2016 Final Rule 30 Day Notice

76800

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 213 / Thursday, November 3, 2016 / Rules and Regulations

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Office of the Secretary
14 CFR Parts 234, 244, 250, 255, 256,
257, 259, and 399
[Docket No. DOT–OST–2014–0056]
RIN 2105–AE11

Enhancing Airline Passenger
Protections III
Office of the Secretary (OST),
Department of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:

The Department of
Transportation is issuing a third
‘‘Enhancing Airline Passenger
Protections’’ final rule to enhance
protections for air travelers and to
improve the air travel environment as
follows: Expanding the pool of reporting
carriers for service quality data;
requiring reporting carriers to include
service quality data for their domestic
scheduled flights operated by their
code-share partners; enhancing the
Department’s code-share disclosure
regulation to codify the statutory
requirement that carriers and ticket
agents must disclose any code-share
arrangements on their Web sites on the
first display presented in response to a
search of a requested itinerary for each
itinerary involving a code-share
operation; and prohibiting undisclosed
biasing based on carrier identity by
carriers and ticket agents in any
electronic displays of the fare, schedule
or availability information of multiple
carriers. The amendments to the
reporting requirements in this rule will
ensure that the Department obtains and
provides to the public expanded and
enhanced service quality data from the
airlines. The provision to strengthen the
Department’s code-share disclosure rule
will also enhance air travel consumer
protection. Additionally, this final rule
corrects certain drafting errors and
makes minor changes to the
Department’s second Enhancing Airline
Passenger Protections rule to better
reflect the Department’s intent. Other
topics covered by the proposed rule that
are not addressed by this final rule will
be addressed in two separate
rulemakings. Specifically, the
Department will be issuing a
Supplemental Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking (SNPRM) to seek additional
information on the disclosure of fees for

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES3

SUMMARY:

VerDate Sep<11>2014

19:05 Nov 02, 2016

Jkt 241001

basic ancillary services to consumers at
all points of sale. The remaining topics
discussed in the 2014 notice of
proposed rulemaking (e.g., customer
service commitments by large ticket
agents, prohibition on post-purchase
price increases for ancillary services)
will be addressed in another final rule
that the Department plans to issue at a
later date.
DATES: This final rule is effective
December 5, 2016.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Clereece Kroha or Blane A. Workie,
Office of the Assistant General Counsel
for Aviation Enforcement and
Proceedings, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Ave.
SE., Washington, DC 20590, 202–366–
9342 (phone), 202–366–7152 (fax),
[email protected] (email) and
[email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Executive Summary
(1) Purpose of the Regulatory Action
This final rule enhances the
performance quality information
collected by the Department and made
available to the public by expanding the
reporting carrier pool and requiring
performance data for code-share flights
marketed by reporting carriers. These
actions will ensure that smaller U.S.
carriers’ performance records are
included in the monthly Air Travel
Consumer Reports and that code-share
flights’ performance data will be
reflected in their marketing carriers’
records and rankings. This rule will also
enhance information disclosure to air
travel consumers by codifying the
statutory requirement regarding
disclosing code-share arrangements in
online schedule displays, and
prohibiting undisclosed bias when
displaying air travel itinerary search
results by carriers and ticket agents.
These actions are taken under the
statutory authorities for the Department
to collect and collate transportation
information that will contribute to the
improvement of the transportation
system of the United States (49 U.S.C.
329 and sections 41708 and 41709), and
to prohibit unfair and deceptive
practices and unfair methods of
competition in the provision of air
transportation (49 U.S.C. 41712).
(2) Summary of Major Provisions
In this final rule, the Department
amends 14 CFR part 234 to require U.S.

PO 00000

Frm 00002

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

carriers that account for at least 0.5
percent of the domestic scheduled
passenger revenue to file reports for the
on-time performance and mishandled
baggage for their flights and to post the
on-time performance of their flights on
their Web sites if they have Web sites
marketing air transportation to the
public. This is an expansion of the
reporting carrier pool from its previous
threshold of at least one percent of the
domestic scheduled passenger revenue.
Similarly, an amendment to 14 CFR part
250 will expand the reporting carrier
pool for reporting oversales data.
In addition, this rule amends parts
234 and 250 to require all reporting
carriers that market code-share flights
operated by another carrier to file
separate reports for on-time
performance, mishandled baggage, and
oversales data for those code-share
flights.
With respect to disclosing code-share
arrangements, this rule amends 14 CFR
part 257 to codify a statutory
requirement that code-share
arrangements in online itinerary search
results must be disclosed on the first
display following the search and in a
format that is easily accessible to
consumers.
Finally, this rule adds 14 CFR part
256 that prohibits undisclosed bias by
carriers and ticket agents when
displaying fare, schedule or availability
information online that includes
multiple carriers.
(3) Costs and Benefits
The Regulatory Impact Analysis
estimates the total discounted costs,
which could be monetized over a 10year period. Cost could only be robustly
estimated for the reporting
requirements, and may not include
some other potential costs which the
Department expects to have minimal
impact. The costs of the reporting
requirements are estimated to total
$7.74 million over ten years, which
amounts to an annualized cost of $0.96
million, when discounted using a seven
percent rate. Given these estimates, the
rule is not expected to be economically
significant. The benefits could not be
quantified and monetized with
reasonable accuracy for the rule.
Benefits were evaluated qualitatively for
all provisions. A summary of this rule’s
benefits and costs is presented in the
following table.

E:\FR\FM\03NOR3.SGM

03NOR3

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 213 / Thursday, November 3, 2016 / Rules and Regulations

76801

SUMMARY OF RULE’S BENEFITS AND COSTS
Major provision

Benefits

Ten year costs
(Discounted 7%)

Additional Reporting Carriers
for Service Quality Data.

Improved ability of consumers, especially in rural communities, to examine the past performance of flights.
Potential improved Department enforcement due to
more complete picture of industry performance.

Data Reporting for Domestic
Code-Share Partner Operations.

Improved ability of consumers, especially in rural communities, to examine the past performance of flights.
Potential for improved Department enforcement due to
more complete picture of industry performance.
Helps ensure that all consumers purchasing via telephone, mobile websites, and applications are aware
of code-share arrangements at beginning of booking
process; some consumers may avoid time for additional flight searches.

Costs to carriers to report the information estimated at
$7.74 million (10-year cost discounted at 7 percent).*
Costs for some carriers to train employees and costs
to consumers to use the information are not estimated.
See above.

Transparency in Display of
Code-Share Operations as
Required by 49 U.S.C.
41712(c).
Prohibition of Undisclosed
Bias.

Decrease in potential distortion in market of consumer
unknowingly choosing non-optional flights because of
display order.

Up-front programming costs to redesign mobile
websites and applications to incorporate the codeshare disclosure information for those carriers which
had not interpreted statue as applying to mobile
websites and mobile applications; potential costs for
telephone reservations.
Based on assumptions with uncertainties, programing
costs to add statement(s) for some carriers and travel agents are estimated to range from $947,000 to
$2.8 million (undiscounted).

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES3

* Costs were estimated for these two provisions together as their impacts are inter-related.

Background
On May 23, 2014, the U.S.
Department of Transportation (DOT)
issued a notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM), 79 FR 29970, to improve the
air travel environment of consumers
based on its statutory authority to
prohibit unfair or deceptive practices in
air transportation, 49 U.S.C. 41712. This
NPRM addressed several
recommendations to the Department
regarding aviation consumer protection
made by two DOT Federal advisory
committees—the Future of Aviation
Advisory Committee (FAAC) and the
Advisory Committee on Aviation
Consumer Protection (ACACP). It also
addressed two issues identified in the
second Enhancing Airline Passenger
Protections final rule—(1) disclosure of
fees for certain ancillary services at all
points of sale; and (2) post purchase
price increases for ancillary services.
See 76 FR 23110. More specifically, the
Department’s NPRM addressed and
solicited public comments on the
following issues: (1) Codification of the
Department’s interpretation of the
statutory term ‘‘ticket agent’’; (2)
Disclosure of certain ancillary service
fee information to consumers in all
channels of sales; (3) Expanding the
reporting carrier pool for service quality
data; (4) Requiring reporting of service
quality data for code-share flights by the
marketing carriers; (5) Applying
customer service commitments to large
ticket agents; (6) Enhancing the
disclosure of code-share operations; (7)
Disclosing carriers marketed by large
ticket agents; (8) Prohibiting

VerDate Sep<11>2014

19:05 Nov 02, 2016

Jkt 241001

undisclosed carrier display bias by large
ticket agents; (9) Prohibiting post
purchase price increases for certain
ancillary services.
In response to this NPRM, the
Department received over 750
comments from the following: U.S. air
carriers and U.S. air carrier associations;
foreign air carriers and foreign air
carrier associations; consumer rights
advocacy groups; travel agents, travel
agent associations, and global
distribution systems (GDSs); airports
and various airport-related industry
groups; and a number of individual
consumers.
The Department has carefully
reviewed and considered the comments
received. To ensure that the subjects
identified in the NPRM are addressed
through rulemaking as efficiently as
possible, we have decided to split the
issues addressed in the 2014 NPRM into
three separate rulemakings. First, in this
final rule, we are finalizing regulations
on several subjects on which we have
completed our review and analysis,
including completing a regulatory
analysis. Specifically, we are finalizing
rules: Expanding the reporting carrier
pool; requiring reporting of code-share
flights by the marketing carriers;
enhancing the disclosure of code-share
operations; and prohibiting undisclosed
display bias. Although we are not
promulgating a requirement regarding
disclosing on ticket agent Web sites that
not all airlines are marketed by ticket
agents at this time, that proposal is also
addressed in this rulemaking. Second,
we will be issuing a Supplemental

PO 00000

Frm 00003

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
(SNPRM) addressing disclosure of
certain ancillary service fee information
to consumers in all channels of sales
(GDS issue). See RIN 2105–AE56. We
believe the SNPRM is necessary in light
of the complexity of the issues and
additional considerations identified by
comments submitted on the NPRM. The
NPRM also proposed revisions to
baggage fee disclosure provisions
section 14 CFR 399.85(a)–(c). Any
revisions to that section relating to
baggage disclosure requirements will be
addressed in the SNPRM as that
rulemaking is focused on ancillary
service fee disclosures. Finally, for
several subjects on which we believe
that we have obtained sufficient
information but need additional time to
complete the regulatory analysis, we are
postponing the issuance of a final rule
until a later date. These subjects include
the following: Codification of the
Department’s interpretation of the
statutory term ‘‘ticket agent’’; applying
customer service commitments to large
ticket agents; and prohibiting post
purchase price increases for certain
ancillary services, which includes
addressing the ‘‘mistaken fares’’ issue.
See RIN 2105–AE57.
For those subjects that we are
finalizing in this final rule, in the table
below we provide a summary of the
regulatory provisions and a summary of
the regulatory analysis. Following that,
we summarize the commenters’
positions that are germane to the
specific issues raised in the NPRM and
the Department’s responses.

E:\FR\FM\03NOR3.SGM

03NOR3

76802

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 213 / Thursday, November 3, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
SUMMARY OF REGULATORY PROVISIONS
Subject

Final rule

Additional Reporting Carriers for
Service Quality Data.

• Expands the pool of reporting carriers from any carrier that accounts for at least 1% of domestic scheduled passenger revenue to any carrier that accounts for at least 0.5% of domestic scheduled passenger
revenue.
• Mandates reporting of data for scheduled flights to and from all large, medium, small, and non-hub U.S.
airports.
• Requires reporting carriers to separately report data for their domestic scheduled flights operated by
their code-share partners:
Æ On-time Performance.
Æ Mishandled Baggage.
Æ Oversales.
• Allows a simplified data report for on-time performance of code-share flights if the operating carrier of
the flights is a reporting carrier itself.
• Amends the Department’s code-share disclosure regulation to codify the statutory requirement that carriers and ticket agents must disclose any code-share arrangements on their websites.
Æ Requires disclosure on the first display presented in response to a search of a requested itinerary
for each itinerary involving a code-share operation.
Æ Disclosure must be in a format that is easily visible to a viewer.
• Adopts a simplified format for display of code-share disclosures via mobile websites and apps by permitting disclosure of only corporate name of the operating carrier.
• Enhances code-share disclosure in oral communication by requiring the disclosure be provided at the
first time the flight is offered by a carrier or ticket agent or inquired by a consumer.
• Prohibits undisclosed biasing by carriers and ticket agents in any online displays of the fare, schedule or
availability information of multiple carriers.

Data Reporting for Domestic CodeShare Partner Operations.

Transparency in Display of CodeShare Operations as Required by
49 U.S.C. 41712(c).

Prohibition of Undisclosed Bias ......

Summary of Regulatory Analysis
The Final Regulatory Evaluation
examined the economic impact, in
terms of all benefits accruing to airline
passengers, and costs to U.S. and foreign
air carriers and other entities regulated
under this proceeding. Although
benefits could not be quantified and
monetized with reasonable accuracy for
the provisions in the rule, benefits were
evaluated qualitatively for all
provisions. Meanwhile, the total
discounted costs which could be
monetized over a 10-year period could
only be robustly estimated for
Provisions 1 and 2. The costs of
Provisions 1 and 2 are estimated to total
$7.74 million over ten years, which
amounts to an annualized cost of $0.96
million, when discounted using a seven
percent rate. Other costs are expected to
be minimal. Benefits were not able to be
quantified for the most part.
Nonetheless, the Department believes
that the rule is in the public interest as
it will provide consumers with more
information to make decisions about air
transportation purchases.

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES3

Discussion
(1) Expanding the Definitions of
‘‘Reporting Carrier’’ and ‘‘Reportable
Flight’’ Under 14 CFR Part 234
The NRPM: 14 CFR parts 234 and 250
require certain large U.S. carriers—the
‘‘reporting carriers’’—to report data to
the Department concerning on-time
performance, mishandled baggage, and
oversales. Currently, U.S. carriers with
at least 1.0 percent of total annual
domestic scheduled-passenger revenue

VerDate Sep<11>2014

19:05 Nov 02, 2016

Jkt 241001

are required to report. In the NPRM, we
proposed to amend the definition of
‘‘reporting carrier’’ under part 234 to
include carriers that account for at least
0.5 percent of total annual domestic
scheduled-passenger revenue. The
purpose of this proposal is to increase
the data reported by air carriers and
published by the Department in order to
provide the public with more
information for making travel decisions.
The proposed amendment to the
definition of ‘‘reporting carrier’’ will not
only affect the pool of carriers reporting
on-time performance and mishandled
baggage data to the Department and
posting on-time performance
information on the carrier’s Web site
pursuant to 14 CFR part 234, but will
also affect the pool of carriers reporting
oversales data to the Department under
14 CFR part 250. We sought public
comments on whether 0.5 percent is a
reasonable threshold to achieve our goal
of maximizing the scope of data
collection from the industry while
balancing that benefit for consumers
against the reporting burden for
additional carriers, particularly smaller
ones. If 0.5 percent is not the most
reasonable threshold, we asked whether
a more reasonable approach would be
an even larger expansion, e.g., to 0.25
percent, or a smaller expansion to 0.75
percent, or even requiring all carriers
that provide domestic scheduled
passenger service to report to the
Department. We especially invited
comments that provide specific cost
estimates or analysis by smaller carriers
that would potentially be impacted by

PO 00000

Frm 00004

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

this proposal. We also requested
comments regarding whether a carrier’s
share of domestic scheduled passenger
revenue remains an appropriate
benchmark or if we should use a
carrier’s share of domestic scheduled
passenger enplanements instead.
The current rule states that March 31
is the cutoff date for compiling a
carrier’s annual domestic scheduled
passenger revenue percentage. However,
for years, DOT’s Bureau of
Transportation Statistics (BTS) has been
using June 30, instead of March 31, as
the cutoff date. Currently carriers must
report revenue information, including
domestic scheduled passenger revenue,
to DOT on a quarterly basis using Form
41. DOT uses this information to
calculate each carrier’s share of total
domestic scheduled passenger revenue
over the time period of July 1st to June
30th each year, and determines which
carriers account for at least 1 percent of
total domestic scheduled passenger
revenue. The Department then provides
notice to new reporting carriers of their
obligation to report. In the NPRM we
proposed to codify the June 30 as the
cutoff date in the definition of
‘‘reporting carrier.’’
Finally, in relation to the burden
associated with implementing a
reporting mechanism within a carrier’s
operation system, we requested
comments on how much time a newly
reporting carrier will likely need to
prepare for the new reporting duties.
Although not proposed in the rule text,
we stated in the preamble of the NPRM
that we were contemplating that should

E:\FR\FM\03NOR3.SGM

03NOR3

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES3

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 213 / Thursday, November 3, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
this proposal be finalized, we would
permit carriers that have not been
reporting carriers but become a
reporting carrier under a new threshold
to file their first reports by February 15
for the first January that is at least six
months after the effective date of this
rule.
In addition to expanding the pool of
reporting carriers, the NPRM sought
comments on whether we should
expand the scope of ‘‘reportable flights’’
in relation to airports to include not
only large hub airports (U.S. airports
that account for at least 1% of domestic
enplanements) that are mandated by the
current rule, but also medium, small,
and non-hub airports, or, alternatively,
to include domestic scheduled flights to
and from all U.S. airports where the
reporting carriers operate. We also
invited the public to provide
information on the costs and benefits
related to this matter.
Comments: Among the consumer
rights advocacy groups that provided
comments on this proposal, four groups,
U.S. Public Interest Research Group
(U.S. PIRG) and Consumers Union (in
their joint comments) and Travelers
United and National Consumers League
(in their joint comments), support the
expansion of the reporting carrier
threshold to 0.5% of total domestic
scheduled passenger revenue.
Consumers Union and U.S. PIRG state
that the information from newly covered
carriers will be useful to consumers and
regulators alike and that with current
technology the compliance cost would
be minimal and manageable. They also
comment that, if feasible, the
Department should require reports from
all carriers providing domestic
scheduled passenger flights from all
airports. Travelers United and National
Consumers League support the
expansion because it would be
beneficial to consumers by including
airlines such as Spirit and Allegiant in
the Department’s Air Travel Consumer
Report (ATCR) and it would enhance
transparency and accountability of
airline performance for consumers.
Flyersrights.org recommends that the
Department should require all carriers
with over $100 million in revenue to file
reports and that the reports should
cover reporting carriers’ flights to all
airports. Flyersrights.org also states that
flight cancellations that often cause
significant delays to passengers should
not be statistically reported as zero
delay as the organization states they are
under the existing reporting
requirements.
Among the comments submitted by
airlines and airline associations,
Airlines for America (A4A), Hyannis Air

VerDate Sep<11>2014

19:05 Nov 02, 2016

Jkt 241001

Service dba Cape Air (Cape Air), JetBlue
Airways, Frontier Airlines, and
Southwest Airlines in general support
the proposal to expand the reporting
carrier pool. A4A states that the
Department should require all carriers
providing domestic scheduled service to
file reports because it would increase
the total amount of information
available to the public and any carrier
that has the resources to obtain an
operating certificate and to offer
scheduled service should not find it
overly burdensome to report to the
Department basic information about its
operations. A4A also supports
eliminating ‘‘reportable’’ flights and
simply mandating that reporting carriers
report on all flights. Cape Air supports
the expansion to 0.5% but does not
believe a threshold beyond that level
would provide substantial benefit to the
public in comparison to the costs
because expanding beyond the 0.5%
threshold would create significant
burden to small businesses. Frontier
Airlines supports the expansion as the
performance data are important for
consumers to compare carriers. Frontier
points out that under the existing
reporting carrier threshold, Frontier is a
reporting carrier but its competitors
such as Spirit Airlines and Allegiant Air
are not reporting carriers.1 JetBlue
Airways supports including all carriers
providing domestic scheduled
passenger service in the universe of
reporting carriers to increase
transparency and available information
to consumers. Southwest Airlines also
supports the expansion, stating that
today all carriers collect data and track
on-time performance as a matter of
business necessity and the performance
indicators that are reported to the
Department affect passengers without
regard to the size of the carrier.
In opposition to the proposed
expansion, Republic Airways Holdings
Inc. and its subsidiaries, Republic
Airlines, Chautauqua Airlines, and
Shuttle America (herein collectively
‘‘Republic’’) jointly filed comments
asserting that the reporting requirements
should not be extended to regional
carriers that do not market flights and
handle customer service under ‘‘fee for
service/capacity purchase agreements’’
or ‘‘CPAs’’ as CPA carriers do not have
information such as baggage handling or
oversales. Republic further states that
1 On October 30, 2015, BTS issued its Reporting
Technical Directive #25, effective January 1, 2016.
Under that Directive, there are now 12 reporting
carriers meeting the one percent domestic
scheduled passenger revenue threshold: Alaska,
American, Delta, ExpressJet, Frontier, Hawaiian,
JetBlue, SkyWest, Southwest, Spirit, United, and
Virgin America.

