Share Partner 

Operations 

Respondents: U.S. carriers that 

operate passenger service and account 

for at least 0.5 percent of domestic 

passenger service and market code-share 

partners (9 existing reporting carriers 

that market code-share flights). 

Estimated Annual Burden on 

Respondents: The annual cost for each 

code-share partner to process and report 

data regarding on-time performance, 

mishandled baggage, and oversales to 

each separate marketing, reporting 

carrier with which it code-shares would 

be 496 hours (480 hours to collect data 

for form 234 and 16 hours to collect data 

for form 251), whether or not the 

marketing carrier compensates its codeshare partner for the costs or the codeshare partner takes the burden itself. 

Estimated Total Annual Burden: The 

total first-year burden would be 30,752 

hours (62 code-share partners’ times 496 

hours each). Each year after the first 

year, the total average burden would be 

34,731 hours (higher than the first year 

to reflect the rate of growth of flights 

and passengers over the 10 year period 

of analysis). These estimates likely 

overestimate the actual costs to some 

carriers that code-share with multiple 

partners. Carriers that code-share any 

flights with more than one code-share 

partners should experience some 

efficiencies in the collection, 

management, and reporting of data 

regarding those flights for use by 

multiple code-share partners. 

Frequency: Monthly reports for ontime performance and mishandled 

baggage; quarterly reports for oversales; 

estimates of burden are annual. 

The Department invites interested 

persons to submit comments on any 

aspect of each of these two information 

collections, including the following: (1) 

The necessity and utility of the 

information collection, (2) the accuracy 

of the estimate of the burden, (3) ways 

to enhance the quality, utility, and 

clarity of the information to be 

collected, and (4) ways to minimize the 

burden of collection without reducing 

the quality of the collected information. 

Comments submitted in response to this 

notice will be summarized or included, 

or both, in the request for OMB approval 

of these information collections. 

F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

The Department has determined that 

the requirements of Title II of the 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

do not apply to this NPRM. 

Issued this 21st day of May, 2014, in 

Washington, DC. 

Anthony R. Foxx, 

Secretary of Transportation. 

List of Subjects 

14 CFR Part 234 

Air carriers, Consumer protection, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

14 CFR Part 244 

Air carriers, Consumer protection, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

14 CFR Part 250 

Air carriers, Consumer protection, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

14 CFR Part 255 

Air carriers, Antitrust. 

14 CFR Part 256 

Air carriers, Antitrust. 

14 CFR Part 257 

Air carriers, Air rates and fares, 

Consumer protection, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

14 CFR Part 259 

Air carriers, Air rates and fares, 

Consumer protection. 

14 CFR Part 399 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Air carriers, Air rates and 

fares, Air taxis, Consumer protection, 

Small businesses. 

PART 234—[AMENDED] 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 234 

revised to read as follows: 

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

and 417. 

■ 2. In § 234.2, the definition of 

‘‘reporting carrier’’ is revised to read as 

follows: 

§ 234.2 Definitions. 

* * * * * 

Reporting carrier means an air carrier 

certificated under 49 U.S.C. 41102 that 

accounted for at least 0.5 percent of 

domestic scheduled-passenger revenues 

in the most recently reported 12-month 

period as defined by the Department’s 

Office of Airline Information, and as 

reported to the Department pursuant to 

Part 241 of this title. Reporting carriers 

will be identified periodically in 

accounting and reporting directives 

issued by the Office of Airline 

Information. 

* * * * * 

■ 3. Section 234.3 is revised to read as 

follows: 

§ 234.3 Applicability. 

This part applies to certain domestic 

scheduled passenger flights that are 

held out to the public by certificated air 

carriers that account for at least 0.5 

percent of domestic scheduled 

passenger revenues. Certain provisions 

also apply to voluntary reporting of ontime performance by carriers. 

■ 4. Section 234.4 is amended by 

revising paragraph (a) introductory text 

and adding paragraph (k) to read as 

follows: 

§ 234.4 Reporting of on-time performance. 

(a) Each reporting carrier shall file 

BTS Form 234 ‘‘On-Time Flight 

Performance Report’’ with the Office of 

Airline Information of the Department’s 

Bureau of Transportation Statistics on a 

monthly basis, setting forth the 

information for each of its reportable 

flights operated by the reporting carrier 

and held out to the public on the 

reporting carrier’s Web site and the Web 

sites of major online travel agencies, or 

in other generally recognized sources of 

schedule information. (See also 

paragraph (k) of this section.) 

* * * * * 

(k) Each reporting carrier shall file a 

separate BTS Form 234 ‘‘On-Time Flight 

Performance Report’’ with the Office of 

Airline Information on a monthly basis, 

setting forth the information for each of 

its reportable flights held out with the 

reporting carrier’s code on the reporting 

carrier’s Web site, on the Web sites of 

major online travel agencies, or in other 

generally recognized sources of 

schedule information, including 

reportable flights operated by any codeshare partner that is a certificated air 

carrier or commuter air carrier. The 

report shall be made in a form and 

manner consistent with the 

requirements set forth in paragraphs (a) 

through (j) of this section. 

