38420 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 137 / Wednesday, July 21, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

Availability and Summary of 

Documents for Incorporation by 

Reference 

This document proposes to amend 

FAA Order 7400.11E, Airspace 

Designations and Reporting Points, 

dated July 21, 2020 and effective 

September 15, 2020. FAA Order 

7400.11E is publicly available as listed 

in the ADDRESSES section of this 

document. FAA Order 7400.11E lists 

Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, 

air traffic service routes, and reporting 

points. 

The Proposal 

The FAA proposes an amendment to 

14 CFR part 71 to establish Class E 

airspace extending upward from 700 

feet above the surface at Eastern Maine 

Medical Center Heliport, Bangor, ME, 

providing the controlled airspace 

required to support the new RNAV 

(GPS) standard instrument approach 

procedures for IFR operations at this 

Heliport. The FAA also determined a 

modification of the Class E airspace 

extending upward from 700 feet above 

the surface at Bangor International 

Airport, omitting the Bangor VORTAC 

was required. This action would remove 

the extension to the north, reduce the 

radius to 8.4 miles (previously 10 

miles), and amend the extension to the 

southeast to a 134° bearing from the 

airport, extending from the 8.4-mile 

radius to 15.5-miles southeast of the 

airport (previously 136° bearing 

extending from the 10-mile radius to 

16.7 miles southeast of the airport). 

Class E airspace designations are 

published in Paragraph 6005 of FAA 

Order 7400.11E, dated July 21, 2020 and 

effective September 15, 2020, which is 

incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 

71.1. The Class E airspace designations 

listed in this document will be 

published subsequently in the Order. 

FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace 

Designations and Reporting Points, is 

published yearly and effective on 

September 15. 

Regulatory Notices and Analyses 

The FAA has determined that this 

proposed regulation only involves an 

established body of technical 

regulations for which frequent and 

routine amendments are necessary to 

keep them operationally current. It, 

therefore: (1) Is not a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action’’ under Executive 

Order 12866; (2) is not a ‘‘significant 

rule’’ under DOT Regulatory Policies 

and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 

26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant 

preparation of a Regulatory Evaluation 

as the anticipated impact is so minimal. 

Since this is a routine matter that will 

only affect air traffic procedures and air 

navigation, it is certified that this 

proposed rule, when promulgated, will 

not have a significant economic impact 

on a substantial number of small entities 

under the criteria of the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act. 

Environmental Review 

This proposal will be subject to an 

environmental analysis in accordance 

with FAA Order 1050.1F, 

‘‘Environmental Impacts: Policies and 

Procedures’’, prior to any FAA final 

regulatory action. 

Lists of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71 

Airspace, Incorporation by reference, 

Navigation (air). 

The Proposed Amendment 

In consideration of the foregoing, the 

Federal Aviation Administration 

proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as 

follows: 

PART 71—DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, 

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

TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND 

REPORTING POINTS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 71 

continues to read as follows: 

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

40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 

1959–1963 Comp., p. 389. 

§ 71.1 [Amended] 

■ 2. The incorporation by reference in 

14 CFR 71.1 of Federal Aviation 

Administration Order 7400.11E, 

Airspace Designations and Reporting 

Points, dated July 21, 2020, and 

effective September 15, 2020, is 

amended as follows: 

Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Areas 

Extending Upward From 700 Feet or More 

Above the Surface of the Earth. 

* * * * * 

ANE ME E5 Bangor, ME [Amended] 

Bangor International Airport, ME 

(Lat. 44°48′27′′ N, long. 68°49′41′′ W) 

Eastern Maine Medical Center Heliport, ME, 

(Lat. 44°48′30′′ N, long. 68°45′08′′ W) 

That airspace extending upward from 700 

feet above the surface within an 8.4-mile 

radius of Bangor International Airport, and 

within 4-miles each side of the 134° bearing 

from the airport, extending from the 8.4-mile 

radius to 15.5-miles southeast of the airport, 

and that airspace within a 6-mile radius of 

Eastern Maine Medical Center Heliport. 

Issued in College Park, Georgia, on July 15, 

2021. 

Andreese C. Davis, 

Manager, Airspace & Procedures Team South, 

Eastern Service Center, Air Traffic 

Organization. 

[FR Doc. 2021–15354 Filed 7–20–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Office of the Secretary 

14 CFR Parts 259 and 260 

[Docket No. DOT–OST–2016–0208] 

RIN 2105–AE53 

Refunding Fees for Delayed Checked 

Bags and Ancillary Services That Are 

Not Provided 

AGENCY: Office of the Secretary (OST), 

Department of Transportation (DOT or 

the Department). 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM). 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of 

Transportation (Department or DOT) is 

proposing to mandate refunds for 

delayed checked baggage and ancillary 

fees for services related to air travel that 

passengers did not receive. DOT is 

required by law to issue regulations 

mandating both refunds. 

DATES: Comments should be filed by 

September 20, 2021. Late-filed 

comments will be considered to the 

extent practicable. 

ADDRESSES: You may file comments 

identified by the docket number DOT– 

OST–2016–0208 by any of the following 

methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 

https://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, West Building 

Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 

Washington, DC, 20590–0001. 

• Hand Delivery or Courier: West 

Building Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 

1200 New Jersey Ave. SE, Washington, 

DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET, 

Monday through Friday, except Federal 

holidays. 

• Fax: (202) 493–2251. 

Instructions: You must include the 

agency name and docket number DOT– 

OST–2016–0208 or the Regulatory 

Identification Number (RIN) for the 

rulemaking at the beginning of your 

comment. All comments received will 

be posted without change to https://

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided. 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 137 / Wednesday, July 21, 2021 / Proposed Rules 38421 

1The Department’s Office of Aviation Consumer 

Protection uses its general authority to prohibit 

unfair or deceptive practices of air carriers, foreign 

air carriers, and ticket agents to conduct oversight 

in the area of refunds. A practice is ‘‘unfair’’ to 

consumers if it causes or is likely to cause 

substantial injury, which is not reasonably 

avoidable, and the harm is not outweighed by 

benefits to consumers or competition. A practice is 

‘‘deceptive’’ to consumers if it is likely to mislead 

a consumer, acting reasonably under the 

circumstances, with respect to a material matter. 

These definitions are consistent with the 

Department’s past practice and are based on case 

precedent and policy of the Federal Trade 

Commission. 

2See Final Rule, Defining Unfair or Deceptive 

Practices, 85 FR 78707, Dec. 7, 2020. 

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, 

business, 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 and 

comments received, go to https://

www.regulations.gov or to the street 

address listed above. Follow the online 

instructions for accessing the docket. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Clereece Kroha, Kimberly Graber, or 

Blane Workie, Office of Aviation 

Consumer Protection, U.S. Department 

of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Ave. 

SE, Washington DC, 20590, 202–366– 

9342 (phone), 202–366–7152 (fax), 

clereece.kroha@dot.gov, 

kimberly.graber@dot.gov, or 

blane.workie@dot.gov (email). 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Introduction 

A. Purpose 

The purpose of this NPRM is to 

ensure that travelers are treated fairly 

when requesting refunds for ancillary 

service fees by implementing two 

statutory aviation consumer protection 

provisions. The first statutory provision 

is 49 U.S.C. 41704, note, which requires 

the Department to promulgate a 

regulation that mandates that airlines 

refund checked baggage fees to 

passengers when they fail to deliver 

checked bags in a timely manner. 

Currently the Department’s regulations 

at 14 CFR part 259 require that airlines 

refund baggage fees for lost bags. The 

Department proposes to add a 

requirement that airlines must also 

refund passengers for any fee charged to 

transport a checked bag that is not 

timely delivered. The NPRM sets forth 

the standards to be used to determine 

the length of delay that would trigger 

the requirement to refund baggage fees. 

It also addresses the statutory 

requirement that a baggage fee refund 

should be provided ‘‘promptly’’ and 

‘‘automatically’’ when it is due. 

The second statutory provision is 49 

U.S.C. 42301, note prec., which requires 

the Department to promulgate a rule 

that mandates that airlines promptly 

provide a refund to a passenger of any 

ancillary fees paid for services related to 

air travel that the passenger does not 

receive. Currently the Department’s 

regulations at 14 CFR part 259 require 

that airlines refund fees charged to a 

passenger for optional services that the 

passenger was unable to use due to an 

oversale situation or flight cancellation. 

In addition, the Department’s Office of 

Aviation Consumer Protection (formerly 

known as the Office of Aviation 

Enforcement and Proceedings), a unit 

within the Office of the General Counsel 

which enforces aviation consumer 

protection requirements, considers any 

airline practice of not refunding fees for 

ancillary services that passengers paid 

for but are not provided to be an unfair 

or deceptive practice in violation of 49 

U.S.C. 41712.1 The Department 

proposes to retain the existing 

requirement regarding ancillary fee 

refunds arising from flight oversales or 

cancellations. The Department also 

proposes to clarify that the refund 

requirement applies to any situation in 

which an airline fails to provide 

passengers the ancillary services that 

passengers have paid for (e.g., 

passengers paid for using the in-flight 

entertainment (IFE) system but the IFE 

system was broken and could not be 

used by the passengers). The inclusion 

of regulatory text requiring that airlines 

must refund ancillary fees for services 

related to air travel that passengers did 

not receive, as provided in 49 U.S.C. 

42301, note prec., would not impose 

additional requirements on airlines as 

airlines are already providing refunds of 

ancillary fees when they fail to provide 

services that passengers paid for, 

consistent with the Department’s 

interpretation of section 41712. 

B. Unfair or Deceptive Practice 

The provision at 49 U.S.C. 41712 

authorizes the Department to investigate 

and, if necessary, take action to address 

unfair or deceptive practices or unfair 

methods of competition by air carriers, 

foreign air carriers, or ticket agents. On 

December 7, 2020, the Department 

issued a final rule that, among other 

things, adopted definitions for the terms 

‘‘unfair’’ and ‘‘deceptive’’ when used in 

discretionary aviation consumer 

protection rulemaking actions brought 

pursuant to section 41712.2 That rule 

also requires that when the Department 

issues a new discretionary aviation 

consumer protection rulemaking 

declaring that a specific practice in air 

transportation or the sale of air 

transportation is unfair or deceptive 

within the meaning of section 41712, 

the Department shall employ the 

definitions of ‘‘unfair’’ and ‘‘deceptive’’ 

set forth in 14 CFR 399.79. This 

rulemaking, which would implement 

statutory mandates, is not a 

discretionary aviation consumer 

protection rulemaking. As a result, the 

procedures set forth in the Department’s 

rule on Defining Unfair or Deceptive 

Practices would not apply. 