PO 00000

Frm 00005

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

76803

requiring CPA carriers to report data
that mainline carriers are already
reporting would be duplicative,
imposing costs on CPA carriers and
increasing potential consumer
confusion with no corresponding
regulatory benefits. As an alternative,
Republic suggests that if the Department
requires the CPA carriers to file reports,
it should require the mainline carriers to
provide certain data to CPA carriers.
Regarding the cost and benefit aspect of
the proposal, Republic states that the
proposal will impose new technology
and personnel costs and notes that the
regulatory evaluation accompanying the
NPRM concedes that the monetized cost
of the two reporting-related proposals
would far exceed their monetized
benefits. With respect to the time
needed by newly reporting carriers to
prepare for filing the first report,
Republic states that the Department
should provide at least 18 months lead
time so carriers have sufficient time to
develop, test, and implement the
reporting system. Allegiant Air opposes
the expansion of reportable flights to
cover smaller airports. Allegiant states
that the expansion of reportable flights
beyond large hub airports does not
satisfy cost-benefit analysis given the
small number of passengers utilizing
these airports, and it would place a
burden on small carriers serving these
markets, and ultimately result in higher
prices for consumers. American
Airlines, Delta Air Lines, and United
Airlines submitted joint comments
opposing any change in the current
mishandled baggage reporting
methodology. In its separate comment,
Delta Air Lines asserts that any change
to the current mishandled baggage
reporting rules are unjustified and
misleading.
Several airport associations also
commented on this proposal, all
supporting the expansion of the
reporting carrier pool to include all
commercial airlines. Airports Council
International-North America (ACI–NA)
states that the information is the same
to passengers no matter the type of
aircraft or the size of the airline. ACI–
NA justifies its position by asserting that
regional airlines now provide over half
of daily domestic flights, and serve 70%
of U.S. airports. Meanwhile, according
to ACI–NA, technological enhancements
in the last 25 years provide justification
to require all carriers to report. The
American Association of Airport
Executives (AAAE) points out that the
Government Accountability Office
(GAO) concludes that airlines not
required to report to DOT have higher
delay, cancellation, and diversion rates,

E:\FR\FM\03NOR3.SGM

03NOR3

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES3

76804

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 213 / Thursday, November 3, 2016 / Rules and Regulations

and smaller communities are left out of
the equation. Regarding costs and
benefits, AAAE states that in the past
paperwork was a limiting factor but
modern technology now makes the
process much easier and more efficient.
California Airports Council states that
with the significant growth of regional
airlines at airports of all sizes, it is
crucial for DOT to include all carriers’
operations in consumer protection
regulations and notifications. San
Francisco International Airport also
supports the expansion of the reporting
carrier pool to cover all commercial
airlines. It states that this expansion will
improve the amount and quality of
information available to passengers
while encouraging open and fair
competition among air carriers. It also
points out that air carriers providing
scheduled commercial service in the
United States in 2014 are universally
equipped with technology sufficient to
provide service quality data and doing
so should not create a burden.
Marks Systems, Inc., d/b/a masFlight
(masFlight), an industry provider of
aviation operations analysis,
recommends that the Department adopt
a 0.25 percent threshold to capture all
low-fare and significant regional carriers
and to ensure fairness across the
industry in transparency and regulatory
compliance. In supporting this position,
masFlight provides data from 2013
demonstrating that under the 0.25
percent threshold, an additional five
carriers would be captured compared to
the proposed 0.5 percent threshold
(Shuttle America, Horizon, PSA,
Chautauqua, and Sun Country), leaving
only two carriers that are under the 0.25
percent threshold (GoJet and Compass).
MasFlight cites the Initial Regulatory
Impact Analysis for the NPRM that
estimates the initial cost for a new
reporting carrier to be $33 million over
a 10-year period, and asserts that this
potential compliance cost would be
excessive to a carrier that accounts for
less than 0.25 percent of domestic
scheduled passenger revenue. MasFlight
also suggests that the Department
maintain its current benchmark using
domestic scheduled passenger revenue
instead of changing to domestic
scheduled passenger enplanements to
minimize compliance cost. MasFlight
supports expanding the definition of
reportable flight to cover all U.S.
airports.
DOT Responses: Since their
implementation, the reporting
requirements in part 234 (for on-time
performance and mishandled baggage)
and part 250 (for oversales) have been
effective tools for the Department to
collect airline service and performance

VerDate Sep<11>2014

19:05 Nov 02, 2016

Jkt 241001

data. The Department also uses the
information to monitor the quality of
service provided to the flying public by
each reporting carrier and to furnish the
information to consumers via the Air
Travel Consumer Report. This data also
provides the Department necessary
information used in connection with
rulemakings and other important policy
decisions. As stated in the NPRM, the
current 1.0 percent domestic scheduled
passenger revenue threshold was
initially adopted in 1987 as a
compromise in order to reduce the
burden imposed on small businesses
because at that time, small carriers were
less likely to maintain their flight
performance data in a computerized
form. 52 FR 34056 (September 9, 1987).
The comments we received on this
NPRM do not dispute that the more
information the Department receives
through its reporting mechanism,
including service quality of small
airlines, and information on flights to
and from small airports, the greater the
benefit to the public. We are confident
that lowering the threshold for reporting
to add certain smaller carriers’
performance data to the data currently
collected by BTS will enable the
Department to obtain and provide to the
flying public a more complete picture of
the performance of scheduled passenger
service in general. We are also
optimistic that including smaller
airlines’ performance data in the
Department’s data collection will
specifically benefit small communities
and regional markets that are primarily
served by these smaller airlines by
increasing the level of public scrutiny of
their performance quality and
increasing their competitiveness.
Furthermore, expanding the pool of
reporting carriers responds to the
recommendation by GAO in its
September 2011 Report to Congressional
Requesters.2 In that report, GAO states
that the Department should collect and
publicize more comprehensive on-time
performance data to include information
on most flights, to airports of all sizes.
The Department shares GAO’s view that
expanding the reporting carrier pool
would enhance the Department’s ability
to analyze the cause of flight disruptions
such as delays and cancellations,
particularly with respect to airports in
smaller communities, at which
consumers are more likely to be
inconvenienced by flight irregularities
due to less-frequent service.

The comments opposing expansion of
the reporting carrier pool mainly focus
on the burden it will place on smaller
carriers. In that regard and consistent
with the approach taken by the
Department in the 1987 final rule, we
have determined that there is a balance
between obtaining the most useful
information on flight performance
quality and avoiding excessive burden
and cost to smaller airlines. The
Department concludes that the 0.5
percent threshold is appropriate in
striking that balance, taking into
consideration the technological
advances during the past 29 years in
tracking and recording flight
performance data. Our decision also
takes into account the fact that we are
adopting the proposal requiring
marketing carriers to report flight
performance data for domestic flights
operated under the marketing carrier’s
code by code-share partners, including
smaller, non-reporting carriers, which
will be discussed in the next section of
this preamble. The chart below contains
information on certificated carriers
affected by these thresholds based on
annual scheduled passenger revenue as
reported to BTS for the 12-month period
ending June 30, 2015:

2 Airline Passenger Protections: More Data and
Analysis Needed to Understand Effects of Flight
Delays, September 2011, GAO. http://www.gao.gov/
products/GAO-11-733.

Although the costs of maintaining and
filing performance data with the
Department has been reduced

PO 00000

Frm 00006

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

Reporting Carriers Meeting the Existing 1%
Threshold
1 ...................................
2 ...................................
3 ...................................
4 ...................................
5 ...................................
6 ...................................
7 ...................................
8 ...................................
9 ...................................
10 .................................
11 .................................
12 .................................

Alaska.
American.
Delta.
Express Jet.
Frontier.
Hawaiian.
JetBlue.
SkyWest.
Southwest.
Spirit.
United.
Virgin America.

Carriers Meeting the Expanded 0.5%
Threshold
1
2
3
4
5
6
7

...................................
...................................
...................................
...................................
...................................
...................................
...................................

Air Wisconsin.
Allegiant.
Endeavor.
Mesa.
Envoy.
Republic.
Shuttle America.

Carriers Meeting the 0.25% Threshold (Not
Adopted)
1 ...................................
2 ...................................
3 ...................................

Horizon.
PSA.
Sun Country.

Carriers Accounting for Less Than 0.25%
of Domestic Scheduled Passenger Revenue
1 ...................................
2 ...................................

E:\FR\FM\03NOR3.SGM

03NOR3

Compass.
GoJet.

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 213 / Thursday, November 3, 2016 / Rules and Regulations

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES3

significantly compared to what it was in
1987, the Department is aware that it is
still not a negligible expense for smaller
carriers under the 0.5 percent threshold.
Technology developments such as
automation of performance data tracking
reduces the cost of human capital
needed for the tasks. However, the
initial cost of setting up a sophisticated
system to aggregate the data meeting the
Department’s reporting criteria and
adding personnel to file monthly and
quarterly reports with the Department
may disproportionately burden smaller
carriers.
In addition to the concerns about the
burden to smaller carriers, we have also
decided not to adopt a threshold lower
than 0.5 percent as endorsed by some
commenters because most of the flights
operated by those carriers falling below
the 0.5 percent threshold will be
captured under the code-share flights
reporting requirement, which is
discussed in the next section. According
to the current data, if we adopt a 0.5
percent threshold, five smaller
certificated carriers providing scheduled
domestic passenger services (Horizon,
PSA, Sun Country, Compass, and
GoJet) 3 will not be required to file
reports directly with the Department.
Four of these five carriers operate codeshare flights on behalf of their
marketing-carrier partners, which are all
reporting carriers. Horizon operates
solely for Alaska Airlines, PSA operates
solely for American Airlines, Compass
operates for American Airlines and
Delta Air Lines, and GoJet operates for
United Airlines and Delta Air Lines. All
of those four smaller carriers’ flight
performance data will be reported by
their marketing carriers. Sun Country is
the only carrier among the five that does
not operate code-share flights and will
not have its performance data reported
to the Department under the 0.5 percent
threshold. Sun Country accounted for
only 0.32% of domestic scheduled
passenger revenue. In other words,
adopting a 0.5 percent threshold will
allow the Department to capture in
substance 99.68% of the flight
performance data for domestic
scheduled flights. We recognize that
Horizon, PSA, Compass, and GoJet will
likely incur certain expenses to assist
their marketing carriers in compiling the
3 The list of carriers (based on 2015 domestic
scheduled passenger revenue data) is for the
purpose for illustrating the size and number of
carriers that currently would and would not be
affected by this change. Each year the Department’s
Bureau of Transportation Statistic’s Office of
Airline Information updates the list of reporting air
carriers. Although the carriers that fall above or
below the threshold may change from year to year,
as historical data demonstrates, we don’t expect the
number of affected carriers to change drastically.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

19:05 Nov 02, 2016

Jkt 241001

reports. However, we consider the costsharing structure between the smaller
operating carrier and large marketing
carrier to be an effective and efficient
way for the Department to obtain the
data while limiting the burden imposed
on smaller carriers.
Finally, as technology development
appears to be the primary factor
affecting the costs incurred by a carrier
in tracking, compiling, and filing
performance data with the Department,
we will continue to monitor the effect
of new technology on the cost of
recordkeeping and the scope of carriers
covered by the reporting requirements.
We will consider expanding the
reporting requirements to other carriers
providing scheduled service if it
becomes economically sound and
necessary to obtain data beneficial to
consumers.
The Department appreciates the
Republic carriers’ comments regarding
the CPA carriers’ lack of firsthand
information on customer service related
data as these carriers may not handle
customer services such as baggage
handling or oversales. The Department
further notes that the relationship
between a CPA carrier and its codeshare marketing-carrier partner is
different from carrier to carrier,
depending on each CPA’s terms and
conditions, and such a relationship has
the potential to further evolve in the
future. For example, a CPA carrier that
currently does not handle baggage may
begin to handle baggage in the future.
As such, the Department does not
believe it is appropriate to exempt the
CPA operating carriers entirely from
reporting baggage handling and
oversales data at this time. Larger CPA
carriers such as SkyWest or ExpressJet
currently file reports including data that
they obtain from their marketing
partners, which indicates to the
Department that a cooperative
information collection and compilation
structure between marketing and
operating carriers is technically and
economically workable. We anticipate
that in the future carriers may include
provisions in their CPA contracts for the
marketing carrier to provide baggage
handling and oversales data to the
reporting operating carrier in a timely
manner if that is relevant to the carriers’
relationship. In the meantime, the
Department expects carriers to work
together in good faith to share
information with each other in order to
facilitate the required reporting.
With respect to the question of
whether the Department should use
domestic scheduled passenger
enplanements as a benchmark to define
‘‘reporting carrier’’ in lieu of the current

PO 00000

Frm 00007

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

76805

benchmark of domestic scheduled
passenger revenue, we received no
comments supporting such a change
and we do not see any compelling
reason for such a change. While keeping
the current benchmark, we also adopt in
this final rule the longstanding practice
by BTS to use June 30 as the cutoff date
for compiling a carrier’s annual
domestic scheduled-passenger revenue
percentage, as opposed to March 31 as
stated in the current rule. No adverse
comments were received.
With respect to the definition of
‘‘reportable flight’’ that currently only
covers flights to and from large hub
airports, the vast majority of comments
are in support of including all airports
in the reporting regime. We are
unconvinced by Allegiant Air’s
assertion that we should exempt flights
to and from smaller airports from the
reporting requirements on the basis that
such reporting imposes an excessive
cost on the carriers. Exempting flights to
and from smaller airports will render
our inclusion of smaller carriers in the
reporting carrier pool less meaningful.
Further, we note that the current
reporting carriers all have chosen to file
reports for scheduled passenger flights
to all U.S. commercial airports where
they operate. As such, there is an
argument to be made that a reporting
carrier would incur more cost to
separate flights operated out of large
hubs from flights operated out of other
airports for reporting purpose as
compared to reporting all flights
operated out of all airports. For these
reasons, we adopt in this final rule a
mandate to report the on-time
performance and mishandled baggage
information for domestic scheduled
flights marketed by a reporting carrier to
and from all U.S. large, medium, small,
and non-hub airports pursuant to part
234. By expanding the reportable flights
under part 234 to these categories of
airports, we are covering all domestic
scheduled flights to and from U.S.
commercial airports that have an annual
passenger enplanements of 10,000 or
more. We note that this expansion of
airports covered under part 234 does not
affect the scope of airports covered
under 14 CFR 250.10, reporting
oversales information, which covers and
will continue to cover all domestic
scheduled flights and all international
scheduled flights departing a U.S.
airport and using an aircraft that has a
designed passenger capacity of 30 or
more passenger seats.
In response to Flyersrights.org’s
comment that flight cancellations are
currently not statistically reported as
flight delays, the Department wishes to
clarify that the ATCR categorically treats

E:\FR\FM\03NOR3.SGM

03NOR3

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES3

76806

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 213 / Thursday, November 3, 2016 / Rules and Regulations

cancelled flights as flights not operated
‘‘on time,’’ along with flights that are
diverted or are delayed for 15 minutes
or more. See, Air Travel Consumer
Reports, Footnote D of Footnotes for
Tables 1 Through 6 (Flight Delays) and
8 (Cancellations). In other words, under
the current reporting structure, a
cancelled flight counts as a delayed
flight in a carrier’s on-time performance
percentage. Thus, we do not believe any
change to that structure is necessary.
The Department appreciates the
comments submitted by United, Delta,
and American, jointly, and by Delta,
individually, on the rationale for the
Department’s proposal to change the
matrix and the methodology of
collecting mishandled baggage
information. However, this rulemaking
addresses which airlines and flights are
subject to the reporting requirements
contained in Parts 234 and 250, and it
does not address what methodology the
carriers are required to use to collect
and report the data. A separate
rulemaking, ‘‘Reporting of Data for
Mishandled Baggage and Wheelchairs
and Scooters Transported in Aircraft
Cargo Compartments,’’ RIN 2105–AE41
(formerly 2139–AA13), Docket No.
DOT–RITA–2011–0001, addresses the
methodology for collection of
mishandled baggage information. The
Department fully reviewed and
considered all substantive comments
submitted to that docket (DOT–RITA–
2011–0001), including comments by
United, Delta, and American. The final
rule on reporting of data for mishandled
baggage and wheelchairs and scooters
transported in aircraft cargo
compartments is being published
contemporaneously with this final rule.
Because the Department’s proposal to
change the mishandled baggage
reporting matrix was resolved in a
separate rulemaking and the instant
rulemaking on transparency of ancillary
service fees and other consumer issues
will not result in any change to the
matrix on how to report mishandled
baggage, please see the Department’s
final rule on ‘‘Reporting of Data for
Mishandled Baggage and Wheelchairs
and Scooters Transported in Aircraft
Cargo Compartments’’ for responses to
comments concerning the reporting
matrix.
With respect to the compliance dates
of this reporting threshold change, we
have carefully considered the comments
submitted and consulted with BTS on
its estimated timeframe to fully
implement a system capable of
accepting and accommodating the
newly included reporting carriers under
this final rule. We have reached the
conclusion that the new reporting

VerDate Sep<11>2014

19:05 Nov 02, 2016

Jkt 241001

carriers should be required to file their
initial reports for on-time performance
and mishandled baggage by February
15, 2018, for January 2018 operations; to
file their initial reports for oversales by
April 30, 2018, for the first quarter of
2018; and to load on-time performance
disclosure data for each domestic
scheduled flight marketed on their Web
sites on Saturday, February 24, 2018, for
flights operated in January 2018.
Consistent with the existing rule,
carriers must load all subsequent flight
performance information on the fourth
Saturday of the month following the
month that is being reported. Oral
disclosure of on-time performance
information upon consumers’
reasonable inquiry during the course of
reservations or ticketing discussions or
transactions should begin no later than
February 25, 2018. We believe this
provides sufficient lead time to the new
reporting carriers to set up the
infrastructure and train their personnel
to handle the reporting of this data. We
also believe that requiring the initial
monthly reports to start in January and
the initial quarterly reports to start in
the first quarter provides the benefit of
preserving the consistency of the
Department’s data for a full calendar
year during the transition. We note that
with the exception of Allegiant Air, all
new reporting carriers do not directly
market flights they operate to the public
and therefore are under no obligation to
implement the disclosure requirements
contained in 14 CFR 234.11.
(2) Carriers To Report Data for Certain
Flights Operated by Their Code-Share
Partners
The NPRM: The current reporting
structures in Parts 234 and 250 only
require reporting carriers to report
performance data for flights they operate
and not for flights marketed under the
reporting carrier’s code but operated by
a code-share partner. The NPRM
proposed to require reporting carriers
that market flights operated by their
domestic code-share partners to file a
second and separate set of on-time
performance, mishandled baggage, and
oversales data reports that include the
relevant data for both flights they
operate and flights operated by their
domestic code-share partners. We asked
whether the second set of data should
only contain data for code-share flights
and whether it should include separate
flight statistics for each code-share
partner. We also solicited comments on
whether ‘‘double counting’’ is an issue
under this proposal (e.g., a regional
carrier operating a flight for more than
one marketing carrier and therefore the
same flight would be reported twice by

PO 00000

Frm 00008

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

the marketing carriers). Furthermore, we
asked the public to provide comment
about how to deal with the situation
where a flight carries two large carriers’
codes and is operated by one of the two
carriers (mainline-to-mainline codeshare). Finally, as for the proposal to
expand the reporting carrier pool, we
asked what a reasonable
implementation period is for the
marketing carriers to comply with this
new reporting requirement.
Comments: All consumer rights
advocacy groups that submitted
comments on this proposal are generally
in support of including code-share
flights service quality data in the
marketing carrier’s reports. Consumers
Union and U.S. PIRG cite the monthly
ATCR, which provides critical and
helpful information to consumers about
airline performance (including delayed
and canceled flights, mishandled
baggage, consumer complaints, and
denied boardings), and state that this
change will make the report even more
useful for consumers. They also agree
with the Department’s proposition that
this change will increase airline
incentives to improve performance, not
only in their own operations but also in
the operations of the carriers with
whom they partner. Further, Consumers
Union and U.S. PIRG assert that the
performance information on code-share
flights would be of maximum usefulness
if it is provided in aggregate for the
mainline carrier and all of its code-share
partners, and also disaggregated for each
code-share partner separately.
Consumers Union and U.S. PIRG
question the soundness of the
Department’s proposal to limit the
reporting of code-share flights data to
non-stop flights operated by code-share
partners and avers that the Department
should include all flight segments that
are marketed by mainline carriers.
Travelers United and National
Consumers League also support this
proposal, stating that code-share flights
now account for more than half of
domestic flights, yet the poorest
performance records of regional partners
operating under legacy carriers’ codes
are not reflected in legacy carriers’
performance reports. Travelers United
and National Consumers League also
strongly urge the Department to include
international flights operated by codeshare partners in the reporting mandate
because joint ventures in international
operations should not enjoy immunity
from clear, understandable reporting
requirements.
Among comments submitted by
carriers and carrier associations, A4A
agrees with the Department’s regulatory
objective but believes there are equally

E:\FR\FM\03NOR3.SGM

03NOR3

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES3

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 213 / Thursday, November 3, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
effective but less burdensome ways of
achieving that objective. A4A states that
the proposed reporting requirement for
code-share flights would result in the
submission of duplicate data by
different carriers, create difficulty for
the reporting carriers to certify and
submit data provided by their codeshare partners, and make it difficult for
both carriers and BTS to process the
newly required data. In that regard, A4A
proposes an alternative means for the
Department to collect data for codeshare flights and attribute this data to
the records of the marketing carriers.
Under A4A’s proposal, each mainline
marketing carrier would provide to BTS
a monthly list of the operating carriers
and flight numbers of code-share flights
operated by another carrier under the
reporting carrier’s code; BTS would
then combine this list with the
information submitted directly by the
operating code-share partners to
generate and publish the desired service
information regarding the code-share
flights of the mainline carrier. A4A
avers that this approach would
eliminate the prospect of two carriers
submitting duplicate information, and
BTS would have the complete data set
earlier in the month and would not have
to scrub the data to account for
duplicate reports.
A4A opposes including data for
mainline-to-mainline code-share flights
in a carrier’s report. In support of this
proposition, A4A points out that this
type of code-share flight represents a
small proportion of overall traffic
(roughly 2%) and therefore, including or
excluding this data will not likely
change a carrier’s data and ranking in
the ATCR. Additionally, A4A states that
reporting data for these flights would be
exceptionally difficult due to lack of
systems and data exchange. Further,
A4A states that in the mainline-tomainline code-share situations, the
consumer purchased the ticket from a
marketing carrier that does not operate
the flight is typically very aware of the
operating carrier brand and that the
operating carrier is different from the
marketing carrier, and if the consumer
is interested in the other mainline
operating carrier’s statistics he/she can
review reports for that carrier.
Additionally, A4A states that the
marketing carrier in the denied boarding
context has no control over the
inventory of the operating carrier if it
does not have a capacity purchase
agreement with that carrier. A4A
concludes that for these reasons, the
burden of collecting, sharing, verifying,
and reporting data on both the operating
and the marketing carriers in a

VerDate Sep<11>2014

19:05 Nov 02, 2016

Jkt 241001

mainline-to-mainline code-share would
be disproportionately burdensome
relative to any public benefit.
Regarding the time needed for carriers
to prepare for the new reporting
requirement, A4A argues that the
implementation time proposed by the
Department is a fraction of the time
needed. According to A4A’s estimate, if
each carrier reports for itself, six months
may be adequate for on-time
performance and oversales reports; for
baggage reporting, even using the
current matrix, it will take 24–36
months. A4A also submitted comments
opposing the Department’s proposal to
change the mishandled baggage
reporting matrix contained in Docket
DOT–RITA–2011–0001 and those
comments were considered in
connection with that rulemaking.
The Republic carriers (Republic,
Shuttle America, and Chautauqua),
Frontier Airlines, JetBlue Airways, and
Southwest Airlines are all in support of
the proposal. Republic supports the
proposal to have the mainline marketing
carriers report the service quality data
for flights operated by their CPA codeshare partners. In conjunction with its
comments on the expansion of the
reporting carrier pool, Republic states
that the flights operated under CPAs are
sold, marketed, and handled by the
mainline carriers under their names and
designator codes. In addition, Republic
asserts that the mainline carriers also
schedule and monitor the arrival and
departure times for all flights operated
under their codes. Therefore, according
to Republic, the CPA operating carriers
do not have possession of the customer
service quality data required by the
reports and have no ability to obtain
such data from their marketing carriers.
Frontier Airlines believes that this
proposal will fill another data gap in the
current monthly ATCR whereby
reporting carriers only provide data for
mainline operations but not code-share
operations. Frontier further states that
without this data the ATCR only
provides a partial picture of the travel
experience under the mainline carrier’s
brand. Frontier submits that the gap in
data under the current reporting
structure may incentivize mainline
carriers to engage in certain unfair
practices to boost their performance. In
support of this proposal and the
proposal to expand the reporting carrier
pool, JetBlue states that at certain
airports a majority of flights are sold to
consumers by a legacy carrier and
operated by a regional partner. JetBlue
states that under the current rule, basic
data, such as on-time performance,
mishandled bags and other metrics, are
not reported by either of these carriers,

PO 00000

Frm 00009

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

76807

even though the consumer bought the
ticket from a legacy carrier (i.e., a Part
234 reporting carrier). Southwest
Airlines also supports the proposal and
notes that it operates 100% of its
domestic scheduled flights yet many
legacy carriers have extensive codeshare operations. Southwest argues that
the current reporting structure may lead
to consumer confusion or
misrepresentation and hinder
competition. Furthermore, Southwest
believes that airports are also judged for
on-time performance in a market or
region where airports are competing for
customers; therefore, airport data should
be complete and relevant. Regarding the
costs and benefits of this proposal,
Southwest states that the cost to
mainline carriers may not be significant
as they are already calculating the
revenue derived from each code-share
partner and they should be able to
calculate those flights’ on-time
performance. In closing, Southwest
states that if the Department concludes
that such a requirement is too
burdensome, it would support A4A’s
proposed alternatives.
Cape Air, Delta Air Lines, and United
Airlines submitted comments in
opposition to this proposal. Cape Air
asserts that it is not beneficial to require
existing carriers to report their codeshare flights because to include the data
for smaller regional flights with the
statistics of major carriers would skew
the report by giving equal weight to
flights that carry significantly fewer
passengers, and the report would not
reflect the experience of the majority of
customers traveling on the reporting
carrier’s flights. Delta proposes that
regional operating carriers should be
required to report data for their flights
as the marketing carriers are in a poor
position to verify the accuracy and
quality of data received from code-share
partners. Delta also argues that dual
reporting will result in duplicate data by
different carriers. Regarding the
Department’s question on whether
double counting is an issue under this
proposal, Delta states that double
counting is a problem with respect to
mainline-to-mainline code-share flights.
Delta suggests that these flights should
be exempted from reporting as the
Department’s primary regulatory
interest on this issue is to collect and
publish data from regional code-share
flights. As with A4A’s comment, Delta
points out that these mainline-tomainline flights only represent 2% of
reportable flights and consumers are
well informed that the mainline
operating carrier is different from the
marketing carrier.