■ 5. Section 234.6 is revised to read as 

follows: 

§ 234.6 Baggage-handling statistics. 

(a) Each reporting carrier shall report 

monthly to the Department on a 

domestic system basis, excluding 

charter flights, the total number of 

checked bags, including gate checked 

baggage, the total number of 

wheelchairs and scooters transported in 

the aircraft cargo compartment, the total 

number of mishandled checked bags, 

including gate checked baggage, and the 

number of mishandled wheelchairs and 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 100 / Friday, May 23, 2014 / Proposed Rules 29997 

scooters that were carried in the cargo 

compartment. Each reporting carrier 

shall submit a separate monthly report 

on the mishandled baggage, wheelchairs 

and scooters as described above for all 

domestic scheduled passenger flight 

segments that are held out with the 

reporting carrier’s code on the reporting 

carrier’s Web site, on the Web sites of 

major online travel agencies, or in other 

generally recognized sources of 

schedule information, including flights 

operated by code-share partners that are 

certificated air carriers or commuter air 

carriers. For flights operated by a codeshare partner that also carry passengers 

ticketed under another carrier’s code, 

the reporting carrier shall only report 

baggage information applicable to 

passengers ticketed under its own code. 

(b) This information shall be 

submitted to the Department within 15 

days after the end of the month to which 

the information applies and must be 

submitted with the transmittal letter 

accompanying the data for on-time 

performance in the form and manner set 

forth in accounting and reporting 

directives issued by the Director, Office 

of Airline Information. 

PART 244—[AMENDED] 

■ 6. The authority citation for part 244 

continues to read as follows: 

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

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

■ 7. Section 244.2 is amended by 

revising the last sentence of paragraph 

(a) to read as follows: 

§ 244.2 Applicability. 

(a) * * * Covered carriers must report 

all passenger operations that experience 

a tarmac time of more than 3 hours at 

a U.S. airport. 

* * * * * 

■ 8. Section 244.3 is amended by 

revising paragraph (a) to read as follows: 

§ 244.3 Reporting of tarmac delay data. 

(a) Each covered carrier shall file BTS 

Form 244 ‘‘Tarmac Delay Report’’ with 

the Office of Airline Information of the 

Department’s Bureau of Transportation 

Statistics setting forth the information 

for each of its covered flights that 

experienced a tarmac delay of more than 

3 hours, including diverted flights and 

cancelled flights on which the 

passengers were boarded and then 

deplaned before the cancellation. The 

reports are due within 15 days after the 

end of any month during which the 

carrier experienced any reportable 

tarmac delay of more than 3 hours at a 

U.S. airport. 

* * * * * 

PART 250—[AMENDED] 

■ 9. The authority citation for part 250 

is revised to read as follows: 

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

413 and 417. 

■ 10. Section 250.2b is amended by 

revising paragraph (c) to read as follows: 

§ 250.2b Carriers to request volunteers for 

denied boarding. 

* * * * * 

(c) If a carrier offers free or reduced 

rate air transportation as compensation 

to volunteers, the carrier must disclose 

all material restrictions, including but 

not limited to administrative fees, 

advance purchase or capacity 

restrictions, and blackout dates 

applicable to the offer before the 

passenger decides whether to give up 

his or her confirmed reserved space on 

the flight in exchange for the free or 

reduced rate transportation. If the free or 

reduced rate air transportation is offered 

orally to potential volunteers, the carrier 

shall also orally provide a brief 

description of the material restrictions 

on that transportation at the same time 

that the offer is made. 

■ 11. Section 250.5 is amended by 

adding a sentence at the end of 

paragraph (c)(3) to read as follows: 

§ 250.5 Amount of denied boarding 

compensation for passengers denied 

boarding involuntarily. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * (See also section 250.9(c)). 

* * * * * 

■ 12. Section 250.10 is revised to read 

as follows: 

§ 250.10 Report of passengers denied 

confirmed space. 

(a) Each reporting carrier as defined in 

§ 234.2 of this chapter and any carrier 

that voluntarily submits data pursuant 

to § 234.7 of this chapter shall file, on 

a quarterly basis, the information 

specified in BTS Form 251. The 

reporting basis shall be flight segments 

originating in the United States operated 

by the reporting carrier. The reports 

must be submitted within 30 days after 

the end of the quarter covered by the 

report. The calendar quarters 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 offered. Data 

shall not be included for inbound 

international flights. 

(b) Each reporting carrier and 

voluntary reporting carrier shall file a 

separate BTS Form 251 for all flight 

segments originating in the United 

States operated under the reporting 

carrier’s code, including flight segments 

operated by a code-share partner that is 

a certificated air carrier or commuter air 

carrier using aircraft that have a 

designed passenger capacity of 30 or 

more seats. For code-share flight 

segments that also carry passengers 

ticketed under another carrier’s code, 

the reporting carrier shall only report 

information applicable to passengers 

ticketed under its own code. 