II. Refunding Baggage Fees for Delayed 

Bags 

A. Background 

The Department’s aviation consumer 

protection regulation, in 14 CFR 

259.5(b)(3), requires carriers to provide 

refunds of baggage fees to passengers 

when their checked bags are lost. The 

provision at 49 U.S.C. 41704, note 

requires that the Department issue a 

final rule requiring an air carrier or 

foreign air carrier to promptly provide 

to a passenger an automated refund for 

any fees paid by the passenger for 

checked baggage if (1) the carrier fails to 

deliver the checked baggage to the 

passenger not later than 12 hours after 

the arrival of a domestic flight, or not 

later than 15 hours after the arrival of an 

international flight; and (2) the 

passenger has notified the air carrier or 

foreign air carrier of the lost or delayed 

checked baggage. In addition, the 

Department can extend one or both of 

the deadlines, up to 18 hours for 

domestic flights, and up to 30 hours for 

international flights, if the Department 

determines during the rulemaking 

process that one or both of the shorter 

deadlines is not feasible and would 

adversely affect consumers in certain 

cases. In addition, 49 U.S.C. 41704, note 

does not define what constitutes 

‘‘promptly’’ when providing an 

‘‘automated’’ refund. Accordingly, the 

Department published an advance 

notice of proposed rulemaking 

(ANPRM) to seek public comment on 

the terms and implementation of the 

statutory provision (81 FR 75347, 

October 31, 2016). 

As noted in the ANPRM, many 

consumers and consumer rights 

advocacy groups have emphasized to 

the Department that delayed delivery of 

checked bags greatly inconveniences 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
38422 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 137 / Wednesday, July 21, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

3Source: Air Travel Consumer Report, February 

2020, page 36, https://www.transportation.gov/ 

sites/dot.gov/files/2020-02/February%2020

20%20ATCR.pdf. 4https://www.sita.aero/resources/type/surveysreports/baggage-it-insights-2019. 

passengers and urged that airlines be 

required to reimburse passengers for 

baggage fees when bags are delayed. 

Some have asserted that lengthy delays 

may render the bag transportation 

service useless to consumers. The 

Department shares consumers’ concern 

about the inconvenience and frustration 

associated with delayed bags. According 

to data collected by the Department’s 

Bureau of Transportation Statistics 

(BTS), in calendar year 2019, the largest 

10 U.S. carriers and their branded 

codeshare partners collectively 

mishandled nearly 3 million bags from 

passengers they transported on domestic 

scheduled flights.3 Although the 

mishandled baggage data collected by 

the Department does not distinguish 

among lost, delayed, damaged, and 

pilfered bags, data published by an 

aviation analytics firm show that 

delayed bags are by far the most 

common type of mishandlings. 

Specifically, according to the 2019 SITA 

Baggage IT Insights Report,4 globally, 

delayed bags represented 77% of all 

mishandled bags in 2018, while 

damaged or pilfered bags account for 

18%, and lost or stolen bags account for 

5%. Assuming delayed bags are 77% of 

mishandlings in 2019 for domestic 

flights by U.S. reporting carriers, similar 

to 2018, we estimate that at least 2.3 

million checked bags transported 

domestically were delayed in 2019. 

To better address the concerns 

regarding fees for delayed checked bags 

and implement the requirements of 49 

U.S.C. 41704, note, the ANPRM 

specifically sought comment on (1) how 

to determine the appropriate length of 

the delay within the statutory 

parameters that would trigger the refund 

requirement for delayed checked bags; 

(2) how to determine when a bag has 

been delivered for the purpose of 

measuring the length of delay, and (3) 

how to determine the appropriate 

method for providing ‘‘automated’’ 

refunds as provided in the statute. 

Approximately 60 individuals, ten 

representatives of airlines and airline 

associations (Airlines for American, 

Allegiant Air, American Airlines, Delta 

Air Lines, International Air 

Transportation Association, Sun 

Country Airlines, National Air Carrier 

Association, Spirit Airlines, the 

Association of Asia Pacific Airlines, and 

Virgin Atlantic), one consumer group 

(Consumer Union), and one trade 

association for travel agencies 

(American Society for Travel Advisors) 

submitted comments. The Department 

has carefully reviewed and considered 

the comments received on the ANPRM 

and is proposing a rulemaking designed 

to ensure that airlines provide prompt 

refunds for ancillary fees paid by 

passengers for delayed checked baggage 

as provided in 49 U.S.C. 41704, note. 

The summary of the ANPRM comments, 

the Department’s responses to the 

ANPRM comments, and the 

Department’s proposal is set forth 

below. 

B. Proposals 

1. Length of Delay Triggering Refund 

Requirement 

The ANPRM 

In the ANPRM, the Department 

sought comment on how to determine 

the appropriate length of delay that 

would trigger the refund requirement for 

checked baggage. The provision at 49 

U.S.C. 41704, note prescribes the 

minimum lengths of delay that would 

trigger the refund requirement as not 

later than 12 hours for domestic flights 

and not later than 15 hours for 

international flights. It also provides the 

Department the flexibility to modify 

these timeframes to up to 18 hours for 

domestic flights and up to 30 hours for 

international flights if the Department 

determines that the 12-hour or 15-hour 

standards are infeasible and would 

‘‘adversely affect consumers in certain 

cases.’’ The Department asked why a 

particular length of time within this 

timeframe would be more appropriate 

than other times. The Department also 

asked if there is a reason to establish a 

secondary set of criteria, such as the 

flight duration or the frequency of 

service to determine the appropriate 

timeframe. 

Comments Received 

According to comments submitted in 

response to the ANPRM, airlines 

generally support adopting the 

maximum lengths of delay allowed by 

the statute (18 hours for domestic flights 

and 30 hours for international flights). 

The airlines believe that any DOT 

requirement should provide carriers 

maximum flexibility to take into 

account the multiple variables that 

could impact their operations. Some 

airline commenters express concerns 

about the difficulties they encounter in 

delivering delayed bags for international 

long-haul flights they operate in low 

frequencies, which they state would 

take 24–48 hours. The National Air 

Carrier Association (NACA), Allegiant 

Air, and Spirit Airlines specifically 

expressed concerns about the 

difficulties Ultra Low-Cost Carriers 

(ULCC) face in transporting delayed 

bags due to their low frequency of 

scheduled flights and the lack of 

interline agreements with other carriers. 

The American Society of Travel 

Advisors (ASTA) and Consumers Union 

are in favor of adopting the minimum 

lengths of delay prescribed in the statute 

because they believe the default 

timeframes set by the statute are 

necessary to mitigate consumer harms 

resulting from delayed baggage and any 

extension of the default timeframes 

would ‘‘adversely affect consumers.’’ 

Some individual commenters suggested 

that the Department should adopt a 

tiered standard based on not only 

domestic versus international flights, 

but also on the length or frequency of 

the flights. 

DOT Response 

The Department proposes to require 

an airline to refund an ancillary fee paid 

by a passenger for a checked bag if the 

airline fails to deliver the bag to the 

passenger within 12 hours of arrival for 

domestic flights. The note in 49 U.S.C. 

41704 provides that the Department 

shall issue a rule that requires carriers 

to promptly provide a refund for any 

ancillary fees paid by a passenger for 

checked baggage if a carrier fails to 

deliver the bag to passengers within 12 

hours of arrival for domestic flights. 

There is an exception if the Department 

determines that the 12-hour standard is 

not feasible and would adversely affect 

consumers in certain cases. The 

Department believes it is feasible for 

airlines to return a bag within 12 hours 

for domestic flights because airlines 

have tracking systems in place to 

identify the location of bags and airlines 

should be able to place delayed bags on 

the next available flight, often resulting 

in bags being delivered within 12 hours 

for domestic flights. 

With respect to international flights, 

the Department proposes to allow 

carriers up to 25 hours to deliver 

checked bags without having to issue a 

refund because the Department 

considers it not feasible, in many cases, 

for airlines to return a bag in less time 

and believes a timeframe that is shorter 

than 25 hours would adversely affect 

consumers. The statute provides the 

Department discretion to extend the 

timeframe for when carriers must refund 

fees paid by passengers for delayed 

checked baggage from 15 hours to up to 

30 hours of the arrival of international 

flights if the Department makes a 

determination that 15 hours is not 

feasible and would adversely affect 

consumers in certain cases. The 

Department considered and was 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 137 / Wednesday, July 21, 2021 / Proposed Rules 38423 

5The Department permits reporting carriers not to 

report as a mishandled bag when undisputed 

evidence shows that delay was caused by a 

passenger’s negligence at the first point of entry. 

See, Number 30A Technical Directive: Mishandled 

Baggage (Amended), effective Jan. 1, 2019. https:// 

www.bts.gov/topics/airlines-and-airports/number30a-technical-directive-mishandled-baggageamended-effective-jan. 

persuaded by the comments stating that 

many international long-haul flights are 

scheduled once a day which makes 

recovery and delivery of a delayed 

checked bag within the minimum length 

delay of 15 hours prescribed in the 

statute extremely challenging for 

carriers. Also, consumers may be 

negatively impacted by a 15-hour 

deadline because carriers may have less 

incentive to deliver the delayed bag on 

the next flight when flights are 

scheduled once a day. This is because 

even if the bag arrives on the carrier’s 

next flight, the 15-hour deadline would 

have already passed. Setting the 

timeframe for returning bags to 25 hours 

exceeds the minimum length of delay in 

the statute but increases the likelihood 

that carriers can meet the deadline even 

if their flights are scheduled 24 hours 

apart. The Department believes that the 

12-hour deadline for domestic flights 

and 25-hour deadline for international 

flights provides carriers sufficient time 

to recover and return the bags to 

consumers. It also incentivizes carriers 

to return bags as soon as possible, 

limiting the inconvenience to 

consumers. 

The Department solicits comment on 

whether it has adequately considered 

the impact on consumers and airlines of 

the proposed 25-hour deadline for 

international flights. Commenters 

should identify any factors that they 

believe the Department may not have 

considered fully. The Department also 

seeks comment on whether the 

proposed 12-hour deadline for domestic 

flights is reasonable, particularly for 

ULCC that may have a lower frequency 

of scheduled flights and a lack of 

interline agreements with other carriers. 

The Department notes that, according to 

the aforementioned SITA baggage 

report, transfer mishandling is by far the 

leading cause of bag delays, which 

accounted for 46% of total bag delays in 

2019. Most ULCCs operate point to 

point itineraries that do not involve 

transfer of bags from one flight to 

another and therefore do not incur the 

delays caused by transfer mishandling 

in nearly the numbers that network 

carriers are likely to experience. The 

Department requests comment on 

whether the proposed deadlines are 

feasible and whether they would 

negatively impact consumers. 

Commenters should articulate specific 

concerns and provide reasons for any 

alternative deadlines that they would 

endorse. 

The Department has tentatively 

determined not to propose a tiered 

standard based on flights’ frequency, 

length, or other variables. To avoid 

having to provide a refund under such 

a standard, carriers would have to 

implement a costly system of sorting 

and prioritizing delivery of delayed bags 

based on the length or frequency of each 

individual flight. The cost and 

complexity of such a system would 

likely outweigh the benefits to carriers 

and consumers. Consumers may be 

negatively impacted because carriers 

may have less incentive to deliver the 

delayed bag as soon as possible. 

Conversely, a simplified standard based 

on domestic and international flights is 

expected to be easier for carriers to 

implement, for consumers to 

understand, and for the Department to 

enforce. 