E:\FR\FM\03NOR3.SGM

03NOR3

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES3

76808

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 213 / Thursday, November 3, 2016 / Rules and Regulations

United Airlines also opposes the
proposal to require mainline marketing
carriers to report code-share flights data.
United argues that the Department has
provided little data or anecdotal
evidence to support the hypothesis that
the current reporting structure results in
consumer confusion or
misrepresentation. In addressing the
2011 GAO report and its
recommendation for the Department to
collect and publicize more
comprehensive on-time performance
data, United argues that such a goal can
be accomplished by expanding the
reporting carrier pool to include smaller
carriers, as proposed in this rulemaking.
United further argues that the GAO
report only recommended additional
on-time performance data collection and
did not recommend that the Department
expand the universe of mishandled
baggage and oversales reporting to
include code-share flights. United states
that if the Department adopts the
proposed requirement on code-share
flights reporting, certain modifications
should be made, in which the mainline
carriers should not be responsible for
reporting data for flights that they do
not operate and the operating regional
carriers should be reporting this data.
With respect to the time a carrier may
need for preparing for its initial report
under this new reporting requirement,
United avers that significant lead time is
needed—at least 18–24 months for ontime performance and oversales data
reporting, and at least 36 months for the
mishandled baggage reporting, assuming
the Department adopts its proposal for
reporting mishandled baggage as
proposed in DOT–RITA–2011–0001.
With respect to preparing reports for
code-share flights following the initial
report, United asserts that the carriers
will need more than the current 15-day
window. In that regard, United suggests
that should the Department adopt the
proposal to require marketing carriers to
report data for code-share flights, the
report deadline for this data should be
expanded to at least 30 days after the
end of the month. United also opposes
imposing the reporting requirement on
‘‘non-branded’’ (mainline-to-mainline)
code-share flights in which both
operating carrier and non-operating
carrier market and sell seats on the
flights.
All airports and airport associations
that filed comments support this
proposal. ACI–NA points out that over
half of flights by the three largest
carriers are operated by code-share
partners and this change will provide
more comprehensive information on
which to base travel decisions without

VerDate Sep<11>2014

19:05 Nov 02, 2016

Jkt 241001

unduly burdening air carriers. AAAE
asserts that requiring reporting of codeshare performance data will have an
overall positive operational impact, as
on-time performance at large hub
airports can differ between mainline
and code-share flights. The commenter
further asserts that including code-share
flights performance data in the
marketing carriers’ reports will benefit
consumers because consumers cannot
discern the difference between mainline
carriers and code-share operating
carriers as mainline carriers manage
marketing, ticketing, and ground
operations. California Airports Council
points out that regional carriers now
provide the vast majority of scheduled
services to California airports, and over
half of all daily domestic flights in the
United States. The organization argues
that the current reporting requirements
do not always provide accurate and
comprehensive data to consumers as
almost 50% of the domestic flights
marketed by the nation’s three largest
airlines are operated by code-sharing
partners. As an example, California
Airports Council states that United
Airlines’ on-time arrival rate at San
Francisco International Airport (SFO)
would have been 6% lower in July 2014
if code-share flights were included
compared to what was reported under
the current regulation. The commenter
states that some of its member airports
serving small communities and SFO
have a much lower on-time performance
rate than the national average and that
the relatively poor on-time performance
of certain flights at those airports is
being obscured by the current reporting
process.
MasFlight also commented on this
proposal, stating that monthly air carrier
information published by the
Department that correctly groups both
mainline and regional flights under the
marketing carrier’s code would be
valuable from a consumer perspective
and provide an apples-to-apples
comparison among airlines. However,
masFlight states that such an objective
can be accomplished in less costly ways
as the Department’s proposed method
duplicates work, requires transfer of
information among partner carriers and
creates new overhead investment by the
Department itself. MasFlight
distinguishes two types of code-share
arrangements, ‘‘regional code-share
operations’’ in which mainline carriers
contract for exclusive or near exclusive
capacity on flights operated by regional
partners, and ‘‘partnership operations’’
in which the marketing carrier has
limited inventory on the operating
partner’s flight. MasFlight supports the

PO 00000

Frm 00010

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

Department’s view as stated in the
NPRM that regional carriers’ operating
quality should be attributed to the
marketing carriers’ performance records
but argues that only marketing carriers
that control over 25% of the seats on a
flight should have the operating records
attributed to them.
DOT Responses: The Department’s
monthly ATCR provides airline service
quality data to the public and ranks
reporting carriers’ performance based on
several categories. Three of the six
categories ranked and reported in the
ATCR—flight delays, mishandled
baggage, and oversales—are based on
data collected by BTS pursuant to 14
CFR part 234 and part 250. The ATCR’s
performance tables, particularly the
rankings, are widely accepted as
important indicators of the carriers’
quality of service, and are frequently
referred to in news reports, industry
analyses, academic studies, and
consumer commentaries and forums.
The ATCR data and rankings as
reflected in news reports and
institutional studies have a significant
impact on a carrier’s image and brand
identity, which in turn has a potential
effect on the decision making of many
consumers when deciding to purchase
air transportation. In the NPRM, we
discussed the inadequate scope of
current data collection, the most
significant area being that a marketing
carrier’s flights operated by code-share
partners are not included in the
reported data. After reviewing the
comments submitted on this subject, the
Department is further convinced that it
is in the public interest to address the
discrepancy between legacy/mainline
carriers’ ATCR data that represent only
38%–55% 4 of all domestic scheduled
flights that are branded with the
marketing carriers’ codes, and low-cost
carriers’ ATCR data that often contain
close to 100% of all flights sold by those
carriers under their codes.
Consequently, we are finalizing the
proposal requiring mainline marketing
carriers to report the service quality data
for flights operated by their code-share
partners, which, in our view, will
benefit consumers by providing them
more information. Although consumer
confusion is not always the case, we
recognize that in many instances
consumers may consider these codeshare flights operated by code-share
regional partners to be air transportation
service provided by the mainline
carriers to the same extent as the flights
4 Data based on 2015 operation information
collected by the Department’s Bureau of
Transportation Statistics, Office of Airline
Information.

E:\FR\FM\03NOR3.SGM

03NOR3

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES3

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 213 / Thursday, November 3, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
actually operated by the mainline
carriers. This is particularly true if, as in
most cases, the mainline carriers also
handle flight scheduling and virtually
all aspects of ground operations
including customer service related
issues, such as dealing with oversales
situations, providing denied boarding
compensation, and addressing
mishandled-baggage reports. This
change will also benefit consumers
because including performance data for
these code-share flights in the marketing
carriers’ ATCR records will provide
both the operating carriers and the
marketing carriers the incentive to
universally improve performance
quality, regardless of whether the flights
are operated by mainline carriers
themselves or their code-share partners.
The Department also carefully
considered the comments submitted
regarding the difference between the
‘‘fee-for-service’’ code-share
arrangements and the ‘‘multiplemarketing-carrier/brand’’ code-share
arrangements. In the fee-for-service
code-share arrangement, the sole
marketing carrier contracts with the
operating carrier to purchase all seats on
the flights, sets the flight number with
its own airline designator code, and
brands the flight with the marketing
carrier’s brand name, often with the
suffix of ‘‘Express’’ or ‘‘Connection’’ to
identify that it is a regional-carrier
flight. The marketing carrier is
responsible for setting the flight
schedules, in consideration of and in
coordination with its network capacity,
potential for connections, and overall
efficiency. The marketing carrier’s
operation control center makes
decisions on flight dispatching, and
often handles many ground services
such as checking in at the airport,
baggage handling, boarding and
deplaning. Passengers with service
related issues will contact the marketing
carrier’s customer service center for
assistance. The operating carrier is only
in charge of the flight operation and
onboard passenger services. In the
Department’s view, fee-for-service codeshare flights are an integral part of the
marketing carriers’ networks and their
performance quality is an important
component of the marketing carriers’
overall performance quality. The public
will benefit from a complete view of a
marketing carrier’s performance record
that includes the fee-for-service flights
operated by another carrier, for which
the marketing carrier has control over
virtually every aspect of the air
transportation service except the
operation of the flight itself. Fee-forservice code-share arrangements allow a

VerDate Sep<11>2014

19:05 Nov 02, 2016

Jkt 241001

marketing carrier to reach regional
markets without taking on expensive
investments such as purchasing/leasing
and operating aircraft or training and
maintaining flight crews. Marketing
carriers also have economically sound
reasons to retain many ground handling
tasks for code-share flights, such as
maintaining consistent brand quality
and fully utilizing existing ground
personnel and equipment. For these
reasons, the performance quality of
these fee-for-service code-share flights
should be attributed to the marketing
carrier’s ATCR records and rankings.
In this final rule, we adopt the
requirement for marketing carriers to
report to the Department service quality
data of domestic fee-for-service codeshare flights marketed under their
codes. Accordingly, all reporting
carriers will continue to file reports for
on-time performance, mishandled
baggage, and oversales for flights that
they operate. Those reporting carriers
that market fee-for-service flights
operated by another carrier will be
required to submit a second set of data
for those flights. We specifically address
the three reporting subjects as follows:
On-time performance data: We have
considered the comments by A4A and
others about the burden to marketing
carriers and determined that there are
ways to address this issue while still
obtaining the data that will achieve the
goal of the Department. Specifically, for
flights that are operated under the
marketing carrier’s code on a fee-forservice basis by a reporting carrier, the
Department will reduce the marketing
carriers’ reporting burden by requiring
them to simply identify on a monthly
basis those fee-for-service flights that
they market. The Department’s Bureau
of Transportation Statistics (BTS) will
extract the on-time performance data
from the reports already submitted by
those flights’ operating carriers that are
reporting carriers. For fee-for-service
flights that are operated by a nonreporting carrier, it is the marketing
carrier’s responsibility to provide the
full set of on-time performance data for
each flight in the same manner as they
report for the flights they operate on
their own.
Mishandled baggage and oversales
data: For mishandled baggage and
oversales data, because carriers are only
required to file those reports in the
aggregate (as opposed to filing on-time
performance data on a flight by flight
basis) we see no need to simplify the
reporting data in the way that we did for
on-time performance data. As such, the
reporting carriers that market fee-forservice code-share flights must submit a
second set of mishandled baggage

PO 00000

Frm 00011

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

76809

monthly reports that contains the data
for all reportable fee-for-service flights
that they market, and a quarterly
oversales report that contains the data
for all reportable fee-for-service flights
that they market. This final rule differs
from the NPRM in which we proposed
to have the marketing carriers report a
second set of data that contains data for
all flights they market, including not
only the code-share flights but also the
flights the marketing carriers operate.
Requiring a second set of reports that
contain only fee-for-service flight data
potentially slightly reduces the burden
on carriers by eliminating the need to
prepare a report that combines data
from the report on flights operated by
the reporting carrier and data on flights
operated by a code-share partner on a
fee-for-service basis for the reporting
carrier, while affording the Department
the flexibility to add all flight data
together, or to view flight data for
reporting carriers’ own flights and codeshare flights separately.
In contrast to fee-for-service codeshare arrangements, the multiplemarketing-carrier code-share
arrangements involve more than one
marketing carrier for a single flight
operation. Thus, under this type of
code-share arrangement, a single flight
is coded with more than one carrier’s
designator code and flight number. In
the NPRM, we mentioned only the
mainline-to-mainline code-share
arrangements (in which two mainline
carriers both market the same flight
under each carrier’s code and one of the
mainline carriers also operates the
flight) and sought comments on whether
these flights should be included in the
non-operating marketing carrier’s
reports. After viewing a snapshot of
multiple-marketing-carrier code-share
flights for the first quarter of 2015
compiled from the Official Airline
Guide, part 234 data, and the Origin and
Destination Survey, we realize that
several variations exist under the
multiple-marketing-carrier code-share
arrangements. Some of the flights are
marketed under the codes of only two
carriers, one of which operates the
flight. In those situations, the carrier
that is both marketing and operating the
flight could be a mainline carrier (as
referred to in the NPRM as ‘‘mainlineto-mainline’’ code-share) or a regional
carrier that markets a small number of
seats on the flight. Another variation is
multiple carriers market the flight and
the operating carrier and non-operating
carriers all sell a certain number of seats
on the same flight. Yet another variation
is the situation in which the operating
carrier does not market the flight but

E:\FR\FM\03NOR3.SGM

03NOR3

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES3

76810

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 213 / Thursday, November 3, 2016 / Rules and Regulations

two or more non-operating carriers
market the flight. In the 2015 first
quarter data we reviewed, we found one
flight that carried five different carriers’
designator codes. With respect to each
marketing carrier’s share of seats on a
flight, we found great variation as well.
While a large percent of these flights
have a ‘‘main’’ marketing carrier that
sells the great majority of the seats,
many flights with two marketing
carriers split the seats approximately
half and half, one third and two thirds,
or a quarter and three quarters.
At this point, the Department lacks
information on how carriers share the
control and responsibility for handling
multiple-marketing-carrier code-share
flights under various arrangements,
such as which carrier(s) determine the
flight schedule and which carrier(s)
handles baggage and oversales. We can
only speculate that much of this
information will depend on which
carrier controls what percentage of seats
on a given flight. We also lack
information on how consumers perceive
the multiple-marketing-carrier flights
with respect to their brand identity. As
stated in the NPRM, our primary
regulatory interest at this time is
collecting and publishing data on codeshare service operated by the regionalcarrier partners of the larger U.S.
airlines. We recognize that this primary
purpose is served by capturing the feefor-service flights’ performance quality
and attributing this information to the
only marketing carrier’s performance
records. As the multiple-marketingcarrier code-share flights only count for
a small percentage of the total number
of code-share flights, we have decided
that marketing carriers that are not the
operating carrier will not be required to
include those flights in their second set
of reports. We will, however, continue
to monitor how multiple-marketingcarrier code-share arrangements evolve
both with respect to their structures and
their volumes. Should we see the need
to include these code-share flights in
any marketing carriers’ performance
reports, we will address this matter in
a future rulemaking.
Regarding Travelers United and
National Consumer League’s comment
urging the Department to collect flight
performance data for international
flights, we note that the current part 234
reports cover only domestic scheduled
flights and the current part 250 reports
cover domestic scheduled flights and
international scheduled flights
departing a U.S. airport. To require
reports for other international flights is
beyond the scope of the NPRM.
With respect to Consumers Union and
U.S. PIRG’s question on the soundness

VerDate Sep<11>2014

19:05 Nov 02, 2016

Jkt 241001

of the Department’s proposal to limit the
reporting of code-share flights data to
non-stop flights operated by code-share
partners, we clarify that both the current
reporting system and the final rule as
adopted require carriers to report flight
performance data on a per flight
segment basis. As such, all domestic
segments of a multi-segment direct
flight are covered by the reporting
requirement in the existing rule and in
this final rule.
With respect to the compliance date
of this rule by which all marketing
carriers that report to the Department
under parts 234 and 250 are required to
file a second set of data for their fee-forservice code-share flights, we have fully
considered the comments submitted and
decided that it is reasonable to set the
compliance date as transportation that
takes place on or after January 1, 2018,
coinciding with the compliance date for
all reporting carriers to comply with the
revised mishandled baggage reporting
rule (Docket DOT–RITA–2011–0001).
As with that rulemaking, we believe that
choosing the first day of the year as an
effective date will make future yearover-year comparisons more
meaningful, and the carriers will have
more than a year to work with their
code-share partners to structure an
internal system by which both carriers
work together to compile the reports
required from the marketing carriers. As
such, all reporting carriers that market
fee-for-service code-share flights will be
required to file a second set of data that
contains those code-share flights’ ontime performance and mishandled
baggage information for the month of
January 2018 by February 15, 2018, and
to file a second set of data that contains
those code-share flights’ oversales
information for the first quarter of 2018
by April 30, 2018.
(3) Codifying 49 U.S.C. 41712(c)
Regarding Web Site Disclosure of CodeShare Service and Other Amendments
to 14 CFR Part 257
The NPRM: Code-sharing is an
arrangement whereby a flight is
operated by a carrier other than the
airline whose designator code is used in
schedules and on tickets. In the NPRM,
we proposed to amend 14 CFR part 257
to codify 49 U.S.C. 41712(c) (added by
Pub. L. 111–216, sec. 210, August 1,
2010), which requires U.S. and foreign
air carriers and ticket agents to disclose
code-share arrangements during Web
site schedule searches ‘‘on the first
display of the Web site following a
search of a required itinerary in a format
that is easily visible to a viewer.’’ In
addition, we proposed the following
interpretations of the statutory language:

PO 00000

Frm 00012

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

(1) Clarifying that this requirement
covers any ticket agent ‘‘doing business
in the U.S.’’ to include entities
marketing to U.S. consumers via the
internet even if the ticket agent does not
have a physical presence in the United
States; (2) clarifying that this
requirement covers flight schedule
information provided by carriers and
ticket agents via mobile Web sites and
mobile applications; and (3) clarifying
that ‘‘in a format that is easily visible for
a viewer’’ means the disclosure must
appear in text format immediately
adjacent to each code-share flight
displayed. We sought comments on
whether we should also specify
minimum standards on the text size of
the disclosure in relation to the text size
of the schedule itself. DOT also
proposed to explicitly state in the rule
text that verbal disclosure of code-share
arrangements must be made the first
time a code-share flight is offered.
Further, we proposed certain editorial
revisions to the language of part 257 to
reflect the technology changes in the
airline industry’s reservation and
ticketing systems that have resulted in
the predominant use of online
reservation systems and electronic
tickets.
Comments: Five consumer rights
advocacy groups submitted comments
generally in support of the Department’s
proposals. In their joint comments,
Consumers Union and U.S. Public
Interest Research Group agree with the
Department’s view that the requirement
of 49 U.S.C. 41712(c) as codified in part
257 should cover all Web sites that
market to U.S. consumers. They also
support having code-share information
displayed or disclosed with equal
prominence in all oral and written
communications, Web site displays,
printed flight schedules, and
advertisements. Flyersrights.org states
that airlines should be required to
disclose the routes that they are flying,
particularly over conflict zones.
Travelers United and National
Consumers League support the proposal
to cover all carriers and ticket agents
doing business with the U.S. public
regardless of whether the business is
domiciled in the United States. In their
joint comments they also support the
proposal to cover advertisements for
flights to, from, and within the United
States that are marketed to U.S.
consumers. With respect to disclosures
in Web site itinerary searches, the
commenters support the proposal that
disclosures must be immediately
adjacent to each code-share flight. They
recommend that the Department should
extend the code-share disclosure to

E:\FR\FM\03NOR3.SGM

03NOR3

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES3

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 213 / Thursday, November 3, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
boarding passes so passengers who are
not directly involved in the ticket
booking process will not be confused.
A4A submitted comments on behalf
of its member airlines expressing its
concerns about the application of the
regulation’s requirements to mobile
applications and noting that the
statutory language does not expressly
address mobile applications. A4A urges
the Department to be flexible toward the
application of the disclosure rule to
mobile devices and software and
suggests that instead of mandating
minimum font sizes and requiring that
the disclosure be immediately adjacent
to the entire itinerary, the Department
should prioritize all of the new
disclosure requirements and consider
how these disclosures will fit with one
another and in different ticketing
platforms. Delta Air Lines opposes the
proposed change in rule text that
specifically requires verbal disclosure of
code-share arrangements to be made the
first time a code-share flight is
mentioned. Delta believes that the
current rule requiring verbal disclosure
to be made ‘‘before booking
transportation’’ should be interpreted as
‘‘at the end of the reservation process.’’
Delta argues that the proposed language
is a radical departure from the
Department’s stated policy of the past
two decades, and that such a
requirement will complicate and slow
the reservation process, will increase
reservations costs, and is contrary to the
interests of consumers. Delta estimates
that each disclosure statement would
add approximately 5 seconds to a call
and that it would incur $1 million
additional annual recurring cost to its
reservation department should the
Department adopt the proposed
language. In closing, Delta argues that
the Department has shown no need for
such a change and the current rule
provides the appropriate notice to
consumers at the appropriate time. Arab
Air Carrier Association (AACA) opposes
the idea that the Department should
dictate code-share disclosure display
format and font size on Web site
itinerary search results. AACA argues
that the format used by the agent should
govern display formats and font sizes
and any costs for changes to displays
should not be passed on to carriers.
Several ticket agents and ticket agent
associations also submitted comments
on this proposal. Travel Technology
Association, American Express Global
Business Travel, and Amadeus point out
that the proposed rule text omitted
language in the current rule that
requires the airlines to provide codeshare information to computer
reservation systems (also known as

VerDate Sep<11>2014

19:05 Nov 02, 2016

Jkt 241001

Global Distribution Systems or GDSs) in
which they participate. The commenters
state that the Department should restore
the language to make it clear that
airlines must share code-share
information with the GDSs. With
respect to code-share disclosure on
mobile devices, Travel Technology
Association and Amadeus state that the
Department should take into
consideration the limited space on
mobile device displays, or the everchanging ways in which information is
disseminated to consumers through
social media. These commenters state
that they are not asking the Department
to exempt these devices but to recognize
the need for a more flexible approach.
American Express Global Business
Travel also urges the Department to
carefully consider the impact of codeshare disclosure requirements on mobile
device platforms. TripAdvisor believes
that the Department should exclude
disclosure requirements for mobile
devices less than 8 inches diagonally. In
support of this position, TripAdvisor
states that phones have extremely
limited display space and may be
further limited by the operating system
and applications. In the alternative,
TripAdvisor suggests that the
Department should consider other
disclosure methods for mobile devices
such as disclosing on the first screen
after a consumer selects a flight. The
U.S. Tour Operators Association
(USTOA) asserts that the Department’s
requirement for oral and telephone
code-share disclosure would
impermissibly exceed the specific
obligation imposed by Congress under
Section 41712. The American Society of
Travel Agents (ASTA) believes that the
target of the disclosure requirement
should be the purchasers of the air
transportation instead of the passengers,
as it stands now, because it is not
always the purchasers who would be
the passengers. ASTA states that the
rule should clarify that the obligation of
ticket agents is fulfilled when disclosure
is made to the ticket purchaser.
DOT Responses: The Department’s
current regulation on the disclosure of
code-sharing and long term wet lease
arrangements, 14 CFR 257.5, was
designed to ensure that consumers are
aware of the identity of the airline
actually operating their flight in codesharing and long-term wet lease
arrangements in domestic and
international air transportation. Codeshare disclosure is important because
the identity of the operating carrier is a
factor that affects many consumers’
purchasing decisions. In that regard, we
believe that codifying 49 U.S.C.