PART 255—[REMOVED AND 

RESERVED] 

■ 13. Under the authority of 49 U.S.C. 

chapters 401 and 417, part 255 is 

removed and reserved. 

■ 14. Part 256 is added to read as 

follows: 

PART 256—ELECTRONIC AIRLINE 

INFORMATION SYSTEMS 

Sec. 

256.1 Purpose. 

256.2 Applicability. 

256.3 Definitions. 

256.4 Accurate EAIS display of information 

and prohibition of undisclosed display 

bias. 

256.5 Prohibition against inducing 

undisclosed bias. 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. chapters 401 and 417. 

§ 256.1 Purpose. 

(a) The purpose of this part is to set 

forth requirements for the operation of 

electronic airline information systems 

that provide air carrier or foreign air 

carrier schedule, fare, rule, or 

availability information, including, but 

not limited to, global distribution 

systems (GDSs) and Internet flight 

search engines, for use by consumers, 

carriers, ticket agents, and other 

business entities as well as for related 

air transportation distribution practices 

so as to prevent unfair and deceptive 

practices in the distribution and sale of 

air transportation. 

(b) Nothing in this part exempts any 

person from the operation of the 

antitrust laws set forth in subsection (a) 

of the first section of the Clayton Act (15 

U.S.C. 12). 

§ 256.2 Applicability. 

(a) This part applies to any air carrier, 

foreign air carrier, or ticket agent that: 

(1) Creates or develops the content of 

an electronic airline information system 

that combines the schedules, fares, 

rules, or availability information of 

more than one air carrier or foreign air 

carrier for the distribution or sale in the 

United States of interstate and foreign 

air transportation; or 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
29998 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 100 / Friday, May 23, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

(2) Operates an electronic airline 

information system, e.g., GDS or 

Internet flight search tool. 

(b) This part applies only if the 

electronic airline information system is 

displayed on a Web site marketed to 

consumers in the United States or on a 

proprietary display available to travel 

agents, business entities, or a limited 

segment of consumers of air 

transportation in the United States. 

§ 256.3 Definitions. 

For purposes of this part, 

(a) Lowest fare generally available 

means the lowest price offered for air 

transportation between designated 

points including all mandatory taxes 

and fees but not ancillary fees for 

optional services. The term does not 

cover fares restricted to a limited 

category of travelers, (e.g., negotiated 

corporate or government fares or 

discount fares available only to travel 

agents). 

(b) Availability means information 

provided in displays with respect to the 

seats a carrier holds out as available for 

sale on a particular flight. 

(c) Display means the presentation of 

air carrier or foreign air carrier 

schedules, fares, rules or availability to 

a consumer or agent or other individual 

involved in arranging air travel for a 

consumer by means of a computer or 

mobile computing device. 

(d) Integrated display means any 

display that includes the schedules, 

fares, rules, or availability of more than 

one carrier. 

(e) Listed carrier means an air carrier 

or foreign air carrier whose schedules, 

fares, or availability is included in an 

electronic airline information system. 

(f) Electronic airline information 

system or EAIS means a system that 

combines air carrier or foreign air carrier 

schedule, fare, rule, or availability 

information for transmission or display 

to air carriers or foreign air carriers, 

ticket agents, other business entities, or 

consumers. It includes direct 

connections between a ticket agent and 

the internal reservations systems of an 

individual carrier if the direct 

connection provides schedules, fares, 

rules, or availability of more than one 

air carrier or foreign air carrier (unless 

all of the listed carriers are under the 

same ownership or the individual 

carrier’s direct connection only provides 

information on flights operated under 

its own code). 

§ 256.4 Accurate EAIS display of 

information and prohibition of undisclosed 

display bias. 

Each air carrier, foreign air carrier, 

and ticket agent that operates an EAIS 

that provides at least one integrated 

display must comply with the 

requirements of this section. 

(a) Each EAIS shall display accurately 

all schedule, fare, rules, and availability 

information provided by or on behalf of 

listed carriers or obtained from third 

parties by the EAIS operator. 

(b) Each EAIS that uses any factors 

directly or indirectly relating to carrier 

identity in ordering the information 

contained in an integrated display must 

clearly disclose that the identity of the 

carrier is a factor in the order in which 

information is displayed. 

(c) Undisclosed display bias in an 

integrated display is prohibited. 

(1) Each EAIS’s integrated display 

must use the same editing and ranking 

criteria for each listed carrier’s flights 

and must not give any listed carrier’s 

flights a system-imposed preference 

over any other listed carrier’s flights 

unless the preference is prominently 

disclosed. 

(2) EAISs may organize information 

on the basis of any service criteria that 

do not reflect carrier identity provided 

that the criteria are consistently applied 

to all carriers and to all markets. Unless 

any display bias is specifically and 

prominently disclosed, when providing 

information in response to a search by 

a user of the EAIS, the EAIS must order 

the information provided so that the 

lowest fare generally available that best 

satisfies the parameters of the request 

(e.g., date and time of travel, number of 

passengers, class of service, stopovers, 

limitations on carriers to be used or 

routing [e.g., nonstop only], etc.) is 

displayed conspicuously and no less 

prominently than any other fare 

displayed. To the extent the user (e.g., 

consumer or travel agent) is entitled to 

access to any fares restricted to a limited 

category of travelers, the lowest of those 

fares must also be displayed 

conspicuously and no less prominently 

than any other fare displayed. 