Also, there is a proposed editorial 

change to the rule text in 14 CFR 

259.5(b)(3). The existing rule requires 

carriers to make every reasonable effort 

to return mishandled baggage within 

twenty-four hours. In light of the 

proposed delay thresholds that would 

trigger the baggage fee refund 

requirement for delayed bags, the 

Department is proposing to remove the 

reference to ‘‘twenty-four hours’’ and, 

instead, require carriers to return 

mishandled baggage ‘‘within 12 hours 

for domestic flights and within 25 hours 

for international flights.’’ 

2. Domestic Segments of International 

Itineraries 

The ANPRM 

The ANPRM requested comment on 

whether the international or the 

domestic deadline should apply to a 

delayed bag transported on domestic 

segments of international itineraries. 

Comments Received 

In response, most airlines supported 

applying the international deadline for 

bags transported on domestic segments 

of international itineraries. They explain 

that the duration and frequencies of 

international itineraries should be taken 

into consideration when establishing 

such a deadline. ASTA states that 

consumers will benefit from one 

standard being applied by avoiding 

confusion and uncertainty regarding 

when a refund is due. 

DOT Response 

This NPRM proposes to apply the 25- 

hour international deadline to delayed 

checked bags on international itineraries 

that include a domestic segment or 

segments. Based on information 

provided by the airline industry on 

mishandled baggage reporting, for bags 

traveling on itineraries that include both 

domestic and international segments, 

mishandlings occur more frequently on 

the international segment(s). The 

Department believes that applying the 

international deadline to such 

itineraries appropriately takes into 

account that many delayed bags 

traveling on an international itinerary 

were likely delayed on the international 

portion of the trip. Also, as pointed out 

by ASTA, applying one standard 

prevents confusion as to when a refund 

is due. The Department solicits 

comment on whether the 25-hour 

international standard is the appropriate 

standard to apply for domestic segments 

of international flights. Are there any 

instances in which the 12-hour 

domestic standard is more appropriate 

for an international itinerary that 

includes a domestic segment? For 

example, assuming an international 

itinerary on one ticket starts with a 

domestic segment from Seattle to New 

York followed by an international 

segment departing from New York many 

hours later, should the 12-hour deadline 

apply when the bag did not arrive in 

New York on time for the passenger to 

recheck the bag for the international 

portion of the journey? 

For domestic segments of 

international itineraries, the Department 

also solicits comment on whether any 

mandate for refunds for delayed 

checked baggage should exclude 

instances in which a bag was available 

in the appropriate location at the first 

point of entry into the United States, to 

be picked up by the passenger for 

rechecking for a subsequent domestic 

flight segment on that itinerary, but the 

passenger failed to pick up the bag. 

Most bags arriving to the United States 

from an international flight would 

require their owners to claim them at 

the first point of entry and recheck them 

with the connecting carriers after they 

pass through U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection. The Department requests 

comment regarding not requiring 

carriers to issue a refund for a lengthy 

delay in delivering the bag if carriers 

determine that a bag delay was caused 

by a passenger’s failure to pick up and 

recheck the bag at the first point of entry 

into the United States.5

Similarly, the Department requests 

comment regarding not requiring 

carriers to issue a refund in instances in 

which a passenger is traveling with two 

separate tickets and the passenger fails 

to collect the checked bag at the end of 

the first itinerary and check it with the 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
38424 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 137 / Wednesday, July 21, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

carrier on the second itinerary. Are 

there other circumstances in which not 

requiring carriers to issue a refund of 

bag fees if the bag did not arrive at the 

final destination by the applicable 

deadline would be appropriate? Instead 

of specifying particular circumstances 

in which airlines are not required to 

issue a refund for a lengthy delay in 

delivering the bag, would a general 

exception for checked baggage delays 

that were a result of a passenger’s 

negligence be preferable? The 

Department seeks comment on whether 

such exceptions are reasonable and, if 

so, what level of proof, if any, carriers 

should be required to provide to show 

that a bag delay was caused by the 

passenger’s negligent action or inaction. 

3. Methodology for Measuring Length of 

Delay 

The ANPRM 

While the Department did not 

specifically ask for comment on when 

the clock starts for purposes of 

measuring the length of the delay for 

delivering checked baggage, the 

Department did seek comment on how 

to determine when the clock stops 

running, i.e., bags have been delivered 

to the passenger. 

Comments Received 

Comments received in response to the 

ANPRM indicate that many airlines 

prefer an interpretation that considers 

the bag to be delivered to the passenger 

(i.e., stops the clock) when the bag is 

physically present at the intended 

destination airport and the passenger 

has been notified that the bag is 

available for pick up. Several airlines 

oppose stopping the clock when the bag 

is transported to an offsite location and 

handed over to the passenger, citing 

difficulties arising when the offsite 

location is far away from the airport, 

when the passengers are in control of 

the delivery time and may choose to 

receive the bag at a later time (e.g., 

postponing the handover of the bag 

until the next morning when the bag 

could have been delivered during the 

night before), or when carriers have less 

control over delivery services provided 

by vendors in international operations. 

A few airlines supported stopping the 

clock when the bag is transported to an 

offsite location even if the passenger 

does not have physical possession of the 

bag and has not yet been notified. ASTA 

commented that the clock should stop 

when passengers have physical 

possession of delayed bags because the 

disruption caused by the delay 

continues until passengers are reunited 

with their bags. Consumers Union stated 

that the clock should stop when the bag 

is physically handed over to the 

passengers or when the bag has arrived 

at the place where the passenger has 

asked the bag to be delivered. 

Consumers Union specifically opposed 

making the destination airport the 

designated delivery place because it 

believes that requiring the passengers to 

make another trip to the airport would 

further inconvenience passengers. 

With regard to how to measure the 

start of the delay for delivering checked 

baggage, airline commenters stated that 

the Department should not use the 

published scheduled arrival time of the 

flight. Instead, airlines support an 

approach of starting the clock at the 

aircraft’s ‘‘block-in time,’’ meaning the 

time when a flight has parked at the 

arrival gate or another disembarkation 

location and blocks were placed in front 

of its wheels. 

DOT Response 

To calculate the length of delay that 

a passenger experiences in receiving a 

checked bag, it is necessary to specify 

the start and end of the delay. The 

provision at 49 U.S.C. 41704, note states 

that the clock starts at the ‘‘arrival’’ of 

a flight. The statute does not, however, 

specify what constitutes the ‘‘arrival’’ of 

a flight. The Department generally 

agrees with airlines that using the actual 

arrival time of the last flight segment on 

which a passenger traveled as opposed 

to the scheduled arrival time of that 

flight is a reasonable approach. 

However, rather than using the aircraft’s 

block-in time, the Department proposes 

that the start of the delay be based on 

the time that the passenger reached his 

or her destination and was given the 

opportunity to deplane from the last 

flight segment. Airlines already track 

this information for the purpose of 

ensuring compliance with the 

Department’s tarmac delay rule in 14 

CFR part 259. 

As to when the Department would 

consider bags to be delivered to the 

passenger, the Department is not 

persuaded by comments advocating for 

the clock to stop when a passenger is 

reunited with the delayed bag. This 

approach would not be workable as 

passengers have significant control over 

when they would reunite with the bags. 

For example, a passenger may be 

notified that a bag is ready for pick-up 

at the airport in the morning but choose 

to not pick up the bag until that evening 

or the next day; or a passenger may 

request hotel delivery but be away from 

the hotel during the day and only 

receive the bag in the evening. Carriers 

facing the hurdles of deferred baggage 

handover time are less likely to make 

the mandated deadlines and would be 

required to provide refunds despite the 

bags being available to passengers for 

pickup at an earlier time. 

Pursuant to the proposal in this 

NPRM, at the carriers’ discretion, a 

delayed bag would be considered 

delivered (1) when the bag is 

transported to a location agreed to by 

the passenger and the carrier, regardless 

of whether the passenger is present to 

take possession of the bag; (2) when the 

bag has arrived at the destination 

airport, is available for pickup, and the 

carrier has provided notice to the 

passenger of the location and 

availability of the bag for pick-up; or (3) 

if the carrier offers delivery service and 

the passenger accepts such service, 

when the bag has arrived at the 

destination airport, and the carrier has 

provided notice to the passenger that 

the bag has arrived and will be 

delivered to the passenger. Given the 

three options, carriers would be able to 

coordinate with each passenger 

regarding whether the passenger prefers 

to retrieve the bag at the airport or, if the 

carrier offers the service, to have the bag 

delivered to the passenger at a desired 

location. This approach provides 

airlines the ability, with less financial 

risk, to work with the passengers to 

transfer the bags to the most convenient 

location in the most efficient manner to 

the passenger. At the same time, these 

options would eliminate handover time 

being postponed by the passenger while 

the clock is running. If a carrier opts to 

stop the clock at the time the carrier 

provides notice that the delayed bag is 

available at the destination airport for 

pick-up by the passenger or delivery if 

the carrier offers this service and 

passenger chooses it, the carrier would 

have the burden of proving that it 

provided notice to the passenger prior to 

the applicable deadline. This approach 

would also benefit passengers by 

increasing the likelihood carriers would 

provide passengers the option of having 

the delayed bag delivered to them. 

A carrier that already has a system in 

place to notify passengers of the status 

of their baggage may choose to have the 

clock stop when a delayed bag arrives 

at the airport and the notification has 

been provided to the passenger. 

Alternatively, a carrier that does not 

have a notification system in place and 

is reluctant to invest in such a system 

may choose to have the clock stop at the 

time the bag was transported to an 

agreed-upon location. Allowing carriers 

to choose among these options 

minimizes carriers’ cost, which 

otherwise may be passed on to the 

passengers through the increase of ticket 

prices or baggage fees. The Department 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 137 / Wednesday, July 21, 2021 / Proposed Rules 38425 

seeks comment on whether this analysis 

accurately captures carriers’ incentives 

to work with passengers and provide 

baggage delivery or if there are other 

factors that were not considered that 

could cause carriers to engage in 

different behaviors in response to the 

proposed options. In addition, the 

Department seeks comment on whether 

allowing carriers to choose among these 

three options is reasonable and effective 

to achieve the goal of providing carriers 

and passengers the maximum level of 

flexibility, promoting efficiency in 

delayed baggage recovery, and ensuring 

passengers are treated fairly when their 

bags are delayed in air transportation. 

In addition to comments requested on 

the previously discussed elements of the 

proposal, the Department seeks 

comment on the following issues: 

a. Form and Evidence of Notification to 

Passengers 

For carriers that choose to have the 

clock stopped when a delayed bag has 

arrived at the intended airport and the 

carrier has notified the passenger that 

the bag may be picked up or, if the 

carrier offers and passenger accepts, that 

the bag may be delivered, what should 

constitute a sufficient form of 

notification to ensure that passengers 

receive adequate and timely information 

about the whereabouts of their bags 

before carriers are relieved from the 

obligation of refunding baggage fee? 

Currently, most airlines provide ticket 

confirmations and other air travel 

information to passengers via email. 

Many carriers also use mobile 

applications to provide various 

notifications and alerts to passengers, 

including reminders of check-in time, 

boarding time, gate information, and 

changes to flight status and baggage 

status. Some of these carriers allow 

passengers to opt-in to receiving 

notifications through email or text 

messages. Would push notices through 

mobile applications, email, and text 

message be sufficient constructive 

notice for the purpose of stopping the 

delayed baggage clock? Would contact 

via a voice call or message be sufficient? 