PO 00000

Frm 00013

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

76811

41712(c) and strengthening the codeshare disclosure requirements is an
effective way to prevent potential
consumer confusion. The Department
has carefully reviewed all relevant
comments on the proposed revisions of
the code-share disclosure rule in 14 CFR
part 257, and has decided to adopt the
following revisions.
Section 257.3 Definition: In the
definitions section, 14 CFR 257.3(g), we
are replacing the term ‘‘Transporting
carrier’’, which is used throughout
section 257.5, with the term ‘‘Operating
carrier’’ to refer to the carrier in a codeshare or wet lease arrangement that has
the operational control of a flight but
does not market the flight in its own
name. As explained in the NPRM, by
such an amendment we are trying to
achieve consistency with other recently
amended consumer protection rules,
see, e.g., 14 CFR 259.4(c) (code-share
partners’ responsibilities in tarmac
delay contingency plans) and 14 CFR
399.85(e) (notice of baggage fees for
code-share flights). As the definitions in
section 257.3 are arranged in
alphabetical order, the definition for
‘‘Operating carrier’’ now is under
section 257.3(f), and the definition for
‘‘Ticket agent’’, previously under
section 257.3(f), is now under 257.3(g).
Section 257.5(a) Notice in flight
itineraries and schedules: In section
257.5(a) with respect to disclosure in
flight itinerary and schedule displays,
we are codifying the requirement of 49
U.S.C. 41712(c) in the rule text of 14
CFR 257.5 by requiring that Web site
itinerary search results provided by
carriers and ticket agents must disclose
any code-share arrangement on the first
display of the Web site following such
a search, in a format that is easily visible
to a viewer.
We are also adopting our proposed
requirement that not only carriers but
also all ticket agents doing business in
the United States with respect to flights
within, to or from the United States will
be covered and must provide code-share
disclosure. As we stated in the preamble
of the NPRM, any ticket agent that
markets to consumers in the United
States, either from a brick-and-mortar
office located in the United States or via
an internet Web site that is marketed
towards consumers in the United States,
would be considered to be ‘‘doing
business in the United States.’’ The
requirement would cover any travel
agent or other ticket agent that does not
have a physical presence in the United
States but has a Web site that is
marketed to consumers in the United
States and displays schedule, fare or
availability information for flights
within, to, or from the United States. We

E:\FR\FM\03NOR3.SGM

03NOR3

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES3

76812

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 213 / Thursday, November 3, 2016 / Rules and Regulations

believe this requirement is reasonable
and appropriate given the expansion of
e-commerce that effectively eliminated,
in many cases, the necessity of having
a physical presence in a certain country
for providing intangible service
products such as air travel reservation
service to consumers in that country. To
determine whether a Web site is
marketed to U.S. consumers with
respect to code-share disclosure
requirements for itinerary display (in
section 257.5(a)) and in airfare
advertising (in section 257.5(c)) a
variety of factors will be considered—
for example, whether the Web site is in
English, whether the seller of air
transportation displays prices in U.S.
dollars, whether the seller uses banner
advertisements or highlights special
deals for flights to or from the United
States, whether the seller has an option
on its Web site that differentiates sites
or pages designed for U.S. and other
consumers, and whether the Web site
distinguishes between persons with
addresses or telephone numbers in the
United States and those outside the
United States in the sales process. We
note that this is consistent with the
enforcement policy currently applied in
connection with the Department’s full
fare advertising rule, 14 CFR 399.84.
The second requirement that we
adopt here is that, for a code-share
disclosure in an itinerary search result
Web page to meet the section 41712(c)
requirement to be ‘‘in a format that is
easily visible to a viewer,’’ the
disclosure of the operating carrier must
be immediately adjacent to the itinerary
displaying the flight operated under a
code-share arrangement and in a font
size that is not smaller than the font size
of the flight identified under the
marketing carrier’s name and/or code in
the itinerary display. Under this
requirement, it is not sufficient to locate
the disclosure elsewhere on the same
Web page that displays all search results
meeting the search criteria, such as at
the very end of the Web page, with an
asterisk or some other symbol next to
each flight that has a code-share
arrangement. In coming to this
conclusion, we observed that quite often
there are multiple flights that meet the
search criteria so having code-share
disclosures located elsewhere on the
page, such as at the bottom of the page,
is visually remote from the itineraries
that include a code-share flight and
would likely be overlooked by
consumers. This is true particularly in
the situation where the entire Web page
does not fit on the screen display and
the viewer must scroll to the bottom of
the page to see the disclosure. In that

VerDate Sep<11>2014

19:05 Nov 02, 2016

Jkt 241001

case, we consider the disclosure located
at the bottom of the page to not be on
the ‘‘first display’’ following an itinerary
search, as required by the statute.
Accordingly, we consider disclosure of
the operating carrier directly adjacent to
each flight displayed with the marketing
carrier’s name and/or code to best meet
our goal of clearly and prominently
identifying all fights that are under a
code-share arrangement.
With respect to code-share disclosure
in flight itinerary search results and
flight schedule displays provided
through mobile devices via Web sites
specifically designed for mobile devices
(mobile Web sites) or applications
(apps), we appreciate the commenters’
insight that mobile devices have limited
screen display space and it is more
difficult to fit all the information into
one screen display. However, we also
recognize that the use of mobile Web
sites and apps is becoming more and
more popular among consumers and we
only expect this trend to continue with
the development of technology that
brings the convenience and accessibility
of mobile devices to many more
consumers’ daily life. As such, it is
important to ensure that displays on
mobile devices include code-share
disclosure, but it is also important to
ensure that code-share disclosure
requirements take into account the
limitations of mobile Web sites and
apps. As a compromise, we are adopting
a simplified format for display of codeshare disclosures via mobile Web sites
and apps. Specifically, instead of
disclosing the code-share arrangement
as ‘‘flight 123 is operated by Jane Doe
Airlines d/b/a QRS Express,’’ where
‘‘Jane Doe Airlines’’ is the corporate
name of the operating carrier and ‘‘QRS
Express’’ is the brand name of the
domestic code-share network (e.g.,
American Eagle, Delta Connection,
United Express), on mobile Web sites
and apps, carriers and ticket agents will
be permitted to simply disclose the
corporate name of the operating carrier,
e.g., ‘‘flight 123 operated by Jane Doe
Airlines.’’ We believe this compromise
is appropriate in striking a balance
between sufficiently identifying the
operating carrier while preserving some
space on mobile displays which is more
limited than space on computers.
Carriers and ticket agents that are
already displaying code-share
disclosure information in the same
manner as they are required to do on the
desktop Web site are free to either
maintain such a display format or
switch to the simplified format as
discussed above. The Department will
continue to monitor the development of

PO 00000

Frm 00014

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

mobile Web sites and apps and consider
amendments to this requirement as
necessary.
In connection with comments
regarding the requirement for airlines to
provide code-share information to the
GDSs that they use, we acknowledge
that the requirement was inadvertently
omitted from the proposed rule text in
the NPRM. We are adding the language
back to the final rule text to make it
clear that if an airline provides schedule
information to a GDS, it is required to
provide code-share information to the
GDSs who can in turn provide the
information to ticket agents and
consumers.
Section 257.5(b) Notice in oral
communications with prospective
consumers: Section 257.5(b) requires
that carriers and ticket agents must
identify the actual operator of a codeshare flight to a prospective consumer,
‘‘before booking air transportation,’’
over the telephone, or through other
means of oral communication. In the
preamble of the 1999 final rule
implementing this requirement, we
explained that the phrase ‘‘before
booking transportation’’ reflects the
Department’s enforcement policy:
During a given encounter (phone call,
visit, etc.) the agent or carrier may not
wait until after the consumer has
decided to make the reservation or
purchase the ticket and disclose the
code-sharing arrangement only when
reading back the flight information.
Instead, the disclosure must be made at
the time that the schedule information
is being provided to the consumer
during the ‘‘information’’ and ‘‘decisionmaking’’ portion of the conversation.
We then specifically rejected a carrier’s
suggestion that disclosures should only
be required during the booking process.
See, 64 FR 12838, March 15, 1999
(emphasis added). We acknowledge that
under the existing rule, carriers and
ticket agents have a period of time
starting from the first mention of a flight
involving a code-share operation,
through further discussion of the flights
available until before the conclusion of
the information and decision-making
portion of the conversation to make the
disclosure.
In this final rule, we are clarifying and
amending the existing requirement on
oral disclosure of code-share
arrangements by narrowing the time
window carriers and ticket agents are
allowed to provide the disclosure.
Specifically, instead of having to make
the disclosure at any point during the
information-gathering and decisionmaking process, we are now requiring
that the code-share information be
provided the first time a code-share

E:\FR\FM\03NOR3.SGM

03NOR3

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES3

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 213 / Thursday, November 3, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
flight is offered to a consumer or, if no
such offer was made, the first time a
consumer inquires about such a flight.
In adopting the new standard, we
believe that requiring disclosure at a
certain point rather than during a
window of time provides the regulated
entities a clearer threshold for
compliance. In addition, a clear rule
that requires disclosure during an early
stage of the process benefits consumers
and aligns with the online display
disclosure requirements of the statute.
The Department views the statutory
language in section 41712(c)(2)
requiring code-share disclosure in
internet schedule search to be on the
first display as an indication of
Congressional intent so such
information will benefit consumers
searching for airfares to the maximum
extent in making purchasing decisions.
Accordingly, we are extending this
approach to code-share disclosure in
oral communications to enhance
information provided to consumers
purchasing air transportation through
telephone or in person.
We reject some commenters’ view that
requiring disclosure of code-share
information the first time a code-share
flight is mentioned will impose
unreasonable cost on carriers and ticket
agents. In our view, the cost is not
unreasonable given the importance of
the information. Delta commented that
each disclosure will add 5 seconds to a
telephone reservation call and estimated
that complying with the disclosure
requirement as proposed will add $1
million annual recurring cost to its
reservations department. This assertion
is not only unsubstantiated by
underlying data, it also fails to consider
that disclosing a code-share
arrangement for the first time right
before the prospective customer
confirms the reservation may potentially
cost more to carriers and ticket agents
because such information disclosed at
the last minute may result in some
consumers deciding to revisit all the
travel arrangements already made and
possibly begin the reservation process
again to look for flights that are operated
by a different carrier. In fact, according
to Delta’s interpretation of the current
rule, a carrier or ticket agent may stay
silent about any code-share
arrangements included in a number of
flights that a consumer can choose from,
and only disclose the code-share nature
of the one flight the consumer has
selected for booking. This approach
completely defeats the purpose of the
code-share disclosure requirement,
which is to provide complete and
accurate material information that may
affect consumers’ decision making. It is

VerDate Sep<11>2014

19:05 Nov 02, 2016

Jkt 241001

the Department’s policy determination
that disclosing all material information
about a flight early in the reservation
process, including code-share
arrangements, is the most efficient way
to fully use the time of the reservation
agents and the consumers.
This section currently applies to, and,
under this final rule, will continue to
apply to, both U.S. and foreign air
carriers, as well as ticket agents doing
business in the United States, which is
interpreted in the same manner as
described in the discussion of that
phrase in section 257.5(a) above.
Consequently, a ticket agent that sells
air transportation via a Web site
marketed toward U.S. consumers (or
that distributes other marketing material
in the United States) is covered by
section 257.5(b) even if the agent does
not have a physical location in the
United States, and such an agent must
provide the disclosure required by
section 259.5(b) during a telephone call
placed from the United States even if
the agent receives such calls at a foreign
location.
Section 257.5(c) Notice in ticket
confirmations: We have received no
comments on this section and we are
adopting the changes to the rule text as
proposed in the NPRM. Specifically, we
retain the basic requirements listed in
14 CFR 257.5(c)(1) that requires written
disclosure of code-share arrangements
‘‘at the time of purchase’’; each flight
segment involving a code-share
arrangement that has its own flight
number must be identified individually
with the disclosure information
immediately adjacent to the flight
number; and if a single-flight-number
service involves one or more code-share
segments, each code-share segment
must be identified individually with the
disclosure information immediately
adjacent to that flight if there are
different operating carriers on the
segments. We are also deleting the
language in 14 CFR 257.5(c)(2), (c)(3),
and (c)(4) that contain outdated
references to paper tickets. As paper
tickets have predominantly been
replaced by electronic tickets, the
Department considers a universal
requirement to provide disclosure at the
time of purchase through a notice
automatically generated by the
reservation systems to be reasonable and
not overly burdensome.
Section 257.5(d) Notice in city-pair
specific advertisements: Paragraph (d)
deals with disclosure requirements in
city-pair specific advertisements. We are
adopting the proposal in the NPRM to
use the phrase ‘‘written advertisement’’
to replace the phrase ‘‘printed
advertisement,’’ which in the current

PO 00000

Frm 00015

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

76813

rule text refers to both advertisements
printed on paper and advertisements
published on the internet. We believe
the word ‘‘written’’ is more accurate in
describing both types of advertisements.
In addition, we are adding a
descriptive phrase—‘‘marketed to
consumers in the United States’’—in an
effort to reduce the possibility of
misunderstanding by specifying the
scope of the disclosure requirements on
internet advertisements. This is meant
to clarify that the disclosure
requirement applies to all internet
advertisements for flights within, to or
from the United States that are marketed
to consumers in the United States.
Similar to the scope of the code-share
disclosure requirement for flight
itinerary and schedule displays, this
approach is consistent with the
intended scope of other air travel
consumer protection rules, and ensures
that internet advertisements marketed to
consumers in the United States will be
covered even if the hosting server for
the Web site is located outside of the
United States.
We note that this standard will cover
all advertisements appearing on a
carrier’s or a ticket agent’s own Web
site, as well as advertisements that are
presented to U.S. consumers through
other paid advertising venues on the
internet (such as a news media Web site
or a travel blog Web site) and social
media Web sites (such as Facebook or
Twitter). In the NPRM, we sought
comments with regard to whether
applying the same standard to
advertisements on all of these Web sites
is reasonable and technically practical
in light of the brevity of these media
posting formats and we received no
specific comments. Although some
social media communication formats
impose a character limit on postings, we
do not consider at this time that such
limit would warrant a more relaxed
code-share disclosure rule for city-pair
specific advertisements through these
social media formats.
Another change proposed in this
NPRM concerns the example disclosure
statement in the rule text that a seller of
air transportation must include in a
radio or television broadcasting
advertisement. The current sample
statement includes the phrase ‘‘[s]ome
services are provided by other airlines.’’
Because the words ‘‘services’’ and
‘‘provided’’ cover a wide range of
activities, including ground operations,
customer service, etc., they do not
accurately convey the information we
intended to relate, which was regarding
the actual operation of a flight.
Accordingly, we are changing the

E:\FR\FM\03NOR3.SGM

03NOR3

76814

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 213 / Thursday, November 3, 2016 / Rules and Regulations

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES3

sentence to read ‘‘[s]ome flights are
operated by other airlines.’’
Finally, we have decided not to adopt
in this final rule the suggestion by
Travelers United and National
Consumers League to require carriers to
provide code-share information on
passengers’ boarding passes. Passengers
have access to, and likely retain a copy
of their ticket confirmation before and
during their travel even if they did not
purchase the tickets themselves, and the
relevant code-share information is
provided in the ticket confirmation as
required by the current rule. To add
code-share information on boarding
passes could enhance code-share
disclosure but we are not sure it is
necessary and cost effective.
U.S. and foreign air carriers and ticket
agents should be meeting these
disclosure requirements for code-share
arrangements by the effective date of the
rule.
(4) Disclosure That Not All Carriers are
Marketed
The NPRM: In the NPRM, the
Department stated that it was
considering requiring large travel agents
to disclose whether they display the
airfares of all carriers serving any
market that can be searched on the
travel agents Web site. We stated that
many online travel agents provide flight
and fare information for a significant
number of carriers—but not all
carriers—serving a particular city-pair
market or, in some markets, online
travel agents may not provide
information regarding any carrier
serving the market. Further, the
Department stated that online travel
agents do not necessarily identify the
carriers whose schedule and fare
information is or is not provided in
search results. As a result, consumers
may believe the search results provide
all possible flight options for a
particular city-pair market when in fact
there may be other options available. As
stated in the NPRM, the Advisory
Committee for Aviation Consumer
Protection recommended that DOT
require ticket agents, including online
ticket agents, to disclose the fact that
they do not offer for sale all airlines’
tickets, if that is the case, and to advise
consumers that additional airlines may
serve the route being searched, so that
consumers know they may need to
search elsewhere if they want to find all
available air travel options. The
Department sought comment on
whether to create a disclosure
requirement for all ticket agents or just
large ticket agents, and if so, in what
manner. Specifically, the Department
asked for comment on whether to

VerDate Sep<11>2014

19:05 Nov 02, 2016

Jkt 241001

require ticket agents to prominently
note on their Web sites that not all U.S.
air carriers and non-U.S. air carriers
serving the United States are displayed
on the Web site or marketed by the
travel agent or to prominently display a
statement in connection with a search of
a particular city pair that not all airlines
serving those cities are displayed on the
Web site or marketed by the travel
agent. The Department also sought
comment on whether to require online
travel agents to specifically identify all
of the airlines that it markets.
Comments: Among airline
commenters, some support the
requirement to identify carriers
marketed, while others oppose it. The
Arab Air Carriers Organization, and
some carriers, including Frontier,
JetBlue, Southwest, and Spirit, support
the proposal to require disclosure
regarding carriers marketed. While A4A
does not object to the requirement, it
states that the Department should not
require ticket agents to list carriers not
sold. Spirit, in contrast, comments that
the Department should require ticket
agents to identify carriers not sold and
the requirement should apply to all
ticket agents, regardless of size. Spirit
further argues that disclosure should be
provided on every search page and, in
support of its position, asserts that the
lack of such a disclosure would
disproportionately harm price-sensitive
consumers who were not given the
opportunity to learn about Spirit fares.
Southwest states that consumers would
benefit from knowing that search results
may not include all possible flight
options for a city-pair and notes that the
information may prompt consumers to
visit Web sites such as Southwest.com.
Southwest proposes that all ticket
agents, regardless of size, should be
required to include a generic statement
in search results notifying consumers
that the results only include certain
carriers with which the ticket agent has
an agreement. Frontier comments that
some large travel agents create the
impression that they market and sell air
transportation of all airlines when in
fact they do not; consumers are not
informed that not all carriers are offered
and therefore the fare or service options
being presented are limited.
Consumer advocacy organizations
were also divided on this issue.
Consumers Union and U.S. PIRG
support the requirement and state that
ticket agents should disclose all airlines
that serve a particular route, and which
of those airlines are included in the
ticket agent’s marketing. Travelers
United and National Consumers League
(NCL) oppose the requirement, stating
that the requirement would not result in

PO 00000

Frm 00016

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

a consumer net benefit, citing Web site
clutter, among other things.
Ticket agents and their associations
generally oppose requiring ticket agents
to disclose carriers marketed. Travel
Tech comments that no consumer harm
that resulted from the lack of such a
disclosure requirement has been shown.
Travel Tech states that ‘‘consumers are
sophisticated enough to realize that not
all carriers may be displayed’’ and
points out that, for example, Southwest
advertises extensively that its fares are
available only on its own Web site.
Meanwhile, the Department’s Office of
Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings
(Enforcement Office) has issued
guidance (August 19, 2013, Display of
Search Results on Ticket Agent Web
sites) stating that Online Travel Agents
(OTAs) should not use terms in search
results suggesting that no flights exist
that match the criteria provided by the
consumer to search for and compare
flight options from multiple carriers
when flights may be available on
carriers that the OTA does not market,
so according to Travel Tech no new
requirement is necessary. Travel Tech
members Sabre and Travelport each
filed separate comments opposing a
requirement to disclose that not all
carriers are marketed. Sabre states that
such a requirement is unwarranted and
unjustified while Travelport states that
there is no evidence that the
requirement will cure any particular
harm and that consumers are already
aware that not all carriers distribute
through online travel agencies.
ASTA also opposes the requirement,
stating that there was no evidence of
consumer confusion. Several individual
travel agents oppose the requirement for
the same reason and note that airlines
are not required to disclose to
consumers that travel agents may offer
a greater variety of airlines and
destinations from which to choose.
ASTA further comments that if
implemented, the requirement should
be a generalized statement indicating
that some carriers’ services may not
appear in search results.
USTOA states that the requirement is
unnecessary as the issue has been
addressed through enforcement policy;
however, if a regulation will replace the
enforcement policy, USTOA states that
it would support a requirement to
include a statement on ticket agents’
Web site displays stating that the
displayed schedules ‘‘may not reflect all
carriers in the market.’’ BCD Travel
comments that it is unnecessary for
corporate travel companies to disclose
which carriers they market because
these agents are incentivized to meet
corporate clients’ needs. Orbitz objects