§ 256.5 Prohibition against inducing 

undisclosed bias. 

(a) No air carrier, foreign carrier, or 

ticket agent may induce or attempt to 

induce the developer or operator of an 

EAIS to create a display that would not 

comply with the requirements of § 256.4 

of this part or provide inaccurate 

schedule, fare, rules, or availability 

information that would result in a 

display that would not comply with the 

requirements of § 256.4. 

(b) Nothing in this section requires an 

air carrier, foreign air carrier, or ticket 

agent to allow a system to access its 

internal computer reservation system or 

to permit ‘‘screen scraping’’ or ‘‘content 

scraping’’ of its Web site; nor does it 

require an air carrier or foreign air 

carrier to permit the sale of the carrier’s 

services through any ticket agent or 

other carrier’s system. ‘‘Screen 

scraping’’ refers to a process whereby a 

company uses computer software 

techniques to extract information from 

other companies’ Web sites. In the travel 

industry, screen scraping companies 

generally extract schedule and fare 

information from the Web sites of 

airlines or online travel agencies (OTAs) 

in order to display the lowest rates on 

their own Web site and eliminate the 

need for consumers to compare offerings 

from site to site. 

PART 257—[AMENDED] 

■ 15. The authority citation for part 257 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 40113(a) and 41712. 

§ 257.3 [Amended] 

■ 16. In § 257.3, paragraph (g) is 

amended by removing the term 

‘‘transporting carrier’’ and adding 

‘‘operating carrier’’ in its place. 

■ 17. Section 257.5 is revised to read as 

follows: 

§ 257.5 Notice requirement. 

(a) Notice in flight itineraries and 

schedules. Each air carrier, foreign air 

carrier, or ticket agent providing flight 

itineraries and/or schedules for 

scheduled passenger air transportation 

to the public in the United States shall 

ensure that each flight segment on 

which the designator code is not that of 

the operating carrier is clearly and 

prominently identified and contains the 

following disclosures. 

(1) In flight schedule information 

provided to U.S. consumers on desktop 

browser-based or mobile browser-based 

Internet Web sites or applications in 

response to any requested itinerary 

search, for each flight in scheduled 

passenger air transportation that is 

operated by a carrier other than the one 

listed for that flight, the corporate name 

of the transporting carrier and any other 

name under which the service is held 

out to the public must appear 

prominently in text format on the first 

display following the input of a search 

query, immediately adjacent to each 

code-share flight in that search-results 

list. Roll-over, pop-up and linked 

disclosures do not comply with this 

paragraph. 

(2) For static written schedules, each 

flight in scheduled passenger air 

transportation that is operated by a 

carrier other than the one listed for that 

flight shall be identified by an asterisk 

or other easily identifiable mark that 

leads to disclosure of the corporate 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 100 / Friday, May 23, 2014 / Proposed Rules 29999 

name of the operating carrier and any 

other name under which that service is 

held out to the public. 

(b) Notice in oral communications 

with prospective consumers. In any 

direct oral communication in the United 

States with a prospective consumer, and 

in any telephone call placed from the 

United States by a prospective 

consumer, concerning a flight within, 

to, or from the United States that is part 

of a code-sharing arrangement or longterm wet lease, a ticket agent doing 

business in the United States or a carrier 

shall inform the consumer, the first time 

that such a flight is offered to the 

consumer, that the operating carrier is 

not the carrier whose name or 

designator code will appear on the 

ticket and shall identify the transporting 

carrier by its corporate name and any 

other name under which that service is 

held out to the public. 

(c) Notice in ticket confirmations. At 

the time of purchase, each selling carrier 

or ticket agent shall provide written 

disclosure of the actual operator of the 

flight to each consumer of scheduled 

passenger air transportation sold in the 

United States that involves a codesharing arrangement or long-term wet 

lease. For any flight segment on which 

the designator code is not that of the 

operating carrier the notice shall state 

‘‘Operated by’’ followed by the 

corporate name of the transporting 

carrier and any other name in which 

that service is held out to the public. In 

the case of single-flight-number service 

involving a segment or segments on 

which the designator code is not that of 

the transporting carrier, the notice shall 

clearly identify the segment or segments 

and the operating carrier by its 

corporate name and any other name in 

which that service is held out to the 

public. The following form of statement 

will satisfy the requirement of this 

paragraph (c): Important Notice: Service 

between XYZ City and ABC City will be 

operated by Jane Doe Airlines d/b/a 

QRS Express. At the purchaser’s 

request, the notice required by this part 

may be delivered in person, or by fax, 

electronic mail, or any other reliable 

method of transmitting written material. 

(d) In any written advertisement 

distributed in or mailed to or from the 

United States (including those that 

appear on an Internet Web site that is 

marketed to consumers in the United 

States) for service in a city-pair market 

that is provided under a code-sharing 

arrangement or long-term wet lease, the 

advertisement shall prominently 

disclose that the advertised service may 

involve travel on another carrier and 

clearly indicate the nature of the service 

in reasonably sized type and shall 

identify all potential operating carriers 

involved in the markets being 

advertised by corporate name and by 

any other name under which that 

service is held out to the public. In any 

radio or television advertisement 

broadcast in the United States for 

service in a city-pair market that is 

provided under a code-sharing or longterm wet lease, the advertisement shall 

include at least a generic disclosure 

statement, such as ‘‘Some flights are 

operated by other airlines.’’ 

PART 259—[AMENDED] 

■ 18. The authority citation for part 259 

continues to read as follows: 

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

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

■ 19. Section 259.4 is amended by 

revising paragraph (f) to read as follows: 

§ 259.4 Contingency Plan for Lengthy 

Tarmac Delays. 

* * * * * 

(f) Civil penalty. A carrier’s failure to 

comply with the assurances required by 

this section and contained in its 

Contingency Plan for Lengthy Tarmac 

Delays will be considered to be an 

unfair and deceptive practice within the 

meaning of 49 U.S.C. 41712 with respect 

to each affected passenger and therefore 

a separate violation for each passenger 

for each unfulfilled assurance under 49 

U.S.C. 46301. 

■ 20. Section 259.8 is amended by 

revising the second sentence in 

paragraph (a) introductory text and 

paragraph (a)(1) to read as follows: 

§ 259.8 Notify consumers of known delays, 

cancellations, and diversions. 

(a) * * * A change in the status of a 

flight means, at a minimum, a 

cancellation, diversion or delay of 30 

minutes or more in the planned 

operation of a flight that occurs within 

seven calendar days of the scheduled 

date of the planned operation. * * * 

(1) With respect to any U.S. air carrier 

or foreign air carrier that permits 

passengers and other interested persons 

to subscribe to flight status notification 

services, the carrier must deliver such 

notification to such subscribers, by 

whatever means the carrier offers that 

the subscriber chooses. * * * 

PART 399—[AMENDED] 

■ 21. The authority citation for part 399 

is revised to read as follows: 

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

■ 22. Section 399.80 is amended by: 

■ a. Revising the introductory text; 

■ b. Removing and reserving paragraph 

(h); 

■ c. Revising paragraph (1); 

■ d. Adding paragraphs (o), (p), (q), and 

(r); and 

■ e. Revising paragraph (s). 

The revisions and additions read as 

follows: 

§ 399.80 Unfair and deceptive practices of 

ticket agents. 

It is the policy of the Department to 

regard the practices enumerated in 

paragraphs (a) through (m) of this 

section by a ticket agent of any size and 

the practices enumerated in paragraphs 

(o) through (r) of this section by a ticket 

agent that sells air transportation and 

has annual revenue of $100 million or 

more as an unfair or deceptive practice 

or unfair method of competition: 

* * * * * 

(l) Failing or refusing to make proper 

refunds promptly when service cannot 

be performed as contracted or 

representing that such refunds are 

obtainable only at some other point, 

thus depriving persons of the timely use 

of the money to arrange other 

transportation, or forcing them to suffer 

unnecessary inconvenience and delay or 

requiring them to accept transportation 

at higher cost, or under less desirable 

circumstances, or on less desirable 

aircraft than that represented at the time 

of sale. For purposes of this subsection 

‘‘promptly’’ means processing a credit 

card refund (e.g., forwarding a credit to 

the merchant bank) within seven 

business days and a cash, check or debit 

card refund within 20 days. These 

deadlines are calculated from the time 

that the ticket agent receives all 

information from the consumer that is 

necessary to process the refund. The 

ticket agent must request any missing 

information without delay. A ticket 

agent’s need to collect information from 

its own records does not suspend these 

deadlines. 

* * * * * 

(o) Failure to hold a reservation at the 

quoted fare without payment or to 

permit it to be cancelled without 

penalty for at least 24 hours after the 

reservation is made if the reservation is 

made one week or more prior to a 

flight’s departure. (The ticket agent may 

choose between these two methods; it 

need not offer both options to 

consumers.) 

(p) Failure to disclose cancellation 

policies applicable to a consumer’s 

selected flights, the aircraft’s seating 

configuration, and lavatory availability 

on the aircraft on its Web site, and upon 

request, from the telephone reservations 

staff. 

(q) Failure to notify consumers in a 

timely manner of carrier-initiated 

changes to the consumer’s air travel 

itinerary about which the carrier notifies 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
30000 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 100 / Friday, May 23, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

the agent or about which the agent 

becomes aware through other means. 

(r) Failure to respond to consumer 

problems by acknowledging receipt of a 

consumer complaint within thirty days 

of receiving the complaint and sending 

a substantive written response within 

sixty days of receiving the complaint. If 

all or part of the complaint is about 

services furnished (or to be furnished) 

by an airline or other travel supplier, the 

agent must send the complaint to that 

supplier for response. If no part of the 

complaint is about the agent’s service 

and the agent sends the complaint to the 

appropriate suppliers, the agent’s 

substantive reply can consist of advising 

the consumer where the agent has sent 

the complaint and why. 

(s) As used in this subpart G and in 

14 CFR parts 257 and 258, ‘‘Air carrier’’, 

‘‘foreign air carrier’’, and ‘‘ticket agent’’ 

have the same definitions as set forth in 

49 U.S.C. 40102. The term ‘‘person . . . 

arranging for [,] air transportation’’ as 

set forth in the definition of ‘‘ticket 

agent’’ in section 40102(40) includes 

any person that acts as an intermediary 

involved in the sale of air transportation 

directly or indirectly to consumers, 

including by operating an electronic 

airline information system, if the person 

holds itself out as a source of 

information about, or reservations for, 

the air transportation industry and 

receives compensation in any way 

related to the sale of air transportation 

(e.g., cost-per-click for air transportation 

advertisements, commission payment, 

revenue-sharing, or other compensation 

based on factors such as the number of 

flight segments booked, number of sales 

made, or number of consumers directed 

or referred to an air carrier, foreign air 

carrier, or ticket agent for the sale of air 

transportation). The term does not 

include persons who only publish 

advertisements of fares and are paid 

only per click for linking consumers to 

the Web sites of the carriers or agents 

that provided the advertisement. 

■ 23. Section 399.85 is amended by 

revising paragraphs (a), (b), and (c) to 

read as follows: 

§ 399.85 Notice of baggage fees and other 

fees. 

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

a Web site marketed to U.S. consumers 

where it advertises or sells air 

transportation, 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 first and second checked 

bags or carry-on allowance for a 

passenger on the homepage of that Web 

site (e.g., provide a link that says 

‘‘changed bag rules’’ or similarly 

descriptive language that takes the 

consumer from the homepage directly to 

a pop-up or a place on another Web 

page that details the change in baggage 

allowance or fees and the effective dates 

of such changes). 

(b) All U.S. and foreign air carriers 

and ticket agents must disclose the 

current ancillary services fees for a first 

and second checked bag, for a carry-on 

bag, and for an advance seat assignment 

to a consumer who requests such 

information. On Web sites marketed to 

the general public in the U.S., the fees 

for a first checked bag, a second checked 

bag, one carry-on bag, and an advance 

seat assignment must be disclosed (and 

at a minimum displayed by a link or 

rollover) at the first point in a search 

process where a fare is listed in 

response to a specific flight itinerary 

request from a passenger, and on the 

summary page provided to the 

consumer at the completion of any 

purchase. 

(c) On all e-ticket confirmations for air 

transportation within, to or from the 

United States, including the summary 

page at the completion of an online 

purchase and a post-purchase email 

confirmation, an air carrier, foreign air 

carrier, agent of either, or ticket agent 

that advertises or sells air transportation 

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 checked bag, including 

size and weight limitations. Carriers and 

agents must provide this information in 

text form in the e-ticket confirmation. 

* * * * * 

■ 24. Section 399.88 is amended by 

revising paragraph (a) to read as follows: 

§ 399.88 Prohibition on post-purchase 

price increases. 

(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 transportation and 

ground or cruise accommodations), or 

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

includes scheduled air transportation 

within, to, or from the United States, to 

increase the price of that air 

transportation, tour or tour component 

to a consumer, including but not limited 

to an increase in the price of the airfare, 

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 

occurred when the full amount agreed 

upon for the air transportation has been 

paid by the consumer. An itinerary that 

does not begin or end in the United 

States or include a stopover of 24 hours 

or more in the United States is not 

considered air transportation for 

purposes of this section. This 

prohibition on a post-purchase price 

increase extends to all mandatory fees 

and charges a consumer must pay in 

order to obtain air transportation and to 

fees associated with transporting 

baggage. This prohibition does not 

extend to fees for optional services 

ancillary to air transportation that are 

not purchased with the ticket except for 

baggage. The price for other ancillary 

services not purchased at the time of 

ticket purchase may be increased until 

the consumer purchases the service 

itself. 

* * * * * 

■ 25. Section 399.90 is added to subpart 

G to read as follows: 

Option A 

§ 399.90 Transparency in airline pricing, 

including ancillary fees 

(a) The purpose of this section is to 

ensure that air carriers, foreign air 

carriers and ticket agents doing business 

in the United States clearly disclose to 

consumers at all points of sale the fees 

for certain basic ancillary services 

associated with the air transportation 

consumers are buying or considering 

buying. Nothing in this section should 

be read to require that these ancillary 

services must be transactable (e.g., 

purchasable online). 

(b) Each air carrier and foreign air 

carrier shall provide useable, current, 

and accurate information for certain 

ancillary service fees to all ticket agents 

that receive and distribute the U.S. or 

foreign carrier’s fare, schedule, and 

availability information. For purposes of 

this section, the fees that must be 

provided are: fees for a first checked 

bag, a second checked bag, one carry-on 

bag, and an advance seat assignment. 

Fees for an advance assignment to a seat 

adjacent to a window or aisle, bulkhead 

seat, exit row seat, or any other seat for 

which a consumer must pay an 

additional fee to receive an advance seat 

assignment are to be provided. 

(c) Each ticket agent that provides a 

U.S. or foreign carrier’s fare, schedule, 

and availability information to 

consumers in the United States must 

disclose the U.S. or foreign carrier’s fees 

for a first checked bag, a second checked 

bag, one carry-on bag, and an advance 

seat assignment. The fee information 

disclosed to consumers for these 

ancillary services must be expressed as 

itinerary-specific charges. ‘‘ItineraryVerDate Mar<15>2010 19:18 May 22, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23MYP2.SGM 23MYP2

TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 100 / Friday, May 23, 2014 / Proposed Rules 30001 

specific’’ refers to variations in fees that 

depend on, for example, geography, 

travel dates, cabin (e.g., first class, 

economy), ticketed fare (e.g., full fare 

ticket -Y class), and, in the case of 

advance seat assignment, the particular 

seat on the aircraft if different seats on 

that flight entail different charges. 

Ticket agents must also disclose that 

advance seat assignment and baggage 

fees may be reduced or waived based on 

the passenger’s frequent flyer status, 

method of payment or other 

characteristic. When providing the fees 

associated with advance seat 

assignments, ticket agents must also 

disclose that seat availability and fees 

may change at any time until the seat 

assignment is purchased. 

(d) Each U.S. or foreign air carrier that 

provides its fare, schedule and 

availability information directly to 

consumers in the United States must 

also disclose its fees for a first checked 

bag, a second checked bag, one carry-on 

bag, and an advance seat assignment. 

The fee information disclosed to a 

consumer for these ancillary services 

must be expressed as customer-specific 

charges if the consumer elects to 

provide his or her personal information 

to the carrier, such as name and 

frequent flyer number. ‘‘Customerspecific’’ refers to variations in fees that 

depend on, for example, the passenger 

type (e.g., military), frequent flyer 

status, method of payment, geography, 

travel dates, cabin (e.g., first class, 

economy), ticketed fare (e.g., full fare 

ticket -Y class), and, in the case of 

advance seat assignment, the particular 

seat on the aircraft if different seats on 

that flight entail different charges. If a 

consumer does not provide his or her 

personal information and submits an 

anonymous shopping request, the fee 

information disclosed to that consumer 

for these ancillary services must be 

expressed as itinerary-specific charges. 

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

ticket agent has a Web site marketed to 

U.S. consumers where it advertises or 

sells air transportation, the carrier and 

ticket agent must disclose the fees for a 

first checked bag, a second checked bag, 

one carry-on bag, and an advance seat 

assignment as specified in paragraphs 

(c) and (d) of this section at the first 

point in a search process where a fare 

is listed in connection with a specific 

flight itinerary. Carriers and ticket 

agents may permit a consumer to opt 

out of seeing this basic ancillary fee 

information so that the consumer will 

see only fares. The opt-out option must 

not be pre-selected and must notify the 

consumer that fees may include charges 

for a first and second checked bag 

(including oversize and overweight 

charges), a carry-on bag, and an advance 

seat assignment. 

(f) In any oral communication with a 

prospective consumer and in any 

telephone calls placed from the United 

States, the carrier or ticket agent must 

inform a consumer, upon request, of the 

fees for a first checked bag, a second 

checked bag, one carry-on bag, and an 

advance seat assignment as specified in 

paragraphs (c) and (d) of this section. 

(g) Ticket agents with an existing 

contractual agreement with an air 

carrier or foreign air carrier for the 

distribution of that carrier’s fare and 

schedule information shall not charge 

separate or additional fees for the 

distribution of the ancillary service fee 

information described in paragraph (b) 

of this section. Nothing in this 

paragraph should be read as 

invalidating any provision in an existing 

contract among these parties with 

respect to compensation. 

(h) Failure of an air carrier or foreign 

carrier to provide the ancillary fee 

information as described in paragraph 

(b) of this section to its ticket agents and 

failure of a U.S. carrier, foreign carrier, 

or ticket agent to provide the 

information to consumers as described 

in paragraph (c) and (d) of this section 

will be considered an unfair and 

deceptive practice in violation of 49 

U.S.C. 41712. 

Option B 

§ 399.90 Transparency in airline pricing, 

including ancillary fees. 

(a) The purpose of this section is to 

ensure that air carriers, foreign air 

carriers doing business in the United 

States, and ticket agents doing business 

in the United States and selling a 

carrier’s tickets directly to consumers 

clearly disclose to consumers at all 

points of sale the fees for certain basic 

ancillary services associated with the air 

transportation consumers are buying or 

considering buying. Nothing in this 

section should be read to require that 

these ancillary services must be 

transactable (e.g., purchasable online). 

(b) Each air carrier and foreign air 

carrier shall provide useable, current, 

and accurate information for certain 

ancillary service fees to all ticket agents 

that receive and distribute the U.S. or 

foreign carrier’s fare, schedule, and 

availability information, and sell that 

carrier’s tickets directly to consumers. 

For purposes of this section, the fees 

that must be provided are: fees for a first 

checked bag, a second checked bag, one 

carry-on bag, and an advance seat 

assignment. Fees for an advance 

assignment to a seat adjacent to a 

window or aisle, bulkhead seat, exit row 

seat, or any other seat for which a 

consumer must pay an additional fee to 

receive an advance seat assignment are 

to be provided. 

(c) Each ticket agent that provides a 

U.S. or foreign carrier’s fare, schedule, 

and availability information to 

consumers in the United States and sells 

that carrier’s tickets directly to 

consumers must provide the U.S. or 

foreign carrier’s fees for a first checked 

bag, a second checked bag, one carry-on 

bag, and an advance seat assignment. 

The fee information disclosed to 

consumers for these ancillary services 

must be expressed as itinerary-specific 

charges. ‘‘Itinerary-specific’’ refers to 

variations in fees that depend on, for 

example, geography, travel dates, cabin 

(e.g., first class, economy), ticketed fare 

(e.g., full fare ticket -Y class), and, in the 

case of advance seat assignment, the 

particular seat on the aircraft if different 

seats on that flight entail different 

charges. Ticket agents that sell the 

carrier’s tickets directly to consumers 

must also disclose that advance seat 

assignment and baggage fees may be 

reduced or waived based on the 

passenger’s frequent flyer status, 

method of payment or other 

characteristic. When providing the fees 

associated with advance seat 

assignments, such ticket agents must 

also disclose that seat availability and 

fees may change at any time until the 

seat assignment is purchased. 

(d) Each U.S. or foreign air carrier that 

provides its fare, schedule and 

availability information directly to 

consumers in the United States must 

also provide its fees for a first checked 

bag, a second checked bag, one carry-on 

bag, and an advance seat assignment. 

The fee information disclosed to a 

consumer for these ancillary services 

must be expressed as customer-specific 

charges if the consumer elects to 

provide his or her personal information 

to the carrier, such as name and 

frequent flyer number. ‘‘Customerspecific’’ refers to variations in fees that 

depend on, for example, the passenger 

type (e.g., military), frequent flyer 

status, method of payment, geography, 

travel dates, cabin (e.g., first class, 

economy), ticketed fare (e.g., full fare 

ticket -Y class), and, in the case of 

advance seat assignment, the particular 

seat on the aircraft if different seats on 

that flight entail different charges. If a 

consumer does not provide his or her 

personal information and submits an 

anonymous shopping request, the fee 

information disclosed to that consumer 

for these ancillary services must be 

expressed as itinerary-specific charges. 

(e) If a U.S. or foreign air carrier, or 

ticket agent that sells such a carrier’s 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
30002 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 100 / Friday, May 23, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

tickets directly to consumers, has a Web 

site marketed to U.S. consumers where 

it advertises or sells air transportation, 

the carrier and ticket agent must 

disclose the fees for a first checked bag, 

a second checked bag, one carry-on bag, 

and an advance seat assignment as 

specified in paragraphs (c) and (d) of 

this section at the first point in a search 

process where a fare is listed in 

connection with a specific flight 

itinerary. Carriers and ticket agents may 

permit a consumer to opt out of seeing 

this basic ancillary fee information so 

that the consumer will see only fares. 

The opt-out option must not be preselected and must notify the consumer 

that fees may include charges for a first 

and second checked bag (including 

oversize and overweight charges), a 

carry-on bag, and an advance seat 

assignment. 

(f) In any oral communication with a 

prospective consumer and in any 

telephone calls placed from the United 

States, the carrier and ticket agent that 

sells that carrier’s tickets directly to 

consumers must inform a consumer, 

upon request, of the fees for a first 

checked bag, a second checked bag, one 

carry-on bag, and an advance seat 

assignment as specified in paragraphs 

(c) and (d) of this section. 

(g) Ticket agents that sell a carrier’s 

tickets directly to consumers and have 

an existing contractual agreement with 

an air carrier or foreign air carrier for the 

distribution of that carrier’s fare and 

schedule information shall not charge 

separate or additional fees for the 

distribution of the ancillary service fee 

information described in paragraph (b) 

of this section. Nothing in this 

paragraph should be read as 

invalidating any provision in an existing 

contract among these parties with 

respect to compensation. 

(h) Failure of an air carrier or foreign 

carrier to provide the ancillary fee 

information as described in paragraph 

(b) of this section to its ticket agents and 

failure of a U.S. carrier, foreign carrier, 

or ticket agent to provide the 

information to consumers as described 

in paragraph (c) and (d) of this section 

will be considered an unfair and 

deceptive practice in violation of 49 

U.S.C. 41712. 

[FR Doc. 2014–11993 Filed 5–21–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–9X–P 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2