If a voice call or message is a 

permissible form of notification, what 

evidence should a carrier be required to 

provide when there is a dispute between 

a carrier and a passenger about whether 

such a notification was provided? The 

proposed rule text does not specify what 

type(s) of notification method are 

considered adequate. In that regard, 

should the Department adopt a 

notification standard that is 

performance based instead of specifying 

a particular notification method to be 

necessary for the purpose of stopping 

the delayed baggage clock? If any of 

these methods are acceptable, should 

the Department’s focus be on the 

timeliness of the notification rather than 

the methods of notification? 

In addition, carriers may not have 

contact information for some 

passengers, particularly passengers who 

purchased their tickets through ticket 

agents. The Department seeks comment 

on how carriers may notify passengers 

when they do not have valid contact 

information for a passenger. Could this 

problem be resolved by carriers 

obtaining contact information for all 

passengers when they file a mishandled 

baggage report for a delayed bag? 

b. Timing of Notification to Passengers 

For carriers choosing option 2, which 

would have the clock stopped when the 

delayed bag has arrived at the intended 

airport and notification that the bag is 

available for pick-up was provided to 

the passenger, the Department proposes 

to add a third element to stop the clock, 

i.e., the bag is actually available for 

pickup. For example, assuming that a 

carrier’s baggage office at the intended 

airport closes at 10 p.m. and opens at 6 

a.m.; when a delayed bag arrives at the 

intended airport at 1 a.m., and a 

notification was sent to the passenger at 

the same time through an automated 

push alert on the mobile application, 

the clock would stop at 6 a.m. the next 

morning when the bag becomes 

available for pickup, instead of at 1 a.m. 

The Department is also proposing that 

the clock would still stop at 1 a.m. in 

circumstances when the passenger is 

contacted and expresses a preference 

that the bag be delivered and the carrier 

agrees to do so (option 3) as that is the 

time that the bag arrived at the 

destination airport. The Department 

seeks comment on this additional 

element for option 2 for determining 

when a bag has been delivered. 

4. Multiple Carrier/Ticket Agent 

Involvement and Responsibility 

The ANPRM 

In the ANPRM, the Department 

sought comment regarding who should 

be responsible for issuing refunds when 

there are multiple parties involved in 

the collection of baggage fees and/or the 

transportation of the bags. These 

situations arise, for example, when there 

is a codeshare or interline itinerary in 

which the carrier collecting the bag fee 

(usually the first carrier) and the carrier 

responsible for bag delivery and 

receiving the delayed bag report 

(usually the last carrier) are different 

carriers, or when an itinerary is 

marketed by a third party such as a 

ticket agent, and the third party 

collected not only the airfare but also 

the baggage fees. 

Comments Received 

Airlines point out the difficulty they 

face in situations when the entity 

collecting the fee does not have 

information that the bag was delayed 

beyond the applicable timeframe and 

that a refund is due, while the carrier 

with the information about the delay 

may not have the payment information 

necessary for issuing the refund. With 

regard to ticket agents collecting baggage 

fees, most commenters, including 

airlines, consumer representatives, and 

ticket agent representatives, agree that 

when a ticket agent was authorized by 

a carrier to collect the baggage fee on the 

carrier’s behalf, the carrier should be 

responsible for issuing the refund. 

ASTA further suggests that these agents 

may facilitate the refund by using the 

Electronic Miscellaneous Document 

(EMD) process, an IATA process that 

facilitates transactions involving nonflight ancillary services. 

With respect to multiple-carrier 

itineraries, some commenters have 

suggested an approach that requires the 

carrier ‘‘at fault’’ for the delay of the bag 

to issue the refund; some commenters 

want the carrier that collected the fee to 

make the refund regardless of ‘‘fault;’’ 

and others prefer that the refund 

amount be shared among the carriers on 

a prorated basis. Consumers Union 

commented that consumers should not 

be burdened with tracking down which 

airlines caused the delay. 

DOT Response 

The Department agrees with the 

commenters that when a ticket agent’s 

role is to act as the agent of a carrier, 

collecting the baggage fee on the 

carrier’s behalf and passing on the fee to 

the carrier, the carrier should be 

responsible for issuing the refund when 

it is due. It should be noted that the 

functionality of EMD is controlled by 

individual airlines and that not all 

airlines use the EMD process. While the 

Department does not endorse EMD or 

any other products available to settle 

baggage fee transactions among carriers 

and ticket agents, the EMD process is an 

example of a system that could facilitate 

the smooth handling of baggage fee 

transactions and refunds. The 

Department expects carriers to work 

with ticket agents collecting baggage 

fees on the carriers’ behalf to ensure that 

refunds are issued in a timely manner. 

In instances in which a ticket agent 

collected the baggage fee, the 

Department will hold the carriers 

responsible if passengers entitled to 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
38426 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 137 / Wednesday, July 21, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

6See https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/ 

eAgendaViewRule?pubId=202010&RIN=2105-AE57. 

refunds are not provided prompt 

refunds, because 49 U.S.C. 41704, note 

applies to airlines. 

The Department has tentatively 

decided to not apply the new proposed 

baggage refund requirements in 14 CFR 

part 260 to ticket agents. The proposed 

part 260 makes cross references to 

certain minimum standards of the 

airline customer service plan required 

by 14 CFR 259.5, which currently 

applies to carriers but not to ticket 

agents. The Department is required by 

49 U.S.C. 42301, note prec., to issue a 

rule requiring ticket agents with an 

annual revenue of at least $100 million 

to adopt minimum customer service 

standards, and intends to address this 

requirement through a separate 

rulemaking.6 The Department seeks 

information on ticket agents’ 

involvement in collecting baggage fees 

from passengers, either as a carrier’s 

agent or as a principal. The Department 

also notes that, pursuant to 14 CFR 

399.80(l), a ticket agent’s failure or 

refusal to make proper refunds promptly 

when service cannot be performed as 

contracted, or a ticket agent’s 

representation that such refunds are 

obtainable only at some other point, 

constitutes an unfair or deceptive 

practice. 

Regarding multiple-carrier itineraries, 

the Department agrees with Consumer 

Union that expecting consumers to track 

down which airline caused the delay 

would be an unreasonable burden to 

place on consumers. It would also be 

costly for carriers to determine which 

carrier is at fault for causing each bag 

delay. Accordingly, this NPRM proposes 

that the carrier that collected the 

baggage fee must issue the refund. With 

respect to multiple-carrier itineraries for 

which a ticket agent collected the bag 

fee, the Department is proposing that 

the carrier that operated the last flight 

segment must issue the refund if there 

are multiple airlines involved. The 

Department notes that the operating 

carrier of the last flight segment may be 

a fee-for-service carrier that normally 

does not handle baggage fee refunds 

since these types of entities generally do 

not sell tickets or ancillary services. As 

such, the Department solicits comment 

on whether, rather than requiring the 

carrier that operated the last flight 

segment to provide the refund, it should 

require the carrier that marketed the last 

flight segment to issue the refund when 

a ticket agent collects the bag fee. 

Carriers would be free to prorate the 

cost of refunds among themselves 

through contractual agreements, if so 

desired, but consumers should be 

afforded a simplified process in 

pursuing a refund from one carrier that 

already has the payment information for 

issuing refunds. The Department seeks 

comment on whether this proposal 

regarding refund obligations adequately 

addresses the issues raised when 

multiple parties are involved in the sale 

and provision of air transportation or 

whether there are additional issues that 

need to be addressed. 

5. Refund Mechanism and Passengers 

Notifying Carriers About Delayed Bags 

To Receive Baggage Fee Refunds 

The ANPRM 

In the ANPRM, the Department 

sought comment regarding the 

appropriate method for providing a 

refund for delayed baggage. It noted that 

when refunds are due on purchases 

with a credit card, the Department 

already requires a carrier to transmit a 

credit statement to the credit card issuer 

within seven business days of receipt of 

full documentation for the refund 

requested. In addition, the Department 

requires that, with respect to purchases 

with forms of payment other than credit 

cards, an airline must provide a refund 

within 20 days of receipt of full 

documentation of such a request. 

Because 49 U.S.C. 41704, note states 

that carriers should ‘‘promptly provide 

an automated refund’’ to an eligible 

passenger when the carriers fail to meet 

the applicable time limit in delivering 

the checked bag and the passenger has 

notified the carrier of the lost or delayed 

checked baggage, the Department asked 

whether prescribing a specific 

mechanism for the carriers to use to 

provide the statutorily required 

automated refund would negatively or 

positively impact carriers and 

consumers. 

Comments Received 

To determine how to ‘‘promptly 

provide an automated refund’’ for 

delayed bags, most commenters state 

that the Department should apply its 

existing requirement on providing 

prompt ticket refunds. Specifically, 

when a refund is due, 14 CFR part 374, 

which implements Regulation Z of the 

Board of Governors of the Federal 

Reserve Board (12 CFR part 226), 

requires a carrier to issue a refund of 

ticket purchase price paid by a credit 

card within seven days after receiving a 

complete refund request. The regulation 

in 14 CFR 259.5(b)(5) further requires a 

carrier to issue a refund of ticket 

purchase price paid by cash or a check 

within 20 days after receiving a 

complete refund request. However, 

airline commenters expressed concern 

that this type of ‘‘automated’’ refund 

may not be feasible for interline 

itineraries because refunds can only be 

made after a consumer informs the 

airline that charged the baggage fee that 

the bag is delayed. Some airlines are 

also concerned about the difficulty in 

issuing ‘‘automated’’ refunds when 

passengers purchase tickets from travel 

agents or as a part of a tour package. 

DOT Response 

The Department tentatively interprets 

the requirement in 49 U.S.C. 41704, 

note to mean that a prompt and 

‘‘automated’’ baggage fee refund is due 

when the baggage delivery delay has 

exceeded the applicable delivery 

deadline and the passenger has notified 

the air carrier or foreign air carrier of the 

lost or delayed checked baggage. The 

clock for determining whether the 

refund is ‘‘prompt’’ starts at the 

expiration of the delivery deadline or 

when the passenger provides 

notification of the lost or delayed 

baggage, whichever is later. DOT 

proposes to require airlines to provide 

refunds for delayed bags within seven 

business days of a refund being due for 

credit cards and within 20 days of a 

refund being due for payments using 

cash, check, vouchers, frequent flyer 

miles, or other form of payment. For the 

refund process to start, passengers 

would need to notify the airline that 

collected the bag fee about the delay in 

receiving the bag. If a ticket agent 

collected the bag fee, passengers would 

need to notify the carrier that operated 

the flight about the delay in receiving 

the bag. With respect to multiple-carrier 

itineraries for which a ticket agent 

collected the bag fee, passengers would 

need to notify the carrier that operated 

the last flight segment about the delay 

in receiving the bag. The Department 

acknowledges that this notification 

requirement on passengers would 

encompass two different scenarios, each 

of which would impose a different level 

of burden on passengers. First, in 

situations in which the carrier accepting 

and handling a mishandled baggage 

report (MBR) from the passenger is the 

same carrier that collected the baggage 

fee, the filing of an MBR would 

constitute notification from the 

passenger to the carrier that the baggage 

was delayed for the purpose of receiving 

a checked baggage fee refund. It is the 

Department’s understanding that the 

vast majority of itineraries marketed to 

consumers in the United States are 

either itineraries involving only one 

carrier or itineraries involving fee-forservice codeshare operations (itineraries 

involving a marketing carrier and its 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 137 / Wednesday, July 21, 2021 / Proposed Rules 38427 

regional codeshare partners in which 

the marketing carriers collect the 

baggage fees and also accept MBRs). The 

Department believes that this 

notification requirement would not be 

burdensome to passengers in most 

delayed bag incidents, as passengers 

normally file MBRs with carriers about 

delayed bags shortly after they find out 

that their checked bags did not arrive on 

time. In addition, the burden of 

notifying carriers about a delayed bag is 

further reduced by baggage tracking 

systems implemented by a growing 

number of carriers that alert passengers 

when their bags will arrive late and offer 

passengers the option to file an MBR via 

mobile device or app without needing to 

visit the baggage claim areas or the 

baggage service offices. When using 

these technologies, passengers are often 

advised to click on a link provided in 

the late bag alert to either wait for the 

bag or set up free delivery. Such 

technology developments allow 

passengers to conveniently notify 

carriers about mishandled baggage for 

the purpose of receiving compensation 

for direct and consequential damages 

from mishandled baggage under the 

existing rule, as well as receiving a 

refund of baggage fees under the 

proposed rule. 