E:\FR\FM\03NOR3.SGM

03NOR3

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES3

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 213 / Thursday, November 3, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
to a requirement that applies only to
large travel agents instead of all ticket
agents and states that the Department’s
concern that consumers may mistakenly
believe that they are provided with all
possible flight options is not supported
by the evidence. Orbitz further states
that maintaining an accurate list of all
of the hundreds of airlines it markets
would require regular updates and
would not be useful to consumers as
most of the airlines listed would not
serve the city-pair the consumer is
searching. Skyscanner comments that it
would not be feasible to display full
lists of carriers that are featured on a
particular flight search tool because
markets are changing regularly and any
list would quickly become out of date or
inaccurate. According to Skyscanner,
such a requirement would likely result
in the display of inaccurate information
to consumers, ‘‘despite the best efforts
and intention’’ of the site displaying the
information. Priceline comments that
the requirement might make sense for
‘‘consumer-facing’’ Web sites but should
not apply to corporate travel Web sites.
Carlson Wagonlit Travel states that if
such a requirement is implemented, it
should apply to all ticket agents,
regardless of size, and should be limited
to a list on the ticket agent’s Web site
for consumers and should not apply to
corporate travel. American Express
Global Business Travel echoes Travel
Tech’s comments, stating that no
specific consumer harm has been shown
and ‘‘consumers certainly are
sophisticated enough to recognize that
some carriers’ services may not be
available through a particular ticket
agent distribution channel.’’
DOT Response: The Department has
carefully considered all of the
comments and has decided not to adopt
a requirement that ticket agents provide
disclosure on their Web sites that not all
carriers are marketed on their site, if
that is the case. The Department
recognizes that some sophisticated
consumers may realize that not all
airlines are marketed on all online travel
agents without disclosure by the travel
agents, but not all consumers have the
same level of sophistication regarding
the marketing of air travel. The
Department maintains the view that the
information is important and should be
provided to consumers by ticket agents.
However, we are persuaded by
commenters that a disclosure
requirement resembling any of the
alternatives on which we sought
comment is not appropriate at this time.
We are concerned that a general
disclosure that not all carriers are
marketed on a particular Web site may

VerDate Sep<11>2014

19:05 Nov 02, 2016

Jkt 241001

be confusing to consumers. For
example, a general disclosure may result
in wasted search time for some
consumers whose particular search
results do in fact include all carriers and
flights that service a particular route/
city-pair, but who continue searching
because the disclosure indicates that not
all carriers are marketed. In addition, by
the time the consumer decides to
purchase a flight option that was
displayed in the initial search, that
particular fare or flight option may no
longer be available.
Regarding a more specific disclosure
for each individual city-pair searched,
the Department is concerned that this
requirement may be overly burdensome
for ticket agents. Ticket agents often
market the flights of several hundred
carriers serving the United States. A
ticket agent may not have all flight
information for a particular carrier and
the information could change without
notice. For example, a carrier may begin
serving a destination or exit a particular
market without notifying ticket agents;
may provide service only seasonally; or
may temporarily stop serving a
particular city. Accordingly, the
Department has determined that it will
continue to review this issue and may
address it in a future rulemaking if
appropriate. In addition, the Department
will consider appropriate consumer
outreach and education. For example,
the Department’s Enforcement Office
may provide information to consumers
that not all carriers are marketed on
travel agent Web sites through its
consumer publications like ‘‘Fly Rights’’
or consumer forums. These Department
actions may be in addition to or instead
of engaging in a rulemaking to impose
a requirement on ticket agents to
disclose airlines that they market.
(5) Prohibition on Undisclosed Airfare
Display Bias by Ticket Agents and
Carriers
The NPRM: An electronic airline
information system (EAIS) is defined in
the NPRM as a system that combines air
carrier or foreign air carrier schedule,
fare, rule, or availability information for
transmission or display via the internet
or other communications system to air
carriers or foreign air carriers, ticket
agents, other business entities, or
consumers. In the NPRM, the
Department proposed prohibiting any
undisclosed bias in any EAIS display of
multiple carriers’ schedules, fares, rules,
or availability. The regulation would
require any carrier or ticket agent that
provides electronic display of airfare
information to provide unbiased
displays or disclose the biases in the
display. It would apply to all electronic

PO 00000

Frm 00017

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

76815

displays of multiple carriers’ fare and
schedule information, whether the
display is available on an unrestricted
basis, e.g., to the general public, or is
only available to travel agents who sell
to the public. The requirement to
provide unbiased displays or disclose
biases in the display would also apply
to electronic displays used for corporate
travel unless a corporation agrees by
contract to biases in the display used by
its employees for business travel. The
requirements would apply to displays
provided in response to airfare inquiries
made by a consumer for a particular
itinerary or airfare inquires made by a
travel agent or other intermediary in the
sale of air transportation for a particular
itinerary. Although the regulation
would require carriers and ticket agents
that provide airfare information
electronically to display the lowest
generally available airfares and most
direct routings that meet the parameters
of the airfare search request, it would
not prohibit displays that included
biases selected by the consumer or the
user of the display, such as a preferred
carrier. The only prohibition would be
on undisclosed biases. We sought
comment on whether the prohibition on
undisclosed display bias should be
limited to airfare and routings and on
the costs and benefits of such a
prohibition.
In addition to the proposal regarding
undisclosed display bias, the
Department requested comment on
whether to require any ticket agent that
decides to bias its displays and disclose
the existence of bias to also disclose any
incentive payments it is receiving for
engaging in such a display bias. We
sought comment on how such
disclosure should be provided and what
kind of disclosure of the existence of
incentive payments would be most
helpful for consumers.
Existing Guidance: On February 1,
2011, and March 4, 2011, the
Department’s Enforcement Office issued
guidance that stated that undisclosed
display bias in search results for airline
service would be considered by that
office as an unfair and deceptive
practice because it prevents consumers
and travel agents who advise consumers
from obtaining accurate and complete
information on schedules and fares.
Although the guidance was not
mentioned in the NPRM, several
commenters referred to it in their
comments. The guidance provided that
the manner of displaying itinerary
information including carrier, lowest
fares, departure times, arrival times, trip
duration, or airports, must not favor or
disfavor a particular carrier unless the
bias is clearly and conspicuously

E:\FR\FM\03NOR3.SGM

03NOR3

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES3

76816

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 213 / Thursday, November 3, 2016 / Rules and Regulations

disclosed. The guidance was sent to
ticket agent trade associations, major
online travel agents, and the GDSs that
provide fare, schedule, and availability
information to ticket agents that market
or sell air transportation to consumers.
The guidance was also posted and
remains available on the Enforcement
Office Web site.
Comments Regarding Disclosure of
Bias: Consumer advocacy groups
Consumers Union, US PIRG, and
FlyersRights.org all support the
Department’s proposal to prohibit
undisclosed display bias in search result
displays. Consumers Union and US
PIRG state that consumers should know
‘‘whether the scales are being artificially
tilted in favor of certain carriers.’’
Farelogix, a third party technology
provider to the airlines, also supports
the prohibition, arguing that bias can
cause significant economic damage to
an airline and block third parties from
creating innovative solutions for the
industry. Farelogix comments that it has
experienced the negative impact of
undisclosed biasing directly. A4A
supports the proposal as it applies to
ticket agents but states it should not
apply to carrier Web sites, commenting
that in the past, for example, in the
Computer Reservations System (CRS)
rulemaking, the Department assumed
the public was aware that a carrier
would favor its own services on its own
Web site over other carriers’ services.
Several airlines also support the
proposal, including Frontier, JetBlue,
and Spirit. Frontier states that it
supports the display bias rule because if
ticket agents bias they do so in favor of
large legacy airlines that have greater
bargaining power than smaller carriers
and are able to pay for display bias, and
that this creates an unfair disadvantage
to smaller carriers and to consumers.
Spirit comments that undisclosed bias
distorts the air travel market and
subjects consumers to unfair and
misleading information when travel
agents and consumers are not made
aware that their search results are often
tailored to favor certain carriers due to
undisclosed contract arrangements or
payments. Spirit states that if a carrier
is not shown or incentives are provided
to the ticket agent for more prominently
displaying a particular carrier,
disclosure is important to allow
consumers and travel agents to make
informed decisions. United does not
support or oppose the proposal but
states that the rule text does not clearly
reflect the Department’s intent as stated
in the preamble of the NPRM regarding
disclosure of biasing on corporate travel
Web sites, i.e. that disclosure is only
required to the extent the bias is not

VerDate Sep<11>2014

19:05 Nov 02, 2016

Jkt 241001

agreed to by contract regarding
corporate travel. Lufthansa urges the
Department to exclude from this
proposed rule airline and airlinealliance Web sites, as well as direct
connections between ticket agents and
airlines’ internal reservations systems.
Lufthansa argues that ‘‘consumers and
ticket agents intuitively understand that
an airline ‘biases’ its Web site and
internal reservations systems to
prioritize and promote its own services
and those of its code-share and alliance
partner airlines. Consumers and ticket
agents instinctively know that they will
not be able to access fares and schedules
of other airlines that compete against or
are not aligned with the airline whose
Web site (and, in the case of ticket
agents, internal reservations systems)
they access.’’ Further, according to
Lufthansa, there is no need for DOT to
implement and apply anti-biasing rules
for corporate travel arrangements that
are contractually entered into by
sophisticated entities that are well
aware that the fares and schedules
offered through their business travel
programs are limited to certain airlines
and do not provide the full range of
available fares and schedules offered by
other airlines that do not participate in
a particular program.
Delta also supports requiring
disclosure of any bias in a ticket agent’s
display to the general public. However,
Delta opposes regulations that would
change existing business practices in the
display algorithms used by agents,
including GDSs, that do not bias based
on carrier identity. Delta also opposes
biasing restrictions on individual carrier
Web sites. According to Delta, a
customer shopping for tickets on
delta.com ‘‘knows and expects that
Delta is marketing Delta flights in a
manner advantageous to Delta over
other carriers, but that otherwise best
meets the customer’s needs and search
parameters.’’
Several commenters, including ticket
agents and ticket agent associations,
oppose the proposed regulation
prohibiting undisclosed display bias.
American Express Global Business
Travel states that there is no need for
rules prohibiting undisclosed display
bias because the guidance issued in
2011 is sufficient, and that if any
prohibition is adopted it should not
cover corporate travel. USTOA also
opposes the proposed regulation, stating
that the existing guidance is sufficient
and new regulation is not necessary,
and noting that the Department decided
against such a regulation in the CRS
rulemaking. BCD travel also opposes the
regulation, stating that it is not needed
and should not apply to corporate travel

PO 00000

Frm 00018

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

arrangements where display bias is
included in contractual arrangements.
Carlson Wagonlit Travel also opposes
the proposed regulation, noting that
displaying information in a particular
order is one of the services travel agents
offer, and it inherently involves bias,
which may be beneficial, and should be
permitted, particularly in corporate
travel which involves preferred vendors
and other similar corporate programs.
Travel Tech states that imposing such
a disclosure requirement would
‘‘micromanage airfare displays,
constituting regulatory overkill that
cannot be justified in the absence of any
evidence of a significant problem
warranting such market intrusion.’’
Travel Tech states that the existing
guidance is sufficient to adequately
ensure transparency in the disclosure of
carrier preferences in ticket agent
displays, and it would not object to a
simple rule applicable to any ticket
agent that would require appropriate
disclosure of the use of carrier identity
as a ranking factor in ordering displays.
Travel Tech identifies several specific
concerns with the proposed rule text
itself. Regarding ranking flights, the
organization asserts that as drafted, the
requirement to identify the lowest
airfare including all mandatory fees but
not including fees for optional services
would not allow for sequential listings
or ranking options by total cost
including fees for optional services. As
such, according to Travel Tech,
significantly less desirable flights may
be the first flights displayed, even if
they involve circuitous routings, very
long layovers, or two separate tickets
which prevent checking through bags,
or other drawbacks. Travel Tech’s
comments also indicate it is unclear
how the rule would apply to queries for
schedule and availability that don’t seek
fare information.
Regarding the ordering criteria for
identifying flights, Travel Tech states
that the same ordering criteria should
not be required for all markets because
different criteria may identify flights
that meet consumer needs in different
markets (e.g., international, U.S. short
haul, U.S. long haul). Regarding
differentiating carriers, Travel Tech
objects to the requirement to treat
‘‘listed carriers’’ that have no
contractual relationship with the GDS or
OTA creating the display the same as
‘‘participating carriers’’ that enter into a
contract with a GDS or OTA. Travel
Tech notes that a GDS or OTA may list
schedules and fares (but not availability)
of some carriers that are not
participating carriers as a service to
their users, even though the GDS or
OTA does not sell the listed carriers’

E:\FR\FM\03NOR3.SGM

03NOR3

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES3

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 213 / Thursday, November 3, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
services. Travel Tech also comments
that the proposed rule text seems to
create a violation in the event of an
inadvertent but inevitable data error if a
GDS or OTA does not include in its
system all information provided by a
carrier or inadvertently publishes
inaccurate information, subjecting it to
the risk of a penalty. In response to the
question of whether any rule regarding
display bias should be limited to airfare
and routings, Travel Tech states that
such limitation is appropriate.
Finally, Travel Tech argues that there
is no basis for applying a prohibition on
undisclosed display bias to corporate
booking tools. Amadeus also opposes
this provision, commenting that the
undisclosed display bias prohibition is
not needed. According to Amadeus, the
guidance on this matter issued by the
Department’s Enforcement Office in
2011 is sufficient. Amadeus further
states that if undisclosed bias is
prohibited, the rule should follow the
2011 guidance instead of the elaborate
proposed rule that creates excessive
regulatory intrusion into the market. As
an example, Amadeus states that if it
followed the proposed rule, flights with
excessive connections or layovers
would be displayed but the vast
majority of consumers would find them
unreasonable or unattractive. Travelport
also opposes the prohibition, stating
that the Department has not proven the
inadequacy of the existing Enforcement
Office guidance. Travelport states that
the Department should ‘‘outline the
problem to be solved by additional
regulation and allow the industry to
examine the evidence.’’
Skyscanner argues that a display bias
prohibition is not beneficial to
consumers, because it is incorrect to
assume that ‘‘all consumers are
interested in is price.’’ To illustrate its
point, Skyscanner compares flight
search tools to other shopping search
tools available on the internet that allow
consumers to sort display results in a
variety of ways. Skyscanner states that
‘‘[s]ome display bias is essential for
metasearch sites to ensure that served
content is relevant to consumers.’’ For
example, Skyscanner points out that a
consumer searching for a flight may be
interested in criteria such as the travel
duration, the number of transfers, the
number of complaints against a carrier,
whether the carrier can process a
booking on the device being used by the
consumer, and whether the route or
carrier has been popular with other
travelers. Skyscanner argues that
metasearch algorithms are designed to
provide the user with a high-quality
snapshot of the products available,
taking their chosen criteria into account.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

19:05 Nov 02, 2016

Jkt 241001

Skyscanner explains that bias describes
the technical processes that allow
consumers to benefit from combining a
large data pool with their own
preferences and notes that if price was
consumers’ only concern, metasearch
entities would not spend time, money,
and expertise developing what they find
to be effective ways to provide search
results. The Mercatus Center at George
Mason University (Mercatus) also
opposes the proposed requirement for
similar reasons, stating that travel
agencies compete by offering their best
judgment to consumers but the
proposed rule may limit travel agencies’
ability to continue to provide such
judgement. Mercatus concedes that
consumers may be harmed if they
believe a particular site provides
unbiased information on all of the
options that are available but states that
‘‘most consumers shop several sites for
airfare.’’
Comments Regarding Disclosure of
Incentives: Consumer advocacy groups
Consumers Union and US PIRG favor
disclosing incentive payments. Spirit
Airlines also comments that disclosure
of all companies providing incentives
and a summary of the incentives should
be required. However, many
commenters oppose requiring disclosure
of incentive payments. ASTA comments
that any language at all regarding
incentive payments would create a
negative impression to consumers and
would brand travel agents as
untrustworthy. Travel Tech also
opposes requiring disclosure of travel
agency incentives received from
airlines. Amadeus comments that a
requirement to disclose incentive
payments should not include GDS
payments to ticket agents because the
information is of no value to consumers
and has little or no relationship to any
biasing. BCD Travel acknowledges that
it receives incentives and states it would
be detrimental to industry to disclose
specifics. Carlson Wagonlit Travel
comments that disclosure of incentives
would provide no clear benefit and
would confuse and distract consumers.
USTOA acknowledges that tour
operators receive incentives that may
influence the information they provide
but states it would be detrimental to
industry to disclose specifics and
proposes that if there is any disclosure
requirement, it should be general and
not provide details of the incentives.
Several smaller travel agencies also
oppose the proposed requirement,
arguing that a travel agent’s first priority
is its clients and that incentives always
serve the interest of the clients by
allowing an agent to provide cheaper

PO 00000

Frm 00019

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

76817

service for a flight on a given airline, so
to force disclosure of incentive
payments would only serve to demonize
what is otherwise a positive thing for
consumers, agents, and airlines.
DOT Response on Undisclosed
Biasing: After reviewing and carefully
considering the comments, the
Department has decided to prohibit
certain undisclosed bias in electronic
displays that include combinations of
multiple carriers’ schedules, fares, or
availability information, if the display is
marketed to U.S. consumers or to ticket
agents that market to U.S. consumers. In
response to comments regarding the
alleged overly prescriptive nature of the
proposed rule and potential unintended
consequences of adopting the rule as
proposed, the Department has revised
the rule text to clarify that entities still
have flexibility to provide the type of
routings consumers are interested in
when purchasing air transportation. The
rule only applies to undisclosed display
bias by ticket agents or carriers, not bias
requested by the users of the system. For
example, if a user filters for a particular
carrier, schedule, or other criteria, and
certain airlines do not provide any flight
options that meet that criteria, and are
consequently not displayed in search
results, the Department does not
consider that to be a bias that must be
disclosed. Only biasing by ticket agents
or carriers based on carrier identity
must be disclosed—i.e., a system
presents flight options that favor or
disfavor individual carriers.
As discussed in greater detail below,
we have decided to prohibit any
undisclosed display bias favoring
particular carriers over others in search
results because we agree with
commenters noting that undisclosed
bias distorts the air travel market and
potentially harms consumers that are
not aware of the biasing. This rule will
apply not only to ticket agents’ Web
sites but also to airline and airline
alliance Web sites. Our rule also applies
to corporate booking tools as well as
displays available to the general public,
but is limited to undisclosed bias that is
not based on contractual arrangements.
Undisclosed display bias prevents
consumers and travel agents who advise
consumers from realizing that they are
not receiving neutral information on
schedules and fares and recognizing that
they may have to look elsewhere, or take
additional steps on the Web site, to find
more accurate or complete information.
Undisclosed display bias in flight search
results may mislead consumers who
rely on that flight search tool for neutral,
complete and correct information, and
result in their not looking on different
Web sites or not taking additional steps

E:\FR\FM\03NOR3.SGM

03NOR3

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES3

76818

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 213 / Thursday, November 3, 2016 / Rules and Regulations

on the Web site to find flight options
that better meet their preferences.
Undisclosed display bias by a GDS may
mislead travel agents who rely on the
information provided by GDSs, which
in turn causes misleading information
on available service options being
passed on to a significant number of
consumers who rely on their travel
agents. Undisclosed display bias on an
airline or airline alliance Web site may
lead a consumer to book on that Web
site when a flight on, for example, a
code-share partner’s Web site, may
better suit the consumer’s needs. For
example, an airline might bias its
displays to favor flights that it operates
over flights operated by a code-share
partner even though the flights operated
by the code-share partner may have a
lower price or schedule that better suits
the consumer. When travel agents or
consumers are unaware that information
they thought was neutral is, in fact,
biased, they may decide to book
relatively inferior flights when other
flights might better meet those travelers’
needs, for example, in terms of price or
scheduling.
In connection with biasing that results
from business arrangements or business
disputes, we recognize that commercial
harm to airlines resulting from biasing
may be a business matter but it also
harms consumers if it is not disclosed.
Further, to the extent undisclosed
biasing is used to hinder competition in
the distribution market, it potentially
stifles innovation that would provide
consumer benefits. Accordingly, the
rule generally requires entities that
operate systems displaying fare,
schedule or availability information for
multiple carriers to display the
information for each carrier equitably
with that of all other carriers marketed
on that system. In the alternative,
entities that wish to alter their displays
to favor or disfavor any particular
carrier are free to do so if the fact that
a carrier is favored or disfavored is
disclosed and there is no
misrepresentation that the information
is being displayed in a neutral manner.
To the extent a carrier or ticket agent
operating an EAIS engages in display
bias based on carrier identity, it must
clearly and conspicuously disclose that
fact. This applies to both ticket agents
and carriers. For example, if a ticket
agent favors or disfavors a particular
carrier, that bias must be disclosed.
Similarly, in connection with systems
operated by carriers or carrier alliances,
if carrier-identity is a factor in how
flights are displayed, that must be
disclosed. The notice about display bias
may not be in an obscure location as
that would not provide sufficient notice

VerDate Sep<11>2014

19:05 Nov 02, 2016

Jkt 241001

to avoid consumer harm. Accordingly, if
there is carrier identity bias, we require
that the notice appear prominently at
the top of the first search result display
presented to the user in response to the
user-selected search criteria. The notice
must specifically state that the order of
flights is not neutral with respect to
carrier identity.
Response to Display Issues Identified
in the Comments: Some commenters
identified rule text that appeared to
impose requirements that would result
in unintended consequences. For
example, concerns were expressed that
the proposed rule text would require an
EAIS to display the lowest generally
available airfare without allowing
screening out of certain flight options
based on unreasonably lengthy or
circuitous routings or similar
undesirable characteristics. Concerns
were also expressed that the
requirement to rank flights by the lowest
airfare may not be the best ranking
method for consumers as it may be more
beneficial to rank by total cost which
would include not only mandatory fees
but also fees for optional services. We
found these comments to be persuasive
and have made changes to the final rule.
This final rule does not contain a
requirement for an EAIS to rank by the
lowest generally available airfare, or any
other specific parameter. Instead, it
requires that each EAIS display
information in an objective manner,
based either on search criteria selected
by the user (e.g., lowest fare, lowest
cost, date and time of travel, class of
service, stopovers, total elapsed time or
duration of travel, number of stops,
limitations on carriers to be used,
particular airport(s), number of
passengers, etc.) or default criteria
established by the carrier or agent.
Ranking Flight Options and
Innovation in Displays: Regarding the
ranking of flights, the rule requires
systems to identify the flight options
that meet the parameters set by the user
of the system without ranking based on
any undisclosed bias based on carrier
identity. However, systems are not
precluded from setting default display
parameters that are not deceptive or
offering users the option to choose a
variety of display methods within those
parameters. Just as systems already offer
consumers many options, such as
displaying only non-stop flights in
search results, or ranking flights by cost,
or elapsed time, or departure time,
systems are not precluded from offering
additional options for displaying search
results. Similarly, as stated above, if a
consumer specifies a particular carrier
or carriers in search parameters,
displaying responsive search results

PO 00000

Frm 00020

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

would not be considered undisclosed
bias. Many commenters on the various
proposals in this rulemaking have
emphasized the importance of allowing
innovation in the display of airfare and
ancillary service fee information. We
agree that innovation is beneficial to
consumers and encourage systems to
offer a variety of options for search
result displays. Based on comments in
this rulemaking and on public
statements from a variety of industry
participants, we understand that many
airlines and ticket agents are already
working on providing more options for
consumers to choose in displaying
search results. We anticipate in the
future that systems will continue to add
more sorting mechanisms that allow
consumers to choose flight ranking
options based on their specific need, for
example, fare plus cost of specific
ancillary services chosen by the
consumer.
We agree with Skyscanner that
consumers will benefit from innovations
that allow different entities to improve
and expand on how to respond to
consumer searches and to display
search results. We encourage such
innovation and note that the
requirement to disclose any biases that
are built into the system does not
preclude creativity in designing
displays. For example, existing flight
search tools are already providing
various display formats and sorting
mechanisms that allow consumers to
choose how they want their flight
options prioritized.
This is also relevant to Skyscanner’s
comment that consumers may be
interested in a variety of factors when
selecting a flight and that flight search
tools offer a ‘‘snapshot’’ of options. We
agree that consumers consider a variety
of factors when searching for a flight
and anticipate that flight search tools
will continue to evolve, offering more
and more information and ways to sort
flight options. However, metasearch
entities do not market flight search tools
as offering a ‘‘snapshot,’’ they market
themselves as a neutral source of as
much flight information as is available
on the internet. Consumers should
know about the factors that may impact
or limit what flight information is
displayed and how it is displayed.
Ordering Criteria; Listed and
Participating Carriers: Travel Tech’s
comments also state that the proposed
rule text appears to require the same
ordering criteria for identifying flights
regardless of the market (e.g.,
international, U.S. short haul, U.S. long
haul). We agree that as long as the
criteria are not based on carrier identity,
different criteria may better identify

E:\FR\FM\03NOR3.SGM

03NOR3

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES3

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 213 / Thursday, November 3, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
flights that meet consumers’ specific
needs depending on the market.
Accordingly, we are not requiring that
the same ordering criteria be used for
every market. Rather, the search results
should match the user-selected criteria
and disclose any bias based on carrier
identity. Regarding differentiating
carriers, Travel Tech objects to the
requirement to treat ‘‘listed carriers’’
(carriers that have no contractual
relationship with the GDS or OTA) the
same as ‘‘participating carriers’’ (carriers
that enter into a contract with a GDS or
OTA). Travel Tech suggests that if an
OTA or GDS chooses to provide a
‘‘listed’’ carrier’s fare and schedule
information then there should be no
requirement to display that carrier’s
flight information equitably with the
information of participating carriers. We
agree that there is no requirement to
display a non-participating carrier’s
flight information. However, if an agent
chooses to display a non-participating
carrier’s flight information, then it must
display it equitably or disclose that the
information is not being displayed
equitably because otherwise consumers
could be misled or deceived into
thinking that the information is being
displayed in a neutral manner. Travel
Tech also noted that in many cases the
OTA or GDS does not have availability
information for carriers that are only
listed and not participating. To the
extent ticket agents provide fare and
schedule information without
availability information, this rule
requires that, absent disclosure about
bias, the information must be provided
in a manner that does not favor or
disfavor a particular carrier. Finally,
Travel Tech commented that ‘‘[i]f
adopted as proposed, the rule could
encourage GDSs and OTAs to simply
remove all information about nonparticipating carriers from their systems,
another perverse result that would
clearly not benefit consumers.’’ It is our
understanding that GDSs and OTAs
make a business decision to provide
consumers with non-participating
carrier flight information even though
those carriers do not provide all fare,
schedule, and availability information
and do not pay the same fees to GDSs
or OTAs as participating carriers. To the
extent that entities such as those
represented by Travel Tech determine
that they have a greater interest in not
providing non-participating carriers’
information rather than disclosing it in
an unbiased manner or disclosing that
the information is not provided in an
unbiased manner, that is a business
decision that must be made by each
entity. However, we are not persuaded

VerDate Sep<11>2014

19:05 Nov 02, 2016

Jkt 241001

that this is sufficient reason to allow a
GDS or OTA to bias displays in a
manner that ranks differently those
carriers that do not ‘‘participate,’’ or pay
fees to the GDS or OTA, without
disclosing that information to
consumers.
Biasing Based on Carrier-Identity on
Airline and Airline Alliance Web sites:
Regarding airline and airline alliance
Web sites’ displays that incorporate the
flights of more than one carrier, we also
believe consumers are entitled to be
informed of any biasing that occurs in
those displays. We note that most, if not
all, alliance and carrier Web sites that
display flight options for alliance or
code-share flights already provide
information regarding the carriers that
are marketed on the Web site. The
additional disclosure that would be
necessary would be a statement
regarding the manner in which the
display favors or disfavors particular
carriers. For example, if an alliance Web
site marketed to U.S. consumers biases
its displays to favor carriers that operate
flights to and from the United States
over carriers that only market flights to
and from the United States that are
operated by another carrier under the
code of the marketing carrier, then that
fact should be disclosed to consumers.
Corporate Booking Tools: We disagree
with the comments that there is no basis
for applying a prohibition on
undisclosed display bias to corporate
booking tools. To the extent that bias is
built into corporate booking tool
displays pursuant to a contractual
agreement that makes clear the
parameters of the displays, we would
not consider such bias to be biasing that
must be disclosed to users of the system
and agree that there is no need to
disclose that information on every
display of search results. However, if
changes to a corporate booking tool
display were made by the operator of
the system so that flight options were
biased based on carrier identity, we
would consider that to be a violation of
the rule and an unfair or deceptive
practice unless the bias based on carrier
identity was disclosed as required by
the rule. For example, if an entity
operates a corporate booking tool under
a contract with a corporation, and the
entity operating the tool is having a
business dispute with a particular
carrier, that entity may not remove the
carrier’s flights from search results or
place them in a less favorable location
in the search results, independent of
any contractual terms to favor or
disfavor particular carriers in that
particular corporate booking tool,
without providing disclosure to the
users of the booking tool in the manner

PO 00000

Frm 00021

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

76819

required by this rule. Business entities
benefit from the requirement for biases
to be disclosed as they may have
policies that require selection of best
available fare, or other financial,
recordkeeping, or auditing
requirements. Further, a business entity
that does not have contracts providing
benefits or discounts on a particular
carrier may still rely on corporate
management tools to book business
travel as well as to integrate cost and
booking data for its travel into its own
systems. Those entities are also entitled
to be informed if the flight options being
displayed reflect bias based on carrieridentity.
Incentives: We have decided not to
require the disclosure of information
regarding incentives. We have
determined that the prohibition on
undisclosed biasing is sufficient to
protect consumers without mandating
the disclosure of specific information
about incentive payments. Regardless of
the reasons for the biasing, whether due
to undisclosed contract arrangements,
commercial disputes, or financial
incentives, consumers should be made
aware when a display is not neutral
with respect to carrier identity. Being
informed that carrier identity is a factor
in the display of flight options,
regardless of underlying reason, likely
would be useful to consumers.
However, we do not see a benefit to
requiring disclosure of incentives such
as specific commercial arrangements or
dollar amounts when there are a variety
of other reasons, in addition to incentive
payments, that may lead an entity to
bias its display. We believe providing
information on incentives might result
in consumer confusion regarding the
significance of the information and not
necessarily provide information that
would be helpful in making decisions
about air travel purchases. We also agree
with commenters that it would be
difficult to define how and what types
of incentives should be disclosed.
Further, we acknowledge that disclosure
may touch on sensitive commercial
information. As such, this final rule
does not require the disclosure of
incentive payments but simply prohibits
undisclosed biasing based on carrier
identify.
(6) Amendments/Corrections to Second
Enhancing Airline Passenger Protections
Rule and Certain Other Provisions
a. Standard Applicable to Reportable
Tarmac Delays Under Part 244
In 14 CFR part 244, the Department
requires U.S. and foreign air carriers to
file Form 244 ‘‘Tarmac Delay Report’’
with the Department with respect to any

E:\FR\FM\03NOR3.SGM

03NOR3

76820

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 213 / Thursday, November 3, 2016 / Rules and Regulations

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES3

covered flight that experienced a
lengthy departure or arrival delay on the
tarmac at a large, medium, small, or
non-hub U.S. airport. A ‘‘lengthy’’
tarmac delay for purposes of this report
is defined in part 244 as any tarmac
delay that lasts ‘‘three hours or more.’’
This standard is inconsistent with the
standard applicable to the tarmac delay
contingency plan requirements under 14
CFR part 259 and the existing reporting
requirements of BTS, both of which
refer to any tarmac delay of ‘‘more than
three hours.’’ In a Frequently Asked
Questions document issued by the
Department following the issuance of
the final rule for part 244, we
acknowledged this discrepancy and
stated that we intend to correct it in a
future rulemaking. In the NPRM for the
instant proceeding, we proposed to
amend the rule text of part 244 and to
adopt the ‘‘more than three hours’’
standard so this part would be
consistent with other parts of our rules.
Under this action, any tarmac delay that
lasts exactly three hours would not be
covered under the requirements of part
244. We received no comments on this
proposal and are adopting it as
proposed.
b. Civil Penalty for Tarmac Delay
Violations
In the NPRM, we proposed to amend
the tarmac delay rule to clarify that the
Department may impose penalties for
tarmac delay violations on a perpassenger basis. We received numerous
comments opposing this proposal,
primarily from carriers and carrier
associations stating that the Department
lacks statutory authority to impose such
a civil penalty on a per-passenger basis.
Since the tarmac delay rule became
effective in 2011, the Department’s
Enforcement Office has maintained that
even if all of the violations took place
on a single flight, it is not limited to a
single civil penalty per flight for tarmac
delay violations. It has consistently
exercised its discretion and assessed
civil penalties for tarmac delay
violations on a per-passenger basis,
through consent orders that have
become actions of the Department. The
Enforcement Office has taken the
position that the Department has the
authority to assess a civil penalty on a
per-passenger basis, based on 49 U.S.C.
41712, which prohibits unfair or
deceptive practices, and 49 U.S.C.
42301, which requires that carriers
adhere to their tarmac delay
contingency plans.
Nonetheless, the Department has
decided not to amend the tarmac delay
rule as we had proposed on this
particular issue. Instead, the

VerDate Sep<11>2014

19:05 Nov 02, 2016

Jkt 241001

Enforcement Office will continue to
exercise its discretion to enforce the
tarmac delay rule as appropriate, on a
case-by-case basis.
c. Required Oral Disclosure of Material
Restrictions on Travel Vouchers Offered
to Potential Volunteers in Oversale
Situations Under Part 250
The second Enhancing Airline
Passenger Protections rule amended the
Department’s Oversales rule (14 CFR
part 250) in a number of ways. One of
the issues was requiring oral disclosure
of any material restrictions on travel
vouchers offered to both voluntarily and
involuntarily bumped passengers. The
preamble discussed extensively the
reasons for adopting this new provision.
But inadvertently, the rule text in part
250 only requires oral disclosures to
passengers who are involuntarily denied
boarding. The rule text, as it currently
stands, allows carriers to provide such
disclosure solely by written notice to
passengers who are orally solicited to be
volunteers in exchange for travel
vouchers. We proposed in the NPRM to
require carriers to provide oral
notification of restrictions to these
passengers who are solicited to
volunteer.
Travelers United and National
Consumers League submitted joint
comments in support of this proposal
but urge the Department to go further by
requiring gate agents to verbally disclose
to passengers who are involuntarily
denied boarding that they are eligible to
receive the maximum amounts of
denied boarding compensation in cash
for domestic and international flights.
The commenters state that such
disclosure would put consumers in an
educated position when dealing with
denied boarding situations. The
commenters further state that basic
consumer rights involving
compensation should be explained in
writing by airlines on ticket itineraries
and computer generated boarding passes
to include compensation for lost
luggage, denied boarding and flight
delays from Europe to the United States
and within Europe.
Spirit Airlines opposes the
Department’s proposal to require gate
attendants to provide a verbal
explanation of the terms of vouchers
given to volunteers in an overbooking
situation. Spirit states that the
Department lacks any demonstrable
evidence that consumers are harmed by
receiving only written disclosures.
Spirit states that it would first ask the
passengers being solicited to volunteer
to read the terms of the vouchers and
check a box to state that they agree to
the terms and conditions. Spirit asserts

PO 00000

Frm 00022

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

that it is completely impractical to
require a gate agent to give a private
presentation of the material restriction
applicable to the travel voucher to each
potential volunteer.
The Department continues to believe
that oral notification of material
restrictions of vouchers is necessary
especially when passengers being
solicited to volunteer their seats are
constrained by time pressure to make a
quick decision as to whether to
volunteer. We further believe that the
written notice that is often embedded in
the printed contents of the travel
voucher is hard for passenger to review
and comprehend in a short time before
he or she commits to the acceptance of
the voucher. By adopting this
requirement, we note that a brief oral
summary of the material restrictions
applicable to the travel vouchers
delivered through the gate PA system
following the announcement of a
request for volunteers would not place
an unreasonable burden on carriers and
would benefit consumers by offering
them a clear and precise summary
description of what they are receiving in
exchange for giving up their seats. Such
verbal disclosure is not required to be
provided individually to each potential
volunteer. We expect such disclosure
would reduce the likelihood of
consumer confusion that in turn would
reduce complaints filed with carriers
and the cost associated with carriers’
handling of these complaints. With
respect to the suggestion of Travelers
United and National Consumers League
to require verbal disclosure of maximum
denied boarding compensation amounts
to passengers denied boarding
involuntarily, and the suggestions to
include compensation amounts on
boarding passes, we decline to address
these proposals in this final rule
because they are beyond the scope of
our Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.
d. Limitation of Flight Status
Notification Requirement of 14 CFR
259.8
Guidance in the Frequently Asked
Questions that accompanied the second
Enhancing Airline Passenger Protections
final rule limits the flight status
notification requirement in 14 CFR
259.8 to any qualified flight status
changes that occur within seven
calendar days prior to the scheduled
date of the operation. In the NPRM for
the instant proceeding, we proposed to
codify this standard in the rule. We
received no comments on this proposal.
We adopt the ‘‘seven-calendar-day’’
timeframe in this final rule as we
recognize that the closer to the date of
the scheduled operations, the more

E:\FR\FM\03NOR3.SGM

03NOR3

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 213 / Thursday, November 3, 2016 / Rules and Regulations

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES3

important it is for carriers to provide
notice of a flight status change
promptly. Limiting the flights for which
carriers are required to comply with
section 259.8 according their departure
timeframe will also reduce carriers’
burdens and ensure that their primary
focus is on those flights where the status
change would have the most significant
impact on consumers. We emphasize,
however, that notifications of changes
that occur earlier than the seven-day
threshold are still required to be
delivered to the passengers ‘‘in a timely
manner’’ by the carriers as provided by
14 CFR 259.5(b)(10).
We are also adopting some proposed
editorial changes to section 259.8 to
clarify that flight status change
notifications required in this section
should be provided not only to
passengers, but also to any member of
the public who may be affected by the
changes and who subscribes or attempts
to subscribe to a flight status
notification system, including persons
meeting passengers at airports or
escorting them to or from airports. In
this regard, we are changing the word
‘‘passengers’’ to ‘‘consumers’’ in the title
of section 259.8, changing the first
instance of the word ‘‘passengers’’ in
subsection 259.8(a)(1) to the phrase
‘‘passengers and other interested
persons,’’ and changing the second
instance of that word to ‘‘subscribers.’’
e. Removing the Rebating Provision in
Section 399.80(h)
14 CFR 399.80(h) of DOT’s Statements
of General Policy states that it is an
unfair or deceptive practice or unfair
method of competition for a ticket agent
to advertise or sell air transportation at
less than the rates specified in the tariff
of the air carrier, or offer rebates or
concessions, or permit persons to obtain
air transportation at less than the lawful
fares and rates. In the NPRM for this
proceeding, we proposed to remove this
provision. It is a vestige of the period
before deregulation of the airline
industry. Domestic air fares were
deregulated effective 1983, and in most
cases international air fares to and from
the United States are no longer included
in tariffs that specify ‘‘lawful’’ fares. In
those markets where international fares
are still subject to regulation, carriers
that do not comply with their tariff are
potentially subject to enforcement
action under 49 U.S.C. 41510
concerning adherence to tariffs or 49
U.S.C. 41712 concerning unfair or
deceptive practices and unfair methods
of competition (the statutory basis for
section 399.80(h)). The Department’s
Enforcement Office has said that it will
pursue enforcement action against a

VerDate Sep<11>2014

19:05 Nov 02, 2016

Jkt 241001

carrier that does not comply with its
tariff when there is clear evidence of a
pattern of direct fraud against
consumers or deception, invidious
discrimination, or violations of the
antitrust laws. It has been the
longstanding policy of that office to
decline to prosecute instances of
noncompliance with tariff obligations
that result in benefits to consumers
absent clear evidence of such fraud,
deception, discrimination or antitrust
violations. (See the Frequently Asked
Questions for ‘‘Rule #2’’ of the
Enhancing Airline Passenger Protections
regulation, www.transportation.gov/
individuals/air-consumer/aviationrules, section X, question 38a, footnote
1.) There have been no enforcement
actions solely for tariff compliance for
over 20 years, and should such action
become appropriate in the future, it can
proceed under the authority of sections
41510 or 41712.
The American Society of Travel
Agents supported the proposal to
remove this provision. There were no
other comments on this issue. As
indicated above, 14 CFR 399.80(h) is not
necessary and consequently we are
removing this provision.
f. Removing Part 255 Pursuant to Its
Sunset Provision
We are removing the rule text of 14
CFR part 255 pursuant to section 255.8
that provides that part 255 shall
terminate on July 31, 2004, unless
extended by a document published in
the Federal Register. We are replacing
the text of part 255 with ‘‘Reserved.’’
Regulatory Analyses and Notices
A. Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory
Planning and Review) and DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures
This action has been determined to be
significant under Executive Order 12866
and the Department of Transportation’s
Regulatory Policies and Procedures. It
has been reviewed by the Office of
Management and Budget under that
Executive Order and Executive Order
13563. This section contains a summary
of costs and benefits associated with
this final rule. More detail on the
economic impact of this final rule can
be found in the Regulatory Impact
Analysis (RIA), which is available in the
docket.
The RIA provides information on the
benefits and costs associated with the
Final Rule. The rule is not economically
significant, as the costs which were able
to be quantified, which relate only to
the requirements that expand the
definition of ‘‘reporting carrier’’ and the
reporting requirements for reporting

PO 00000

Frm 00023

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

76821

carriers, totaled $7.74 over a ten-year
period, or an annualized cost of $0.96
million, when discounted using a seven
percent rate. Any potential additional
costs which could not be quantified are
expected to be minimal. The benefits
could not be quantified and monetized
with reasonable accuracy for the Rule
and thus, were evaluated qualitatively.
Provision 1: Expand ‘‘Reporting Carrier’’
Pool and Provision 2: Expand Reporting
Requirements for Reporting Carriers
Provision 1 expands the ‘‘reporting
carrier’’ threshold to include more
carriers by lowering the threshold for
‘‘reporting carrier’’ to 0.50 percent of
domestic scheduled passenger revenues.
Provision 2 expands the information
that each reporting carrier is required to
submit to USDOT to include an
additional set of performance data for
the carrier’s domestic code-share flight
segments operated by a partner.
Reporting carriers are required to
submit the following flight performance
data regularly:
• BTS Form 234 ‘‘On-Time
Performance Report’’ on a monthly
basis;
• Report baggage mishandling,
statistics monthly;
• BTS Form 251 regarding denied
boarding/oversales on a quarterly basis;
and
• Lengthy tarmac delays and
incidents relating to transport of
animals, when/if they occur.
In addition, reporting carriers are
currently required to post on-time
performance data on their Web sites for
each flight they operate and for each
flight their U.S. code-share partners
operate.
Provisions 1 and 2 will lead to
additional performance data reported to
the BTS, and in turn made available to
consumers through publication in the
Air Travel Consumer Report. In
addition, new reporting carriers that
market directly to consumers will now
post on-time performance data on their
Web sites for each flight they operate
and for each flight its U.S. code-share
partners operate. Several larger regional
carriers and some of the smaller
national carriers will provide a great
deal of information regarding their
performance to BTS. The public will
now be able to compare the performance
of these newly reporting carriers across
a range of critical performance
indicators (e.g. on-time performance,
rate of mishandled baggage, etc.).
The costs to carriers are calculated by
multiplying the number of impacted
carriers by the one-time programming
cost to collect and report data and ongoing costs to process and report data to

E:\FR\FM\03NOR3.SGM

03NOR3

76822

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 213 / Thursday, November 3, 2016 / Rules and Regulations

the Department. Additional costs
associated with training for data
gathering and for carriers to report

performance data of code-share partners
were identified but not quantified or

monetized, but are not expected to be
very significant.