In contrast to the first scenario 

discussed above, the second scenario 

involves situations in which the carrier 

that received an MBR about a delayed 

bag and the carrier or ticket agent that 

charged the baggage fee are two different 

entities. Examples of this scenario 

include interline itineraries and 

itineraries that involves codeshare 

flights operated by more than one 

marketing carrier. The proposed rule 

would require the passenger to notify 

the carrier that processed the baggage 

fee charge about a delayed bag to receive 

a refund for the baggage fee. In 

situations in which a ticket agent 

collected the bag fee, passengers would 

need to notify the carrier that operated 

the flight about a delayed bag. With 

respect to multiple-carrier itineraries for 

which a ticket agent collected the bag 

fee, passengers would need to notify the 

carrier that operated the last flight 

segment about the delay in receiving the 

bag. Similar to filing an MBR the 

Department expects that most 

passengers in this situation would 

contact the carrier that operated the 

flight (or the carrier that operated the 

last flight segment in a multiple carrier 

itinerary) immediately following their 

arrival at the destination and finding out 

about the delayed bag. In any event, the 

carrier that has collected the baggage fee 

(or if a ticket agent collected the bag fee, 

the carrier that last operated the flight), 

would have seven days (for credit card 

transactions) or 20 days (for transactions 

other than credit cards) to issue a refund 

from the time a baggage delay exceeded 

the applicable deadline, or from the 

time it receives a notification from the 

passenger, whichever is later. The 

Department solicits comments on 

whether, instead of requiring passengers 

to notify the carrier that operated the 

last flight segment about the bag delays, 

we should require passengers to notify 

the carrier that marketed the last flight 

segment. We ask that commenters 

supporting that passenger notify and 

obtain refund from the last operating 

carrier address the issue of obtaining a 

refund from the last operating carrier 

when the carrier is a fee-for-service 

carrier that does not sell tickets. 

To illustrate this proposal with an 

example: A passenger traveled from 

Chicago to Los Angeles on a flight that 

arrived at Los Angeles on June 19 at 6 

p.m., and according to the carrier’s 

record, the passenger was given the 

opportunity to deplane at 6:15 p.m. At 

6:45 p.m., the passenger did not receive 

the checked bag and filed a mishandled 

baggage report with carrier X (which is 

also the carrier that collected the 

baggage fee). Carrier X chooses to apply 

the standard that stops the delayed bag 

clock at the time the bag arrives at the 

Los Angeles Airport and the carrier has 

notified the passenger that the bag is 

available for pick up. Accordingly, the 

clock for calculating bag delay started at 

6:15 p.m., and Carrier X has 12 hours, 

or until 6:15 a.m. on June 20 to stop the 

clock and avoid refunding the bag fee. 

The bag did not arrive in Los Angeles 

until 10:00 a.m. on June 20. Therefore, 

Carrier X would be required to refund 

the bag fee and has seven days from 

June 20 to issue the refund for the 

baggage fee that was paid by a credit 

card. In a different scenario, if Carrier X 

accepted the MBR and Carrier Y is the 

carrier that collected the baggage fee, 

assuming the passenger did not notify 

Carrier Y about the bag delay until June 

25, Carrier Y will have seven days from 

June 25 to issue the refund. 

The Department believes that 

applying the same seven or 20-day 

requirements to baggage fee refunds, as 

required by other DOT refund 

regulations, is consistent with the 

statutory language that requires the 

refunds to be ‘‘prompt.’’ It also avoids 

confusion among passengers arising 

from trying to understand and apply 

different standards for ticket refunds 

and baggage fee refunds, and saves cost 

for infrastructure and training that 

carriers would have to invest in to 

establish a different refund timeliness 

standard. 

Also, similar to ticket refunds, the 

Department expects that baggage fee 

refunds would be issued in the same 

form of payment as the original baggage 

fee payment. Under this proposal, in 

addition to credit card, cash, and check 

payments being refunded in their 

respective original forms of payment, 

baggage fees paid by airline credit/ 

voucher or frequent flyer miles would 

be refunded in their original forms of 

payment as well. When a delay occurred 

to a bag for which a baggage fee was 

waived due to the passenger’s airline 

loyalty program status or as a benefit of 

using an airline-associated credit card, 

carriers would not be required to 

provide a refund as the passenger did 

not pay anything. 

In circumstances in which a bag was 

delayed but a refund of the baggage fee 

is not required (either because the delay 

did not exceed the deadlines or the 

baggage fee was waived,) carriers are 

still responsible for compensating 

passengers for any direct or 

consequential damages resulting from 

the baggage delay, consistent with 14 

CFR part 253 for domestic air 

transportation, and with applicable 

international treaties for international 

air transportation. 

The Department is aware that at least 

one major U.S. carrier is offering a 

‘‘baggage fee subscription’’ program, 

under which passengers may opt to 

prepay a fixed fee that allows the 

subscribers to travel with certain 

numbers of checked bags without 

paying individual baggage fees during 

the subscribed period. Although the 

subscribers are not paying baggage fees 

on a per bag basis, they are still paying 

a fee for the transportation of their bags. 

DOT’s proposal would require airlines 

to provide refunds to passengers who 

subscribed for the program if a checked 

bag experienced a refund-qualifying 

delay. The Department seeks comments 

on whether this is a reasonable 

determination, and if so, how to 

determine the amount of refund to 

which these passengers should be 

entitled, considering the passenger’s 

subscription type and usage of the 

program, but not overly complicating 

the calculation of the refund and the 

administration of the program. The 

Department also seeks comment on 

whether there are other new and 

innovative baggage fee assessment 

schemes already implemented by 

carriers or on the horizon that should be 

considered in the context of 

promulgating a rule regarding refunding 

baggage fees for delayed bags. 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
38428 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 137 / Wednesday, July 21, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

In summary, the Department’s 

proposed procedure requires that the 

airline collecting the baggage fee issue a 

refund, in the same form of payment, 

within seven or 20 days (depending on 

the form of payment) after the delay in 

the delivery of the bag has exceeded the 

applicable deadline and after the 

passenger has notified that airline of the 

delay. The Department seeks comment 

on whether this proposed procedure is 

a reasonable and workable way for 

carriers to meet the statutory 

requirement to promptly provide an 

automated refund to an eligible 

passenger when a carrier fails to meet 

the applicable time limit in delivering 

the checked bag and the passenger has 

notified the carrier of the lost or delayed 

checked baggage. The Department also 

seeks comment on whether requiring 

passengers to notify the entity that 

collected the bag fee about the bag delay 

when they already filed mishandled 

baggage report with another entity is 

overly burdensome to them. In 

particular, if commenters take the view 

that requiring passengers to provide 

notifications to the entities that 

collected baggage fees from them is 

overly burdensome, the Department 

seeks suggestions for alternative 

procedures. 

6. Other Issues 

In addition to providing comments to 

questions specifically raised in the 

ANPRM, commenters also raised other 

issues for consideration. 

a. Oversized/Overweight Bag Fees 

Carriers normally set a maximum 

allowance for the size and the weight of 

a standard checked bag, and charge a 

higher fee for an oversized and/or 

overweighed bag. Some commenters 

contend that fees for oversized and 

overweight bags should be exempt from 

the refund requirement because these 

bags are still delivered even if they were 

late. However, the statutory language in 

49 U.S.C. 41704, note requires a refund 

for delayed ‘‘checked baggage,’’ making 

no distinction or exception for special 

items that are transported as checked 

bags. The Department interprets the 

statute to cover oversized/overweight 

bags, and accordingly proposes to treat 

them the same as standard sized bags. 

b. Escalated Fee Scale for Multiple 

Checked Bags 

Many carriers have adopted an 

escalated fee scale for additional bags 

checked by one passenger, under which 

if more than one bag is checked, an 

escalated bag fee is charged for each 

additional bag. Problems may arise 

when carriers try to determine the 

amount of refund if only one or some of 

the multiple checked bags are delayed. 

Airlines for America (A4A) suggests that 

when carriers can identify which bag is 

delayed, only the fee paid for that bag 

should be refunded. The Department 

agrees generally with this approach but 

if a dispute were to arise between a 

consumer and an airline, the airline 

would have the burden of providing 

documentary evidence to identify the 

specific fee charged for a specific bag. 

For example, when a passenger checks 

multiple bags, if a carrier’s baggage 

handling system assigns a unique 

identification to each checked bag and 

correlates the specific baggage fee 

charged to the specific bag, the carrier 

would be permitted to provide a refund 

in that amount if that bag was delayed. 

On the other hand, if the carrier’s 

system was able to assign an 

identification to each bag but baggage 

fees were charged in a lump sum, then 

the Department proposes that the refund 

for one delayed bag would be in the 

amount equal to the highest baggage fee 

per bag charged in that transaction. 

c. ‘‘Voluntary Separation’’ and Liability 

Waiver 

A4A asserts in its comment that when 

a passenger voluntarily agrees to be 

separated from his or her checked bags, 

the refund requirement should not 

apply. One scenario presented by A4A 

involves a passenger who does not meet 

the minimum check-in time 

requirement but the carrier allows the 

passenger to check-in for the flight 

anyway with the caveat that there may 

not enough time to transport the 

checked bag to the same flight. Another 

scenario involves a standby passenger 

who is offered to board a flight at a time 

very close to departure with the caveat 

that there may not be enough time to 

load his or her checked bag on that 

flight. If the passenger is informed, 

voluntarily agrees to travel without the 

checked bag on the same flight, and 

signs a waiver of liability associated 

with the delayed bag, A4A believes that 

the baggage fee refund requirement 

should not apply if the bag does not 

arrive by the deadline that triggers the 

refund requirement. The Department 

tentatively agrees with this approach 

and proposes such an exception. DOT 

reminds the industry that such an 

exception would only waive the 

passenger’s entitlement to a baggage fee 

refund due to delayed bag delivery, and 

it would not waive any compensation 

due to the passenger if the checked bag 

is lost or damaged. 