TABLE 1—ESTIMATED COSTS FOR PROVISION 1 AND 2
2017
(first year—
set-up costs)

2018
(second year—
ongoing costs)

2017–2026
(ten years)

1

............................

............................

$441,914

............................

............................

$441,914

............................

$441,914

$106,173
7

............................
............................

............................
............................

$743,213

............................

$743,213

$8,000
7

............................
............................

............................
............................

8

............................

............................

$120,000

............................

$120,000

$106,173
17

............................
............................

............................
............................

$1,804,947

............................

$1,804,947

............................

240

............................

............................
............................

16
$94.57

............................
............................

............................

$169,464

$1,600,470

............................

9

............................

............................

384

............................

............................
............................
............................

$544,70
$2,969
7

$5,144,368
............................
............................

............................
............................
............................

$20,783
64,122,957
705,353

$187,047
............................
............................

............................

$0.036

............................

Total ongoing data entry costs for newly reporting carriers to enter data re wheelchairs and scooters ...............................................................................................

............................

$25,393

$251,795

Total Component Costs (millions):
Undiscounted costs ...........................................................................................

$3.11

$0.76

$10.29

Discounted costs (7%) ......................................................................................

$2.91

$0.66

$7.74

Reporting Threshold 0.50%
Reporting Carriers to Provide Data for Code-Share Flights
Number of newly reporting carriers who market flights ..................................................
One-time set-up cost per carrier to post flight delay information to consumers, $/carrier ................................................................................................................................
Total one-time set-up costs for newly reporting carriers who market flights to post
on-time performance information to consumers, $llll ................................
One-time set-up cost per carrier to be able to collect/report performance data for
USDOT, $/carrier .........................................................................................................
Number of newly reporting carriers .................................................................................
Total one-time set-up costs for all newly reporting carriers to collect/report performance data to USDOT, $llll ..................................................................
Per carrier one-time set-up costs for newly reporting carriers and code-share partners
to set up system for revised reporting mishandled baggage rates .............................
Number of newly reporting carriers .................................................................................
Number of code share partnerings, for newly reporting carriers only and their domestic code-share segments ..............................................................................................
Total one-time set-up costs for newly reporting carriers and code-share partners
to set up system for revised reporting mishandled baggage rates ......................
One-time setup cost to create a link between reporting carriers and code-share partners to share code-share performance data ...............................................................
Total links established between reporting carriers and code-share partners ..........
Total one-time set-up costs for reporting carriers and code-share partners to establish links to transmit data, $llll ..............................................................
Hours per carrier for filling performance data Form 234 (on-time performance), Hrs/
carrier ...........................................................................................................................
Hours per carrier for filling performance data Form 251 (denied boarding/oversales),
Hrs/carrier .....................................................................................................................
Hourly labor costs of reporting, $/Hr ...............................................................................
Total ongoing labor costs for newly reporting carriers to collect and report data
on their own flights, $llll .............................................................................
Number of current or newly reporting carriers who have at least one code-share partner ................................................................................................................................
Additional hours per reporting carrier to report performance data if filing separate reports for code-share partners and main carriers, Hrs/carrier ......................................
Total ongoing labor costs for reporting carriers to collect and report data on their
code-share flights, $llll ...............................................................................
Annual cost of Report Preparation for mishandled baggage ..........................................
Number of newly reporting carriers .................................................................................

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES3

Total costs for newly reporting carriers to prepare annual reports for mishandled
baggage ................................................................................................................
Number of passengers on newly reporting carriers (0.5%) ............................................
Passengers of newly reporting carriers with checked wheelchairs and scooters, .........
additional cost per item/passenger for the airlines to enter data re wheelchairs and
scooters ........................................................................................................................

* The hourly labor cost for reporting is an average of hourly rates presented in Enhancing Airline Passenger Protections Final Rule of April 25,
2011 RIA and 2003 hourly rates for this specific technical work provided by a reporting carrier which shared this confidential data under agreement that they would not be named publically. The hourly labor cost for reporting includes benefits and supervisory review time. It is adjusted in
years going forward by 1.6 percent annually during the study period. Refer to the RIA for detailed information.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

19:05 Nov 02, 2016

Jkt 241001

PO 00000

Frm 00024

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

E:\FR\FM\03NOR3.SGM

03NOR3

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES3

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 213 / Thursday, November 3, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
Provision 3: Disclosure of Code-Share
Segments in Schedules, Advertisements
and Communications With Consumers
This provision of the Rule clarifies the
Department’s code-share disclosure
regulation to ensure that carriers and
ticket agents disclose any code-share
arrangements in schedules,
advertisements and communications
with consumers. It amends the
Department’s code-share disclosure
regulation to codify the statutory
requirement that carriers and ticket
agents must disclose any code-share
arrangements on their Web sites,
including mobile Web sites and
applications; clarifies the format in
which that information must be
displayed; and adds a requirement that
verbal codeshare disclosures be made
the first time a flight involving a codeshare arrangement is offered to
consumers or inquired about by
consumers during telephone or in
person conversations. The provision is
very similar to that presented in the
NPRM, on which the public provided
comments.
Much of the substance of Provision 3
is already in effect, as existing statute
(49 U.S.C. 41712(c)) already requires
that carriers and ticket agents disclose
their code-shared segments, and
therefore all carriers and ticket agencies
should already be complying with most
of this requirement. The aspect of this
provision which is new is the
specification of when during the
booking process a carrier or ticket agent
must disclose the code-share
information. The existing rule requires
airlines and ticket agents to disclose
code-share information to the consumer
‘‘before booking transportation’’ which
the Department has explained means at
any point during the informationgathering and decision-making process;
the new rule’s provision stipulates that
the disclosure must be made at the first
time a flight involving a code-share
arrangement is mentioned or offered to
consumers. Benefits from this provision
will arise from the requirement that
verbal code-share disclosures should be
made the first time a flight involving a
code-share arrangement is mentioned or
offered to consumers and will include
some time savings for a small number of
consumers during ticket reservations
and purchase. Since this provision
mostly codifies and clarifies existing
statute, there are few costs associated
with it. Some costs will arise, though, as
some carriers may have longer
reservation calls and increased training
costs. The most notable additional costs
would be borne by those carriers and
ticket agents that currently do not

VerDate Sep<11>2014

19:05 Nov 02, 2016

Jkt 241001

76823

present code-share information at the
first mention of a flight during a
reservation call or in-person booking.
These carriers and ticket agents may
have slightly longer reservation calls
and longer in-person bookings.

programming costs should be small.
Additionally, these costs would not be
incurred by all carriers and ticket
agents, only by those which use biases
or other non-consumer specified factors
when organizing flight search results.

Provision 4: Prohibition on Undisclosed
Biasing Based on Carrier Identity
The Department is aware of instances
in which GDSs and large OTAs have
manipulated flight search results and
provided biased or filtered flight and
fare information that disfavored the
flights of the airline that was the target
of the biasing. These incidents occurred
in the course of business disputes when
certain GDSs and OTAs influenced and
threatened to influence itinerary search
results to disfavor particular carriers’
flights or not display certain flights in
search results. The display bias was not
disclosed to consumers or ticket agents
that market to consumers. Thus, the
fifth provision of the rule prohibits
undisclosed biasing by carriers and
ticket agents in any online displays of
the fare, schedule or availability
information of multiple carriers. This
provision applies to online travel
agencies, corporate booking tools, and
carrier and carrier alliance Web sites
and is substantially the same as
presented in the NPRM.
Undisclosed bias in the display of
flight search results can distort the air
travel market and potentially harm
consumers that are not aware of the
biasing. If consumers assume that search
results contain no bias and that flights
are ranked by lowest fare (or other
factors which they can select) they may
not fully examine all the results,
potentially missing some flights which
are either cheaper or a better match for
their criteria but are ranked lower.
Ensuring that online ticket agents
disclose whether they use criteria
besides those chosen by the consumer
for presenting search results will alert
consumers to any potential bias. It
would still be the consumers’
responsibility to review the results
carefully, but there will be greater
transparency in the search results,
decreasing chances of a misinformed
consumer.
Additional costs to carriers and travel
agents of this provision should be
minimal. The only additional costs of
instituting this provision would be
small programming costs to add a
disclosure specifying what factors or
biases, if any, beyond price and those
which can be specified by the consumer
are used to display search results. Since
these disclosures should be relatively
simple statements and are not expected
to change frequently, these per entity

Alternatives Considered
The Department considered multiple
alternatives to individual provisions of
this Final Rule. Costs could only be
quantitatively estimated for one of these
alternatives—that of lowering the
reporting threshold from 1.0 percent of
domestic passenger revenue to 0.25
percent, instead of to 0.5 percent as
adopted in the final rule. Costs under
this alternative increased from $7.74
million over ten years to $9.44 million
(both discounted at 7 percent); or higher
annualized costs of $1.18 million versus
$0.96 million.

PO 00000

Frm 00025

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5
U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires an agency to
review regulations to assess their impact
on small entities unless the agency
determines that a rule is not expected to
have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities.
This rule will impact a substantial
number of small entities, but the
economic impact will not be significant.
The provisions of this rule are:
1. Expand the pool of carriers that
report on-time performance, mishandled
baggage, and oversales data to the
Department (often called ‘‘reporting
carriers’’) from carriers which account
for at least 1.0 percent of domestic
scheduled passenger revenues (as
currently required) to those carriers
which account for at least 0.5 percent of
domestic scheduled passenger revenues;
2. Expand reporting requirements for
covered carriers that market code-share
flights to include an additional set of
reports for the on-time performance,
mishandled baggage, and oversales data
of their domestic code-share flights
operated by partners;
3. Ensure the disclosure of code-share
arrangements in all marketing carriers’
schedules, advertisements and
communications with consumers; and
4. Prohibit undisclosed display bias
by airlines and ticket agents.
This Rule will impact small carriers
and small ticket agents that market air
transportation. For purposes of rules
promulgated by the Office of the
Secretary of Transportation regarding
aviation economic and consumer
matters, an airline is a small entity for
purposes of the Regulatory Flexibility
Act if it provides air transportation only
with aircraft having 60 or fewer seats
and no more than 18,000 pounds

E:\FR\FM\03NOR3.SGM

03NOR3

76824

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 213 / Thursday, November 3, 2016 / Rules and Regulations

payload capacity. The Small Business
Administration (SBA) size standard for
small business for both travel agents and
tour operators is $20.5 million in
average annual receipts (SBA does not
have a size standard for ticket agents as
defined by the Department; travel agents
and tour operators are most applicable
categories which such data was found).
The Department determined that this
final rule is not likely to have a
significant economic impact, although it
will impact a substantial number of
small entities. Provisions 1 and 2 of the
Rule will only affect one small carrier;
the Department estimated that this
carrier would experience a cost of
$326,520 in the first year and $491,612
over a 10-year period (discounted at a 7
percent discount rate). A substantial
number of small travel agencies and
tour operators will be directly impacted
by this Rule. However, the Department
estimates that the costs of compliance
will be minimal for each individual
travel agency and/or tour operator.
Since the Department could not
estimate all of the costs to small entities
of this rule, it prepared a FRFA. The
Department considered multiple
alternatives to individual provisions of
this Final Rule. Costs could only be
quantitatively estimated for one of the
alternatives to Provision 1—that of
lowering the reporting threshold from
1.0 percent of domestic passenger
revenue to 0.25 percent, instead of to 0.5
percent as adopted in the final rule.

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES3

C. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)
This final rule has been analyzed in
accordance with the principles and
criteria contained in Executive Order
13132 (‘‘Federalism’’). The rule does not
contain 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 final rule 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 provisions in the
final rule significantly or uniquely affect
the communities of the Indian tribal

VerDate Sep<11>2014

19:05 Nov 02, 2016

Jkt 241001

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
As required by the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995, the Department
has submitted the Information
Collection Request (ICR) abstracted
below to the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB). Before OMB decides
whether to approve those proposed
collections of information that are part
of this final rule and issue a control
number, the public must be provided 30
days to comment. Organizations and
individuals desiring to submit
comments on the information collection
requirements should direct them to the
Office of Management and Budget,
Attention: Desk Officer for the Office of
the Secretary of Transportation, Office
of Information and Regulatory Affairs,
Washington, DC 20503, and should also
send a copy of their comments to:
Department of Transportation, Office of
Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings,
Office of the General Counsel, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC
20590. OMB is required to make a
decision concerning the collection of
information requirements contained in
this rule between 30 and 60 days after
publication of this document in the
Federal Register. Therefore, a comment
to OMB is best assured of having its full
effect if OMB receives it within 30 days
of publication.
We will respond to any OMB or
public comments on the information
collection requirements contained in
this rule. The Department may not
impose a penalty on persons for
violating information collection
requirements which do not display a
current OMB control number, if
required. The Department intends to
renew the OMB control number for the
information collection requirements
resulting from this rulemaking action.
The OMB control number, when
renewed, will be announced by separate
notice in the Federal Register.
The ICR was previously published in
the Federal Register as part of the
NPRM. See 79 FR 29995. The
Department invited interested persons
to submit comments on any aspect of
each of these two information
collections: The first collection of
information is a requirement that more
carriers report on-time performance,
mishandled baggage, and oversales data
to the Department (i.e., expansion of
reporting carriers from any U.S. airline
that accounts for at least one percent of
annual domestic scheduled passenger
revenue to any U.S. airline that accounts

PO 00000

Frm 00026

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

for at least 0.5 percent of annual
domestic scheduled-passenger
revenues). The second information
collection is a requirement that
mainline carriers provide enhanced
reporting for flights operated by their
domestic code-share partners including
requiring reporting carriers to separately
report on-time performance, mishandled
baggage, and oversales data for all
domestic scheduled passenger flights
marketed by the reporting carriers but
operated by domestic code-share
partners.
The final rule modifies the
information collection titled ‘‘Reporting
on-time performance/Reporting baggagehandling’’ (OMB No. 2138–0041), the
information collection titled ‘‘Reporting
oversales’’ (OMB No. 2138–0018), and
the information collection titled
‘‘Posting on-time performance data on
carrier’s Web site’’ (OMB No. 2105–
0561). The first collection of
information contained in the final rule
is a requirement that U.S. carriers that
account for at least 0.5 percent but less
than one percent of the domestic
scheduled passenger revenue to report
to the Department the on-time
performance, mishandled baggage, and
oversales information for the flights they
operate. As discussed above, this
requirement expands the reporting
requirement from one percent of
domestic scheduled passenger revenue
to 0.5 percent, and therefore expanding
the number of reporting carriers from 12
to 19 carriers, an increase of 7 carriers.
The second collection of information
requires reporting carriers that market
codeshare flights operated by another
carrier to file separate reports for ontime performance, mishandled baggage,
and oversales for those flights. Seven of
the 19 reporting carriers will be subject
to this requirement. The third
information collection is a requirement
that U.S. carriers that account for at
least 0.5 percent but less than one
percent of the domestic scheduled
passenger revenue to post on-time
performance records on its Web site, if
the carrier has a Web site marketing
flights to the consumers. One carrier
will be subject to this requirement
because of this final rule.
First Information Collection
Title: Reports by Carriers on On-time
Performance and Mishandled Baggage
Data for Flights Operated by Themselves
and for Code-share Flights Operated by
Another Carrier.
OMB Control Number: 2138–0041.
Type of Request: Modification of
Information Collection Request.
Respondents: U.S. carriers operate
scheduled passenger service that

E:\FR\FM\03NOR3.SGM

03NOR3

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES3

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 213 / Thursday, November 3, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
account for at least 0.5 percent and less
than 1.0 percent of domestic scheduled
passenger revenue will be required to
report on-time performance and
mishandled baggage data for flights that
they operate. U.S. carriers operate
scheduled passenger service and
account for at least 0.5 percent of total
domestic scheduled passenger service
revenue that market code-share flights
only carrying the carrier’s code will be
required to report separately on-time
performance and mishandled baggage
data for these code-share flights.
Frequency: For each respondent, one
information set each month for on-time
performance for flights they operate and
one information set each month for
mishandled baggage for flights they
operate; for each respondent that market
code-share flight, one information set
each month for on-time performance for
code-share flights they market and one
information set for mishandled baggage
for code-share flights they market.
Estimated Annual Burden on
Respondents: Estimated Initial Set-up
Cost in the First Year: The 7 nonmarketing newly reporting carriers will
incur an initial cost of 1,123 hours per
carrier for setting up the reporting
systems needed to collect data needed
for on-time performance reporting and
oversales (this figure is calculated from
the estimated one-time cost of $106,173
per carrier to be able to collect/report
performance data for USDOT and
divided by an hourly labor cost of
$94.57, derived from which was derived
from hourly labor cost estimates from a
reporting carrier and research
conducted for the Regulatory Evaluation
in support of Consumer Rulemaking:
Enhancing Airline Passenger Protections
II]). The total for all newly reporting
carriers will be 7,859 hours. Using an
hourly labor rate of $94.57 (derived
from which was derived from hourly
labor cost estimates from a reporting
carrier and research conducted for the
Regulatory Evaluation in support of
Consumer Rulemaking: Enhancing
Airline Passenger Protections II), the
7,859 hours will translate into a total of
$743,213.
All reporting carriers which have
code-share partnerships will have set-up
costs associated with establishing links
to their partners for the necessary data
reporting. The costs are estimated to be
approximately $106,173 per link, and
there will be 17 such links among all the
reporting carriers. The total cost will be
$1,804,947, or approximately 19,086 for
all 15 reporting carriers with code-share
partners.
An additional $120,000 set-up costs
for previously reporting carriers to
create links to their code-share partners

VerDate Sep<11>2014

19:05 Nov 02, 2016

Jkt 241001

for mishandled baggage data, and for the
seven newly reporting carriers to submit
for mishandled baggage data to USDOT
will total $120,000 in the first year, or
approximately 1,269 hours. Thus, the
total hour burden for this all carriers
will total 28,215 hours, or $ $2,668,160
for first year set up costs.
Annual on-going burden will total
5,624 hours per year, which includes
240 hours per carrier for the 7 newly
marketing carriers to complete form 234
for their own operated flights, an
estimated 488 per carrier in ongoing
data entry costs for newly reporting
carriers to enter data regarding
wheelchairs and scooters; and a total of
3,456 for all carriers with code-share
partners (varies by carrier based on
number of code-share) for reporting ontime performance and mishandled
baggage data, which is filed monthly.
Using an hourly labor rate of $94.57
(derived from which was derived from
hourly labor cost estimates from a
reporting carrier and research
conducted for the Regulatory Evaluation
in support of Consumer Rulemaking:
Enhancing Airline Passenger Protections
II), the 5,624 will translate into a total
of $531,871 first year set-up costs.
Second Information Collection
Title: Reports by Carriers on Oversales
Data for Flights Operated by Themselves
and for Code-share Flights Operated by
Another Carrier.
OMB Control Number: 2138–0018.
Type of Request: Modification of
Information Collection Request.
Respondents: U.S. carriers operate
scheduled passenger service that
account for at least 0.5 percent and less
than 1.0 percent of domestic scheduled
passenger revenue will be required to
report oversales data for flights that they
operate. U.S. carriers operate scheduled
passenger service and account for at
least 0.5 percent of total domestic
scheduled passenger service revenue
that market code-share flights only
carrying the carrier’s code will be
required to report separately oversales
data for these code-share flights.
Frequency: For each respondent, one
information set each quarter for
oversales for flights they operate; for
each respondent that market code-share
flight, one information set each quarter
for oversales for code-share flights they
market.
Estimated Annual Burden on
Respondents: The set-up costs for newly
reporting carriers to put into place
systems for reporting oversales data are
included in the set-up costs for
reporting performance data, since they
are no separate systems. The annual ongoing burden will be approximately 16

PO 00000

Frm 00027

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

76825

hours per carrier per year, or 592 hours
for all 8 carriers, to report oversales
data, which is filed quarterly. The 592
hours translates into $56,000 per years
when using an hourly labor cost of
$94.57 (see above).
Third Information Collection
Title: Posting on-time performance
data on carriers’ Web sites.
OMB Control Number: 2105–0561.
Type of Request: Modification of
Information Collection Request.
Respondents: U.S. carriers operate
scheduled passenger service that
account for at least 0.5 percent and less
than 1.0 percent of domestic scheduled
passenger revenue and marketing flight
directly to consumers via a Web site
will be required to post on-time
performance records for the flights it
markets on its Web site.
Frequency: For each respondent,
updating on-time performance records
once a month on its Web site.
Estimated Annual Burden on
Respondents: The 1 newly reporting
carrier which markets to consumers will
incur approximately 4,673 hours to set
up the Web site to post online the ontime performance records for flights
marketed on their Web sites. (The
estimate of 4,673 is calculated from the
estimated one-time cost of posting delay
information online of $400,000 in 2009,
from U.S. DOT Final RIA Enhanced
Airline Passenger Protections [http://
www.dot.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/docs/
Final_Rule_on_Enhancing_Airline_
Passenger_Protections.pdf and brought
forward to 2015 and divided by an
hourly labor cost of $94.57, which was
derived from hourly labor cost estimates
from a reporting carrier and research
conducted for the Regulatory Evaluation
in support of Consumer Rulemaking:
Enhancing Airline Passenger Protections
II]). Ongoing costs for updating the Web
site are assumed to be minimal once the
systems are in place and the carrier is
reporting its on-time performance to
BTS as required elsewhere.
F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
The Department has determined that
the requirements of Title II of the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
do not apply to this final rule.
G. National Environmental Policy Act
The Department has analyzed the
environmental impacts of this final rule
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 5610.1C, Procedures for
Considering Environmental Impacts (44
FR 56420, Oct. 1, 1979). Categorical

E:\FR\FM\03NOR3.SGM

03NOR3

76826

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 213 / Thursday, November 3, 2016 / Rules and Regulations

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 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 3.c.6.i of
DOT Order 5610.1C categorically
excludes ‘‘[a]ctions relating to consumer
protection, including regulations.’’ The
purpose of this rulemaking is to
enhance protections for air travelers and
to improve the air travel environment.
The Department does not anticipate any
environmental impacts, and there are no
extraordinary circumstances present in
connection with this rulemaking.
List of Subjects
14 CFR Part 234
Air carriers, Consumer protection,
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
14 CFR Part 244
Air carriers, Consumer protection,
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
14 CFR Part 250
Air carriers, Consumer protection,
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
14 CFR Part 255
Air carriers, Antitrust.
14 CFR Part 256
Air carriers, Air rates and fares,
Antitrust.
14 CFR Part 257
Air carriers, Air rates and fares,
Consumer protection, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
14 CFR Part 259
Air carriers, Air rates and fares,
Consumer protection.