The Department seeks comment on 

the issues described above. The 

Department also notes that carriers are 

liable for incidental expenses associated 

with a delayed bag. Some airlines have 

suggested that when a late-boarding 

passenger is informed that his or her bag 

may not be transported on the same 

flight but chooses to take the flight 

anyway, the passenger is waiving the 

right to claim compensation for 

incidental expenses associated with a 

delayed bag. The Department solicits 

comment on whether, in such delayed 

bag scenarios, airlines should be 

permitted to require passengers to waive 

any rights to compensation for 

incidental expenses and if so, whether 

the Department should require that 

airlines retain such records for a 

specified time period. 

d. Alternative Transportation 

Commenters also brought up issues 

associated with baggage fee refunds 

when a passenger does not take a 

scheduled flight for various reasons. 

A4A suggests that when a passenger 

voluntarily chooses to take alternative 

ground transportation due to a lengthy 

flight delay or cancellation, the carrier 

should not be responsible for refunding 

bag fees. On the other hand, A4A states 

that when a carrier arranges for the 

passenger to travel on an alternative 

ground transportation, the baggage fee 

refund requirement should apply and 

the clock should start at the flight’s 

actual arrival time. In addition, A4A 

argues that when a carrier arranges for 

a passenger to travel on a flight by 

another carrier, the baggage fee refund 

requirement should not apply because 

otherwise it would discourage carriers 

from offering travel on other carriers’ 

flights. 

The Department tentatively agrees 

with the position that when passengers 

voluntarily choose to not travel on the 

scheduled flight or a substitute flight 

offered by the carrier, either by taking 

ground transportation that the passenger 

arranges on their own, or by purchasing 

tickets on flights of another carrier, the 

baggage fee refund requirement should 

not apply. The goal of the baggage fee 

refund requirement is to compensate 

passengers for bag delays caused by 

carriers. In the situations described 

above, a passenger’s own decision to not 

travel on the scheduled or substitute 

flight arranged by the carrier is an 

intervening action that may contribute 

to a delay in being reunited with his or 

her bag. Conversely, when it is a carrier 

making the decision to arrange for 

alternative travel for passengers, either 

on ground transportation, on a later 

flight operated by that carrier, or on a 

flight by another carrier, the baggage fee 

refund requirement should apply. In 

those situations, under this proposal, 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 137 / Wednesday, July 21, 2021 / Proposed Rules 38429 

7The Department notes that some carriers have 

published refund policies that state consumers will 

received a refund for fees paid for ancillary services 

that they did not receive. In addition, the 

Department’s Office of Aviation Consumer 

Protection has reviewed its consumer complaint 

database and found that when carriers receive 

consumer complaints filed with the Department 

alleging that they paid for ancillary services and did 

not receive the services, carriers usually have been 

issuing refunds after verifying that the ancillary 

services were indeed not provided. 

the delayed bag calculation clock would 

start when the passenger’s actual 

transportation arrived, whether a flight 

or other mode of transportation. The 

Department seeks comment on whether 

this position on alternate travel 

arrangements creates unreasonable 

burdens for consumers and airlines. 

e. Type of baggage 

Commenters also sought clarity on the 

meaning of checked baggage. A4A 

specifically states that fees collected for 

gate-checked bags should not be subject 

to the refund requirement as gate 

baggage handling charges are 

independent of bag fees and carriers 

assess gate handling fees to encourage 

passengers to check their bags at the 

ticket counter. With respect to what 

type of baggage is subject to the refund 

requirement, 49 U.S.C. 41704, note 

states that the refund requirement 

applies to ‘‘checked baggage.’’ The 

Department interprets this to include 

not only bags checked with carriers at 

the ticket counters, but also gatechecked bags and valet bags if the 

passenger paid a fee to transport the 

bags. Generally, airlines do not charge 

for valet bags and valet bags are 

delivered on time. Both a ‘‘gate-checked 

bag’’ and a ‘‘valet bag’’ would be 

checked in with carrier personnel at the 

departure gates for transportation in the 

aircraft cargo compartments, but a gatechecked bag would be claimed by the 

passenger at the final destination at the 

baggage claim area, while a valet bag 

would be returned to the passenger at 

the end of the flight segment when the 

passenger disembarks the aircraft. A4A 

in its comment argues that gate-checked 

bag fees should be treated differently 

because carriers often charge a gatechecked bag fee that is higher than the 

regular checked baggage fees to 

encourage passengers to check their 

bags at the ticket counter. Regardless of 

the reason for the fee, 49 U.S.C. 41704, 

note mandates that airlines must refund 

baggage fees if a bag is not delivered in 

a timely manner. 

III. Refunding Fees for Ancillary 

Services That Were Not Provided 

A. Background 

The provision at 49 U.S.C. 42301, 

note prec. requires the Department to 

promulgate a rule that mandates that 

airlines promptly provide a refund to a 

passenger of any ancillary fees paid for 

services related to air travel that the 

passenger does not receive, including on 

the passenger’s scheduled flight, on a 

subsequent replacement itinerary if 

there has been a rescheduling, or for a 

flight not taken by the passenger. The 

Department’s regulation in 14 CFR 

259.5(b)(5) requires that airlines refund 

fees charged to a passenger for optional 

services that the passenger was unable 

to use due to an oversale situation or 

flight cancellation. Although the 

existing rule only requires refunds of 

ancillary fees when a passenger does not 

take the original flight due to oversales 

or cancellation, the Department’s Office 

of Aviation Consumer Protection would 

review any airline practice of refusing to 

refund fees for ancillary services that 

the passenger was unable to use due to 

an action of the airline to determine if 

the airline was engaging in an unfair or 

deceptive practice in violation of 49 

U.S.C. 41712. It is the Department’s 

understanding that airlines in general 

have been providing refunds to 

passengers, not only when passengers 

are unable to use the ancillary service 

due to an oversale situation or flight 

cancellation, but also when passengers 

pay for ancillary services and do not 

receive those services from the carrier 

for other reasons.7

B. Proposals 

This NPRM proposes to codify in the 

rule text a requirement that airlines 

must refund fees a passenger pays for an 

ancillary service that the passenger does 

not receive, including due to oversales 

and flights cancellations, which are 

already in the existing rule text, and 

other situations when the ancillary 

service is not available to the passenger. 

The Department seeks comments on the 

following issues: 

1. Scope of Ancillary Services 

The provision at 49 U.S.C. 42301, 

note prec. requires that airlines refund 

ancillary fees paid for services ‘‘related 

to air travel.’’ The Department has not 

defined ‘‘ancillary services’’ in its 

aviation economic regulations. 

However, the Department has defined 

‘‘optional services’’ in 14 CFR 399.85(d), 

which requires U.S. and foreign air 

carriers to prominently disclose on their 

websites marketing air transportation to 

U.S. consumers information on fees for 

all optional services available to a 

passenger purchasing air transportation. 

Section 399.85(d) specifically provides 

that for purposes of that section, the 

term ‘‘optional services’’ is defined as 

any service the airline provides, for a 

fee, beyond passenger air transportation, 

including, but not limited to, charges for 

checked or carry-on baggage, advance 

seat selection, in-flight beverages, 

snacks and meals, pillows and blankets 

and seat upgrades. This definition does 

not include fees charged for services to 

be provided by entities other than 

airlines, such as hotel accommodations 

or rental cars, which are commonly 

offered by some airlines as a package 

during the airfare reservation process. In 

this NPRM, the Department proposes to 

apply a definition for ‘‘ancillary 

services’’ in § 260.2 that is substantively 

identical to the definition of ‘‘optional 

services’’ provided in § 399.85. This 

proposal defines ancillary service to 

mean any service related to air travel 

provided by a covered carrier, for a fee, 

beyond passenger air transportation. It 

specifies that such service includes, but 

is not limited to, checked or carry-on 

baggage, advance seat selection, access 

to in-flight entertainment system, inflight beverages, snacks and meals, 

pillows and blankets and seat upgrades. 

The Department seeks public comment 

on whether the proposed definition, 

which is similar to the definition for 

‘‘optional service’’ in § 399.85, is 

appropriate to define ancillary services 

in the context of refunding ancillary 

service fees that are directly related to 

air travel. 

2. Refund Eligibility 

The provision at section 42301, note 

prec. requires covered carriers to refund 

ancillary services fees for services that 

‘‘a passenger does not receive, including 

on the passenger’s scheduled flight, on 

a subsequent replacement itinerary if 

there has been a rescheduling, or for a 

flight not taken by the passenger.’’ The 

Department’s existing rule, in 14 CFR 

259.5(b)(5), already requires airlines to 

refund ancillary fees for services to be 

provided on a flight that a passenger 

was unable to use due to flight 

cancellation or oversales. In addition, 

the Department’s Office of Aviation 

Consumer Protection has authority to 

investigate unfair or deceptive practices 

in the provision of air transportation 

pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 41712, and 

considers an airline’s refusal to provide 

a refund to passengers for ancillary 

services that they purchased but did not 

receive to fall under that authority. As 

a result of this long-standing 

interpretation, the Department believes 

that members of the airline industry 

understand that failure to provide a 

refund of fees for ancillary services that 

an airline did not provide to a passenger 

could be viewed as an unfair or 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
38430 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 137 / Wednesday, July 21, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

deceptive practice in violation of 

section 41712. Some airlines have 

adopted and published specific policies 

that provide refunds of fees for ancillary 

services that the passengers do not 

receive. Further, a review of some 

consumer complaint files regarding 

ancillary services that were not received 

show that airlines generally refund 

those fees. 

In this NPRM, the Department 

proposes to codify in the rule text the 

requirement of 49 U.S.C. 42301, note 

prec. on ancillary fee refunds, as well as 

the Department’s long-standing policy, 

which is consistent with that statutory 

provision. As such, the proposal would 

require covered carriers to promptly 

refund an ancillary service fee they 

charged a passenger, if the passenger 

did not receive the ancillary service he 

or she paid for because (1) the service 

was not made available to that 

passenger on the flight he or she took 

(either the original flights or an 

alternative flight due to schedule 

changes made by the airlines or due to 

an oversales situation); or (2) if the 

passenger did not take any flight due to 

the airline not operating the flight or 

making a significant change to the flight. 

Under this proposal, a passenger 

would generally be entitled to a refund 

of the ancillary service fee if the 

passenger did not receive the ancillary 

service. The proposal is focused on 

whether a carrier failed to fulfill its 

obligation to provide the service, as 

opposed to whether the service was 

actually utilized by the passenger. If the 

service was available but a passenger 

did not use the service, the passenger 

would not be entitled to a refund. For 

example, when a passenger pays for wifi service on a flight, if the service is 

available to all passengers who 

purchased the wi-fi service, but a 

particular passenger is unable to use the 

service due to issues with a personal 

device, or the passenger simply decides 

to not use the service, there would be 

no requirement to refund the fee paid by 

that passenger. Also under this 

proposal, a flight schedule change 

affirmatively made by the passenger or 

due to passenger action would not result 

in eligibility for the ancillary fee refund. 