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES3

14 CFR Part 399
Administrative practice and
procedure, Air carriers, Air rates and
fares, Air taxis, Consumer protection,
Small businesses.
Issued this 18th day of October 2016, in
Washington, DC.
Anthony R. Foxx,
Secretary of Transportation.

Accordingly, 14 CFR chapter II is
amended as follows:

VerDate Sep<11>2014

19:05 Nov 02, 2016

Jkt 241001

PART 234—[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 234
continues to read as follows:

■

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 329 and Sections
41708 and 41709.

2. The definitions of ‘‘reportable
flight’’ and ‘‘reporting carrier’’ in § 234.2
are revised to read as follows:

■

§ 234.2

Definitions.

*

*
*
*
*
Reportable flight. (1) Reportable flight
for air transportation taking place before
January 1, 2018 means any nonstop
flight, including a mechanically delayed
flight, to or from any airport within the
contiguous 48 states that accounts for at
least 1 percent of domestic scheduledpassenger enplanements in the previous
calendar year, as reported to the
Department pursuant to part 241 of this
title. Qualifying airports will be
specified periodically in accounting and
reporting directives issued by the Office
of Airline Information.
(2) Reportable flight for air
transportation taking place on or after
January 1, 2018 means any domestic
nonstop scheduled passenger flight,
including a mechanically delayed flight,
held out to the public under the
reporting carrier’s code, to or from any
U.S. large, medium, small, or non-hub
airport as defined in 49 U.S.C. 47102.
Qualifying airports will be specified
periodically in accounting and reporting
directives issued by the Office of Airline
Information.
Reporting carrier. (1) Reporting carrier
for air transportation taking place before
January 1, 2018 means an air carrier
certificated under 49 U.S.C. 41102 that
accounted for at least 1 percent of
domestic scheduled-passenger revenues
in the most recently reported 12-month
period as defined by the Department’s
Office of Airline Information, and as
reported to the Department pursuant to
part 241 of this title. Reporting carriers
will be identified periodically in
accounting and reporting directives
issued by the Office of Airline
Information.
(2) Reporting carrier for air
transportation taking place on or after
January 1, 2018 means an air carrier
certificated under 49 U.S.C. 41102 that
accounted for at least 0.5 percent of
domestic scheduled-passenger revenues
in the most recently reported 12-month
period as defined by the Department’s
Office of Airline Information, and as
reported to the Department pursuant to
part 241 of this chapter. Reporting
carriers will be identified periodically
in accounting and reporting directives

PO 00000

Frm 00028

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

issued by the Office of Airline
Information.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 3. Section 234.3 is revised to read as
follows:
§ 234.3

Applicability.

For air transportation taking place
before January 1, 2018, this part applies
to reportable flights as defined in
§ 234.2 that are held out to the public
by certificated air carriers that account
for at least 1 percent of domestic
scheduled passenger revenues. As stated
in § 234.7, certain provisions also apply
to voluntary reporting of on-time
performance by carriers. For air
transportation taking place on or after
January 1, 2018, this part applies to
reportable flights as defined in § 234.2
that are held out to the public by
certificated air carriers that account for
at least 0.5 percent of domestic
scheduled passenger revenues. As stated
in § 234.7, certain provisions also apply
to voluntary reporting of on-time
performance by carriers.
■ 4. Section 234.4 is amended by
revising paragraph (a) introductory text
and adding paragraph (k) to read as
follows:
§ 234.4

Reporting of on-time performance.

(a) Each reporting carrier shall file
BTS Form 234 ‘‘On-Time Flight
Performance Report’’ with the Office of
Airline Information of the Department’s
Bureau of Transportation Statistics on a
monthly basis, setting forth the
information for each of its reportable
flights operated by the reporting carrier
and held out to the public on the
reporting carrier’s Web site and the Web
sites of major online travel agencies, or
in other generally recognized sources of
schedule information. (See also
paragraph (k) of this section.) The
reportable flights include, but are not
limited to, cancelled flights,
mechanically cancelled flights, diverted
flights, new flights and wet-leased
flights. The report shall be made in the
form and manner set forth in accounting
and reporting directives issued by the
Director, Office of Airline Statistics, and
shall contain the following information:
*
*
*
*
*
(k) For air transportation taking place
on or after January 1, 2018, each
reporting carrier shall also file a
separate BTS Form 234 ‘‘On-Time Flight
Performance Report’’ with the Office of
Airline Information on a monthly basis,
setting forth the information for each of
its reportable flights held out with only
the reporting carrier’s airline designator
code on the reporting carrier’s Web site,
on the Web sites of major online travel

E:\FR\FM\03NOR3.SGM

03NOR3

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 213 / Thursday, November 3, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
agencies, or in other generally
recognized sources of schedule
information, and operated by any codeshare partner that is a certificated air
carrier or commuter air carrier. If the
operating carrier of the flight is not a
reporting carrier, the non-operating
reporting carrier must file a BTS Form
234 ‘‘On-time Flight Performance
Report’’ with the Office of Airline
Information on a monthly basis, setting
forth the information regarding those
flights in a form and manner consistent
with the requirements set forth in
paragraph (a) through (j) of this section.
If the operating carrier of the flight is a
reporting carrier, the non-operating
reporting carrier must file a simplified
BTS Form 234 ‘‘On-Time Flight
Performance Report’’ with the Office of
Airline Information on a monthly basis,
setting forth the information regarding
those flights in a form and manner
consistent with the requirements set
forth in paragraph (a)(1) through (a)(4)
and paragraph (a)(10) of this section,
and in accordance with the
requirements set forth in accounting and
reporting directives issued by the Office
of Airline Information.
■ 5. Section 234.6 is amended by
revising paragraph (b) to read as follows:
§ 234.6

Baggage-handling statistics.

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES3

*

*
*
*
*
(b) For air transportation taking place
on or after January 1, 2018, each
reporting carrier shall report monthly to
the Department on a domestic system
basis, excluding charter flights:
(1) The total number of checked bags
enplaned, including gate checked
baggage, ‘‘valet bags,’’ interlined bags,
and wheelchairs and scooters enplaned
in the aircraft cargo compartment for the
reportable flights operated by the
reporting carrier and separately for the
reportable flights held out with only the
reporting carrier’s airline designator
code and operated by any code-share
partner that is a certificated air carrier
or commuter air carrier,
(2) The total number of wheelchairs
and scooters that were enplaned in the
aircraft cargo compartment for the
reportable flights operated by the
reporting carrier and separately for the
reportable flights held out with only the
reporting carrier’s airline designator
code and operated by any code-share
partner that is a certificated air carrier
or commuter air carrier,
(3) The number of mishandled
checked bags, including gate-checked
baggage, ‘‘valet bags,’’ interlined bags
and wheelchairs and scooters that were
enplaned in the aircraft cargo
compartment for the reportable flights
operated by the reporting carrier and

VerDate Sep<11>2014

19:05 Nov 02, 2016

Jkt 241001

separately for the reportable flights held
out with only the reporting carrier’s
airline designator code and operated by
any code-share partner that is a
certificated air carrier or commuter air
carrier, and
(4) The number of mishandled
wheelchairs and scooters that were
enplaned in the aircraft cargo
compartment for the reportable flights
operated by the reporting carrier and
separately for the reportable flights held
out with only the reporting carrier’s
airline designator code and operated by
any code-share partner that is a
certificated air carrier or commuter air
carrier.
PART 244—[AMENDED]
6. The authority citation for part 244
continues to read as follows:

■

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 40101(a)(4),
40101(a)(9), 40113(a), 41702, and 41712.

7. Section 244.2 is amended by
revising the last sentence of paragraph
(a) to read as follows:

■

§ 244.2

Applicability.

(a) * * * Covered carriers must report
all passenger operations that experience
a tarmac time of more than 3 hours at
a U.S. airport.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 8. Section 244.3 is amended by
revising paragraph (a) introductory text
to read as follows:
§ 244.3

Reporting of tarmac delay data.

(a) Each covered carrier shall file BTS
Form 244 ‘‘Tarmac Delay Report’’ with
the Office of Airline Information of the
Department’s Bureau of Transportation
Statistics setting forth the information
for each of its covered flights that
experienced a tarmac delay of more than
3 hours, including diverted flights and
cancelled flights on which the
passengers were boarded and then
deplaned before the cancellation. The
reports are due within 15 days after the
end of any month during which the
carrier experienced any reportable
tarmac delay of more than 3 hours at a
U.S. airport. The reports shall be made
in the form and manner set forth in
accounting and reporting directives
issued by the Director, Office of Airline
Information, and shall contain the
following information:
*
*
*
*
*
PART 250—[AMENDED]
9. The authority citation for part 250
continues to read as follows:

■

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 329 and chapters
41102, 41301, 41708, 41709, and 41712.

PO 00000

Frm 00029

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

76827

10. Section 250.2b is amended by
revising paragraph (c) to read as follows:

■

§ 250.2b Carriers to request volunteers for
denied boarding.

*

*
*
*
*
(c) If a carrier offers free or reduced
rate air transportation as compensation
to volunteers, the carrier must disclose
all material restrictions, including but
not limited to administrative fees,
advance purchase or capacity
restrictions, and blackout dates
applicable to the offer before the
passenger decides whether to give up
his or her confirmed reserved space on
the flight in exchange for the free or
reduced rate transportation. If the free or
reduced rate air transportation is offered
orally to potential volunteers, the carrier
shall also orally provide a brief
description of the material restrictions
on that transportation at the same time
that the offer is made.
■ 11. Section 250.5 is amended by
adding a sentence at the end of
paragraph (c)(3) to read as follows:
§ 250.5 Amount of denied boarding
compensation for passengers denied
boarding involuntarily.

*

*
*
*
*
(c) * * *
(3) * * * (See also § 250.9(c)).
*
*
*
*
*
■ 12. Section 250.10 is revised to read
as follows:
§ 250.10 Report of passengers denied
confirmed space.

(a) Each reporting carrier as defined in
§ 234.2 of this chapter and any carrier
that voluntarily submits data pursuant
to § 234.7 of this chapter shall file, on
a quarterly basis, the information
specified in BTS Form 251. The
reporting basis shall be flight segments
originating in the United States operated
by the reporting carrier. The reports
must be submitted within 30 days after
the end of the quarter covered by the
report. The calendar quarters end March
31, June 30, September 30 and
December 31. ‘‘Total Boardings’’ on Line
7 of Form 251 shall include only
passengers on flights for which
confirmed reservations are offered. Data
shall not be included for inbound
international flights.
(b) For air transportation taking place
on or after January 1, 2018, each
reporting carrier and voluntary
reporting carrier shall file a separate
BTS Form 251 for all flight segments
originating in the United States
marketed under only the reporting
carrier’s code, and operated by a codeshare partner that is a certificated air
carrier or commuter air carrier using

E:\FR\FM\03NOR3.SGM

03NOR3

76828

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 213 / Thursday, November 3, 2016 / Rules and Regulations

aircraft that have a designed passenger
capacity of 30 or more seats.
PART 255—[REMOVED AND
RESERVED]
13. Under the authority of 49 U.S.C.
40101, 40102, 40105, 40113, and 41712,
part 255, is removed and reserved.
■ 14. Part 256 is added to read as
follows:
■

PART 256—ELECTRONIC AIRLINE
INFORMATION SYSTEMS
Sec.
256.1 Purpose.
256.2 Applicability.
256.3 Definitions.
256.4 Prohibition on undisclosed display
bias.
256.5 Minimum disclosure requirements for
biased displays.
256.6 No requirement to provide access to
systems.
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 40101 and 41712.
§ 256.1

Purpose.

(a) The purpose of this part is to set
forth requirements for the display of
flight options by electronic airline
information systems that provide air
carrier or foreign air carrier schedule,
fare, or availability information,
including, but not limited to, global
distribution systems (GDSs), corporate
booking tools, and internet flight search
tools, for use by consumers, carriers,
ticket agents, and other business entities
so as to prevent unfair or deceptive
practices in the distribution and sale of
air transportation.
(b) Nothing in this part exempts any
person from the operation of the
antitrust laws set forth in subsection (a)
of the first section of the Clayton Act (15
U.S.C. 12).

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES3

§ 256.2

Applicability.

(a) This part applies to any air carrier,
foreign air carrier, or ticket agent that
operates an electronic airline
information system, e.g., GDS, corporate
booking tool, or internet flight search
tool, that combines the schedules, fares
or availability information of more than
one air carrier or foreign air carrier for
the distribution or sale in the United
States of interstate or foreign air
transportation.
(b) This part applies only if the
electronic airline information system is
displayed on a Web site marketed to
consumers in the United States or on a
proprietary display available to travel
agents, business entities, or a limited
segment of consumers of air
transportation in the United States.
§ 256.3

Definitions.

For purposes of this part:

VerDate Sep<11>2014

19:05 Nov 02, 2016

Jkt 241001

Availability means information
provided in displays with respect to the
ability to make a reservation on a
particular flight.
Display means the presentation of air
carrier or foreign air carrier schedules,
fares, or availability to a consumer or
agent or other individual involved in
arranging air travel for a consumer by
means of a computer or mobile
electronic device.
Electronic airline information system
or EAIS means a system that combines
air carrier or foreign air carrier schedule,
fare, or availability information for
transmission or display to air carriers or
foreign air carriers, ticket agents, other
business entities, or consumers.
Integrated display means any display
that includes the schedules, fares or
availability of more than one listed
carrier.
§ 256.4
bias.

Prohibition on undisclosed display

Each air carrier, foreign air carrier,
and ticket agent that operates an EAIS
must comply with the requirements of
this section.
(a) Each EAIS that uses any factor, not
based on user selection or corporate
contract travel arrangement, directly or
indirectly relating to carrier identity in
ordering the information contained in
an integrated display must clearly
disclose as provided for in § 256.5 that
the identity of the carrier is a factor in
the order in which information is
displayed.
(b) An EAIS’s integrated display must
not give any carrier’s flights a systemimposed preference over any other
carrier’s flights in that market based on
carrier identity unless the preference is
prominently disclosed as provided for
in § 256.5.
(c) Each EAIS must display
information in an objective manner
based on search criteria selected by the
user (e.g., lowest fare, lowest total cost,
date and time of travel, class of service,
stopovers, total elapsed time or duration
of travel, number of stops, limitations
on carriers to be used, particular
airport(s), number of passengers, etc.)
When providing information in
response to a search by a user of the
EAIS, the EAIS must order the
information provided so that the flight
options that best satisfy the parameters
of the user-selected search criteria are
displayed conspicuously and no less
prominently (e.g., in the same or larger
font size and the same or more
noticeable font color) than any other
flight option displayed. Flight options
may be presented in sequence, matrix,
or other formats, but the flight options
that best satisfy the parameters of the

PO 00000

Frm 00030

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

user-selected search criteria must be
ranked in lists above other flight
options, or identified more prominently
than other flight options in a matrix or
other format. This does not preclude
systems from setting default display
parameters that are not deceptive or
offering users the option to choose a
variety of display methods within those
parameters.
§ 256.5 Minimum disclosure requirements
for biased displays.

To the extent an EAIS engages in
display bias based on carrier identity, it
must clearly and conspicuously disclose
that fact at the top of each search result
display presented to the user in
response to the user-selected search
criteria. The notice must state that the
flights are not displayed in neutral order
and that certain airlines’ fare, schedule
or availability information is given
preferential treatment in how it is
displayed.
§ 256.6 No requirement to provide access
to systems.

Nothing in this section requires an air
carrier, foreign air carrier, or ticket agent
to allow a system to access its internal
computer reservation system or to
permit ‘‘screen scraping’’ or ‘‘content
scraping’’ of its Web site; nor does it
require an air carrier or foreign air
carrier to permit the marketing or sale
of the carrier’s services through any
ticket agent or other carrier’s system.
‘‘Screen scraping’’ as used in this
paragraph refers to a process whereby a
company uses computer software
techniques to extract information from
other companies’ Web sites without
permission from the company operating
the targeted Web site.
PART 257—[AMENDED]
15. The authority citation for part 257
continues to read as follows:

■

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 40113(a) and 41712.
§ 257.3

[Amended]

16. Section 257.3 is amended by
removing the term ‘‘Transporting
carrier’’ and adding ‘‘Operating carrier’’
in its place, removing the paragraph
designations [(a) through (g)] from the
definitions in this section, and placing
the definition of ‘‘Operating carrier’’ in
alphabetical order after the definition of
‘‘Long-term wet lease.’’
■ 17. Section 257.5 is revised to read as
follows:
■

§ 257.5

Notice requirement.

(a) Notice in flight itineraries and
schedules. Each air carrier, foreign air
carrier, or ticket agent providing flight

E:\FR\FM\03NOR3.SGM

03NOR3

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES3

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 213 / Thursday, November 3, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
itineraries and/or schedules for
scheduled passenger air transportation
to the public in the United States and
to the Official Airline Guides and
comparable publications, and, where
applicable, computer reservation
systems, shall ensure that each flight on
which the designator code is not that of
the operating carrier is clearly and
prominently identified and contains the
following disclosures. If there is more
than one operating carrier for a
particular flight (e.g., change of gauge),
the required disclosures shall be made
for each flight segment where the
designator code is not that of the
operating carrier.
(1) In flight schedule information
provided by an air carrier, foreign air
carrier, or ticket agent to U.S. consumers
on desktop browser-based Web sites or
applications in response to any
requested itinerary search, for each
flight in scheduled passenger air
transportation that is operated by a
carrier other than the one listed for that
flight, the corporate name of the
transporting carrier and any other name
under which the service is held out to
the public must appear prominently in
text format, with font size not smaller
than the font size of the flight itinerary
itself, on the first display following the
input of a search query, immediately
adjacent to each code-share flight in that
search-results list. Roll-over, pop-up
and linked disclosures do not comply
with this paragraph.
(2) In flight schedule information
provided by an air carrier, foreign air
carrier, or ticket agent to U.S. consumers
on mobile browser-based Web sites or
applications in response to any
requested itinerary search, for each
flight in scheduled passenger air
transportation that is operated by a
carrier other than the one listed for that
flight, the corporate name of the
transporting carrier must appear
prominently in text format, with font
size not smaller than the font size of the
flight itinerary itself, on the first display
following the input of a search query,
immediately adjacent to each code-share
flight in that search-results list. Rollover, pop-up and linked disclosures do
not comply with this paragraph.
(3) For static written schedules, each
flight in scheduled passenger air
transportation that is operated by a
carrier other than the one listed for that
flight shall be identified by an asterisk
or other easily identifiable mark that
leads to disclosure of the corporate
name of the operating carrier and any
other name under which that service is
held out to the public.
(4) Each air carrier and foreign air
carrier that provides flight schedule

VerDate Sep<11>2014

19:05 Nov 02, 2016

Jkt 241001

information to any computer reservation
system or global distribution system that
receives and distributes the U.S. or
foreign carrier’s fare, schedule, or
availability information shall ensure
that each flight on which the designator
code is not that of the operating carrier
is clearly and prominently identified
and the corporate name of the
transporting carrier and any other name
under which the service is held out to
the public appears prominently in text
format, with font size that is not smaller
than the font size of the flight itinerary
itself, immediately adjacent to each
code-share flight in that search-results
list.
(b) Notice in oral communications
with prospective consumers. In any
direct oral communication in the United
States with a prospective consumer, and
in any telephone call placed from the
United States by a prospective
consumer, concerning a flight within,
to, or from the United States that is part
of a code-sharing arrangement or longterm wet lease, a ticket agent doing
business in the United States or a carrier
shall inform the consumer, the first time
that such a flight is offered to the
consumer, or, if no such offer was made,
the first time a consumer inquires about
such a flight, that the operating carrier
is not the carrier whose name or
designator code will appear on the
ticket and shall identify the transporting
carrier by its corporate name and any
other name under which that service is
held out to the public.
(c) Notice in ticket confirmations. At
the time of purchase, each selling carrier
or ticket agent shall provide written
disclosure of the actual operator of the
flight to each consumer of scheduled
passenger air transportation sold in the
United States that involves a codesharing arrangement or long-term wet
lease. For any flight on which the
designator code is not that of the
operating carrier the notice shall state
‘‘Operated by’’ followed by the
corporate name of the transporting
carrier and any other name in which
that service is held out to the public.
The following form of statement will
satisfy the requirement of this
paragraph:
Important Notice: Service between
XYZ City and ABC City will be operated
by Jane Doe Airlines d/b/a QRS Express.
At the purchaser’s request, the notice
required by this part may be delivered
in person, or by fax, electronic mail, or
any other reliable method of
transmitting written material.
(d) In any written advertisement
distributed in or mailed to or from the
United States (including those that
appear on an internet Web site that is

PO 00000

Frm 00031

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 9990

76829

marketed to consumers in the United
States) for service in a city-pair market
that is provided under a code-sharing
arrangement or long-term wet lease, the
advertisement shall prominently
disclose that the advertised service may
involve travel on another carrier and
clearly indicate the nature of the service
in reasonably sized type and shall
identify all potential operating carriers
involved in the markets being
advertised by corporate name and by
any other name under which that
service is held out to the public. In any
radio or television advertisement
broadcast in the United States for
service in a city-pair market that is
provided under a code-sharing or longterm wet lease, the advertisement shall
include at least a generic disclosure
statement, such as ‘‘Some flights are
operated by other airlines.’’
PART 259—[AMENDED]
18. The authority citation for part 259
continues to read as follows:

■

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 40101(a)(4),
40101(a)(9), 40113(a), 41702, and 41712.

19. Section 259.8 is amended by
revising the second sentence in
paragraph (a) introductory text, and
paragraph (a)(1), to read as follows:

■

§ 259.8 Notify consumers of known delays,
cancellations, and diversions.

(a) * * * A change in the status of a
flight means, at a minimum, a
cancellation, diversion or delay of 30
minutes or more in the planned
operation of a flight that occurs within
seven calendar days of the scheduled
date of the planned operation. * * *
(1) With respect to any U.S. air carrier
or foreign air carrier that permits
passengers and other interested persons
to subscribe to flight status notification
services, the carrier must deliver such
notification to such subscribers, by
whatever means the carrier offers that
the subscriber chooses.
*
*
*
*
*
PART 399—[AMENDED]
20. The authority citation for part 399
continues to read as follows:

■

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 41712.

21. Section 399.80 is amended by
removing and reserving paragraph (h) to
read as follows:

■

§ 399.80 Unfair and deceptive practices of
ticket agents.

*

*
*
*
(h) [Reserved]
*
*
*
*

*
*

[FR Doc. 2016–26178 Filed 11–2–16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–9X–P

E:\FR\FM\03NOR3.SGM

03NOR3