For instance, if a passenger is reaccommodated on an alternate flight 

due to late check-in and the ancillary 

service the passenger paid for such as 

wi-fi service is not available on the 

alternate flight, our proposal would not 

require the carrier to refund the 

ancillary service fee. The Department 

solicits comments on the reasonableness 

of this airline obligation-focused 

approach. 

3. Prompt Refund 

The Department is proposing to apply 

the same ‘‘promptness’’ standards to 

refunding ancillary services fees when 

refunds are due that is currently 

applicable to refunds for tickets, 

optional services that could not be used 

due to an oversale or flight cancellation, 

and lost bags. A prompt refund must be 

provided within seven days for credit 

card transactions and 20 days for 

transactions involving cash, checks, 

vouchers, or frequent flyer miles after 

the entity responsible for issuing a 

refund receives a request for a refund 

and the documentation necessary for 

processing the refund. 

4. Entity Responsible for Refund 

The Department recognizes that the 

entity that processed the ancillary fee 

charge may not necessarily be the entity 

that is responsible for providing the 

ancillary service. For example, in a 

codeshare or interline itinerary, the 

carrier that charges a fee for an ancillary 

service to be provided on a flight may 

not be the carrier that operates the 

flight. In these situations, the passenger 

who did not receive the ancillary 

service on the flight would need to 

contact the carrier that collected the fee 

to request a refund. Similar to the multicarrier scenario for delayed baggage, the 

Department is proposing to hold the 

carrier that collects the fee for ancillary 

service (usually the marketing carrier of 

an itinerary) responsible for issuing a 

refund when the carrier or another 

carrier (usually under a codeshare or 

interline agreement with the marketing 

carrier) fails to provide the ancillary 

service. 

For passengers who purchase airline 

tickets from ticket agents, the 

Department understands that on 

occasion ancillary services may be 

available for purchase at the time of 

ticket reservation from a ticket agent. 

For example, the Department is aware 

that some ticket agents’ websites offer 

the option for consumers to select seats 

for a fee during the booking process. It 

is the Department’s understanding that 

this fee charged by a ticket agent is 

passed on to the carrier whose ticket 

stock is used for issuing the ticket. DOT 

proposes that, if a passenger purchases 

an ancillary service from a ticket agent, 

the Department would hold the carrier 

responsible for issuing the refund 

because the ticket agent is collecting the 

ancillary service fee on the carrier’s 

behalf and passing on the fee to the 

carrier. The carrier presumably has a 

contractual relationship with the ticket 

agent, and 49 U.S.C. 42301, note prec. 

requires airlines to refund ancillary fees 

paid for services ‘‘related to air travel.’’ 

With respect to multiple-carrier 

itineraries for which a ticket agent 

collects an ancillary service fee, the 

Department is proposing that the last 

carrier that operates the flight issue the 

refund if there are multiple airlines 

involved. The Department solicits 

comment on whether, rather than 

requiring the last carrier that operates 

the flight to issue the refund, it should 

require the carrier that marketed the last 

flight segment provide the refund. 

Through contractual agreements, 

carriers and ticket agents can determine 

how best to prorate the cost of refunds 

among themselves. 

Similar to our proposal on refunding 

baggage fees, this NPRM does not 

propose to hold ticket agents that sell 

the ancillary services responsible for 

refunds. The Department is proposing a 

simple refund process to avoid 

passengers being sent back and forth 

among different entities in situations 

where one entity charged the passenger 

the fee for the ancillary service and 

another entity failed to provide the paid 

for service. Accordingly, the Department 

is seeking a general overview of ticket 

agents’ role in the transaction and 

collection of ancillary service fees and 

the process of how fees collected by 

ticket agents are transferred to carriers. 

This information will assist the 

Department in determining how the 

Department’s regulation requiring 

airlines to refund ancillary service fees 

should address the role of ticket agents 

and other non-carrier entities that may 

play a role in the sales of ancillary 

services. 

Regulatory Analyses and Notices 

A. Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory 

Planning and Review) 

This action has been determined to be 

not significant under Executive Order 

12866 (‘‘Regulatory Planning and 

Review’’), as supplemented by 

Executive Order 13563 (‘‘Improving 

Regulation and Regulatory Review’’). 

Accordingly, the Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) has not reviewed it 

under that order. 

The proposed rule would mandate 

refunds of baggage fees for significantly 

delayed checked baggage. It would set a 

threshold of 12 hours for domestic 

baggage and 25 hours for international 

baggage. The proposed rule would also 

mandate refunds of ancillary fees for 

services that passengers did not receive. 

Refunds of baggage fees and ancillary 

service fees represent a transfer from 

airlines to passengers whose bags were 

mishandled by the airline. Accordingly, 

the impacts of this rule are 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 137 / Wednesday, July 21, 2021 / Proposed Rules 38431 

predominantly distributional and not 

expected to generate significant net 

economic costs or benefits. For baggage 

fees, the estimated size of the transfer 

(or redistribution) is between $10.71 

million and $11.43 million annually. 

This estimate, based on a Department 

analysis of baggage fee refunds available 

in this rulemaking docket, is an upperbound estimate which assumes that 

passengers pay fees for all delayed bags. 

For ancillary fees, it is generally current 

practice for airlines to give refunds 

when passengers do not receive 

ancillary services on flights, as 

described in Section III.A. Some airlines 

have codified this practice in their 

published refund policies as well. Given 

current practice, the Department does 

not expect that the requirement to 

refund ancillary service fees would have 

significant distributional impacts. 

The baggage fee refund requirement in 

the proposed rule could have some 

administrative costs, which are 

economic costs, because airlines may 

need to hire additional staff to process 

refunds. The requirement has an 

estimated annual cost between $4.18 

million and $4.41 million, assuming 

that staff process refunds manually. (If 

refunds are processed electronically, as 

is expected in at least some cases, this 

cost could decrease.) Airlines should 

not incur significant administrative 

costs due to the ancillary service fee 

refund requirement, to the extent that 

the refunds are part of current practice. 

This conclusion could change if the 

proposed rule induces more passengers 

to seek refunds from carriers. In that 

case, the ancillary service fee refund 

requirement could add administrative 

costs and have distributional 

implications. 

The Department seeks comment and 

additional data to quantify the effects of 

the proposed rule on baggage fee and 

ancillary service fee refunds, as well as 

information on potential impacts on 

passenger behavior. 

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 

(RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires 

Federal agencies to consider the effects 

of their regulatory actions on small 

businesses and other small entities, and 

to minimize any significant economic 

impact. When an agency issues a 

rulemaking proposal, the RFA requires 

the agency to ‘‘prepare and make 

available for public comment an initial 

regulatory flexibility analysis’’ which 

will ‘‘describe the impact of the 

proposed rule on small entities’’ (5 

U.S.C. 603(a)). Section 605 of the RFA 

allows an agency to certify a rule, in lieu 

of preparing an analysis, if the proposed 

rulemaking is not expected to have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

The entities that would be directly 

regulated by this proposed rule are U.S. 

and foreign air carriers that charge 

baggage fees and other ancillary fees in 

scheduled air transportation. Under 14 

CFR 399.73, for the purposes of the 

Department’s implementation of the 

RFA, a carrier is a small business if it 

provides air transportation exclusively 

with small aircraft, defined as any 

aircraft originally designed to have a 

maximum passenger capacity of 60 seats 

or less or a maximum payload capacity 

of 18,000 pounds or less. 

The Department does not expect that 

this rule would have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. Some small 

carriers that qualify as small businesses 

operate flights as part of a code-share 

arrangement with a larger carrier. In 

these cases, the larger carrier collects 

the baggage fees and other ancillary 

service fees and would be responsible 

for the refunds under the proposal. At 

least five small carriers operating in 

2018 had code-share arrangements with 

larger carriers covering some portion of 

their flights. For other flights, the 

estimated economic effects for carriers 

are small. As described in the baggage 

fee refund analysis, the estimated 

annual refund payments ($10.71 million 

to $11.43 million) and administrative 

costs for carriers ($4.18 million to $4.41 

million) would account for less than 0.5 

percent of their annual baggage fee 

revenues ($3.8 billion in 2015, the year 

used in the analysis due to data 

availability). As baggage handling and 

tracking technologies improve, we 

expect that the percentage of delayed 

bags affected by the rule and resulting 

economic effects would decrease 

further. 

Accordingly, the Department certifies 

that the proposed rule, if promulgated, 

would not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. The Department invites 

comment on this certification and on 

the analysis presented in support of it. 

C. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism) 

This NPRM has been analyzed in 

accordance with the principles and 

criteria contained in Executive Order 

13132 (‘‘Federalism’’). This document 

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 

the Department is 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 does not proposes a new 

collection 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.). 

F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (UMRA) requires, at 2 U.S.C. 

1532, that agencies prepare an 

assessment of anticipated costs and 

benefits before issuing any rule that may 

result in the expenditure by State, local, 

and tribal governments, in the aggregate, 

or by the private sector, of $100 million 

or more (adjusted annually for inflation) 

in any one year. As described elsewhere 

in the preamble, this proposed rule 

would have no such effect on State, 

local, and tribal governments or on the 

private sector. Therefore, the 

Department has determined that no 

assessment is required pursuant to 

UMRA. 

G. National Environmental Policy Act 

The Department has analyzed the 

environmental impacts of this proposed 

action pursuant to the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

(NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and has 

determined that it is categorically 

excluded pursuant to DOT Order 

5610.1D, Procedures for Considering 

Environmental Impacts (81 FR 92966, 

Dec. 15, 2016). Categorical exclusions 

are actions identified in an agency’s 

NEPA implementing procedures that do 

not normally have a significant impact 

on the environment and therefore do not 

require either an environmental 

assessment (EA) or environmental 

impact statement (EIS). See 40 CFR 

1508.4. In analyzing the applicability of 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
38432 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 137 / Wednesday, July 21, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

a categorical exclusion, the agency must 

also consider whether extraordinary 

circumstances are present that would 

warrant the preparation of an EA or EIS. 

Id. Paragraph 10.c.16.h of DOT Order 

5610.1D categorically excludes 

‘‘[a]ctions relating to consumer 

protection, including regulations.’’ This 

proposal relates consumer protection. 

The Department does not anticipate any 

environmental impacts, and there are no 

extraordinary circumstances present in 

connection with this rulemaking. 

Signed on June 23, 2021, in Washington, 

DC 

Peter Paul Montgomery Buttigieg, 

Secretary of Transportation. 

List of Subjects 

14 CFR Part 259 

Air carriers, Consumer protection, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

14 CFR Part 260 

Air carriers, Consumer protection. 

For the reasons set forth in the 

preamble, the Department proposes to 

amend 14 CFR chapter II as follows: 

PART 259—ENHANCED 

PROTECTIONS FOR AIRLINE 

PASSENGERS 

■ 1. The authority citation for 14 CFR 

part 259 continues to read as follows: 

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

40101(a)(9), 40113(a), 41702, 41708, 41712, 

and 42301. 

■ 2. Amend § 259.5 by revising 

paragraphs (b)(3) and (5) to read as 

follows: 

§ 259.5 Customer Service Plan. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(3) Delivering baggage on time, 

including making every reasonable 

effort to return mishandled baggage 

within 12 hours for domestic flights and 

within 25 hours for international flights, 

compensating passengers for reasonable 

expenses that result due to delay in 

delivery, as required by 14 CFR part 254 

for domestic flights and as required by 

applicable international agreements for 

international flights, and refunding 

passengers for any fees charged to 

transport a checked bag that is delayed 

or lost, as required by 14 CFR part 260; 

* * * * * 

(5) Where ticket or ancillary service 

fee refunds are due, providing prompt 

refunds within 7 days, as required by 14 

CFR 374.3 and 12 CFR part 226 for 

credit card purchases, and within 20 

days after receiving a complete refund 

request for cash and check purchases, 

and other means of payment. Refunds 

must be in the original form of payment 

(such as credit card, debit card, cash or 

check, airline miles); 

* * * * * 

■ 3. Add part 260 to read as follows: 

PART 260—REFUNDS FOR AIRLINE 

ANCILIARY SERVICE FEES 

Sec. 

260.1 Purpose. 

260.2 Definitions. 

260.3 Applicability. 

260.4 Refunding fees for ancillary services 

that passengers paid for but that were not 

provided. 

260.5 Refunding fees for significantly 

delayed or lost bags. 

260.6 Providing prompt refunds. 

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

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

§ 260.1 Purpose. 

The purpose of this part is to ensure 

that carriers refund passengers for 

ancillary services related to air travel 

that passengers paid for but were not 

provided. This part is also intended to 

ensure that carriers refund passengers 

for fees to transport checked bags that 

are lost or significantly delayed. 

§ 260.2 Definitions. 

As used in this part: 

Air carrier means a citizen of the 

United States undertaking by any 

means, directly or indirectly, to provide 

air transportation. 

Ancillary service means any service 

related to air travel provided by a 

covered carrier, for a fee, beyond 

passenger air transportation. Such 

service includes, but is not limited to, 

checked or carry-on baggage, advance 

seat selection, access to in-flight 

entertainment program, in-flight 

beverages, snacks and meals, pillows 

and blankets, and seat upgrades. 

Checked bag means a bag or an item 

other than a bag that was provided to a 

carrier by or on behalf of a passenger, 

for transportation in the cargo 

compartment of a scheduled passenger 

flight. A checked bag includes a gatechecked bag and a valet bag. 

Covered carrier means an air carrier or 

a foreign air carrier operating to, from or 

within the United States, conducting 

scheduled passenger service. 

Covered flight means a scheduled 

flight operated or marketed by a covered 

carrier to, from, or within the United 

States. 

Foreign air carrier means a person, 

not a citizen of the United States, 

undertaking by any means, directly or 

indirectly, to provide foreign air 

transportation. 

Significantly delayed checked bag 

means a checked bag that is not 

delivered to the passenger or the 

passenger’s agent within 12 hours of the 

last flight segment’s arrival for domestic 

itineraries and within 25 hours of the 

last flight segment’s arrival for 

international itineraries, including 

itineraries that include both 

international flight segment(s) and 

domestic flight segment(s). 

§ 260.3 Applicability. 

This part applies to all covered 

carriers that collect fees, including 

checked baggage fees, for ancillary 

services to be provided on or in relation 

to a covered flight. 

§ 260.4 Refunding fees for ancillary 

services that passengers paid for but that 

were not provided. 

A covered carrier shall promptly 

provide a refund to a passenger for any 

fees it collected from the passenger for 

ancillary services related to air travel if 

the service was not provided, including 

fees for services on the passenger’s 

scheduled flight, on a subsequent 

replacement flight if there has been a 

rescheduling by the carrier, or on a 

flight not taken by the passenger due to 

oversales or a flight that is not operated 

by the carrier. If a ticket agent collected 

the ancillary fee, the carrier that is 

scheduled to operate the flight or if 

multiple-carrier itineraries, the carrier 

that is scheduled to operate the last 

segment of the passenger’s itinerary is 

responsible for providing a refund. 

§ 260.5 Refunding fees for significantly 

delayed or lost bags. 

Upon receiving a notification 

pursuant to paragraph (b) of this section 

from a passenger, a covered carrier that 

collected a checked baggage fee from the 

passenger or, if a ticket agent collected 

the checked baggage fee from the 

passenger, the covered carrier that is 

scheduled to operate the flight or the 

covered carrier that is scheduled to 

operate the last segment of the 

passenger’s itinerary if multiple-carrier 

itineraries, shall promptly provide a 

refund to the passenger of any fee 

charged for transporting a significantly 

delayed checked bag. 

(a) Determining the length of delay. 

(1) For the purpose of determining 

whether a refund of the baggage fee is 

due, the 12-hour deadline for domestic 

itineraries and the 25-hour deadline for 

international itineraries is calculated 

from the time when a passenger was 

given the opportunity to deplane from 

the aircraft at the passenger’s final 

destination; or, if the final travel 

segment was on alternate ground 

transportation, a comparable time when 

the passenger disembarks from the 

ground transportation. 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 137 / Wednesday, July 21, 2021 / Proposed Rules 38433 

(2) For the purpose of determining 

whether a refund of the baggage fee is 

due, a delayed bag is considered to have 

been delivered to a passenger or a 

passenger’s agent if: 

(i) The bag has been transported to a 

location, other than the destination 

airport, based on agreement by the 

passenger and the carrier, whether or 

not the passenger is present to take 

possession of the bag; 

(ii) The bag has arrived at its intended 

final destination airport and is available 

for pick up, and the carrier has provided 

notice to the passenger or the 

passenger’s agent (e.g., via push notice 

through a mobile application, email, or 

text message) that the bag has arrived at 

that airport and is ready for pick up; or 

(iii) The bag has arrived at the 

intended final destination airport and 

the carrier has provided notice to the 

passenger or the passenger’s agent (e.g. 

via push notice through a mobile 

application, email, or text message) that 

the bag has arrived at that airport and 

will be delivered to a location that the 

passenger and carrier have agreed on. 

(b) Notification of carrier by passenger 

about lost or significantly delayed bag. 

A covered carrier’s obligation to provide 

a prompt refund for a lost bag or a 

significantly delayed bag does not begin 

until passengers provide notification of 

the lost or significantly delayed bag. If 

the entity that collected the baggage fee 

is the same entity that received a 

mishandled baggage report from the 

passenger, the filing of the mishandled 

baggage report constitutes a notification 

from the passenger for the purpose of 

receiving a refund, if due, for the 

baggage fee. In all other situations, 

passengers must inform the carrier that 

collected the baggage fee of the lost or 

delayed bag; or, if a ticket agent 

collected the bag fee, passengers must 

inform the carrier that operated the last 

flight segment about the lost or delayed 

bag for the purpose of receiving a refund 

for the baggage fee for a significantly 

delayed bag. 

§ 260.6 Providing prompt refunds. 

When a refund of a fee for an ancillary 

service, including a fee for lost or 

significantly delayed checked baggage, 

is due pursuant to this part, the refund 

must be issued promptly consistent 

with the requirement of 14 CFR 

259.5(b)(5). 

[FR Doc. 2021–13736 Filed 7–20–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R06–OAR–2021–0215; FRL–8696–01– 

R6] 

Air Plan Approval; Louisiana; Regional 

Haze Five-Year Progress Report State 

Implementation Plan 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Federal Clean 

Air Act (CAA or the Act), the 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

is proposing to approve a revision to a 

State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

submitted by the Secretary of the 

Louisiana Department of Environmental 

Quality (LDEQ) on March 25, 2021. The 

SIP submittal addresses requirements of 

federal regulations that direct the State 

to submit a periodic report that assesses 

progress toward regional haze 

reasonable progress goals (RPGs) and 

includes a determination of adequacy of 

the existing implementation plan. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before August 20, 2021. 

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, 

identified by Docket No. EPA–R06– 

OAR–2021–0215, at https://

www.regulations.gov or via email to 

grady.james@epa.gov. Follow the online 

instructions for submitting comments. 

Once submitted, comments cannot be 

edited or removed from Regulations.gov. 

The EPA may publish any comment 

received to its public docket. Do not 

submit any information electronically 

that is considered Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or any other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Multimedia 

submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be 

accompanied by a written comment. 

The written comment is considered the 

official comment with multimedia 

submissions and should include all 

discussion points desired. The EPA will 

generally not consider comments or 

their contents located outside of the 

primary submission (i.e., on the web, 

cloud, or other file sharing systems). For 

additional submission methods, please 

contact James E. Grady, (214) 665–6745, 

grady.james@epa.gov. For the full EPA 

public comment policy, information 

about CBI or multimedia submissions, 

and general guidance on making 

effective comments, please visit https:// 

www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epadockets. 

Docket: The index to the docket for 

this action is available electronically at 

www.regulations.gov. While all 

documents in the docket are listed in 

the index, some information may not be 

publicly available due to docket file size 

restrictions or content (e.g., CBI). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

James E. Grady, EPA Region 6 Office, 

Regional Haze and SO2 Section, 1201 

Elm Street, Suite 500, Dallas TX 72570, 

214–665–6745; grady.james@epa.gov. 

Out of an abundance of caution for 

members of the public and our staff, the 

EPA Region 6 office will be closed to the 

public to reduce the risk of transmitting 

COVID–19. We encourage the public to 

submit comments via https://

www.regulations.gov, as there will be a 

delay in processing mail and no courier 

or hand deliveries will be accepted. 

Please call or email the contact listed 

above if you need alternative access to 

material indexed but not provided in 

the docket. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ 

or ‘‘our’’ mean ‘‘the EPA.’’ 

Table of Contents 

I. Background 

A. The Regional Haze Program 

B. Previous Actions on Louisiana Regional 

Haze 

C. Louisiana’s Regional Haze Progress 

Report SIP 

II. Evaluation of Louisiana’s Regional Haze 

Progress Report SIP Revision 

A. Class I Areas 

B. Status of Implementation of Measures 

1. Non-EGU Controls 

a. Phillips 66—Alliance Refinery 

b. Mosaic Fertilizer, LLC 

c. Eco Services Operations Corp. 

2. EGU Controls 

a. NRG Big Cajun II 

b. Cleco—Brame Energy Center 

c. Entergy—Willow Glen 

d. Entergy—Little Gypsy 

e. Entergy—Ninemile Point 

f. Entergy—Waterford 1 and 2 

g. Entergy—Michoud 

h. Entergy—Nelson 

3. CAIR and CSAPR 

4. Smoke Management Plan (SMP) 

5. Additional Federal Measures 

6. EPA’s Conclusion on the Status of 

Implementation of Measures 

C. Emission Reductions From 

Implementation of Measures 

D. Visibility Conditions and Changes 

E. Emission Tracking 

F. Assessment of Changes Impeding 

Visibility Progress 

G. Assessment of Current Strategy To Meet 

RPGs 

H. Review of Visibility Monitoring Strategy 

I. Determination of Adequacy of Existing 

Implementation Plan 

J. Consultation With Federal Land 

Managers 

III. EPA’s Proposed Action 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS