Final Rule

34620

Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 84 / Tuesday, April 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Office of the Secretary
14 CFR Parts 259 and 399
[Docket No. DOT–OST–2022–0109]
RIN 2105–AF10

Enhancing Transparency of Airline
Ancillary Service Fees
Office of the Secretary (OST),
Department of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:

The U.S. Department of
Transportation (Department or DOT) is
issuing a final rule to strengthen
protections for consumers by ensuring
that they have access to fee information
for transporting baggage and changing or
canceling a flight before ticket purchase.
Under the final rule, U.S. air carriers,
foreign air carriers, and ticket agents
must clearly disclose passenger-specific
or itinerary-specific fees for these
services to consumers whenever fare
and schedule information is provided
for flights to, within, and from the
United States. The Department is further
requiring that carriers provide useable,
current, and accurate information
regarding fees for these critical ancillary
services to any entity that is required to
disclose critical ancillary service fee
information to consumers. This final
rule is in response to the Executive
order on Promoting Competition in the
American Economy, which directs the
Department to take various actions to
promote the interests of American
workers, businesses, and consumers.
The rule will ensure that consumers
have the information they need to
understand the true costs of air
transportation that apply to them, which
will create a more competitive market
with better outcomes for consumers.
DATES: This rule becomes effective on
July 1, 2024.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Heather Filemyr, Ryan Patanaphan, or
Blane A. Workie, Office of Aviation
Consumer Protection, U.S. Department
of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Ave.
SE, Washington, DC 20590, 202–366–
9342, 202–366–7152 (fax),
[email protected],
[email protected], or
[email protected] (email).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES3

SUMMARY:

A. Executive Summary
(1) Purpose of the Regulatory Action
The purpose of this final rule is to
ensure that consumers know upfront the
fees carriers charge for transporting a

VerDate Sep<11>2014

19:28 Apr 29, 2024

Jkt 262001

first checked bag, a second checked bag,
and a carry-on bag and for canceling or
changing a reservation to avoid surprise
fees that can add up quickly and add
significant cost to what may, at first,
look like a cheap ticket. Airlines 1 have
imposed separate fees for ancillary
services related to air travel beyond
passenger air transportation as part of
their business model for many years.2
Ancillary service fees are not subject to
the 7.5% airline ticket tax that is used
to support the Aviation Trust Fund.
These ancillary fees have become more
complex over time and continue to
confuse consumers, as explained in
section B (2). Which airlines impose
such fees, what services require
payment of a fee, the amount of the fee,
and whether the same fees apply to all
passengers are in a continuous state of
change. For example, during the
Coronavirus-19 (COVID–19) public
health emergency, several airlines
advertised the elimination of ticket
change fees, but despite these general
announcements, airlines continued to
impose, or later reimposed, change fees
for certain fare types such as ‘‘basic
economy.’’ 3 In this context, consumer
organizations have long advocated for
more upfront disclosure of ancillary
fees.4
On July 9, 2021, the President issued
E.O. 14036, ‘‘Promoting Competition in
the American Economy,’’ 5 which
launched a whole-of-government
approach to strengthen competition
across many sectors, including
commercial aviation. Section 5,
paragraph (m)(i)(F) of E.O. 14036
directed the Department to ‘‘consider
1 The preamble in this final rule uses the term
‘‘airlines’’ to refer to ‘‘air carriers’’ and ‘‘foreign air
carriers’’ as those terms are used in the
Department’s regulations. The two terms are
defined in 49 U.S.C. 40102(a)(2) and (a)(21).
2 See, e.g., Comment from the International Air
Transport Association, p.4 (‘‘Airlines have been
separating baggage fees from the core transportation
service for more than 14 years . . . .’’), available at
https://www.regulations.gov/comment/DOT-OST2022-0109-0085.
3 See, e.g., Delta Air Lines, Delta Eliminates
Change Fees, Building On Commitment to
Flexibility for Consumers, Aug. 31, 2020, Alaska
Airlines, Fly with Peace of Mind: Alaska Airlines
Eliminates Change Fees Permanently, Sept. 1, 2020,
American Airlines, Wave Goodbye to Change Fees,
Spirit Airlines, How Can I Change or Cancel My
Reservation? (visited Feb. 29, 2024). Website
screenshots available in docket at https://
www.regulations.gov/docket/DOT-OST-2022-0109.
4 See, e.g., Final Rule, Enhancing Airline
Passenger Protections, 74 FR 68983, 68984 (Dec. 30,
2009) (noting that the subject of baggage fees
disclosure would be included in future rulemaking
following concerns raised by consumers and
consumer associations). See also Final Rule,
Enhancing Airline Passenger Protections, 76 FR
23110, 23142 (Apr. 25, 2011).
5 86 FR 36987 (https://www.federalregister.gov/
documents/2021/07/14/2021-15069/promotingcompetition-in-the-american-economy).

PO 00000

Frm 00002

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

initiating a rulemaking to ensure that
consumers have ancillary fee
information, including ‘baggage fees,’
‘change fees,’ and ‘cancellation fees,’ at
the time of ticket purchase.’’ This
rulemaking responds to the direction in
E.O. 14036 to provide improved
ancillary fee disclosures to consumers
purchasing air transportation.6
(2) Overview of Existing Requirements
In 2011, the Department issued a final
rule titled, ‘‘Enhancing Airline
Passenger Protections,’’ 7 that sought to
address consumer concerns regarding
the proliferation of ancillary fees. In the
rule, the Department added several
disclosure requirements for airlines: (1)
a disclosure on the homepage for at least
three months of any increase in the fee
for passenger baggage or any change in
the free baggage allowance for checked
or carry-on baggage; (2) a notice on the
first screen with a fare disclosure that
additional airline fees for baggage may
apply and where consumers can go to
access these baggage fees; (3) a notice on
e-ticket confirmations regarding the free
baggage allowance for that flight and
any applicable fee for the first and
second checked bag and carry-on bag;
and (4) a disclosure of all fees for
optional services in one central place on
the seller’s website, with non-baggage
fees permitted to be expressed as ranges.
Under the 2011 rule, the Department
determined that checked and carry-on
baggage were ‘‘fundamental’’ to air
travel, and the Department required that
fees for such services be expressed as
specific charges on a central place on
the airline’s website (alongside other
ancillary fees), with information about
any differing prices and allowances
based on the passenger’s status. Based
on ticket agent concerns that the rule
would be costly to ticket agents as
airlines are ‘‘updating and changing fees
constantly,’’ 8 the Department applied
fewer or modified disclosure
requirements to ticket agents.
Based on continued feedback by
various stakeholders and advisory
6 This rulemaking also addresses section 5,
paragraph (m)(i)(B) of E.O.14036. That section
directed the Department to promote enhanced
transparency and consumer safeguards, as
appropriate and consistent with applicable law,
including through potential rulemaking,
enforcement actions, or guidance documents, with
the aims of enhancing consumer access to airline
flight information so that consumers can more
easily find a broader set of available flights,
including by new or lesser known airlines; and
ensuring that consumers are not exposed or subject
to advertising, marketing, pricing, and charging of
ancillary fees that may constitute an unfair or
deceptive practice or an unfair method of
competition.
7 76 FR 23110, supra.
8 Id. at 23145.

E:\FR\FM\30APR3.SGM

30APR3

Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 84 / Tuesday, April 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
committees (further discussed below),
the Department explored further
changes to ancillary fee disclosure
requirements in a 2014 notice of
proposed rulemaking (NPRM) 9 and a

(3) Summary of Major Provisions
This final rule increases the
protections provided to consumers as
set forth in the summary table below.

Subject

Requirement

Covered Entities .................................................

The final rule applies to U.S. air carriers, foreign air carriers, and ticket agents (excluding corporate travel agents) that advertise or sell air transportation directly to consumers.
The Department defers for a later rulemaking the determination of whether metasearch sites
that do not sell airline tickets but display airline flight search options directly to consumers
are ticket agents that must disclose ancillary fee information required by this rule.
The rule defines critical ancillary services as any ancillary service critical to consumers’ purchasing decisions. The ancillary services that this final rule identifies as critical to consumers
are as follows: (1) transporting a first checked bag, second checked bag, and carry-on bag;
and (2) changing or canceling a reservation.
Any other service may also be determined, after notice and opportunity to comment, to be critical by the Secretary.
The final rule requires airlines and ticket agents to disclose fees for critical ancillary services
during the itinerary search process at the first point where a fare and schedule is provided in
connection with a specific flight itinerary. The fee disclosure includes noting that a fare category does not allow changing or canceling a reservation or transporting a checked or carryon bag if that is the case.
Policies for critical ancillary services must be disclosed before ticket purchase when a search
is conducted online but are not required to be disclosed with the fare and schedule.
The information disclosed must be accurate, clear, and conspicuous. Fees cannot be displayed through a hyperlink, but disclosure is permitted using pop-ups, expandable text, or
other means.
This final rule requires airlines and ticket agents that sell airline tickets to disclose critical ancillary service fees on the first page of their online platforms to which consumers are directed
after searching for flight options on another entity’s online platform (a metasearch site) unless the consumer was already provided accurate fee information on the directing entity’s
online platform.
This final rule requires carriers and ticket agents to disclose the fees for critical ancillary services as passenger-specific itinerary information if a consumer conducts a passenger-specific
itinerary search.
A passenger-specific itinerary search refers to a search that takes into account information
specific to the passenger (e.g., the passenger’s status in the airline’s frequent flyer program,
the passenger’s military status, or the passenger’s status as a holder of a particular credit
card) that was affirmatively provided by that passenger and information specific to the
itinerary (e.g., geography, travel dates, cabin class, and ticketed fare class such as full fare
ticket) that may impact the critical ancillary service fees to be charged or policies to be applied.
An anonymous itinerary search refers to a search that does not take into account information
specific to the passenger but does take into account information specific to the itinerary
(e.g., geography, travel dates, cabin class, and ticketed fare class such as full fare ticket)
that may impact the critical ancillary service fees to be charged or policies to be applied.
The final rule does not permit airlines and ticket agents to omit disclosure of first checked,
second checked, or carry-on baggage fees with the fare and schedule information on their
online platform unless: (1) the airline/ticket agent asks consumers at the beginning of a
search if they intend to travel with a carry-on bag or checked bags; and (2) a consumer affirmatively indicates that no one in the booking party intends to travel with carry-on bag or
first or second checked bags.
The final rule does not permit airlines or ticket agents to enable consumers to opt out of display of change and cancellation fees on the airline’s or ticket agent’s online platform.
The final rule requires airlines and ticket agents to disclose the fees and policies for critical ancillary services on airlines’ or ticket agents’ online platforms.
The final rule defines ‘‘online platforms’’ to be any interactive electronic medium, including, but
not limited to, websites and mobile applications, that allow the consumer to search for or
purchase air transportation from a U.S. carrier, foreign carrier, or ticket agent.
The final rule requires airlines and ticket agents to disclose to consumers during an in-person
or telephone inquiry that critical ancillary fees apply if that is the case and upon request disclose those fees to consumers.
This final rule requires airlines to provide critical ancillary fee information to any entity that is
required to disclose critical ancillary service fee information to consumers.
The final rule requires airlines and ticket agents that advertise percentage-off discounts of a
‘‘flight,’’ ‘‘ticket,’’ or ‘‘fare’’ to apply the percentage-off discount to the full fare (i.e., all mandatory government taxes/fees and carrier-imposed charges/fees).
The final rule requires airlines and ticket agents that advertise percentage-off discounts of a
‘‘base fare’’ to apply the percentage-off discount to the full fare amount excluding all government taxes and charges (i.e., all mandatory carrier-imposed charges/fees).

Critical Ancillary Services ...................................

Disclosure of Fees and Policies for Critical Ancillary Services.

Links to Book a Flight with a Carrier or an Online Travel Agency (OTA).

Passenger-Specific and Anonymous Searches

Opting Out of Disclosures ..................................

Disclosures on Online Platforms ........................

Offline (Telephone, In-person) Disclosures of
Airline Ancillary Service Fees.
Sharing of Airline Ancillary Service Fee Information.
Percentage-Off Advertisements ..........................
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES3

2017 supplemental notice of proposed
rulemaking (SNPRM).10 These efforts
are further described in section B below,
though neither resulted in changes to
the regulation.

34621

9 79

FR 29970 (May 23, 2014).

VerDate Sep<11>2014

19:28 Apr 29, 2024

10 82

Jkt 262001

PO 00000

FR 7536 (Jan. 19, 2017).

Frm 00003

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

E:\FR\FM\30APR3.SGM

30APR3

lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES3

34622

Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 84 / Tuesday, April 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
Subject

Requirement

Compliance/Implementation Period ....................

The final rule requires that: (1) airlines must provide required critical ancillary fee data to ticket
agents not later than six months after this rule’s publication date, or October 30, 2024; (2)
airlines must comply with all other regulatory requirements no later than 12 months after this
rule’s publication date, or April 30, 2025; (3) ticket agents that do not meet the Small Business Administration (SBA) definition of small entity must comply with all regulatory requirements no later than 18 months after this rule’s publication date, or October 30, 2025; and
(4) ticket agents that that meet the SBA definition of small entity must comply with all regulatory requirements no later than 24 months after this rule’s publication date, or April 30,
2026.

(4) Costs and Benefits
The final rule changes how U.S. air
carriers, foreign air carriers, and ticket
agents disclose information about
certain ancillary fees for flights.
Expected benefits of the rule result from
the reduction of excess consumption of
air travel, or deadweight loss, which
occurs because consumers who are
unaware of ancillary service fees behave
as if the price for air travel is lower than
it is. Annual benefits from reducing
deadweight loss are expected to amount
to $5.5 million. The other source of
benefits estimated by the Department is
from the time consumers will save when
they search for airfare because they no
longer need to interrupt their search to
find information on ancillary service
fees. Depending on assumptions
regarding the number of consumers who
consider ancillary fee information when
they search for airfare, time savings
benefits are expected to range from $365
million to $484 million annually.
Expected costs of this rule include
costs to consumers due to the time
needed to navigate increased amounts of
information, which range from $239
million to $331 million annually. The
primary estimated costs of the rule to
carriers and ticket agents are the costs
that they would incur to modify their
websites by adjusting their displays of
fares, schedules, and fees. Third parties
involved in data exchange, such as
Global Distribution Systems (GDSs) and
direct-channel companies might incur
some costs due the need to upgrade
their systems, though the Department
acknowledges that these entities are
already upgrading systems for market
reasons and have been for several years.
Quantified costs range from $286
million to $378 million annually.
One effect of better information on
ancillary fees is that some consumers
will pay less for the ancillary services
they use when they travel by air. These
economic effects are not societal
benefits or costs but represent a transfer
from airlines to consumers, estimated to
be about $543 million annually. This
transfer represents $543 million in
overpayment in fees for consumers, or
from the perspective of airlines,

VerDate Sep<11>2014

19:28 Apr 29, 2024

Jkt 262001

additional revenue from consumers who
are surprised by fees and, for example,
then need to pay a higher fee at the
airport to check a bag. This transfer, as
well as the benefits due to any reduction
in deadweight loss, accrue to consumers
and are expected to occur regardless of
any time savings impacts.
B. Background
(1) Existing Ancillary Fee Disclosure
Requirements
As noted above, the Department’s
existing regulations in 14 CFR 399.85
contain the requirements for ancillary
fee disclosures as promulgated in the
2011 final rule. Under 14 CFR 399.85(a),
airlines must promptly and prominently
disclose any increase in fees for a carryon or first and second checked bags and
any change in bag allowances on the
homepages of their websites. Paragraph
(b) requires airlines and ticket agents to
disclose clearly and prominently on the
first screen with a fare quotation for a
specific itinerary that additional airline
fees for baggage may apply and where
consumers can see these fees. Ticket
agents may refer consumers to the
airline websites for specific baggage fee
information or to their own sites if they
display airline baggage fees. Paragraph
(c) requires airlines and ticket agents to
disclose on e-ticket confirmations
information regarding passengers’ free
baggage allowances and applicable fees
for a carry-on bag and a first and second
checked bag, expressed as specific
charges taking into account any factors
that affect those charges such as
passenger status. Paragraph (d) requires
airlines to disclose the fees for all
ancillary services on their websites,
accessible through a conspicuous link
from the carrier’s homepage. The
paragraph notes that such fees may
generally be expressed as a range, but
baggage fees must be expressed as
specific charges taking into account any
factors that affect those charges.
Requirements in other regulations
also have an impact on ancillary fees.
Under 14 CFR 253.7, airlines may not
impose any terms restricting refunds of
the ticket price, charging monetary
penalties on passengers, or raising the

PO 00000

Frm 00004

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

ticket price, unless the passenger
receives conspicuous written notice of
the salient features of those terms on or
with the ticket. In 14 CFR 399.88, sellers
of scheduled air transportation may not
increase the price of passenger baggage
after the air transportation has been
purchased by the consumer. As stated in
the NPRM for this rulemaking, while the
text of 14 CFR 399.88 references
ancillary fees such as seat fees, the
Department announced in 2011 that it
would enforce the prohibition on postpurchase price increases only for carryon bags and first and second checked
bags.11
(2) Problems With Existing
Requirements and Efforts To Improve
Disclosures
Following the 2011 final rule,
described above, the Department issued
an NPRM titled ‘‘Transparency of
Airline Ancillary Service Fees and
Other Consumer Protection Issues’’ in
2014.12 The 2014 rulemaking contained
various proposals to enhance consumer
protections, including a proposal to
require the disclosure of certain airline
ancillary service fees (i.e., first checked
bag, second checked bag, one carry-on
item, and advance seat selection) to
consumers through all sales channels on
the first page on which a fare is
displayed in response to a specific flight
itinerary search request. The proposal to
require disclosure of certain ancillary
fees was based in part on a
recommendation by the Future of
Aviation Advisory Committee
(FAAC).13 The FAAC’s 2010 report had
11 See also Guidance on Price Increases of
Ancillary Services and Products not Purchased with
the Ticket (December 28, 2011). The application of
the prohibition of the post-purchase price increase
was at issue in a lawsuit filed by two airlines
against the Department. The court considered the
rule as applied under the December 28, 2011,
guidance and upheld the Department’s rule
prohibiting post-purchase price increases as it is
currently being applied. Spirit Airlines, Inc., v. U.S.
Dept. of Transportation (D.C. Cir. July 24, 2012),
slip op. at 20–21. Petition for Writ of Certiorari
denied on April 1, 2013.
12 79 FR 29970 (May 23, 2014).
13 See Recommendation 11, in FAAC Final Report
(2010), available at https://www.transportation.gov/
highlights/future-aviation-advisory-committee/faacfinal-report.

E:\FR\FM\30APR3.SGM

30APR3

Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 84 / Tuesday, April 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations

lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES3

noted that, despite improvements in the
air consumer experience, FAAC
members felt that consumers sought
greater transparency in the total cost of
their tickets and that they should have
the ability to choose between carriers
that either do not charge for certain
services or charge differing fees. The
2014 NPRM also relied on the
statements of a successor committee, the
Advisory Committee on Aviation
Consumer Protection (ACACP), which
in 2012 adopted the FAAC
recommendation and added that all
participants in the airfare and fee
distribution system should be guided by
principles of transparency, providing
choices and offers that meet consumer
needs, and knowing the full price before
purchase.14 While the ACACP
commended the Department’s
regulatory efforts to add transparency, it
noted that the aviation industry offered
a variety of business models, network
choices, and optional services, and that
the level of choice was creating
complexity for consumers. The ACACP
had heard from advocates and ticket
agents that consumers expect to know
the cost of the entire trip before
purchasing a ticket.15
In issuing the 2014 proposal on
disclosure of certain airline ancillary
service fees, the Department explained
that the proposal was necessary because
the 2011 rule, while a step in the right
direction, did not fully address the
problem of lack of transparency of
ancillary services and products. The
2014 proposal on disclosure of airline
ancillary service fees generated
significant comments from consumers,
airlines, ticket agents, and other
interested parties. During the pendency
of the 2014 rulemaking, the ACACP
recommended that DOT require that
change and cancellation fees be clear
and displayed before ticket purchase.16
Consumer advocates had asserted at an
ACACP meeting held on June 23, 2015,
that such fees had become significant
and difficult to ascertain.17 At that time,
14 Report of the Advisory Committee on Aviation
Consumer Protection 7–8 (Oct. 22, 2012), available
at https://www.transportation.gov/airconsumer/
ACACP/1st-ACACP-Report-22OCT2012.
15 Id., see, e.g., Transcript—Advisory Committee
on Aviation Consumer Protection, First Meeting,
June 28, 2012, available at https://
www.regulations.gov/document/DOT-OST-20120087-0095.
16 Record of Meeting, Ninth Meeting of the
Advisory Committee on Aviation Consumer
Protection 3 (Sept. 1, 2015), available at https://
www.transportation.gov/airconsumer/ACACP/9thmeeting-Sept-1/record.
17 See Record of Meeting, Eighth Meeting of the
Advisory Committee on Aviation Consumer
Protection 3–5 (June 23, 2015), available at https://
www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/docs/
resources/individuals/aviation-consumer-

VerDate Sep<11>2014

19:28 Apr 29, 2024

Jkt 262001

the ACACP also discussed baggage fees
and allowances, with consumer
advocates noting that baggage allowance
rules were confusing to consumers and
that it was difficult for consumers to
understand which airline’s rules apply.
At the same meeting, a ticket agent
representative stated that every baggage
fee scheme had ‘‘multiple layers and
exceptions’’ that were not always
dynamically available to ticket agents.18
In 2016, the Department decided not
to issue a final rule on the issue of
transparency of airline ancillary services
given the complexity of the issues and
additional considerations identified by
comments submitted on the 2014
NPRM. Instead, the Department decided
to seek additional information on the
disclosure of fees for ancillary services
in a supplemental rulemaking.19 In
January 2017, the Department issued an
SNPRM, which focused solely on the
issue of transparency of certain ancillary
service fees.20 In the 2017 SNPRM, the
Department proposed to require fees for
a first and second checked bag and a
carry-on bag to be disclosed at all points
of sale wherever fare and schedule
information is provided to consumers.
While the SNPRM was pending, in
September 2017, the U.S. Government
Accountability Office (GAO) noted that
consumer group representatives stated
that it had become ‘‘increasingly
difficult for consumers to compare
airfare ticket prices, fees, and associated
rules, and understand what is included
in their purchases.’’ 21 On December 14,
2017, the SNPRM was withdrawn with
the Department noting that the
withdrawal is consistent with Executive
Order (E.O.) 13771, Reducing
Regulation and Controlling Regulatory
Costs.22 After the withdrawal, a number
of State attorneys general urged the
Department to reverse its decision,
stating that they ‘‘regularly hear reports
from consumers in [their] states who are
protection/285976/acacp-record-8th-meeting23june2015.pdf; see also Record of Meeting, Ninth
Meeting of the Advisory Committee on Aviation
Consumer Protection (Sept. 1, 2015).
18 Id.
19 In 2016, the Department issued a final rule that
promulgated regulations related to carrier reporting,
disclosure of codeshare operations, and display
bias, while separating out the ancillary fee
disclosure and ticket agent definition issues into
separate rulemaking efforts. 81 FR 76800 (Nov. 3,
2016). The ticket agent rulemaking remains
pending. See Fall 2023 Unified Agenda for
rulemaking titled ‘‘Air Transportation Consumer
Protection Requirements for Ticket Agents’’ (RIN
2105–AE57) at https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/
eAgendaViewRule?pubId=202310&RIN=2105-AE57.
20 82 FR 7536 (Jan. 19, 2017).
21 GAO 17–756, Commercial Aviation:
Information on Airline Fees for Optional Services
(September 2017), p. 33 at https://www.gao.gov/
assets/gao-17-756.pdf.
22 82 FR 58778 (Dec. 14, 2017).

PO 00000

Frm 00005

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

34623

confused and frustrated by these fees,
which significantly alter the total cost of
travel.’’ 23 E.O. 13771 was later
revoked.24
While the disclosure regulations
promulgated in 2011 remain in place,
consumer advocates continue to express
concerns to the Department that there is
a market failure in air transportation
pricing because consumers are unable to
determine the true cost of air travel
prior to ticket purchase. They have also
raised concerns that consumers often
find the process of determining the
baggage fees that apply to them to be a
complicated and time-consuming
process. Consumer advocates have
asserted that a lack of passenger-specific
information regarding fees for ancillary
services at the time of ticket purchase is
causing a market failure by limiting the
ability of consumers to understand the
true cost of the travel they are looking
to purchase and compare pricing
between carriers and travel options.
Consumer advocates have also noted a
significant increase in the number of
ancillary service fees imposed by
carriers.
Certain members of Congress have
expressed support for full, more
specific, disclosure of ancillary service
fees. Members of Congress have also
sponsored legislation on this topic.25
Further, the Joint Explanatory Statement
of the 2018 Consolidated
Appropriations Act requested that the
Department work in collaboration with
industry, consumers, and other
stakeholders to establish guidelines on
23 Letter from attorneys general from 16 States
and the District of Columbia to Secretary Elaine L.
Chao (Dec. 20, 2017).
24 On January 20, 2021, the President issued E.O.
13992, ‘‘Revocation of Certain Executive Orders
Concerning Federal Regulation,’’ which revoked
E.O. 13771 and certain other Executive orders.
25 See, e.g., Letter from Representative Nita M.
Lowey to Secretary Elaine Chao (Dec. 8, 2017). See
also section 203 of S. 3222, Airline Passengers’ Bill
of Rights (introduced by Senators Blumenthal,
Markey, Whitehouse, Wyden, and Casey on
November 17, 2021) at https://www.congress.gov/
bill/117th-congress/senate-bill/3222/text?r=7&s=1,
proposing to mandate that DOT require airlines,
online travel agencies (OTAs), metasearch engines
and other ticket agents that provide flight search
tools disclose all applicable taxes and ancillary fees
at any point in which the fare is shown and in
telephone communication with a prospective
consumer in the U.S. at any point in which the cost
of the air transportation is disclosed. See also The
Unfriendly Skies: Consumer Confusion Over
Airline Fees, Staff Report of Minority Staff of Senate
Commerce Committee (August 6, 2015) at https://
www.blumenthal.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/
8%206%2015%20FINAL%20Airline%
20Report.pdf, finding that ancillary fees, such as
change and cancellation penalties, are increasingly
less transparent regarding the true cost of air travel
and recommending more transparency from the
airline industry.

E:\FR\FM\30APR3.SGM

30APR3

34624

Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 84 / Tuesday, April 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations

lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES3

transparency of airline ancillary fees.26
Subsequently, the Department tasked
the Aviation Consumer Protection
Advisory Committee (ACPAC) with
examining this issue again.27
In 2019, during a meeting of the
ACPAC, two consumer organizations
underscored the difficulties faced by
consumers in determining the total cost
of air travel.28 Consumer advocates
maintained that consumers were
confused by the complex charts that
carriers and ticket agents provide to
consumers to determine their baggage
fees. The ACPAC heard from several
consumer advocacy groups, including
Travelers United, the National
Consumers League (NCL), and the
Global Business Travel Association
(GBTA) regarding this issue. Consumer
organizations that presented to the
ACPAC stressed the importance of
ensuring consumers can accurately and
easily compare travel costs, inclusive of
ancillary fees, and they recommended
that ancillary fee information should be
clearly displayed early in consumer
purchase decisions.29
In December 2020, the ACPAC
submitted a report to the Department
recommending that the Department
remain vigilant to ensure compliance
with the existing transparency
requirements. The ACPAC was silent on
whether the Department should issue a
new rulemaking on transparency of
airline ancillary fees.30 In July 2021,
E.O. 14036 directed the Department to
consider initiating a rulemaking to
ensure consumers have ancillary fee
information at the time of ticket
purchase.
Based on E.O. 14036 and the abovedescribed history of concerns raised by
consumer organizations and individual
consumers, including the individual
complaints the Department has received
reflecting the confusion consumers
experience regarding ancillary fees,31
26 https://www.congress.gov/congressionalrecord/2018/03/22/house-section/article/H2697-1 at
page H2872.
27 See https://www.regulations.gov/document/
DOT-OST-2018-0190-0001.
28 See Summary of April 4, 2019 ACPAC Meeting
11–13, available at https://www.regulations.gov/
document/DOT-OST-2018-0190-0019.
29 See Summary of April 4, 2019 ACPAC Meeting
10–16, available at https://www.regulations.gov/
document/DOT-OST-2018-0190-0019; see also
Summary of September 24, 2020 ACPAC Meeting
19–20, available at https://www.regulations.gov/
document/DOT-OST-2018-0190-0025.
30 Report of the Aviation Consumer Protection
Advisory Committee 5 (Dec. 31, 2020), available at
https://www.transportation.gov/individuals/
aviation-consumer-protection/acpac-reportsecretary-transportation-december-31-2020.
31 See, e.g., https://www.regulations.gov/
document/DOT-OST-2022-0109-0021, https://
www.regulations.gov/document/DOT-OST-2022-

VerDate Sep<11>2014

19:28 Apr 29, 2024

Jkt 262001

the Department determined that this
rulemaking is necessary to address
ongoing inadequacies in existing
ancillary fee disclosure requirements. It
appears that consumers are generally
unaware of the amount of the ancillary
fees that apply to them when they book
tickets. Consumer advocates contend
that the ancillary services and fees that
airlines currently post on their websites
are not sufficiently useful to consumers
to determine the cost of travel because
airlines generally provide a range of fees
for ancillary services aside from
baggage. Airlines acknowledge that the
fees for ancillary services often vary
based on various factors such as the
type of aircraft used, the flight on which
a passenger is booked, or the time at
which a passenger pays for the service
or product. Regarding baggage fees,
consumer advocacy organizations have
reported to the Department that
consumers often find the process of
determining the baggage fees that apply
to them to be a complicated and timeconsuming process. Consumer
advocates also expressed the view that
because most passengers travel once per
year or less, they may not be aware of
certain ancillary service fees.32
Advocates further argued that the
practice of drip pricing, a pricing
technique in which firms advertise only
part of the price and reveal other
charges later as the customer goes
through the buying process, tends to
lock consumers into engaging with a
given seller, and reduces competition,
because the customer has invested time
and energy into the purchasing process
and thus is less likely to abandon the
purchase entirely and re-institute a
fuller search for options.33
Following the issuance of E.O. 14036,
the ACPAC met again in June 2022 to
address the issue of transparency of
airline ancillary service fees.34 During
the meeting, DOT solicited comment on
0109-0022, https://www.regulations.gov/document/
DOT-OST-2022-0109-0023.
32 Presentation of FlyersRights.org (FlyersRights),
available at https://www.regulations.gov/document/
DOT-OST-2018-0190-0046.
33 Id.; see also Presentation of American Antitrust
Institute, available at https://www.transportation.
gov/airconsumer/ACPAC/June2022Meeting/webcast
(Day 1 morning session), and Federal Trade
Commission, ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF HOTEL
RESORT FEES, (Jan. 2017), available at https://
www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/reports/
economic-analysis-hotel-resort-fees/p115503_hotel_
resort_fees_economic_issues_paper.pdf.
34 See https://www.transportation.gov/
airconsumer/ACPAC/June2022Meeting. A webcast
of the meeting is available to view on the ACPAC
website. Speakers’ materials have been posted to
the ACPAC docket at https://www.regulations.gov/
docket/DOT-OST-2018-0190. On the second day of
the meeting, the ACPAC addressed the separate but
related issue of availability of airline flight
information.

PO 00000

Frm 00006

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

topics being considered for the NPRM
on ancillary fee transparency. These
topics included identifying ancillary
service fees critical to consumers, the
sharing of airline data regarding critical
ancillary service fees with ticket agents,
and how to best display this information
to consumers. DOT also solicited
comment on whether fees for certain
ancillary services should be disclosed at
the first point in a search process where
a fare is listed. At the meeting, a
consumer advocate stated that
consumers still do not know the specific
amounts of baggage and change and
cancellation fees that apply during the
ticket purchase process.35 Another
consumer advocate expressed concerns
with drip pricing.36 The advocate also
stated that baggage fees vary by airline
and can depend on the flight, the time,
and the day. A representative of the
American Antitrust Institute stated that
cancellation fees were discontinued at
the beginning of the pandemic and then
returned, and that drip pricing practices
lock consumers into higher costs and
suppresses competition. The
representative also urged the
Department to set policies to provide
full fee information up front so
consumers can make informed
purchasing decisions based on the total
cost of their itineraries.37
The Department continues to receive
hundreds of consumer complaints each
year regarding ancillary fees.38 Based on
past experience, the Department
understands that the number of
consumer complaints it receives directly
from consumers is a small fraction of
the total complaints received each year
by airlines and ticket agents.39 The
requirements to provide specific
baggage fee information and a range of
fees for other ancillary services have not
been as helpful to consumers in
35 Aviation Consumer Protection Advisory
Committee (ACPAC) June 28 and 29, 2022 Meeting
Minutes 8, available at https://www.regulations
.gov/document/DOT-OST-2018-0190-0073.
36 Id. at 9.
37 Id. at 10.
38 As noted in the NPRM of the present
rulemaking, the Office of Aviation Consumer
Protection (OACP) received over 550 complaints
regarding change and cancellation fees and over 140
complaints regarding seat fees in 2021. In 2022,
OACP received over 750 complaints regarding
change and cancellation fees. During the first 5
months of 2023, OACP received over 300
complaints regarding change and cancellation fees.
39 Compare, e.g., the 2,095 disability complaints
filed with the Department in 2022 (available on
page 66 of Air Travel Consumer Report issued
February 2023, https://www.transportation.gov/
sites/dot.gov/files/2023-04/February%202023%2
0ATCR_Revised.pdf), and the 42,306 disability
complaints received by airlines in 2022 (available
at https://www.transportation.gov/resources/
individuals/aviation-consumer-protection/2022disability-related-complaints-received-all).

E:\FR\FM\30APR3.SGM

30APR3

Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 84 / Tuesday, April 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
determining the true cost of travel as the
Department had anticipated when
issuing its final rule in 2011.
C. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
The Department published its NPRM
on Enhancing Transparency of Airline
Ancillary Service Fees on October 20,
2022.40 The NPRM was initially open to
public comment for a period of 60 days
(until December 19, 2022). During this
time, the ACPAC was informed about
the NPRM’s principal provisions and
heard from stakeholders at its meeting
on December 8, 2022. Following several
commenters’ request for an extension
due to the complexity of the
rulemaking, the comment period was
extended for 35 days until January 23,
2023.41 On January 12, 2023, the
ACPAC met again to deliberate and
make recommendations related to the
NPRM. Then, on January 18, 2023, the
Department received a request to further
extend the comment period on the basis
that the requestor was not able to view
the January 12, 2023, ACPAC meeting,
and that at the time the request for
extension was submitted, the meeting
materials had not been posted to the
docket. On January 20, 2023, the
Department declined to extend the
comment period based on that request
noting that a video recording of the full
meeting was posted publicly.42 The
Department received another request for
additional time to provide comments on
the NPRM, based primarily on
technological and interface issues
identified by the petitioner. In response,
the Department posted a notice to its
website stating that it was considering
whether to grant that request and
provided a preliminary list of
recommendations made by the ACPAC
at its January 12 meeting.43
On January 23, 2023, three
commenters petitioned the Department
for a public hearing on the NPRM
pursuant to the Department’s regulation
on rulemakings relating to unfair and
deceptive practices, 14 CFR 399.75. By
a notice on March 14, 2023, the
Department scheduled the hearing for
March 30, 2023, and reopened the
rulemaking to public comment from
March 14 through April 6, 2023 (seven
days following the hearing).44
40 87

FR 63718 (Oct. 20, 2022).
FR 77765 (Dec. 20, 2022).
42 See https://www.transportation.gov/
airconsumer/AncillaryFeeNPRM-Denial-ExtensionComment-Period. See also 88 FR 4923 (Jan. 26,
2023).
43 See https://www.transportation.gov/
airconsumer/AncillaryFeeNPRM-ProceduralInformation-January23-2023.
44 88 FR 15622 (Mar. 14, 2023).

lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES3

41 87

VerDate Sep<11>2014

19:28 Apr 29, 2024

Jkt 262001

(1) Overview of Proposals
In the NPRM, the Department
proposed to require airlines and ticket
agents to disclose on the first page
displayed following an itinerary search
the fees for a first and second checked
bag, a carry-on bag, ticket change and
cancellation, and seat assignments that
would enable a child 13 or under to be
seated adjacent to an accompanying
adult (‘‘family seating’’). The fees would
need to be disclosed on the first page
displayed following an itinerary search
in which fare and itinerary information
is shown, and they would need to be
adjusted based on passenger-specific
information provided by the consumer.
The NPRM also proposed that the
disclosures be displayed on the screen
without the use of links or pop-ups, and
that the same disclosures also be made
during in-person or phone transactions.
To enable ticket agents to provide the
disclosures, the NPRM proposed that
airlines provide fee rule information to
ticket agents that sell or display air
transportation. The Department did not
propose to require that airlines provide
the information to GDSs, which
facilitate the purchase of tickets
between airlines and consumers, but do
not display or sell airline tickets to
consumers. The NPRM proposed that
these data sharing and disclosure
requirements would become effective
within six months of the issuance of a
final rule. Specific provisions of the
NPRM are discussed in more detail in
section E of this document.
(2) ACPAC Meetings on the Proposals
As noted above, after the NPRM was
published, the ACPAC held two
meetings to deliberate on the NPRM’s
provisions and to make
recommendations. At its December 8,
2022, meeting, the ACPAC heard from
Department staff regarding the proposed
rule’s provisions and from members of
the public regarding their views.45 The
ACPAC’s airline representative raised
questions about the need for a
rulemaking and asked about the
Department’s application of the unfair
and deceptive practices standard. He
questioned the Department’s analysis of
whether consumers were substantially
injured. A member of the public
representing the International Air
Transport Association (IATA) also
questioned whether consumers were
unaware of the price imposed for
baggage or seating before purchasing a
ticket, and he indicated that it would be
costly and time-consuming for systems
45 Meeting minutes are available at https://
www.regulations.gov/document/DOT-OST-20180190-0110.

PO 00000

Frm 00007

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

34625

to conduct complex calculations on a
passenger- or itinerary-specific basis to
produce the proposed fee disclosures.
He expressed his view that the rule
should make fee information clear to
consumers before purchase rather than
during the itinerary search stage. The
ACPAC’s consumer representative
raised questions about the impact the
proposed disclosures would have on the
amount of information being presented
to consumers on screen. A member of
the public representing Travelers United
expressed the view that regulation is
needed on fee disclosures and that
consumers are harmed if they go
through the reservation process and find
out at the end that extra fees exist. A
member of the public representing the
American Society of Travel Advisors
(ASTA) expressed concern about the
proposed rule’s treatment of offline (i.e.,
telephone or in person) disclosures, and
he urged the Department to make such
offline disclosures available upon
request or at the agent’s discretion. A
member of the public representing the
Computer & Communications Industry
Association (CCIA) stated that
aggregators such as metasearch entities
should not be subject to the rule.
On the issue of data distribution to
ticket agents, the IATA representative
noted that his organization supports the
Department’s proposal not to mandate
that airlines distribute fee information
to ticket agents through GDSs, but that
the costs of implementing the data
sharing proposal within the six-month
compliance period would be significant.
Multiple members of the public
representing ticket agents and GDSs
expressed the view that the Department
should require airlines to distribute fee
information to GDSs and disagreed with
what they saw as GDSs being excluded
from the proposal. In their view, GDSs
were the most efficient method to move
data from airlines to ticket agents, and
that without using GDSs, ticket agents
would have to bear resource-intensive
costs to enter into agreements with
airlines and to make data visible to
customers.
Speakers at the December 8 meeting
expressed differing views on whether
the proposed compliance period of six
months would be feasible, with the
ACPAC’s consumer representative
stating that six months was not
unrealistic given that capabilities exist
for GDSs to provide the data necessary
for ticket agents to comply, while
speakers representing airlines and ticket
agents asserted that six months was
insufficient time, although
acknowledging that the use of GDSs to
transfer data could enable the proposed

E:\FR\FM\30APR3.SGM

30APR3

34626

Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 84 / Tuesday, April 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations

requirements to be implemented more
quickly than not using GDSs.
On January 12, 2023, the ACPAC
publicly deliberated and voted on
recommendations related to ancillary
fees.46 The ACPAC recommendations
concerned the types of ancillary service
fees that should be disclosed, the
manner and form of the disclosures
(e.g., whether pop ups, roll overs, or
links are acceptable), the timing of the
disclosures, the application of fee
disclosures to telephone or in-person
inquiries, the ability for consumers to
opt out of receiving the disclosures, the
transactability of ancillary fees, the
process for data sharing by airlines to
ticket agents, the entities covered, and
the appropriate compliance timeframes.
On January 23, 2023, to facilitate the
public’s consideration of this NPRM, the
Department publicly posted a written
summary of the recommendations
adopted by the ACPAC at its January 12
meeting.47 The ACPAC’s specific
recommendations are discussed in
section E, where the Department
discusses these matters in substance.

lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES3

(3) Public Hearing Regarding Proposals
Under 14 CFR 399.75, when the
Department issues a proposed
regulation declaring a practice in air
transportation or the sale of air
transportation to be unfair or deceptive
to consumers under the authority of 49
U.S.C. 41712(a), any interested party
may file a petition to hold a hearing on
the proposed regulation. Section 399.75
further provides that the petition for a
hearing shall be granted if the petitioner
makes a clear and convincing showing
that granting the petition is in the public
interest. Factors in determining whether
a petition is in the public interest
include, but are not limited to: (i)
Whether the proposed rule depends on
conclusions concerning one or more
specific scientific, technical, economic,
or other factual issues that are genuinely
in dispute or that may not satisfy the
requirements of the Information Quality
Act; (ii) Whether the ordinary public
comment process is unlikely to provide
an adequate examination of the issues to
permit a fully informed judgment; (iii)
Whether the resolution of the disputed
46 The committee voted in favor of moving
forward with deliberation and issuing
recommendations at the January 12, 2023, meeting,
with the member representing airlines voting
against moving forward while the NPRM’s comment
period remained open. The meeting minutes are
available at https://www.regulations.gov/document/
DOT-OST-2018-0190-0111.
47 See Procedural Information Regarding
Enhancing Transparency of Airline Ancillary
Service Fees (January 23, 2023) at https://
www.transportation.gov/airconsumer/AncillaryFee
NPRM-Procedural-Information-January23-2023.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

19:28 Apr 29, 2024

Jkt 262001

factual issues would likely have a
material effect on the costs and benefits
of the proposed rule; (iv) Whether the
requested hearing would advance the
consideration of the proposed rule and
the General Counsel’s ability to make
the rulemaking determinations required
by this section; and (v) Whether the
hearing would unreasonably delay
completion of the rulemaking.
On January 23, 2023, three
commenters petitioned the Department
for a public hearing on the NPRM.
Airlines for America (A4A) raised two
questions in its petition: (1) whether
consumers are or are likely to be
substantially injured or are misled by
airlines’ current disclosures of ancillary
service fees; and (2) whether disclosures
of itinerary-specific ancillary fees at the
time of first search will result in the
display of incomplete or inapplicable
ancillary fee information, cause
consumer confusion, and distort the
marketplace. The Travel Technology
Association (Travel Tech) stated in its
petition that there is a fundamental
disputed factual issue as to whether the
proposed display requirements would
benefit or harm consumers. Travel Tech
also expressed the belief that the
proposed disclosures are technically
infeasible and requested a hearing to
discuss these concerns as well as the
Department’s proposed time frame for
compliance. In its comment on the
NPRM, Google LLC also requested a
hearing based on its assertion that the
Department’s analysis was flawed and
that it was deficient in providing
complaint-based evidence justifying the
rulemaking. In arguing that a hearing is
in the public interest pursuant to 14
CFR 399.75, A4A and Travel Tech
asserted that each of the criteria in 14
CFR 399.75 for determining whether a
hearing was in the public interest and
must therefore be granted had been met.
The Department granted the public
hearing to afford stakeholders an
opportunity, in addition to the public
comment process, to present factual
issues that they believe are pertinent to
the Department’s decision on the
rulemaking.48 The hearing was held on
March 30, 2023,49 and a video recording
48 88

FR 13389 (Mar. 3, 2023).
49 88 FR 15622 (Mar. 14, 2023). The Department
granted a postponement to the hearing’s originally
scheduled date of March 16, 2023, due to concerns
by A4A and Travel Tech that the original 15 days’
notice was insufficient to identify speakers and to
compile data responsive to the subjects presented
in the March 3 notice. A4A also stated that it would
have difficulty finding participants due to the
hearing being scheduled during the Spring Break
season.

PO 00000

Frm 00008

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

of the full hearing was posted to the
Department’s website.50
Before the hearing, A4A raised
objections about the designated Hearing
Officer appointed by the Department.51
The organization made a request for the
appointment of a hearing officer that
would be ‘‘neutral,’’ rather than the
Department’s designated Aviation
Consumer Advocate. Under the
Department’s regulation, the designation
of a hearing officer is left to the
discretion of the General Counsel.52 The
duty of the hearing officer is to preside
over the hearing and to place the
hearing minutes in the docket. The
General Counsel, not the hearing officer,
determines the Department’s actions
following a hearing.53 In addition, the
Department stated in a Federal Register
document 54 that the appointment was
appropriate because: (1) the designated
hearing officer is a career civil servant
who will execute the role in a neutral,
fair, and professional manner; (2) the
designated hearing officer’s
responsibilities as an Aviation
Consumer Advocate are the same
responsibilities that this individual has
as an Assistant General Counsel of the
Office of Aviation Consumer Protection
and such responsibilities do not result
in bias; and (3) the Hearing Officer’s role
is to conduct the meeting using
generally accepted meeting management
techniques and to not serve as a
decisionmaker. As such, the Department
proceeded with its appointment of the
Department’s designated Aviation
Consumer Advocate as the hearing
officer for the March 30, 2023, hearing.
A4A also objected to the second
subject discussed at the hearing,
‘‘whether disclosures of itineraryspecific ancillary fees at the time of first
search will result in the display of
incomplete or inapplicable ancillary fee
information, cause consumer confusion,
and distort the marketplace.’’ 55 A4A
stated that, in advance of the hearing,
the Department asked the public for
information on current carrier and ticket
agent practices, including how ancillary
fee information is currently displayed,
how many existing online booking
systems do not display specific ancillary
fees on itinerary search result pages but
50 https://www.transportation.gov/airconsumer/
AirlineAncillaryFeeNPRM/March30_Public_
Hearing_Recording.
51 https://www.regulations.gov/document/DOTOST-2022-0109-0718.
52 14 CFR 399.75(b)(5)(ii).
53 14 CFR 399.75(b)(6).
54 88 FR 15622 (Mar. 14, 2023).
55 This subject was offered by A4A in its petition
for a public hearing. See https://
www.regulations.gov/comment/DOT-OST-20220109-0091.

E:\FR\FM\30APR3.SGM

30APR3

Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 84 / Tuesday, April 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
display ancillary fees on other pages of
the booking process, whether the lack of
ancillary fee information at the time of
itinerary and fare selection for current
systems results in higher total trip costs,
and information from consumers on the
time spent searching on current carrier
or ticket agent websites. A4A asserted
that these questions did not address
A4A’s intent in presenting the second
subject of the hearing, which A4A
explained was the impact of the
Department’s proposals on consumers.
A4A stated that the failure to address
this issue rendered the hearing
ineffective. The Department disagrees
with A4A’s assertions that the public
hearing failed to address the issue A4A
posed for discussion and that the
hearing was ineffective. In its notice
announcing the public hearing,56 the
Department stated that it welcomed, for
issue 2, ‘‘data and information regarding
any potential for consumer confusion
from overcrowded displays or
information overload that could result
from the Department’s proposal,
particularly on mobile or other devices
with smaller displays.’’ The Department
also solicited ‘‘any other information
that is pertinent to the Department’s
determination on this proposal.’’ These
requests for information are aligned
with A4A’s stated focus of the hearing’s
second subject and did not render the
hearing ineffective.
As provided in 14 CFR 399.75,
following the completion of the hearing
process, the General Counsel shall
consider the record of the hearing, and
shall make a reasoned determination
whether to terminate the rulemaking; to
proceed with the rulemaking as
proposed; or to modify the proposed
rule. Based on the record in this
rulemaking proceeding, including the
comments submitted by members of the
public, the recommendations of the
ACPAC, and the information received
during the public hearing, the Acting
General Counsel has determined that
the Department should proceed with the
rulemaking. The Department has made
several adjustments that reflect the
public input received, as discussed in
section E.

lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES3

D. Statutory Authority
(1) Unfair and Deceptive Practices
The Department is implementing the
revised regulatory requirements in this
rule pursuant to its statutory authority
in 49 U.S.C. 41712 to prohibit unfair
and deceptive practices in air
56 88 FR 13389 (Mar. 3, 2023), available at https://
www.federalregister.gov/documents/2023/03/03/
2023-04510/enhancing-transparency-of-airlineancillary-service-fees.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

19:28 Apr 29, 2024

Jkt 262001

transportation and the sale of air
transportation. Under section 41712, a
practice is ‘‘unfair’’ to consumers if it
causes or is likely to cause substantial
injury, which is not reasonably
avoidable, and the harm is not
outweighed by benefits to consumers or
competition.57 A practice is ‘‘deceptive’’
to consumers if it is likely to mislead a
consumer, acting reasonably under the
circumstances, with respect to a
material matter. A matter is material if
it is likely to have affected the
consumer’s conduct or decision with
respect to a product or service.58 Proof
of intent is not necessary to establish
unfairness or deception.59 The elements
of unfair and deceptive are further
elaborated by the Department in its
guidance document.60
In the NPRM, the Department
tentatively determined that several
practices conducted by airlines and
ticket agents were unfair and deceptive
in air transportation or the sale of air
transportation. Members of the public
provided input on the Department’s
preliminary determinations, including
through submission of written
comments and statements made at
public meetings (i.e., ACPAC meetings
and the March 30, 2023, public hearing).
After fully considering the public input,
the Department has concluded that the
practices identified below are unfair and
deceptive.
(a) Bag Fees and Policies
Pursuant to its authority under
section 41712, the Department is
requiring airlines and ticket agents to
disclose the fees for a first and second
checked bag and a carry-on bag
whenever fare and schedule information
is provided to a consumer in response
to a passenger-specific or anonymous
itinerary search. The Department is also
requiring disclosure of the applicable
weight and dimensions of the first
checked bag, second checked bag, and a
carry-on bag before ticket purchase on
an online platform.
(i) Carriers
The Department has concluded that a
carrier commits an unfair and deceptive
practice in the sale of air transportation
when it discloses an airfare in response
to a consumer’s itinerary search without
providing accompanying information on
applicable fees for a first and second
checked bag and a carry-on bag and
when it fails to disclose weight and
dimension information for that baggage
57 14

CFR 399.79(b)(1).
CFR 399.79(b)(2).
59 14 CFR 399.79(c).
60 87 FR 52677 (Aug. 28, 2022).
58 14

PO 00000

Frm 00009

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

34627

before ticket purchase on an online
platform.
Regarding fees, the Department has
heard from consumers and other
stakeholders that such fees, which had
once been included in the airfare but
may now be broken out from the airfare
depending on the airline, route, fare
class, or other factors, are often difficult
to ascertain during the itinerary search
and ticket purchase process. We find
that the practice of not disclosing first
and second checked bag and carry-on
bag fees with the quoted airfare at the
time of an itinerary search during the
ticket purchase process prevents
consumers from knowing the true cost
of their tickets, and that the practice
may cause consumers to invest time
pursuing a ticket purchase based on an
appealing airfare that ends up resulting
in less favorable overall costs to the
consumer when baggage fees are added.
Under this rule, the bag fees disclosed
must be passenger-specific fees if a
passenger affirmatively provides
information such as the passenger’s
status in the airline’s frequent flyer
program, the passenger’s military status,
or the passenger’s status as a holder of
a particular credit card. If the passenger
does not affirmatively provide
passenger-specific information, then the
carrier must provide itinerary-specific
fees, which would apply to the
anonymous shopper, taking into
account geography, travel dates, cabin
class, and ticketed fare class (e.g., full
fare ticket). The failure to disclose either
passenger-specific or itinerary-specific
bag fees with the quoted airfare at the
time of an itinerary search is unfair
because it causes or is likely to cause
substantial injury, which is not
reasonably avoidable, and the harm is
not outweighed by benefits to
consumers or competition.
The substantial injury this practice is
likely to cause is the additional time
spent searching to find the total cost of
travel and any additional funds spent on
air transportation that might have been
avoided if the consumer had been able
to determine the true cost of travel up
front and readily select the best price.
This harm is not reasonably avoidable
even with the disclosures mandated in
the 2011 rulemaking that improved
consumer access to first and second
checked bag and carry-on bag fee
information by requiring those fees to be
displayed on airlines’ websites. Airlines
often disclose bag fees in an untailored,
static format or in complex charts that
are confusing to consumers and not
readily available when consumers need
the information to consider whether an
itinerary and price offering best suits
their needs. The harm that consumers

E:\FR\FM\30APR3.SGM

30APR3

34628

Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 84 / Tuesday, April 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations

lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES3

experience is not outweighed by
benefits to consumers or competition
because consumer confusion about
applicable bag fees harms, rather than
benefits, competition and creates less
than optimal purchasing decisions by
consumers. In addition, because existing
disclosure requirements of baggage fees
did not apply to online platforms other
than websites, consumers who searched
for air transportation on those platforms
may not have received the baggage fee
information that this final rule now
requires. The Department has
determined that the disclosure of
passenger-specific or anonymous
itinerary-specific fees whenever fare and
schedule information is provided would
promote informed buyers, enhance
competition, and lower prices. The
practice of not disclosing passengerspecific or anonymous itinerary-specific
fees for first and second checked bags
and carry-on bags when fare and
schedule information is provided is also
deceptive in that it misleads consumers
into believing the total purchase price
from one carrier for a particular
itinerary or fare type is cheaper than
that of another when that may not be the
case. This belief is reasonable as carriers
and agents often disclose only the
airfare and not bag fees during an
itinerary search. As carriers have
different policies regarding the fees and
limitations imposed to transport
baggage, and because variation within
each carrier depends on the fare
category purchased or the status of the
passenger, the current requirement that
carriers inform consumers that fees for
baggage may apply and where
consumers can see these baggage fees
during the booking process is not
providing consumers sufficient notice of
the total cost of the air transportation.
Consumers are often diverted to
complex charts that are confusing,
prolong the consumer’s process of
evaluating itineraries and fares for
purchase, and may ultimately not be
instructive for many consumers in
determining the bag fee that would
apply to them. The cost of the first and
second checked bag and carry-on bag is
often material to consumers, as knowing
such costs in conjunction with the ticket
price is likely to affect the consumer’s
purchase decisions as well as whether
to check or carry-on a bag.61
61 As noted in the NPRM, the GAO found that
since airlines first imposed checked baggage fees,
the number of checked bags per passenger has
declined. GAO also explains that checked baggage
fees have led to greater amounts of carry-on
baggage. GAO 10–785, Commercial Aviation:
Consumers Could Benefit from Better Information
about Airline-Imposed Fees and Refundability of
Government-Imposed Taxes and Fees (July 14,

VerDate Sep<11>2014

19:28 Apr 29, 2024

Jkt 262001

The Department has also determined
that it is an unfair practice to not
disclose on an online platform the
applicable weight and dimension
allowances of a first checked bag, a
second checked bag, and a carry-on bag,
adjusted based on passenger-specific
information if information specific to
the passenger has been affirmatively
provided. However, the Department is
of the view that, unlike fees, it is
sufficient to provide weight and
dimension allowances of a first checked
bag, a second checked bag, and a carryon bag before ticket purchase to avoid
engaging in an unfair and deceptive
practice. The Department agrees with
the comments, which are discussed in
section E (4)(b), that providing the
policy information is less critical to
consumers’ decision making than the
fees themselves; accordingly, the
Department is allowing disclosure of
these policies later in the ticket
purchase process. Nevertheless, the
practice of not disclosing applicable
weight and dimension allowances is
likely to also cause substantial injury to
consumers if not disclosed prior to
ticket purchase given airlines’ policies
on bag size vary and consumers who
learn that the weight and dimensions
allowances of the selected carrier are
stricter than the common bag size may
decide to select a different carrier. This
harm is not reasonably avoidable
because, even though existing
regulations require the disclosure of this
information on e-ticket confirmations,
this disclosure is provided after ticket
purchase, thereby depriving consumers
of the ability to fully evaluate
potentially better options for them prior
to ticket purchase. There is no
countervailing benefit to consumers or
competition from the practice of not
disclosing weight and dimension
allowances of baggage before ticket
purchase, as the lack of information to
consumers reduces their ability to
evaluate ticket purchases and harms
competition.
(ii) Ticket Agents
The Department has concluded that a
ticket agent commits an unfair and
deceptive practice in the sale of air
transportation when it discloses an
airfare in response to a consumer’s
itinerary search without providing
accompanying information on
applicable fees for a first and second
checked bag and a carry-on bag and
when it fails to provide weight and
dimension information for that baggage
before ticket purchase on an online
2010) at https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-10785.pdf.

PO 00000

Frm 00010

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

platform. As noted above, the
Department has heard from consumers
and other stakeholders that baggage fees
are often difficult to ascertain during the
itinerary search and ticket purchase
process. This difficulty is exacerbated
on ticket agent channels in many cases,
given the numerous airline and itinerary
options presented. We find that the
practice of not disclosing baggage fees
with the quoted airfare at the time of an
itinerary search prevents consumers
from knowing the true cost of their air
tickets, and that the practice may cause
consumers to invest time pursuing a
ticket purchase based on an appealing
airfare that ends up resulting in less
favorable overall costs to the consumer
when baggage fees are later added. The
failure to disclose bag fees with the
quoted airfare at the time of an itinerary
search is unfair because it causes or is
likely to cause substantial injury, which
is not reasonably avoidable, and the
harm is not outweighed by benefits to
consumers or competition.
The substantial injury this practice is
likely to cause is the additional time
spent searching to find the total cost of
travel and any additional funds spent on
air transportation that might have been
avoided if the consumer had been able
to determine the true cost of travel up
front and readily select the best price.
This harm is not reasonably avoidable,
as described regarding carriers in
section D (1)(a)(i). In addition, ticket
agents provide a means for consumers to
evaluate different travel options, often
on different airlines. The harm of
increased time and costs involved in the
ticket purchase process is not
outweighed by benefits to consumers or
competition because consumer
confusion about applicable bag fees
harms, rather than benefits, competition
and creates less than optimal
purchasing decisions by consumers. The
Department has determined that the
disclosure of passenger-specific fees
whenever fare and schedule information
is provided would promote informed
buyers, enhance competition, and lower
prices.
The practice of not disclosing
passenger-specific fees for first and
second checked bags and carry-on bags
when fare and schedule information is
provided is also deceptive in that it
misleads consumers into believing the
total purchase price from one carrier for
a particular itinerary or fare type is
cheaper than that of another when that
may not be the case. This belief is
reasonable as ticket agents often
disclose only the airfare and not bag fees
during an itinerary search. The current
requirement that ticket agents provide a
generic notice that ‘‘fees for baggage

E:\FR\FM\30APR3.SGM

30APR3

lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES3

Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 84 / Tuesday, April 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
may apply’’ during the booking process
is not providing consumers sufficient
notice of the total cost of the air
transportation. Although existing
regulations require carriers and ticket
agents to inform consumers during the
booking process about where consumers
can see baggage fees, ticket agents may
refer consumers to the carrier’s website
to search for fees, which would
necessitate the consumer leaving the
ticket agent’s website, prolonging the
consumer’s process of evaluating
itineraries and fares for purchase. The
cost of the first and second checked bag
and carry-on bag is often material to
consumers, as knowing such costs in
conjunction with the ticket price is
likely to affect the consumer’s purchase
decisions.
The failure to disclose the applicable
weight and dimension allowances of a
first checked bag, a second checked bag,
and a carry-on bag, adjusted based on
passenger-specific information
affirmatively provided by the consumer,
is also an unfair practice. The
Department has decided to require
disclosure of these weight and
dimension allowances before ticket
purchase, rather than during the
itinerary search process like bag fees,
because the Department has been
persuaded by commenters that
providing this information is less
critical to consumers’ decision making
than the fees themselves. This practice
is likely to cause substantial injury to
consumers given airlines’ policies on
bag size vary and consumers may have
to pay more to transport their bags
because of high airline fees for oversized
or overweight bags than would have
been the case if they knew the weight
and dimensions allowances prior to
ticket purchase and selected a different
carrier with a bag size and dimension
allowance that suited their
circumstances. This harm is not
reasonably avoidable, because even
though existing regulations require the
disclosure of this information on eticket confirmations, the disclosure is
provided after ticket purchase, thereby
depriving consumers of the ability to
fully evaluate the cost of their ticket
before purchase. There is no
countervailing benefit to consumers or
competition from the practice of not
disclosing weight and dimension
allowances of baggage before ticket
purchase, as the lack of information to
consumers reduces their ability to
evaluate ticket purchases and harms
competition.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

19:28 Apr 29, 2024

Jkt 262001

(b) Change and Cancellation Fees and
Policies
Pursuant to its authority under
section 41712, the Department is
requiring airlines and ticket agents to
disclose the fees to change and cancel
a ticket in response to a passengerspecific or anonymous itinerary-specific
search and to disclose ticket change and
cancellation policies before a
consumer’s purchase of air
transportation on an online platform.
(i) Carriers
The Department concludes that a
carrier commits an unfair practice in the
sale of air transportation when it
discloses an airfare in response to a
consumer’s itinerary search without
providing accompanying information on
applicable change and cancellation fees
and fails to provide change and
cancellation policies before ticket
purchase on an online platform. The
practice is unfair because it causes or is
likely to cause substantial injury, which
is not reasonably avoidable, and the
harm is not outweighed by benefits to
consumers or competition.
The Department currently requires the
disclosure of these fees on or with the
ticket.62 This requirement, however,
means that consumers often receive
information about these fees after the
purchase of the ticket is already made
(i.e., upon receipt of the ticket
confirmation), which the Department
determines in this final rule is not
sufficient disclosure. The practice of not
disclosing these fees while consumers
select an itinerary and fare causes
substantial injury to consumers in that
passengers may not be aware of the
change and cancellation fees that apply
to a particular fare being offered, and
they may then select a fare without
adequate notice that they could incur
significant fees to change or cancel their
tickets.
These harms are not reasonably
avoidable if the carrier does not provide
disclosures on its cancellation or change
fees during the itinerary search process
and policies before ticket purchase on
an online platform. Although carriers
are already required to have change and
cancellation policy and fee information
available on their websites, the existing
rule allows carriers to provide the fee
information in a range. Consumers are
harmed when they do not know the
specific change or cancellation fee that
would apply to them during the
itinerary search process, particularly
when the ranges provided by some
carriers are so wide as to be virtually
62 See

PO 00000

14 CFR 253.7.

Frm 00011

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

34629

useless.63 Consumers may also find it
difficult to ascertain the change,
cancellation, and refund policies that
apply to the specific ticket they are
selecting if the airline does not disclose
such information during the booking
process. Moreover, change fees, even if
not in a range, and change and
cancellation policies may not be simple
to understand, as fare categories,
passenger status, ticket type (e.g., award
ticket purchases), and other factors may
impact the applicable change and
cancellation fees and policies. Further,
because the cancellation and change fee
information is not provided during the
itinerary-search process, consumers
would need to interrupt their booking
process to search for the information
and extend the time needed to complete
a booking. The harm that consumers
experience is not outweighed by
benefits to consumers or competition
because, like baggage fees and
dimensions, consumer surprise or
confusion about applicable change and
cancellation fees and policies harms,
rather than benefits, competition. The
Department believes that the disclosure
of passenger-specific or non-passengerspecific change and cancellation fees
during the itinerary-search process
would promote informed buyers,
enhance competition, and lower prices.
In addition, consumers are
substantially harmed if they are not
provided the following additional
disclosures about change and
cancellation policies before purchase on
an online platform: (1) any prohibitions
or conditions that limit a consumer’s
ability to change or cancel a ticket; (2)
whether the consumer’s reservation can
be cancelled within 24 hours of
purchase without penalty or whether it
can be held at the quoted fare for 24
hours without payment, provided the
reservation is made one week or more
prior to a flight’s departure; 64 (3) the
form of the refund or credit that would
be provided; (4) that the consumer is
responsible for any fare differential on
a changed ticket, if applicable; and (5)
63 See, e.g., United Airlines, Upgrades and
Optional Service Charges (original page accessed
Feb. 29, 2024) (showing ‘‘Other Flight Changes and
Cancellations’’ as ‘‘$0 to $1,000 per traveler, based
on applicable fare rules’’); Delta Air Lines, Change
or Cancel Overview (original page accessed Feb. 29,
2024) (showing potential change and cancellation
fees of ‘‘$0–400’’ for non-refundable fares);
American Airlines, Optional Service Fees (original
page accessed Feb. 29, 2024) (showing change fees
of ‘‘up to $750’’). Website screenshots available in
docket at https://www.regulations.gov/docket/DOTOST-2022-0109.
64 This rule requires that the carrier disclose its
24-hour cancellation or hold policy on the last page
of the booking process as this is the point in the
purchase process at which this disclosure is most
relevant to consumers.

E:\FR\FM\30APR3.SGM

30APR3

34630

Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 84 / Tuesday, April 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations

lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES3

whether the consumer will receive a
refund of the difference in fare if the
consumer changes their flight and
selects a less costly replacement flight.
Disclosure of change and cancellation
policy terms, such as whether the
consumer would be required to pay a
fare differential for a ticket change and
whether the consumer can receive a
refund in the original form of payment,
may impact the consumer’s decision on
whether to purchase the selected
itinerary or wait until the consumer is
more certain of their travel plans. While
important, these disclosures of the
details of the change and cancellation
policies are less critical at the time of
itinerary search than the change and
cancellation fees themselves.
Accordingly, the Department is of the
view that, unlike fees, it is sufficient to
disclose change and cancellation
policies before ticket purchase to avoid
engaging in an unfair practice.
The Department also concludes that
the practice of not disclosing change
and cancellation fees with an airfare in
response to a consumer’s itinerary
search and change and cancellation
policies before ticket purchase on an
online platform is deceptive. Without
proper notice, consumers acting
reasonably would be misled with
respect to the change and cancellation
fees and policies that apply to their
ticket and may believe that changes or
cancellations are possible at no fee or at
a reduced fee. As noted above, many
carriers changed their ticket change
policies during the COVID–19 public
health emergency, and such changes
were publicly promoted by the carriers.
A reasonable consumer may believe that
he or she can change a ticket free of
charge when that might not be the case,
or he or she may choose to purchase a
fare type that does not allow changes,
believing erroneously that a change is
allowed. Comments by consumer
advocates and individuals suggest that
consumers do consider change and
cancellation fees and policies when
making purchasing decisions,
particularly during emergency
situations such as a pandemic or
potential severe weather events such as
hurricane seasons.65 The change and
cancellation fees and policies are
therefore material because they could
affect the consumer’s decision on
whether to purchase an airline ticket
65 See

comments submitted in the docket for the
2014 NPRM, which can be accessed at https://
www.regulations.gov/search?filter=DOT-OST-20140056. See also, e.g., Minutes or webcast (at 2:15:55)
of the January 12, 2023, ACPAC meeting, available
at https://www.transportation.gov/resources/
individuals/aviation-consumer-protection/aviationconsumer-protection-advisory-committee.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

19:28 Apr 29, 2024

Jkt 262001

and if so, which airline to select. As
such, the Department concludes that the
failure to disclose change and
cancellation fees during the itinerarysearch process and change and
cancellation policies before ticket
purchase on an online platform is
deceptive.
(ii) Ticket Agents
The Department concludes that a
ticket agent commits an unfair practice
in the sale of air transportation when it
discloses an airfare in response to a
consumer’s itinerary search without
providing accompanying information on
applicable change and cancellation fees
and fails to provide change and
cancellation policies before ticket
purchase on an online platform. The
practice is unfair because it causes or is
likely to cause substantial injury, which
is not reasonably avoidable, and the
harm is not outweighed by benefits to
consumers or competition.
The Department currently requires
that carriers disclose change and
cancellation fees and policies on or with
the ticket, but current regulations do not
require ticket agents to disclose such
fees and policies during the ticket
purchase process. As such, consumers
purchasing tickets from certain ticket
agents may be unaware of the change
and cancellation fees and policies that
would apply to them if they were to
proceed with the purchase of a ticket.
The Department understands that a
substantial number of consumers
purchase their tickets through ticket
agents.66 The practice of not disclosing
these fees while consumers select an
itinerary and fare causes substantial
injury in that consumers may not be
aware of the change and cancellation
fees that apply to a particular fare being
offered, and they may then select a fare
without adequate notice that they could
incur significant fees to change or
cancel their tickets. In addition,
consumers incur substantial injury if
they are not provided the following
disclosures about change and
cancellation policies before purchase on
an online platform: (1) any prohibitions
or conditions that limit a consumer’s
ability to change or cancel a ticket; (2)
whether the consumer’s reservation can
be cancelled within 24 hours of
purchase without penalty or whether it
66 See, e.g., remarks by a representative of ASTA
at the ACPAC’s June 28, 2022, meeting. The
representative stated that 44% of air tickets were
sold by travel agencies (excluding OTAs), 39% were
sold on airline websites, 12% were sold by OTAs,
and 5% are sold through offline direct channels.
Meeting minutes can be found at https://
www.regulations.gov/document/DOT-OST-20180190-0073.

PO 00000

Frm 00012

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

can be held at the quoted fare for 24
hours without payment, provided the
reservation is made one week or more
prior to a flight’s departure; 67 (3) the
form of the refund or credit that would
be provided; (4) that the consumer is
responsible for any fare differential, if
applicable; and (5) whether the
consumer will receive a refund of the
difference in fare if the consumer
changes their flight and selects a less
costly replacement flight. Disclosure of
change and cancellation policy terms,
such as whether the consumer would be
required to pay a fare differential for a
ticket change and whether the consumer
can receive a refund in the original form
of payment, may impact the consumer’s
decision on whether to purchase the
selected itinerary or wait until the
consumer is more certain of their travel
plans. While important, these
disclosures of the details of the change
and cancellation policies are less critical
at the time of itinerary search than the
change and cancellation fees themselves
and any prohibitions on the ability to
change and cancel a ticket, which must
be disclosed at that point. Accordingly,
the Department is of the view that,
unlike fees, it is sufficient to disclose
change and cancellation policies before
ticket purchase to avoid engaging in an
unfair and deceptive practice. These
harms are not reasonably avoidable if
the ticket agent does not provide
disclosures on cancellation or change
fees when it provides an airfare in
response to a consumer’s itinerary
search and policy information before
purchase on an online platform. Ticket
agents often refer consumers to carrier
web pages that contain fee information,
but this information is allowed to be
expressed as a range rather than a
specific applicable number.68 This
means that many consumers cannot
determine the change and cancellation
fees that would apply to them. Also, it
is disruptive and time-consuming for
consumers purchasing from ticket
agents to navigate away from the ticket
agents’ online platform to the carrier’s
website to search for the information.
Change and cancellation policies and
fees may be difficult to understand, as
fare categories, passenger status, ticket
type (e.g., award ticket purchases), and
other factors such as where the
passenger is flying may impact the
applicable change and cancellation fees
and policies. The harm that consumers
67 This rule requires that the ticket agent disclose
whether it has a 24-hour cancellation or hold policy
on the last page of the booking process as this is
the point in the purchase process at which this
disclosure is most relevant to consumers.
68 See, e.g., fn. 61, above.

E:\FR\FM\30APR3.SGM

30APR3

Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 84 / Tuesday, April 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations

lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES3

experience is not outweighed by
benefits to consumers or competition
because, like baggage fees, consumer
surprise or confusion about applicable
change and cancellation fees after
airfare purchase harms, rather than
benefits, competition. The Department
believes that the disclosure of
passenger-specific or non-passengerspecific change and cancellation fees
during the itinerary-search process and
policies before ticket purchase on an
online platform would promote
informed buyers, enhance competition,
and lower prices.
The Department also concludes that
the practice of not disclosing change
and cancellation fees with an airfare in
response to a consumer’s itinerary
search and policies before ticket
purchase on an online platform to be
deceptive. Without the required notice,
consumers acting reasonably would be
misled with respect to the change and
cancellation fees and policies that apply
to their ticket and may believe that
changes or cancellations are possible at
no fee or at a reduced fee. As noted
above, many carriers changed their
ticket change policies during the
COVID–19 public health emergency,
and such changes were publicly
promoted by the carriers. A reasonable
consumer may believe that his or her
ticket may be changeable free of charge
when that might not be the case, or he
or she may choose to purchase a fare
type that does not allow changes,
believing erroneously that a change is
permitted. Comments by consumer
advocates and individuals suggested
that consumers do consider change and
cancellation fees and policies when
making purchasing decisions,
particularly during emergency
situations such as a pandemic or
potential severe weather events such as
hurricane seasons. The change and
cancellation fees and policies are
therefore material because they could
affect the consumer’s decision on
whether to purchase an airline ticket
and if so, which airline to select. As
such, the Department concludes that the
failure to disclose change and
cancellation fees during the itinerarysearch process and policies before ticket
purchase on an online platform is
deceptive.
(c) Percentage-Off Discounts
After careful consideration of the
comments submitted in this rulemaking,
the Department has concluded that,
when the terms ‘‘flight,’’ ‘‘ticket,’’ or
‘‘fare’’ are used in a percentage-off
advertisement, it is an unfair and
deceptive practice for an airline or ticket
agent to not apply the percentage off the

VerDate Sep<11>2014

19:28 Apr 29, 2024

Jkt 262001

total cost of the ticket. Additionally, the
Department has concluded that, when
the term ‘‘base fare’’ is used in a
percentage-off advertisement, it is an
unfair and deceptive practice for an
airline or ticket agent to not apply the
percentage off the full fare amount
excluding all government taxes and
charges.
These types of percentage-off
advertisements are deceptive as they
mislead reasonable consumers on a
material matter. A reasonable consumer
seeing an advertisement for a 25%
discount off a flight, a ticket, or a fare
would believe that he or she is receiving
25% of the entire ticket based on a
common understanding of those terms
as supported by comments discussed in
section E. That reasonable consumer
would be misled if he or she were to
find out that the 25% off discount
applied to only a portion of the ticket
price. Similarly, a reasonable consumer
seeing an advertisement for a 30%
discount off a ‘‘base fare’’ would believe
that he or she is receiving 30% off the
full fare excluding all government taxes
and fees based on a common
understanding of that term as supported
by comments discussed in section E.
That individual would be misled if he
or she received a 30% off only a portion
of the carrier-imposed mandatory
charges. The percentage discounts are a
material matter because they affect the
price that consumers pay for the air
transportation.
These types of percentage-off
advertisements are also unfair as they
have potential to cause substantial harm
to consumers that is not reasonably
avoidable and not outweighed by
countervailing benefits to consumers or
competition. Consumers may be
substantially harmed because they are
likely to encounter higher charges than
expected if a seller advertises an
appealing offer by stating ‘‘50% off a
flight’’ or ‘‘50% off a base fare’’ so
consumers will click on the
advertisements only to find out that it
is 50% off only a small portion of the
ticket, which can multiply if a consumer
relies on the promotional discount for
multiple passengers on an itinerary or
for an individual passenger traveling on
a higher cost itinerary. The harm is not
easily avoided due to a lack of clarity in
the advertising language that carriers
use. The harm that consumers
experience from this practice is not
outweighed by benefits to consumers or
competition because the lack of clarity
about the offered fare harms, rather than
promotes, competition.

PO 00000

Frm 00013

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

34631

(d) Data Sharing
This final rule requires U.S. and
foreign air carriers to provide any entity
required to disclose critical ancillary fee
information directly to consumers
useable, current, and accurate
information of the fee rules for critical
ancillary services if the carrier provides
fare, schedule, and availability
information to that entity. The
information provided by carriers to
these entities must be sufficient to
ensure compliance with any applicable
disclosure requirements. The failure of
a carrier to provide critical ancillary fee
information to entities required to
disclose this information to consumers
is an unfair practice. Approximately
half of air travel tickets are sold by
ticket agents.69 There is likely
substantial harm to consumers if an
entity required to disclose accurate
critical ancillary fee information to
consumers is unable to do so due to the
carrier’s failure to provide such
information to that entity. Consumers
are substantially harmed under these
circumstances because consumers must
then spend additional time searching to
find the total cost of travel and
consumers may spend additional funds
on air transportation that could have
been avoided if the consumer had the
critical ancillary fee disclosed to them.
This harm is not reasonably avoidable,
as consumers would have to leave the
ticket purchase process to review fees
provided in each carrier website. In
addition, once at a carrier website,
consumers will likely not be able to
determine the fee for changing and
canceling a reservation as carriers
provide that information in a range.70
Consumers will also likely have
difficulty determining the fee for
transporting a carry-on bag, a first
checked bag, and second checked bag
because baggage fee structures are often
complex and require charts and
calculators to show the cost of fees. This
harm is not outweighed by benefits to
consumers or competition as the sharing
of critical ancillary service fee
information enables consumers to
access critical ancillary fee information
from a larger variety of ticket purchase
69 ACPAC Meeting Minutes (June 28, 2022), p. 13
at https://www.regulations.gov/document/DOTOST-2018-0190-0073. In its written comment,
ASTA stated that 48 percent of total sales and
aggregate spending were sold by travel agencies in
2019. https://www.regulations.gov/comment/DOTOST-2022-0109-0083.
70 See fn. 61 (showing that some airlines provide
a large range for change or cancellation fees, with
United, for example, quoting ‘‘$0 to $1,000 per
traveler’’).

E:\FR\FM\30APR3.SGM

30APR3

34632

Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 84 / Tuesday, April 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations

vendors, which improves, rather than
harms, competition.

lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES3

(e) Additional Unfair or Deceptive
Practices
Additional discussion of unfair and
deceptive practices identified in this
final rule is provided in sections E (1)(c)
(failure of a carrier or ticket agent that
sells air transportation to make critical
ancillary fee disclosures at the first page
of its website or other online platform
to which a consumer is directed after
searching for flights on a metasearch site
where that information is not provided);
E (3)(d) (failure of a carrier or ticket
agent to disclose that the purchase of a
seat is not required for travel
particularly when consumers are
provided seats to choose where many
require a fee to reserve); E (10)(a)
(failure of a ticket agent that sells air
tour packages to disclose that additional
baggage fees may apply when a
passenger books an air tour package
without an identifiable carrier and the
failure to disclose the passenger-specific
fees for a carry-on bag, first checked bag,
and second checked bag when the
carrier is known); and E (10)(c) (failure
of a ticket agent to display baggage fees
in text form on the e-ticket confirmation
that has traditionally applied to
carriers).
(f) Stakeholder Comments and DOT
Responses
Comments: Airlines and airline
associations disagreed with the
Department’s proposed determination
that not providing fee disclosures at the
beginning of the ticket purchase process
was an unfair and deceptive practice.
Several airline commenters asserted that
the Department did not provide
adequate justification that consumers
experienced or would likely experience
substantial injury, as required by the
analysis of an unfair practice. Spirit
Airlines asserted that it already displays
ancillary fees during the booking
process, and that 95% of its customers
advance past baggage selection pages,
showing that concerns about injury are
unfounded. A4A stated, ‘‘Every A4A
passenger air carrier displays or makes
available at first search results the
ancillary fee information that DOT
proposes for a consumer conducting an
anonymous search in the direct channel
via rollovers or links.’’ 71 A4A also
noted that the Department did not
differentiate its unfair and deceptive
practice analysis between airlines and
ticket agents in the NPRM, and the
71 Comment of A4A, pages 17–18, available at
https://www.regulations.gov/comment/DOT-OST2022-0109-0090.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

19:28 Apr 29, 2024

Jkt 262001

organization asserted that the
rulemaking should be withdrawn with
respect to airlines because consumer
harm was avoidable. A4A, IATA, the
National Air Carrier Association
(NACA), and others asserted that the
number of ancillary fee consumer
complaints cited by the Department was
too small to conclude substantial harm,
and that the complaints do not evidence
a lack of transparency. IATA and other
airline associations asserted that
consumers already understand that
ancillary services are available for a fee,
and because they have information on
fees before they purchase tickets, there
is no substantial harm. Similar
statements were made by airline
representatives at the ACPAC meeting
held on December 8, 2022. At that
meeting, a representative of IATA stated
that the Department did not provide
evidence that consumers do not know
the price imposed for baggage before
purchasing a ticket.
Airlines also asserted that the
proscribed practices were not likely to
mislead a consumer acting reasonably
under the circumstances, as required by
the analysis of a deceptive practice.
Multiple airlines noted, for example,
that because ancillary fees are already
on airline websites, it was not
reasonable to conclude that the nondisplay of fees during the initial
itinerary search was deceptive. A4A
commented that the Department did not
use the right standard for a consumer
‘‘acting reasonably,’’ as part of its
deceptive practice analysis, and the
organization asserted that the
Department should instead use
enforcement processes rather than
rulemaking to address problematic fee
disclosure practices.
Individual commenters and multiple
State attorneys general asserted that
airlines were treating consumers
unfairly regarding fees and that
consumers were likely to be misled by
current disclosures. Some of these
individual commenters expressed
frustration about the ticket purchase
process, noting that when they attempt
to buy a ticket they view as being a
particular cost, the total cost increases
when fees are later added. One
commenter noted that some consumers
would realize they could not afford the
total cost of a trip had they known about
bag fees when they selected their ticket.
One commenter noted that it would be
extremely rare for a passenger to travel
without any baggage at all. Another
commenter self-identified as a frequent
traveler and stated that understanding
and paying for ancillary fees was
confusing and frustrating, particularly
on third-party applications. Multiple

PO 00000

Frm 00014

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

State attorneys general commented that
they hear every day from consumers
who are deceived by ‘‘junk fees’’ and
have launched education campaigns to
protect consumers from hidden fees,
junk fees, and drip pricing. The State
attorneys general also noted that their
offices receive numerous complaints
about airlines’ lack of disclosures of
baggage and change and cancellation
fees. FlyersRights stated that because
airlines have increased the number and
cost of ancillary fees, consumers are
misled into believing that the cost of air
travel will be cheaper than it is. The
organization added that ancillary fees
are often necessary for travel and used
to be included in the base fare.
The Department received mixed
comments from ticket agent
representatives on its assertion that it is
an unfair and deceptive practice not to
provide disclosure of critical ancillary
service fees before ticket purchase. The
United States Tour Operators
Association (USTOA) commented that
the Department did not adequately
demonstrate consumer harm, adding
that consumers are aware that there are
baggage fees and that there were few
consumer complaints. As a metasearch
entity, Google expressed its view that
the Department did not explain how
consumers were harmed by not having
fee disclosures until the ticket purchase
stage of the booking process and that
consumers are aware of fees. Google also
noted that the Department’s sampling of
consumer complaints did not show that
the fee was not disclosed, but that
consumers were surprised by the
amount of the fees or the applicability
of fees. However, ASTA commented
that consumers are confused from
airlines’ unbundling their ancillary
services, and that ancillary service fees
remain difficult for consumers to
discover and are hard to understand
when they are found. ASTA added that
ancillary fees are revealed too late in the
search process to permit effective
comparison shopping. Skyscanner
stated that it shared the goal of
enhancing competition and avoiding the
unfair and deceptive practice of failing
to inform consumers of the full cost of
travel.
Ticket agents also commented on
ensuring that they had access to
ancillary fee data from airlines. One
ticket agent commenter noted that
consumers using third-party websites to
purchase tickets may not have access to
fee data and that lack of data
provisioning is an unfair and deceptive
practice. One metasearch entity
commented that requiring data sharing
with metasearch companies would
reduce the risk that the transportation

E:\FR\FM\30APR3.SGM

30APR3

lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES3

Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 84 / Tuesday, April 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
will be sold to consumers in an unfair
or deceptive manner. As for airlines’
view on data sharing, at the ACPAC
meeting held on December 8, 2022, the
airline representative noted the
Department did not provide an unfair
and deceptive practice analysis for its
proposal on the sharing of fee
information to ticket agents.
DOT Response: The Department has
carefully considered the public
comments on this issue and has
determined that the practices identified
in this rulemaking meet the elements of
an unfair and deceptive practice. Those
entities opposing the Department’s
position generally asserted that the
Department did not provide sufficient
evidence of substantial injury, that the
Department relied on a small number of
consumer complaints, that the
consumer harm is avoidable as the fees
are presented on airline websites, and
that consumers are aware that ancillary
fees exist. Other comments opposing the
Department’s position stated that
consumers are not interested in
ancillary fees when booking tickets and
that the Department did not conduct an
unfair and deceptive practice analysis
regarding its data-sharing proposal. The
Department disagrees that there is
insufficient evidence of substantial
injury. Consumer complaints are only
one metric that the Department uses to
gauge whether an unfair or deceptive
practice is occurring. The Department
also relies on the statements of
consumer advocates, all of which have
consistently expressed concern about
consumer confusion over ancillary fees
throughout the years that rulemaking
has been contemplated on this subject.
The Department finds it reasonable to
rely on the statements of the many
consumer advocates, State attorneys
general, and consumer organizations as
representative of the views of
consumers, and, when further
confirmed by consumer complaints, to
determine that substantial harm is
occurring or is likely to occur. These
positions by consumers were reaffirmed
in their comments to the NPRM.
Comments submitted by members of the
public in this rulemaking also clearly
evidence that consumers are surprised
by the amount of ancillary fees charged
when they purchase tickets.
The Department also disagrees that
the consumer harm is reasonably
avoidable. While the fees for baggage
and other ancillary services are
provided on airline websites, such fees
are not disclosed on ticket agent
websites and are difficult to ascertain
prior to ticket purchase. Ancillary fees,
except for baggage, may be expressed in
a range, and baggage fee structures are

VerDate Sep<11>2014

19:28 Apr 29, 2024

Jkt 262001

often complex and require charts and
calculators to show the cost of fees.
Some fees may also not be applicable to
passengers who purchase tickets on one
airline’s website for flights that will be
operated by a different airline.
The Department also disagrees with
the premise that consumers are wellinformed about airline fees. While many
consumers may be aware of the
existence of fees, a large number of
consumers do not know the amount of
the fees that will apply to them, given
the complexity of fee structures.
Comments from consumers affirm this
belief, and Google and others
acknowledged this fact in their
comments. Having fee disclosures up
front during the booking process would
mitigate the consumer surprise at the
level of fees to be imposed. The
Department disagrees with the assertion
that consumers not purchasing baggage
fees during ticket purchase (or
otherwise skipping pages that disclose
baggage information) is indicative that
they are not interested in baggage fees.
Consumer advocates and commenters
have noted that baggage is a critical
ancillary service, and the decision not to
purchase baggage services during the
ticket purchase process does not mean
that the consumer will not purchase a
bag later or that the amount of the fee
is not important to the consumer.
Regarding the airline representative’s
statement at the December 8, 2022,
ACPAC meeting that the Department
did not conduct an unfair or deceptive
analysis of the data sharing proposal in
the NPRM, the Department has
determined in this final rule that failure
to disclose baggage and change and
cancellation fees to consumers as
specified in the rule is an unfair and
deceptive practice. The Department has
also determined that the failure for a
carrier to provide critical ancillary fee
information to any entity required to
disclose this information to consumers
that displays or sells the carrier’s flights
directly to consumers to be an unfair
practice. The Department’s analysis
complies with its regulations, which
require an analysis supporting a
conclusion that a practice is unfair or
deceptive to consumers pursuant to 14
CFR 399.75(c). At the ACPAC meeting,
the Department responded to the airline
representative by noting that data
sharing is related to the disclosure of
fees because, without data sharing, the
disclosure of fees would not be possible
for a large segment of consumers. The
Department provides its analysis of how
the failure to share critical ancillary fee
information is an unfair practice in
section D (1)(d).

PO 00000

Frm 00015

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

34633

Finally, the Department disagrees
with the suggestion that it should
pursue enforcement action under its
unfair and deceptive practices authority,
rather than conducting a rulemaking. As
stated by the Department at the
December 8, 2022, ACPAC meeting, the
airline representative’s suggestion that
the Department take enforcement action
instead of conducting rulemaking would
be difficult if the current regulation
permits or does not address the
practices that are of concern. The
Department issues this regulation to
address the inadequacy in the current
regulation.
(2) Other Authorities
In carrying out aviation economic
programs, including issuing this final
rule under 49 U.S.C. 41712, the
Department is required to consider the
factors identified in 49 U.S.C. 40101 as
being in the public interest and
consistent with public convenience and
necessity. Under 49 U.S.C. 40101(a)(4),
the Department is required to consider
the availability of a variety of adequate,
economic, efficient, and low-priced
services without unreasonable
discrimination or unfair or deceptive
practices as being in the public interest.
Under section 40101(a)(9), it is also in
the public interest to prevent unfair,
deceptive, predatory, or anticompetitive
practices in air transportation. The
Department is also required by section
40101(a)(12) to consider as being in the
public interest encouraging, developing,
and maintaining an air transportation
system relying on actual and potential
competition to provide efficiency,
innovation, and low prices.
Except for Southwest Airlines, airline
commenters generally asserted that the
Department’s rulemaking would harm
competition by, in their view, making it
more difficult for consumers to view
travel options. Ultra low-cost carriers
also believed that the rule would
undermine their business model of
unbundling ancillary services from the
cost of airfare. Airlines expressed the
view that the popularity of unbundled
offerings showed that consumers
preferred those models and not that they
were being deceived. Southwest
Airlines stated that the number and
complexity of fees by airlines made
comparison shopping more difficult,
and it commented that it was
appropriate for the Department to
reduce the complexity of disclosures.
Some ticket agents such as USTOA
and metasearch entities such as Google
stated that the existing marketplace
provided transparency and that the rule
would diminish consumer choice and
competition. In contrast, others such as

E:\FR\FM\30APR3.SGM

30APR3

lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES3

34634

Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 84 / Tuesday, April 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations

ASTA commented that ancillary service
fees are not accessible in a timely
manner and that identifying the total
travel cost is complex, confusing, and
needlessly time-consuming for
consumers. Travel Tech noted that,
because ticket agents do not universally
receive information on critical ancillary
service fees from airlines, some ticket
agents are currently unable to display
those fees at any point in the booking
process. Skyscanner commented that it
strongly supports the Department’s goal
of making critical ancillary fees more
transparent for consumers. Some ticket
agents also noted that a lack of
transactability of ancillary fees on ticket
agent websites would disincentivize
consumers from purchasing air travel on
those websites.
Consumers generally stated that the
rule would facilitate price comparison,
encourage competition, and prevent
airlines from using hidden fees to gain
an unfair advantage. Consumer
advocacy groups asserted that market
competition requires transparency and
informed consumers, with consumers
benefiting from the availability of
reliable fee information from multiple
sources. One individual stated that the
rule would reduce options and make
travel less affordable.
After considering the public
comments, the Department has
determined that this rule serves the
public interest as articulated above. This
rule improves the transparency of
airline pricing through the increased
disclosure of fees for critical ancillary
services during the itinerary search
process. As carriers vary on their
policies for such fees and such
information is often not provided during
the purchase process, consumers of air
transportation may have difficulty
understanding the actual and potential
costs of accessing the air transportation
between different carriers. By improving
this transparency, this rule allows for
better understanding of airline ticket
pricing, of which these fees are often a
critical component, thereby encouraging
price competition. The Department
acknowledges concern about screen
clutter and a potential reduction in
travel options being displayed to
consumers; as such, the Department has
adjusted its disclosure requirements
from those proposed in the NPRM to
allow for more flexibility in the manner
of display of information and to reduce
the potential for the harms identified by
the commenters.
To answer the concerns of carriers,
the Department believes that this rule
does not undermine the business model
of unbundled offerings. The rule does
not prohibit such a model, and by

VerDate Sep<11>2014

19:28 Apr 29, 2024

Jkt 262001

improving the disclosure of fees
associated with ancillary services, the
Department believes that the rule helps
to improve the model by making it more
transparent to consumers. We do note
that the unbundled model has
proliferated in the marketplace, but we
do not agree with commenters’ assertion
that this is evidence that the model is
preferred by consumers and not that
they are being deceived by airlines’
current disclosure practices. The
Department has presented its analysis of
how a failure of carriers or tickets agents
to provide the disclosures required in
this final rule represents an unfair or
deceptive practice.
We are also not persuaded by ticket
agents’ concern that a lack of
transactability of ancillary fees would
disincentivize purchases on ticket
agents’ websites. As noted in sections E
(3)(c) and E (7), this final rule does not
require the disclosure or transactability
of family seating fees. The Department
is considering issues related to family
seating in a separate rulemaking.72 This
rule also does not require ticket agents
to make the fees for a first checked bag,
second checked bag, and carry-on bag
transactable on ticket agent websites.
Due to the post purchase price increase
prohibition in 14 CFR 399.88, airlines
are currently prevented from increasing
the baggage fees that apply to a
consumer’s booking after the time of the
consumer’s ticket purchase. We have
seen little evidence that consumers are
choosing to forgo using ticket agent
websites as a direct result of not being
able to purchase baggage fees on those
websites. These circumstances have
predated this rule, and the Department
does not believe that the addition of
new critical ancillary fee disclosures
during the purchase process will change
that behavior.
E. Comments and DOT Responses
(1) Covered Entities
The Department proposed to cover
U.S. air carriers; foreign air carriers;
ticket agents that sell airline tickets,
whether traditional brick-and-mortar
travel agencies, corporate travel agents,
or OTAs; and metasearch sites that
display airline flight search options
directly to consumers. The Department
proposed that GDSs would not be
covered by the proposal as GDSs arrange
for air transportation but do not sell or
display a carrier’s fare to consumers.
This final rule covers U.S. and foreign
air carriers as proposed. It also covers
ticket agents that sell or display airline
tickets, except for corporate travel
72 See https://www.transportation.gov/
regulations/report-on-significant-rulemakings.

PO 00000

Frm 00016

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

agents, which are excluded from
coverage for the reasons explained later
in this document. This rule does not
make a determination on whether
metasearch entities and aggregators that
advertise, but do not sell, airline tickets,
are ticket agents and would thus be
covered by this rule. However, if the
Department were to determine in a
separate rulemaking 73 that metasearch
entities and aggregators are ticket agents
as defined in 49 U.S.C. 40102(a)(45),
then they would be covered by this rule
as well.74 The Department’s response to
comments about which entities should
be covered by this final rule and
explanations for all modifications from
the NPRM are described in the sections
that follow. Discussion of which
operations and online platforms of
covered entities are covered by this final
rule is provided in section E (2).
(a) U.S. and Foreign Air Carriers
Proposal: The Department proposed
fee and policy disclosure of critical
ancillary services by U.S. and foreign
carriers during the booking process
when fare and schedule information is
provided. In addition, the Department
proposed to require that the carriers
provide the fee information for critical
ancillary services to ticket agents that
sell or display the airlines’ fare and
schedule information.
Comments: A4A stated that ‘‘DOT
data does not demonstrate the existence
of any significant problems with airline
ancillary-fee transparency, and therefore
this NPRM as applied to airlines should
be withdrawn.’’ According to A4A, the
regulation of airlines is unnecessary
because airlines already disclose fees for
critical ancillary services. A4A added
that any unfair or deceptive practices
occur on indirect channels (e.g., OTAs,
metasearch sites, ‘‘traditional’’ travel
agencies, and travel management
companies). An individual commenter
stated that the rule appeared to be
focused on problems with disclosures
by large U.S. carriers, suggesting that the
rule should not cover other entities like
foreign carriers and small network
carriers.
73 Air Transportation Consumer Protection
Requirements for Ticket Agents (RIN 2015–AE57),
(abstract explains that this rulemaking would
address whether to codify in regulation a definition
of ‘‘ticket agent’’ and whether to require large ticket
agents to adopt minimum customer service
standards), Fall 2023 Unified Agenda of Regulatory
and Deregulatory Action at https://www.reginfo
.gov/public/do/eAgendaViewRule?pubId=202310&
RIN=2105-AE57.
74 49 U.S.C. 40102(a)(45) defines a ticket agent as
‘‘a person (except an air carrier, a foreign air carrier,
or an employee of an air carrier or foreign air
carrier) that as a principal or agent sells, offers for
sale, negotiates for, or holds itself out as selling,
providing, or arranging for, air transportation.’’

E:\FR\FM\30APR3.SGM

30APR3

Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 84 / Tuesday, April 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations

lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES3

DOT Response: This final rule covers
U.S. and foreign air carriers because the
issue of lack of transparency of airline
ancillary service fees is not limited to
indirect channels as asserted by airline
commenters or limited to large U.S.
carriers as suggested by an individual
commenter. The Department wants to
ensure that consumers know, when fare
and schedule information is provided
during the booking process, the fees
charged for transporting a first and
second checked bag, transporting a
carry-on bag, and canceling or changing
a flight whether they are purchasing the
ticket from an airline or a ticket agent.
Approximately 45% of tickets are sold
by airlines directly to consumers, and
the remainder is sold through ticket
agents,75 so it is important to cover not
only ticket agents but also carriers.
Further, it is important to ensure that
consumers purchasing air transportation
from small carriers or foreign air carriers
that fly to and from the U.S. are
protected from unfair and deceptive
practices equal to those purchasing
tickets from U.S. carriers and ticket
agents. Accordingly, as discussed in
section D, the unfair and deceptive
practices that the Department is
addressing in this final rule relate to
ticket agents and carriers regardless of
the carrier’s size or country affiliation
for flights to, within, and from the U.S.
(b) Ticket Agents That Sell Air
Transportation
Proposal: The Department proposed
to require all ticket agents that sell air
transportation, including corporate
travel agents, to disclose to consumers
the fees and policies for ancillary
services that are critical to a consumer’s
purchasing decision. The Department
solicited comments in the NPRM on
whether it should exclude corporate
travel agents from coverage of the final
rule because the display content for
such agents is typically negotiated by
the business client involved.
Comments: The Department’s
proposal to apply the transparency
requirements regarding critical ancillary
services to ticket agents that sell air
transportation was challenged only as it
relates to corporate travel agents and
small ticket agents. Consumer groups,
including the U.S. PIRG Education
Fund, generally supported covering
ticket agents. An individual commenter
asked the Department to clarify that
OTAs have responsibility for the
disclosure of ancillary fees provided on
their websites because carriers lack
75 ACPAC Meeting Minutes (June 28, 2022), p. 13
at https://www.regulations.gov/document/DOTOST-2018-0190-0073.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

19:28 Apr 29, 2024

Jkt 262001

control over the display of information
on those sites. Some airlines and
organizations, including Spirit Airlines
and A4A, expressed concerns about the
accuracy of disclosures on ticket agent
websites, and Southwest Airlines
supported extending disclosure
requirements to ticket agents. Allied
Tour & Travel, a small ticket agent,
expressed concerns about the burden of
compliance for small tour operators that
include airfare in a travel package.
Regarding corporate travel agents,
multiple ticket agent associations asked
the Department to exclude them from
the final rule’s coverage. These
commenters generally stated that the
Department should exempt corporate
travel agents from the final rule’s
requirements because ancillary fee
disclosures by those agents are the
subject of contractual agreement
between a business client and the travel
agent, with the relevant ancillary
services and fees negotiated as part of
the contract. The Travel Management
Coalition (TMC) testified at the
Department’s March 30, 2023, public
hearing that its customers are frequent
travelers, often use the same routes, and
are highly familiar with ancillary fee
information. In addition, Travel Tech
commented that certain ancillary fees,
like family seating fees, are irrelevant
for corporate clients, and others,
including baggage fees and flight change
fees, are not a significant consideration
in corporate travelers’ purchasing
decisions. TMC agreed that its
customers rarely check bags or travel
with children. Further, ASTA noted that
the corporate client, not the business
traveler, generally pays the cost of
transportation, including fees.
These commenters also cited various
precedents for treating business travel
differently under consumer protection
laws. ASTA and Travel Tech stated that
the exclusion for corporate travel agents
would be consistent with the European
Union’s framework, and TMC testified
that Congress recognized the distinction
between corporate and public travel in
the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018
(2018 FAA Act) by creating an
exemption from certain customer
service requirements if the sale of an
airfare was made pursuant to a
corporate contract.
Travel Tech, ASTA, and TMC
suggested that the Department define
‘‘corporate travel agent’’ for purposes of
a regulatory exclusion as a travel agency
‘‘engaged in the provision of travel
services primarily to business entities
pursuant to a written contract for the
business travel of such business entities’
employees.’’ GBTA instead
recommended that the Department

PO 00000

Frm 00017

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

34635

exempt what it termed ‘‘private’’ and
‘‘consortia/agency fares’’ in the final
rule. It asked that DOT consider private
fares to be ‘‘[d]iscounted or lane (fixed
fares between two cities/airports) fares
negotiated by travel managers that the
airline ‘files’ with [the Airline Tariff
Publishing Company (ATPCO)], to be
made available to the organization’s
agencies of record, as documented in
the airline contract, for their travelers to
book online or offline.’’ GBTA further
suggested that the Department define
‘‘consortia fares/agency fares’’ as
proprietary fares negotiated by mega
agencies and consortia 76 offered to
customers as an alternative to published
fares.
In contrast, American Airlines urged
the Department not to adopt an
exception for corporate travel agents.
The airline’s comment stated that it is
unreasonable and potentially infeasible
to exempt corporate travel agents
because few serve exclusively corporate
travelers for corporate travel and
consumers increasingly book travel that
combines business and personal travel.
DOT Response: The Department
continues to apply the requirements to
disclose critical ancillary service fees
and policies to ticket agents that sell air
transportation; however, the Department
is excluding corporate travel agents
from these requirements. In excluding
corporate travel agents from coverage of
this final rule, the Department is
agreeing with commenters that there is
no need for DOT to apply transparency
rules for corporate travel arrangements
that are contractually entered into by
sophisticated entities.
In this rule, the Department is
adopting the definition of corporate
travel agent as proposed by Travel Tech,
ASTA, and TMC, with some
modifications. This final rule defines
corporate travel agent as a ticket agent
that provides travel services to the
employees of a business entity pursuant
to a written contract with that entity for
the business travel of its employees. The
‘‘ticket agent’’ need not be a single travel
agent to meet the definition in this final
rule, but could instead be a consortium
of travel agents, as suggested in GBTA’s
comment.
While some commenters
recommended that DOT exclude
corporate travel agents if they are
primarily engaged in such activity, the
76 A travel consortium is a collection of
independent travel agencies that combine resources
to increase their visibility, revenue, and marketing
opportunities. The independent travel agencies that
are part of a consortia are known as ‘‘megaagencies’’ and can offer their customers a consortia
rate, which is a preferred negotiated or partnership
rate.

E:\FR\FM\30APR3.SGM

30APR3

lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES3

34636

Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 84 / Tuesday, April 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations

Department instead adopts a
transaction-specific approach and is
applying this rule to ticket agents that
are not acting as corporate travel agents
in the specific transaction at issue.
Under the final rule, if a ticket agent
acts entirely as a corporate travel agent
with respect to a transaction or a
corporate flight booking portal, for
example, then the rule’s ancillary fee
disclosure requirements would not
apply for that transaction or on that
booking portal. Because ticket agents
may act as a corporate travel agent with
respect to certain clients and also have
booking systems available to the general
public, this rule does not exclude a
ticket agent that sells air transportation
from the requirement to display fees or
policies for critical ancillary services
due to that agent’s ‘‘primary’’ activity as
a corporate travel agent. This approach
ensures information about critical
ancillary services are not improperly
excluded from leisure travelers who are
not covered by a contractual agreement.
A transaction-specific approach
prevents consumer confusion from the
presence of inconsistent information
offered on different platforms.
This transaction-specific approach
also addresses the concerns raised by
American Airlines that few travel agents
serve exclusively business clients.
Those travel agents that provide airfare
sales exclusively to business entities
under a written contract for the business
travel of the business entities’
employees would be fully excluded
from the rule’s requirements. Those
travel agents engaged in a mix of
business and non-business sales would
need to provide the ancillary fee
disclosures required by this final rule to
any traveler selecting flights who is not
engaged in business travel covered by a
written contract.
As for section 427 of 2018 FAA Act,
which was cited by TMC in support of
its request for an exclusion, it
demonstrates that exclusion from
consumer protection requirements for
sales made pursuant to corporate
contracts is not unusual. Section 427
provides protection from enforcement
for noncompliance of any customer
service standard or requirement in a
DOT final rule that requires ticket
agents to adopt customer service
standards applicable to carriers to the
extent ‘‘the sale of air transportation is
made . . . pursuant to a specific
corporate or government fare
management contract.’’ While the
Department is addressing the issue of
whether to require ticket agents to adopt
minimum customer service standards
applicable to carriers in another

VerDate Sep<11>2014

19:28 Apr 29, 2024

Jkt 262001

rulemaking,77 the Department agrees
with TMC that section 427 differentiates
between corporate and public travel.
Regarding Allied Tour & Travel’s
comment, the Department has
determined that the disclosures required
by this rule should apply to ticket
agents, regardless of size. Creating
different standards based on the ticket
agent’s size would add to consumer
confusion, as noted earlier, due to the
presence of inconsistent information on
different platforms. In consideration of
the potential for varying degrees of
burden, however, this final rule
provides those ticket agents that meet
the SBA definition of a small entity with
additional time to comply with the
rule’s requirements beyond the time
permitted for other ticket agents, in
recognition that it may take additional
time for small ticket agents to comply
with new disclosures (discussed in
section F).
(c) Metasearch Sites
Proposal: The Department proposed
to require entities that do not sell airline
tickets but display airline flight search
options directly to consumers (i.e.,
metasearch sites) to display critical
ancillary service fees when fare and
schedule information is provided. The
Department proposal treated metasearch
entities as ticket agents.
Comments: Multiple metasearch
entities, CCIA, and Travel Tech
expressed their view that metasearch
entities do not meet the statutory
definition of ‘‘ticket agent,’’ and should
not be subject to the rule because they
do not sell air transportation. Booking
Holdings also noted that many parts of
the proposed rule, such as the
transactability of family seating fees,
were inapplicable to metasearch sites as
they do not sell tickets. CCIA also raised
privacy and security concerns about the
possibility that such entities would
need to handle personal or payment
information, which they do not handle
today. Google added that it does not
currently collect passenger information
and expressed concern that it would
need to do so under the proposed rule
to verify passenger identities.
Metasearch entities, as well as CCIA
and Travel Tech, also overwhelmingly
disagreed with the NPRM’s proposal
that metasearch entities be covered
under the rule. CCIA, for example,
stated in written comments and at
public meetings that metasearch entities
should be excluded from the rule’s
77 See Air Transportation Consumer Protection
Requirements for Ticket Agents (RIN 2015–AE57) at
https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/eAgendaView
Rule?pubId=202310&RIN=2105-AE57.

PO 00000

Frm 00018

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

disclosure requirements because they do
not have access to fee information and
the rule’s disclosure requirements
would clutter and negatively impact
displays, on which aggregators and
metasearch entities compete. Booking
Holdings added that a prescriptive
approach to metasearch displays will
reduce the number of routes offered as
part of the initial itinerary search results
and have a detrimental effect on
competition. It stated that metasearch
entities should be afforded flexibility in
fee disclosures to ensure they provide
innovative and interactive displays for
consumers to quickly be able to
understand available travel options.
From the airline perspective,
Southwest Airlines expressed support
for applying fee disclosure requirements
to metasearch entities, noting that they
are an important source of information
and that the disclosure rules should
apply to them to mitigate consumer
confusion on fees. The airline added
that section 427 of the 2018 FAA Act
directed the Department to apply
consistent consumer protection
requirements to all large ticket agents to
the extent feasible.
DOT Response: The Department
recognizes the important role
metasearch entities play in providing
information to consumers and
facilitating comparison shopping. As
stated previously, the Department is
undertaking this rulemaking pursuant to
its authority to prohibit carriers and
ticket agents from engaging in unfair or
deceptive practices. Under 49 U.S.C.
40102(a)(45), a ticket agent is ‘‘a person
(except an air carrier, a foreign air
carrier, or an employee of an air carrier
or foreign air carrier) that as a principal
or agent sells, offers for sale, negotiates
for, or holds itself out as selling,
providing, or arranging for, air
transportation.’’ Also as noted by
Southwest Airlines in its comment,
section 427 of the 2018 FAA Act 78 calls
for a consistent level of consumer
protection regardless of where
consumers purchase airfares and related
air transportation services. The Act uses
section 40102(a)(45)’s existing
definition of ‘‘ticket agent’’ and clarifies
that the term includes ‘‘a person who
acts as an intermediary involved in the
sale of air transportation directly or
indirectly to consumers, including by
operating an electronic airline
information system, if the person—(i)
holds the person out as a source of
information about, or reservations for,
the air transportation industry; and (ii)
receives compensation in any way
related to the sale of air transportation.’’
78 Public

E:\FR\FM\30APR3.SGM

Law 115–254 (Oct. 5, 2018).

30APR3

lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES3

Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 84 / Tuesday, April 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
Section 427 directs the Department to
use this definition when issuing its final
rule requiring ticket agents to adopt
customer service standards.79 The
Department is deferring to that
rulemaking its determination of whether
metasearch sites that do not sell airline
tickets but display airline flight search
options directly to consumers are ticket
agents that must disclose ancillary fee
information required.
During the pendency of that separate
rulemaking, although the Department’s
Office of Aviation Consumer Protection
(OACP) has enforced the Department’s
aviation consumer protection rules
against metasearch entities in the past
based on its view that metasearch
entities are ticket agents,80 OACP will
not enforce the disclosure requirements
in this rulemaking against metasearch
entities. This enforcement position
notwithstanding, the Department
encourages airlines and metasearch sites
to enter into voluntary agreements to
share critical ancillary fee information
and for metasearch entities to
voluntarily disclose this information to
consumers with the fare and schedule
information while further regulatory
action is under consideration. The
Department also notes that the Federal
Trade Commission has concurrent
jurisdiction over ticket agents and has
the authority to both determine whether
metasearch entities are ticket agents and
take action against ticket agents as well
as entities that are not ticket agents
irrespective of DOT action.
To ensure consumers have access to
critical ancillary service fee information
upfront, while the Department considers
the status of metasearch entities in a
separate rulemaking, the Department is
requiring that airlines and ticket agents
that sell air transportation disclose
critical ancillary service fees on the first
page of their website or other online
platforms to which consumers are
directed after searching for flight
options on a metasearch site unless the
consumer was already provided
accurate fee information on the
metasearch site. In many cases, airlines
and ticket agents that provide fare,
schedule, and availability information
to metasearch entities permit the
metasearch entity to electronically
direct consumers to a page on the airline
or ticket agent’s website that does not
require the consumer to initiate a new
itinerary search. Because consumers
directed to an airline’s or ticket agent’s
79 See Air Transportation Consumer Protection
Requirements for Ticket Agents (RIN 2015–AE57) at
https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/eAgenda
ViewRule?pubId=202310&RIN=2105-AE57.
80 See, e.g., DOT Order 2022–2–6 (FlightHub
Group, Inc., et al.) (Feb. 9, 2022).

VerDate Sep<11>2014

19:28 Apr 29, 2024

Jkt 262001

website or other online platform from a
separate metasearch site may not have
an opportunity to view the critical
ancillary service fees that apply to them,
this rule requires that airlines and ticket
agents display the required critical
ancillary service fee information on the
landing page on the airline or ticket
agent’s online platform to which
consumers are directed after using a
metasearch site. The rule permits an
exception in situations where the
consumer was provided accurate critical
ancillary service fee information on the
referring entity’s website.
The Department considers it to be an
unfair and deceptive practice for a
carrier or ticket agent that sells air
transportation to fail to make critical
ancillary fee disclosures at the first page
of its website or other online platform
to which a consumer is directed after
searching for flights on a metasearch site
where that information is not accurately
provided. As discussed in section D (1),
consumers are substantially harmed if
critical ancillary fee information is not
provided to them early in the search
process, as ancillary fees such as
baggage, change, and cancellation fees
are critical to consumers’ purchasing
decisions and may make up a significant
portion of the total cost of travel. The
harm is not reasonably avoidable
because consumers will likely not be
able to determine the fee for critical
ancillary services even if a consumer
expends time and effort by leaving the
booking system to try to determine the
fees that apply to the itinerary.
Typically, carriers provide change and
cancellation fees as a range when
viewed outside of the booking process.
Consumer advocates have also shared
with the Department that consumers
have difficulty determining the fee for
transporting a carry-on bag, a first
checked bag, and second checked bag
because baggage fee structures are often
complex and require charts and
calculators to figure out the fees. The
lack of fee information is not
outweighed by countervailing benefits
to competition or consumers. In fact, the
lack of information hinders consumers
from being able to understand the true
cost of their travel and harms
competition, rather than benefiting it.
The practice is also deceptive because a
reasonable consumer would be misled
to believing the cost of the travel is
lower than what the true cost is if the
fees for critical ancillary services are
excluded. The disclosure of the fees is
material because the fees could affect
the consumer’s decision on whether to
purchase an airline ticket and if so,
which airline to select.

PO 00000

Frm 00019

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

34637

If metasearch entities are ultimately
deemed to be ticket agents subject to
this rule, the Department believes that
concerns about screen clutter and
impacts on innovation have been
adequately addressed by the changes the
Department has made to the final rule
after considering public comments. As
noted in this preamble, the final rule
provides increased flexibility on method
of display of critical ancillary fees, and
it does not require the disclosure or
transactability of family seating fees.
Regarding concerns about privacy and
security of consumer data by metasearch
entities, while fee disclosures must be
passenger-specific if the consumer
affirmatively provides information
regarding their status (e.g., frequent flyer
status, military status, credit card holder
status), such consumer-supplied
information is not required to be
validated before fees are displayed.
Entities covered by this rule are
required to disclose passenger-specific
fee information based on the status that
a consumer purports to have when
conducting an itinerary search,
regardless of whether the consumer
holds such status. The rule does not
require entities to collect passenger
name, frequent flyer number, or credit
card information, and does not
implicate the privacy or security
concerns raised by metasearch entities.
See discussion on passenger-specific
information in section E (5).
(2) Covered Operations
Proposal: The Department proposed
to require fee and policy disclosures of
critical ancillary services by airlines and
ticket agents on websites marketed to
U.S. consumers where air transportation
is advertised or sold. On whether a
website is ‘‘marketed to U.S.
consumers,’’ the Department noted in
the NPRM that the determination would
be based on a variety of factors—for
example, whether the website is in
English, whether the seller of air
transportation displays prices in U.S.
dollars, or whether the seller has an
option on its website that differentiates
sites or pages designed for the United
States. In addition to the website
disclosures, the Department proposed
similar disclosures of critical ancillary
services by U.S. and foreign carriers for
tickets purchased by telephone or inperson for flights to, within, or from the
United States. On fee information
distribution, the Department proposed
to require that airlines provide fee and
policy information about critical
ancillary services to ticket agents that
sell or display airlines’ fare or schedule
information for air transportation to,
from, or within the United States.

E:\FR\FM\30APR3.SGM

30APR3

lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES3

34638

Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 84 / Tuesday, April 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations

Comments: Air Canada commented
that the scope of the rule was broad, and
that covering websites marketed to U.S.
consumers could result in small ticket
agents in foreign jurisdictions leaving
the U.S. market because they cannot
afford the upfront costs. The airline also
expressed concern regarding possible
conflicts with foreign consumer
protection laws such as those in the
European Union.
Among ticket agent and metasearch
stakeholders, Travel Tech and
Skyscanner expressed agreement with
the Department that the rule should
apply only to those websites designed
for use by U.S. consumers. Skyscanner
also suggested that the rule’s definition
of a ‘‘consumer’’ should be limited to
consumers physically located in the
United States when searching for or
purchasing tickets. Similar to Air
Canada, Skyscanner argued that
covering consumers not physically in
the United States risks legal conflict
with consumer protection regulations in
other countries.
Booking Holdings said that the
proposed disclosures can be required
only when a passenger searches for air
transportation and added that air
transportation as defined by statute does
not apply to flights wholly between two
foreign points which it interprets as
meaning that passengers in the United
States who search for flights between
two foreign points are not entitled to
receive the disclosures set forth in this
rule. Skyscanner called for clarification
on whether the rule would apply to
foreign carriers serving non-U.S. points
on flights carrying a U.S. carrier code,
expressing the view that foreign carrier
flights between non-U.S. points should
not be subject to this rule when not
carrying a U.S. carrier code, even if the
flight can be booked on a website
marketed to U.S. consumers.
DOT Response: After carefully
considering the public comments, the
Department has decided to require fee
and policy disclosures of critical
ancillary services by airlines and ticket
agents if they market to consumers in
the United States. Under these
circumstances, the final rule requires
airlines and ticket agents to disclose the
fees for critical ancillary services on
airlines’ or ticket agents’ websites and
other online platforms such as mobile
applications (apps). It also requires
airlines and ticket agents to disclose
critical ancillary fees to consumers
during an in-person or telephone
discussion about an airline’s fare and
schedule if they market to U.S.
consumers. The Department has used
the phrase ‘‘marketed to U.S.
consumers’’ and similar terminology in

VerDate Sep<11>2014

19:28 Apr 29, 2024

Jkt 262001

other aviation consumer protection and
civil rights regulations applicable to
websites.81
In one of these rulemakings, the
Department explained that the
characteristics of a ‘‘website that
markets air transportation to the general
public inside the United States
includes, but is not limited to, a site
that: (1) contains an option to view
content in English, (2) advertises or sells
flights operating to, from, or within the
United States, and (3) displays fares in
U.S. dollars.’’ 82 The Department further
explained ‘‘that non-English (e.g.,
Spanish) websites targeting a U.S.
market segment would also be covered;
whereas websites that block sales to
customers with U.S. addresses or
telephone numbers, even if in English,
would not.’’ 83 Similarly, in this
rulemaking, the Department stated that
it would consider a variety of factors to
determine whether a website is
marketed to U.S. consumers, including
whether the website is in English,
whether the seller of air transportation
displays prices in U.S. dollars, or
whether the seller has an option on its
website that differentiates sites or pages
designed for the United States.84 This
final rule applies the same factors in
determining whether tickets are
marketed to U.S. consumers in-person
and by phone. This final rule’s
applicability to online and offline
platforms marketed to U.S. consumers is
consistent with the Department’s
longstanding position.
We have also considered the
comments on the scope of air
transportation for tickets that include
flight segments between two foreign
points. Congress authorized the
Department to prevent unfair or
deceptive practices or unfair methods of
competition in air transportation,85
which includes interstate air
transportation 86 and foreign air
81 See, e.g., 14 CFR 259.6, 259.7, and 382.43(c),
and existing regulation 14 CFR 399.85(d).
82 78 FR 67882, 67886 (Nov. 12, 2013).
83 Id.
84 87 FR 63718, 63725 (Oct. 20, 2022).
85 49 U.S.C. 40102(a)(5) defines ‘‘air
transportation’’ as foreign air transportation,
interstate air transportation, or the transportation of
mail by aircraft.
86 49 U.S.C. 40102(a)(25) defines ‘‘interstate
transportation’’ as the transportation of passengers
or property by aircraft as a common carrier for
compensation, or the transportation of mail by
aircraft between a place in a State, territory, or
possession of the United States and (i) a place in
the District of Columbia or another State, territory,
or possession of the United States; (ii) Hawaii and
another place in Hawaii through the airspace over
a place outside Hawaii; (iii) the District of Columbia
and another place in the District of Columbia; or
(iv) a territory or possession of the United States
and another place in the same territory or

PO 00000

Frm 00020

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

transportation.87 The phrase ‘‘when any
part of the transportation is by aircraft’’
is used in the definition of foreign air
transportation, which evidences an
understanding that foreign air
transportation is not limited to a single
flight segment between the United
States and a foreign country, but that it
can be composed of ‘‘parts,’’ including
trips with stopover points and/or flights
between two foreign points, provided
that the passenger’s overall journey is
between a place in the United States
and a place outside the United States.
However, the Department agrees with
commenters that flights between two
foreign points with no connection to the
United States are not foreign air
transportation, and the requirements in
this rule do not apply to such flights.
The Department has determined that
‘‘foreign air transportation’’ includes
journeys to or from the United States
with brief and incidental stopover(s) at
a foreign point without breaking the
journey.
For purposes of this final rule, we
define a break in journey to mean a
deliberate interruption by a passenger of
a journey between a point in the United
States and a point in a foreign country
where there is a stopover at a foreign
point scheduled. The Department
determines whether a stopover is a
deliberate interruption depending on
various factors such as whether the
segment between two foreign points and
the segment between a foreign point and
the United States were purchased in a
single transaction and as a single ticket/
itinerary, whether the segment between
two foreign points is operated or
marketed by a carrier that has no
codeshare or interline agreement with
the carrier operating or marketing the
segment to or from the United States,
and whether the stopover at a foreign
point involves the passenger picking up
checked baggage, leaving the airport,
and continuing the next segment after a
substantial amount of time. For
example, a passenger that is traveling on
a single ticket that originates or
terminates in the United States but also
includes travel between two foreign
points on a flight marketed with a U.S.
carrier code would be considered
traveling in foreign air transportation.
We believe this approach fully
possession; and when any part of the transportation
is by aircraft.
87 49 U.S.C. 40102(a)(23) defines ‘‘foreign air
transportation’’ as the transportation of passengers
or property by aircraft as a common carrier for
compensation, or the transportation of mail by
aircraft, between a place in the United States and
a place outside of the United States when any part
of the transportation is by aircraft.

E:\FR\FM\30APR3.SGM

30APR3

Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 84 / Tuesday, April 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations

lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES3

addresses the extraterritoriality
concerns raised by some commenters.
Regarding comments suggesting that
the Department’s requirements apply
only to consumers residing in the
United States, we disagree. The
Department’s authority to prevent unfair
or deceptive practices or unfair methods
of competition in air transportation is
not limited to aviation consumers who
are residents of the United States. The
Department acknowledges Air Canada
and Skyscanner’s concern about the
potential for conflict with international
requirements. However, there has not
been evidence provided that covering
consumers not physically in the United
States risks legal conflict with consumer
protection regulations in other countries
as the commenters assert. Further,
although the protection of this rule is
not limited to consumers who reside in
the United States, this rule only applies
to airlines and ticket agents if they
market to consumers in the United
States.
In response to Air Canada’s concern
that small ticket agents in foreign
jurisdictions may leave the U.S. market,
the Department is of the view that
entities that participate in the U.S.
market by marketing to U.S. consumers
must comply with the same consumer
protection requirements to ensure
consumers know the fees charged for
critical ancillary services upfront
regardless of where consumers purchase
air fares and related transportation
services. This helps to mitigate the
potential for surprise fees that can add
up and quickly overcome what may, at
first, look like a cheap ticket.
(3) Critical Ancillary Services
Proposal: The Department proposed
to require carriers and ticket agents
disclose upfront fee and policy
information for all ancillary services
critical to a consumer’s air
transportation purchasing decisions.
The Department proposed to treat the
following ancillary services as critical:
transporting a first checked, second
checked, and/or carry-on baggage,
changing or canceling a reservation, and
obtaining adjacent seating when
traveling with a young child (i.e., family
seating), but it did not propose a
definition of ‘‘critical ancillary service.’’
The Department solicited comment on
whether its proposed list of critical
ancillary fees should be expanded or
limited, how to address future adoption
by airlines of additional ancillary
service fees, and how to ensure their
disclosure to the extent that they are of
critical importance to consumers.
General Comments: Several airlines
and associations questioned the

VerDate Sep<11>2014

19:28 Apr 29, 2024

Jkt 262001

Department’s basis for selecting those
ancillary fees classified as ‘‘critical’’ in
the NPRM and not others. For example,
United Airlines stated that the list of
ancillary fees that the Department
proposed to consider critical was
‘‘arbitrary and perplexing’’ and added
that it was unclear why DOT had
proposed to treat the selected ancillary
service fees as critical and not others,
such as ‘‘advanced seat assignments,
preferential seating, charges for
boarding passes, and charges for basic
onboard refreshments like water, coffee,
and sodas.’’ Similarly, Air Canada listed
‘‘advanced seat selection, access to inflight entertainment, in-flight meals, and
lounge access’’ as other fees that could
be disclosed and stated that ‘‘to meet the
goal of allowing consumers to have full
cost information . . . all ancillary fees
of every kind would have to be included
on the first page,’’ which it
acknowledged would be ‘‘impossible.’’
Finally, IATA asked the Department ‘‘to
set forth in greater detail [its]
determination that these [proposed]
optional services are indeed ‘critical.’ ’’
A few airline commenters also stated
that the selection of fees would
disadvantage ultra-low-cost carriers
(ULCCs). For example, United Airlines
stated, ‘‘[w]hether intentional or not, the
Department’s choice of ‘critical’
ancillary fees seems to arbitrarily favor
carriers who bundle those particular
services and disfavors other airlines,
particularly [ULCCs],’’ adding that the
‘‘rulemaking ultimately could cause a
global increase in ticket prices by
incentivizing all carriers to include
those services in the cost of a ticket even
though most passengers do not use the
services.’’ Frontier Airlines also
expressed a similar view at the
Department’s March 30, 2023, public
hearing and in its written comments.
Frontier Airlines added that, in its view,
unbundling is more transparent,
economically efficient, and lower cost
for consumers, who do not need to pay
for ancillary services they will not use.
A comment from FlyersRights and a
joint comment from multiple groups
representing consumers recommended
that, instead of requiring separate
disclosure of ancillary fees, the
Department require ticket sellers to
allow consumers to select their desired
ancillary services and then provide a
single total fare inclusive of the selected
ancillary services. The joint comment
stated that its proposal would allow
consumers to ‘‘compare search results
more immediately and accurately,’’
avoiding clutter and unnecessary
calculations by consumers. Consumer
groups also suggested that the
Department require disclosure of

PO 00000

Frm 00021

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

34639

ancillary service fees that may in the
future become more prevalent or may be
of particular importance to consumers.
Comments regarding each of the
ancillary services that the Department
proposed to consider critical to
consumers’ purchasing decisions and
comments on additional ancillary
services are discussed in sections E
(3)(a) through E (3)(d).
DOT Response: The Department has
determined that it is appropriate to
provide a definition of ‘‘critical
ancillary service’’ in this final rule. This
final rule defines critical ancillary
service to mean ‘‘any ancillary service
that is critical to consumers’ purchasing
decisions’’ and identifies transporting
the first checked bag, second checked
bag, and carry-on bag and changing and
cancelling a reservation as critical
ancillary services. In addition, the
Department addresses the potential for
future adoption by airlines of additional
ancillary service fees that may be
critical to consumers’ purchasing
decisions by including in the definition
of critical ancillary service ‘‘any other
services determined, after notice and
opportunity to comment, to be critical
by the Secretary.’’
Regarding the impact of this rule on
ULCCs, the Department does not agree
with some commenters’ view that this
rule will unfairly disadvantage ULCCs.
Rather than placing ULCCs at a
competitive disadvantage, the
Department expects that this rule will
promote competition by making fees for
critical ancillary services more
transparent for consumers. This will
allow consumers to evaluate whether to
purchase air transportation on a given
carrier, including a ULCC, with the
benefit of more complete up-front
pricing information. Given the benefits
of the ‘‘unbundled’’ ULCC model that
Frontier and others touted in their
comments, improved transparency
should not cause ULCCs to
fundamentally alter such a business
model (i.e., changing from an
unbundled model to a bundled model).
Moreover, nothing in this final rule
requires them to do so.
The Department is not adopting in
this final rule the recommendation of
some consumer organizations to require
airlines and ticket agents to display a
total fare that is inclusive of all ancillary
fees selected by the consumer.
Currently, some airlines apply different
baggage fees depending on when and
where the ancillary service is purchased
(e.g., in advance, at the airport, etc.),
which may make display of a single
fare, inclusive of baggage fees,
impracticable. In addition, requiring a
ticket agent to display a total ‘‘fare’’ that

E:\FR\FM\30APR3.SGM

30APR3

34640

Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 84 / Tuesday, April 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations

includes baggage that cannot be
purchased with the ticket on its site
could result in consumer confusion
about the cost of the fare purchased and
what it includes.88 Further, change and
cancellation fees, which also may vary
based on the circumstances of the
change or cancellation for any given
ticket, may be less useful incorporated
into the fare presented because the
consumer is unlikely to know at the
time of ticket purchase whether they
will change or cancel their ticket, and
the applicability of certain fees may be
mutually exclusive (e.g., a fee to cancel
a ticket 30 days in advance and a fee to
cancel a ticket on the day of travel
cannot both be imposed).

lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES3

(a) Transporting First Checked Bag,
Second Checked Bag, and Carry-On Bag
Proposal: The Department proposed
to treat fees for a first checked, second
checked, and a carry-on bag as critical
ancillary fees that airlines and ticket
agents must disclose to consumers with
fare and schedule information. This
proposal was intended to replace the
existing requirement for carriers and
ticket agents to provide a generic notice
during the booking process that baggage
fees may apply and where the consumer
can find these fees on the carrier’s
website.
In proposing to treat fees for a first
checked bag, second checked bag, and
carry-on bag as critical, the Department
noted that consumer commenters to the
Department’s 2014 NPRM most
commonly identified these baggage fees
as critical, and such fees continue to
serve as a leading source of consumer
complaints regarding ancillary fees to
the Department.89 The Department
further explained that the cost of
baggage fees is often material to
consumers and likely to affect their
purchasing decisions. In addition, the
Department noted that, although the
2011 final rule improved consumer
access to baggage fee information by
requiring airlines and ticket agents to
display the fees for first checked, second
checked, and carry-on bags on their
websites, airlines and ticket agents often
disclose those fees in static form in
charts that are confusing to consumers
and may be provided outside of the
booking flow. The Department also
noted that consumers continue to report
88 This final rule does not require baggage fees to
be transactable by ticket agents for the reasons
discussed in section E (7).
89 See Number of Consumer Complaints Received
by the U.S. Department of Transportation Office of
Aviation Consumer Protection Regarding Ancillary
Fees, 2019–May 31, 2023, available in docket at
https://www.regulations.gov/docket/DOT-OST2022-0109.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

19:28 Apr 29, 2024

Jkt 262001

confusion regarding the total cost of
baggage fees in connection with
complex itineraries, interline tickets,
and codeshare flights.
Comments: Industry commenters
were split on whether the fees for first
checked bag, second checked bag, and
carry-on bag are critical to consumer’s
purchasing decisions. Airlines and
airline associations generally took the
position that such fees were not critical.
Some ticket agents agreed with the
Department’s preliminary conclusion
that fees for first checked bag second
checked bag, and carry-on bag are
critical; other ticket agents disagreed.
Industry commenters who stated that
fees for first checked bag, second
checked bag, and carry-on bag are not
critical to consumers’ purchasing
decisions asserted that such fees are
already available under existing
industry practices and regulatory
requirements and that consumers are
aware of the existence of baggage fees.
For example, Air Canada stated that
‘‘baggage fee information is already
transparent and fully disclosed on a
carrier’s website where passengers have
easy access to relevant information,’’
citing to its own general baggage fee
disclosures. Frontier Airlines noted that
it discloses ancillary fee information to
consumers during the booking process
before purchase. Similarly, American
Airlines commented that it currently
provides itinerary- or passenger-specific
baggage fees before purchase, and IATA
stated at the Department’s March 30,
2023, public hearing that one large
international carrier found that 98
percent of the visits to that airline’s
websites exposed passengers to the
pages with fees on baggage, seat
selection, and refund policies, while the
remaining two percent of consumers did
not go far enough in the booking flow
to see these fees. At that hearing, A4A
added that many consumers are
members of loyalty programs and are
already aware of the ancillary structures
of their preferred carriers. Further, Air
Canada commented that the decrease in
checked baggage and increase in carryon baggage since the addition of
checked baggage fees—documented in a
GAO study that the Department cited in
the NPRM—‘‘supports a logical
conclusion that consumers are evidently
aware of checked-baggage fees.’’ Air
Canada also stated, however, that
‘‘[c]alculation of baggage fees is a
complex process and the display of this
information on the first page where fares
are shown cannot be calculated in
certain instances until the carriers are
chosen, such as on a multi-carrier
itinerary.’’ IATA raised similar concerns

PO 00000

Frm 00022

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

about the complexity of calculating
these fees.
These commenters added that, in
their view, the number of complaints
related to baggage fee disclosures and
the number of passengers who travel
without baggage demonstrate that such
fees are not critical. For example,
Frontier Airlines asserted that the
number of baggage fee complaints
received by the Department was ‘‘de
minimis.’’ Similarly, IATA testified at
the Department’s March 30, 2023,
public hearing that in 2022, 3.64 percent
of airline complaints related to baggage,
with a vast majority pertaining to
baggage fee refunds, and Booking
Holdings reported that approximately
0.1 percent of the U.S. complaints
received by Priceline in 2022 related to
baggage fees. In addition, A4A testified
at the Department’s March 30, 2023,
hearing that the lack of civil penalties
against U.S. airlines demonstrated the
absence of a market failure requiring
additional regulation. Frontier Airlines
further stated in its hearing testimony
and in written comments that over 40
percent of Frontier’s passengers do not
pay any seating and baggage fees, fewer
than 30 percent purchase a first checked
bag, fewer than five percent purchase a
second checked bag, and fewer than 20
percent purchase a carry-on bag.
Further, American Airlines commented
that ‘‘the majority of travelers on
American Airlines do not check any
luggage, and less than a quarter of
travelers on American [Airlines]
actually have to pay for any checked
bags.’’
A lack of use by consumers of
Google’s baggage filter tool was also
cited by A4A in its testimony at the
Department’s March 30, 2023, hearing
as evidence that baggage fees are not
critical to consumers’ purchasing
decisions. Google had commented that
only 1.3 percent of the consumers
conducting a search on Google Flights
use a feature that enables consumers to
integrate bag fees into the displayed
costs for flights. Google provided this
data to support its suggestion that the
Department ‘‘consider deferring the
disclosure [of ancillary service fees]
until after a specific itinerary has been
selected.’’ Google did not assert that
transporting baggage is not a critical
ancillary service. Further, in a
supplemental response, Google
presented the results of a 2018 survey it
conducted of U.S. consumers which
showed that 54% of people decide
about baggage for travel prior to ticket
purchase.
Similarly, other industry commenters
who agreed with the Department’s
preliminary conclusion that fees for first

E:\FR\FM\30APR3.SGM

30APR3

lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES3

Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 84 / Tuesday, April 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
checked, second checked, and carry-on
baggage are critical to consumers’
purchasing decisions generally stated
that baggage was the most common type
of ancillary service used by consumers.
For example, Travel Tech stated that
‘‘baggage fees are the most important
ancillary fees’’ for most passengers
because ‘‘[a]lmost all airline passengers
travel with some amount of baggage,
whether carry-on or checked, and
baggage fees often constitute a practical
limit on what consumers can carry with
them on trips or what they can bring
back from a destination.’’ Though it
agreed that baggage fees are important to
consumers, Travel Tech testified at the
Department’s March 30, 2023, public
hearing that, based on a survey it
conducted, 90 percent of U.S. adults are
aware of the possibility of paying
additional fees for optional services
beyond the cost of their airline ticket.
But Travel Tech acknowledged that the
study did not ask whether consumers
were aware of the amount of such fees.
Also supporting the importance of
baggage fees, Skyscanner reported that
its internal user research demonstrated
that ‘‘many users are much more
concerned about baggage allowances
and fees than any single other type of
ancillary fee,’’ with 84 percent of
surveyed users stating it was important
to know whether a ticket price includes
checked baggage. Similarly, Google
reported that in a survey it conducted of
U.S. consumers in 2018, 71 percent
planned to check one bag, six percent
planned to check more than one bag,
and 21 percent did not plan to check
any baggage.
Groups representing consumers and
some individual consumers also
supported the Department’s proposal to
treat fees for a first checked bag, second
checked bag, and carry-on bag as critical
and to require improved disclosures of
those fees. For example, at the
Department’s March 30, 2023, hearing,
an American Economic Liberties Project
(AELP) representative stated that at the
nonprofit organizations where he
worked including AELP, he heard from
many air travelers who were unaware of
fees charged by the ULCCs, including
fees for carry-on baggage. This
representative further testified that
while awareness of checked bag fees has
risen, carry-on baggage fees
continuously confound travelers and
that both consumer organizations where
he recently worked receive many
complaints from consumers about carryon and checked baggage fees. This
representative cited one instance in
which a passenger on Spirit Airlines
reported that he had to leave his carry-

VerDate Sep<11>2014

19:28 Apr 29, 2024

Jkt 262001

on bag in his car at the airport because
he did not have enough money for the
carry-on baggage fee and assumed that
only checked bags incurred fees. The
Department notes that in response,
Spirit Airlines commented that AELP
did not provide a date for this incident
and stated that it did not appear to be
consistent with current consumer
knowledge about unbundled fares. The
AELP representative added that many
travelers fly less than once a year and
do not understand the intricacies of
flying and are confused by ancillary
fees. In addition, FlyersRights testified
that improved disclosure of the
ancillary fees proposed in the NPRM
would decrease consumer confusion
and allow airlines to compete based on
the total cost of a ticket.
Similarly, most individual consumers
who commented on this aspect of the
proposal requested improved baggage
fee disclosures for reasons including
that, in their view, it is rare for
consumers to travel with no bags at all,
baggage fees can significantly increase
the total cost of air travel, and improved
disclosures would enable comparison
shopping. For example, one consumer
expressed being surprised with fees for
checked baggage and stated that
requiring disclosure of baggage fees
when airlines and ticket agents first
provide itinerary search results ‘‘would
be immensely helpful in comparing
prices via airfare website searches’’ and
cited his experience purchasing a flight
on a ticket agent’s website, only to
discover after purchase that undisclosed
baggage fees made the overall cost of
travel higher than on another airline
that the consumer had passed over
during the search process.
Finally, AARP generally supported
the Department’s baggage fee disclosure
proposal but also asked DOT to prohibit
first checked bag fees entirely, and
members of the Commissioned Officers
Association of the U.S. Public Health
Service (USPHS) asked DOT to
encourage airlines to waive baggage fees
for all members of the uniformed
service, including the USPHS.
DOT Response: The Department has
determined that fees for a first checked,
second checked, and carry-on bag are
critical to a consumer’s purchasing
decision. The Department disagrees
with industry commenters’ assertion
that the first checked bag, second
checked bag, and carry-on bag are not
critical, and that their disclosure is
unnecessary. Consumers have voiced
concerns that the fees for these bags can
significantly increase the total price of
the airfare beyond what was offered at
the time of itinerary search. While
estimates of the percentage of

PO 00000

Frm 00023

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

34641

consumers who travel with a first
checked bag, second checked bag, or
carry-on bag vary among commenters,
most comments support the conclusion
that many consumers travel with a first
checked, second checked, and/or carryon bag. Statements by Travel Tech and
others that most consumers travel with
at least one type of baggage are
supported by Google’s comment that its
survey reflects that 71 percent of U.S.
consumers plan to check a bag on an
upcoming trip. Skyscanner’s internal
survey and comments from consumer
advocates and individual consumers
provide further support for the
conclusion that these fees are critical to
consumers’ purchasing decisions. Given
this information, the Department is not
persuaded by airlines’ arguments that
fees for a first checked bag, second
checked bag, and carry-on bag are
unimportant to consumers based on the
percentage of consumers conducting a
search on Google Flights for baggage
information and the number of
passengers who travel without baggage.
In addition, as discussed in section B,
GAO has documented that baggage fees
have shifted consumers’ purchasing
behavior by encouraging consumers to
bring only a carry-on bag to avoid
checked bag fees. Air Canada cited this
GAO study as support for its view that
passengers are aware of the existence of
baggage fees, and Travel Tech similarly
reported that its own survey indicated
that 90 percent of consumers were
aware that ancillary fees may be
charged. However, neither the GAO
study nor any of the comments
submitted provide evidence that
consumers are aware of the amount of
the fees for first checked, second
checked, and carry-on baggage at
various airlines. Indeed, the complexity
that Air Canada and IATA observed that
carriers face in calculating baggage fees
is likely even more burdensome to
consumers who try to calculate the fees
applicable to their itineraries based
often on static information provided by
carriers and ticket agents.
In addition, some airlines now charge
passengers for carry-on baggage. Indeed,
on some carriers, the fees for a carry-on
bag may be more costly than a first
checked bag, which may surprise
consumers who are accustomed to
carrying on bags without charge.90
These developments further
demonstrate the need for carriers and
ticket agents to disclose the fees for a
90 See Comments of Spirit Airlines at 12; see also
Enhancing Transparency of Airline Ancillary
Service Fees Regulatory Impact Analysis RIN 2105–
AF10, Table 1, available at https://
www.regulations.gov/document/DOT-OST-20220109-0002.

E:\FR\FM\30APR3.SGM

30APR3

34642

Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 84 / Tuesday, April 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations

lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES3

first checked bag, a second checked bag,
and a carry-on bag to consumers so that
consumers understand how baggage fees
may affect the total cost of their airfare
and are able to determine which
carrier’s flight option best suits their
circumstances.
The Department concludes that
existing required disclosures do not
adequately address the harm to
consumers. Carriers and ticket agents
are currently not required to provide
fees for a first checked bag, a second
checked bag, or a carry-on bag in a
manner that is readily available when
consumers are considering a given fare
and itinerary. Instead, fees are often
provided in static charts that confuse
consumers and do not provide adequate
information about the fees that apply
based on the consumer’s passengerspecific information. The fact that some
carriers may voluntarily provide
passenger-specific baggage fee
information required by this new rule is
not a reason for the Department not to
require its disclosure by all ticket agents
and airlines.
The Department rejects airline
commenters’ argument that the number
of complaints related to baggage fee
disclosures and lack of civil penalties
for baggage fee violations demonstrate
that such fees are not critical. As
explained in section B, the number of
complaints is only one consideration
used to determine whether the
Department should address an unfair or
deceptive practice through regulation.
Also, the Department does not view the
lack of civil penalties against U.S.
carriers under existing regulatory
requirements to demonstrate that a
regulation is not needed. The lack of
civil penalties under existing rules
could instead provide further support
for the Department’s conclusion that its
concerns with existing ancillary fee
disclosures are not adequately
addressed by existing regulations.
The Department is not adopting
recommendations by AARP to prohibit
fees for a first checked bag and by the
Officers Association of the USPHS to
encourage airlines to waive fees for its
members because those
recommendations are beyond the scope
of this rulemaking.
(b) Changing and Cancelling a
Reservation
Proposal: In the NPRM, the
Department identified fees for changing
or canceling a reservation as being
critical to consumers when they choose
among air transportation options. The
Department proposed to require carriers
and ticket agents to disclose change and
cancellation fees and policies to

VerDate Sep<11>2014

19:28 Apr 29, 2024

Jkt 262001

consumers during the booking process
when fare and schedule information is
provided.
In proposing to treat these services as
critical, the Department shared its view
that not disclosing to passengers upfront
the significant fees that they would
incur should they need to change or
cancel the reservation is an unfair and
deceptive practice. The Department
explained that carriers are currently not
required to provide consumers with
change or cancellation fee information
until after ticket purchase. In addition,
the Department noted that although
carriers may have separate web pages
that list change and cancellation fees,
this information is permitted to be
provided in a range. The Department
added that, even if not provided in a
range, change and cancellation fees may
not be simple to understand, as fare
categories, passenger status, ticket type,
and other factors may impact the
applicable change and cancellation fees.
Further, the Department explained that
carriers are currently permitted to
display change and cancellation fees
outside the booking flow, which
disrupts passengers’ searches and costs
them time. Finally, the Department
reported that change and cancellation
fees are among the top three types of
ancillary service complaints it receives.
Comments: Groups representing
consumers generally supported the
Department’s proposal to consider
change and cancellation fees to be
critical to the consumer’s purchasing
decision and to require airlines and
ticket agents to display such fees to
consumers. A joint comment from
multiple groups representing consumers
noted that improved disclosure of
change and cancellation fees ‘‘would
benefit consumers, particularly because
many travelers may not budget for such
fees when booking flights.’’ This
comment further observed that, based
on data from the Department’s Bureau of
Transportation Statistics (BTS), air
carriers collected nearly $3 billion in
revenue from these charges in 2019.91
The commenter asserted that while
some airlines had modified their change
and cancellation policies due to
COVID–19, the changes were limited,
with many airlines still applying these
fees to the lowest-tier fares. In addition,
FlyersRights testified at the
Department’s March 30, 2023, public
hearing that disclosure of the critical
ancillary fees identified in the NPRM
would decrease consumer confusion
91 Citing ‘‘Reservation Cancellation/Change Fees
by Airline 2021,’’ Bureau of Transportation
Statistics. May 2, 2022, https://www.bts.gov/
newsroom/reservation-cancellationchange-feesairline-2021.

PO 00000

Frm 00024

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

and improve competition in the market.
AARP also supported the proposed
requirement for carriers and ticket
agents to display change and
cancellation fees but asked the
Department to work to reduce or
eliminate change and cancellation fees.
In contrast, airlines and their
associations generally opposed the
Department’s proposal to treat ticket
changes and cancellations as critical
ancillary services. These commenters
asserted that such services are not
critical because few passengers change
or cancel flights, and complaints
regarding change and cancellation fees
represent a small percentage of the
overall number of complaints submitted
to the Department. In addition, airlines
and their associations stated that
airlines already provide disclosure of
change and cancellation fees on their
websites, consumers are already aware
of the potential costs associated with
changing or cancelling a flight, and
many carriers have removed these fees
since the emergency of the COVID–19
pandemic. Among these commenters,
American Airlines noted that 15 percent
of its passengers change or cancel
flights, and Frontier testified at the
Department’s March 30, 2023, hearing
that fewer than 10 percent of its
passengers paid change or cancellation
fees. A4A testified at the same hearing
that the cancellation fee complaints to
the Department included in the docket
do not appear to be related to
transparency and represent a small
percentage of the overall number of
passengers, and so, in its view, the
mandatory display of those fees is
unnecessary.
Ticket agents and their associations
offered different views on whether
change and cancellation fees are critical
to consumers’ purchasing decisions and
should be displayed. Amadeus stated
that change and cancellation fees are
critical to consumers’ purchasing
decisions, and Travel Tech supported
disclosure of these fees before purchase.
However, the U.S. Travel Association
stated that the fees identified by the
Department ‘‘are incidental and not
‘critically important’ to air
transportation.’’ In addition, at the
Department’s March 30, 2023, public
hearing, Skyscanner expressed concern
that disclosing only a fixed change fee
without also disclosing the applicable
fare difference, which would necessarily
be unknown at the time of purchase,
would provide incomplete information
to consumers and cause confusion. Air
Canada made a similar argument in its
written comments.
Three of the four ACPAC members
expressed the view that ticket change

E:\FR\FM\30APR3.SGM

30APR3

lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES3

Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 84 / Tuesday, April 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
and cancellation fees were critical to
consumers. The ACPAC Chair, who is
also the member representing state
governments, stated that the ability to
change and cancel a ticket was more
important to consumers now due to an
increase in flight cancellations and the
potential for an increase in infectious
disease numbers. The ACPAC had
several recommendations related to
ticket change and cancellation, which
are discussed in later sections.
DOT Response: The Department has
determined that the fees imposed on a
consumer to change or cancel a ticket
(i.e., passenger-initiated changes or
cancellations) 92 are critical to a
consumer’s purchasing decision, and
this final rule maintains the proposed
requirement that airlines and ticket
agents must disclose these fees to
consumers. The Department is not
persuaded by industry commenters who
stated that change and cancellation fees
are not critical, and disclosure is
unnecessary. The Department agrees
with the commenters who stated that
change and cancellation fees can pose a
significant, unexpected financial burden
to consumers and that improved
transparency will reduce consumer
confusion and promote competition.
As noted in section B, the number of
complaints is only one consideration
used to determine whether the
Department should address an unfair or
deceptive practice through regulation.
Nor do the calculations by some airlines
that 10–15 percent of their passengers
change or cancel flights suggest that
change and cancellation fees are not
critical given the significant financial
cost that change and cancellation fees
impose to those passengers who are
subject to them. In addition, existing
disclosure requirements do not address
this issue. As the Department noted in
the NPRM, existing regulations do not
require airlines or ticket agents to
disclose specific change and
cancellation fees during the booking
process before ticket purchase. There
are no existing rules for ticket agents to
provide change and cancellation fees,
and the existing rules allow airlines to
provide change and cancellation fees in
ranges rather than specific amounts,
making it difficult for consumers to
determine the fee that would apply to
their ticket.
The Department is not persuaded that
it should defer regulation in this area
because some carriers have eliminated
change and cancellation fees. These
92 When referring to change or cancellation fees
or policies, this rule is referring to consumer- or
passenger-initiated changes or cancellations of
tickets. This rule does not address changes or
cancellations initiated by carriers.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

19:28 Apr 29, 2024

Jkt 262001

carriers could re-impose such fees in the
future. Further, some carriers that have
eliminated change and cancellation fees
have not done so for all their flights. For
example, these carriers may charge
change or cancellation fees for
international flights that do not
originate from designated locations.
Also, many passengers who purchase
tickets in the lowest fare categories
continue to be subject to either change
and cancellation fees or outright
prohibitions on changing or cancelling
their reservations.
The Department agrees with those
commenters who noted that providing
change fee information without
information about the requirement to
pay a fare difference may create
consumer confusion. Because the
amount of any fare difference cannot be
calculated until a replacement flight is
selected, the amount of the fare
difference will necessarily be unknown
at the time of initial ticket purchase. To
reduce any potential for consumer
confusion, this final rule requires
airlines and ticket agents to disclose in
the summary of its change policies that
a fare difference may apply, if that is the
case, and to make other related
disclosures before ticket purchase.
These requirements are discussed
further in section E (4)(b).
(c) Obtaining Adjacent Seats for
Families Traveling With Young
Children
Proposal: The Department proposed
that a fee for a child 13 or younger to
be seated adjacent to an accompanying
adult in the same class of service is a
critical ancillary fee that airlines and
ticket agents must disclose to consumers
with the fare and schedule information.
Under the proposal, if the carrier does
not impose a fee for children 13 or
under to be seated next to an
accompanying adult, no seat fee
disclosure would be required for the
carrier’s flights. If the carrier does
impose a fee to make an advance seat
assignment for a child 13 or under, the
NPRM noted that the carrier could
comply with the proposed rule by
enabling consumers to indicate whether
they were traveling with a child prior to
initiating a search, or by displaying seat
fees for all itinerary searches, regardless
of whether a consumer indicated that he
or she would be traveling with a child.
Comments: The overwhelming
majority of commenters opposed the
Department’s family seating fee
disclosure proposal in the NPRM.
Hundreds of individuals and multiple
consumer advocacy organizations,
including the U.S. PIRG Education
Fund, opposed the proposal on the basis

PO 00000

Frm 00025

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

34643

that the Department should prohibit
family seating fees for air travel instead
of requiring fee disclosure. Individual
commenters expressed concern with the
safety of minors and the comfort of
families and other passengers when
children 13 or younger are seated away
from an accompanying adult on an
aircraft. Consumer advocates raised
similar concerns. For example, AELP
testified at the Department’s March 30,
2023, public hearing that there are
serious health and safety issues with
seating young children alone and stated
that the Department should not be
guided by the quantity of complaints it
receives on family seating. The few
consumer advocates that supported the
Department’s proposal similarly
recommended that the Department
ultimately limit or prohibit family
seating fees, with AARP noting that it
viewed the proposed disclosures as ‘‘an
essential first step’’ but also asking the
Department to take further action to
reduce or eliminate such fees in the
future. A joint comment from multiple
State attorneys general supported
improved seat disclosures but asked
DOT to modify its proposal to require
that initial search results provide the
lowest fee, if any, to book two adjacent
seats, along with an additional
disclosure if adjacent seats are
unavailable.
Many industry commenters raised
concerns about the expense and
technical challenges of providing
dynamic seat fees at the first page of
search results and the cost of
establishing direct, real-time
connections between ticket agents and
airlines necessary to facilitate such
disclosures. IATA stated that the
Department’s family seating proposal
would impose a greater burden on
airlines than the proposals to require
disclosure of baggage, change, and
cancellation fees ‘‘because the search
[for adjacent seating] is twofold: the fees
for each seat on each flight presented in
an itinerary as well as a search to
determine whether there are two or
more seats together at the time of the
initial search.’’ ATPCO explained that
‘‘a channel would need at or near realtime seat maps and seat pricing for
every possible airline’s flight for every
itinerary evaluated at the time of the
shopping request’’ to provide seat fees at
first search. Skyscanner explained that
determining a family seating fee would
require a complex search of highly
dynamic seat fees of varying costs and
a query of availability, suggesting that,
as an alternative, the Department should
require disclosure of the cost of a
standard seat and not at the time of first

E:\FR\FM\30APR3.SGM

30APR3

lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES3

34644

Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 84 / Tuesday, April 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations

search. Among other commenters, Air
Canada and IATA stated that GDSs are
currently unable to support the
distribution of dynamic seat fee
information. Industry commenters also
expressed concerns that providing
family seating fees at the time of first
search would overwhelm consumers
and provide information that would be
irrelevant to many passengers who are
not traveling with children. Several
industry commenters also stated that
consumers rarely consider seats relevant
at the beginning of their itinerary
search, with Google citing a user survey
it had conducted in support of that
position.
Airlines and their representatives
generally opposed all aspects of the
Department’s family seating proposal.
Airlines stated that current airline
policies generally already provide for
family seating without fees; the display
of a ‘‘family seating fee’’ may confuse
passengers about the need to purchase
a seat to guarantee seating next to a
young child; and what these
commenters characterized as the low
number of family seating complaints
and low number of passengers traveling
with young children demonstrated no
problem with existing disclosures.
American Airlines asserted that it could
not disclose family seating fees because
‘‘they do not exist’’ separate from
advance seating fees for all other
passengers and noted its efforts to seat
young children with an accompanying
adult.
Amadeus, Travelport, and Travel
Tech asked that DOT expand its family
seating proposal to require airlines to
either share all seat fees or the fees for
the cost of an adjacent seat generally,
without regard to whether the passenger
is traveling with a child 13 years old or
younger. None of those commenters,
however, supported displaying seat fees
on the first page of search results.
At its January 12, 2023, meeting, the
ACPAC recommended that the
Department’s proposal regarding the
disclosure of family seat fee information
should be retained in any final rule that
may be adopted.
DOT Response: DOT has decided not
to move forward with its proposal to
require carriers and ticket agents to
disclose applicable fees for passengers
13 or under to be seated next to an
accompanying adult on an aircraft.
Instead, the Department is pursuing a
separate rulemaking to address the
ability of a young child to sit adjacent
to an accompanying adult at no
additional cost beyond the fare.93
93 See Fall 2023 Unified Agenda for rulemaking
titled ‘‘Family Seating in Air Transportation’’ (RIN

VerDate Sep<11>2014

19:28 Apr 29, 2024

Jkt 262001

In addition to pursuing a new
rulemaking, the Department has taken
other steps to encourage airlines to
ensure that children 13 or younger are
seated adjacent to an accompanying
adult at no additional cost subject to
limited conditions. On July 8, 2022, the
Department’s OACP issued a notice
urging airlines to do everything they can
to allow young children to be seated
next to an accompanying adult with no
additional charge.94 On March 6, 2023,
the Department launched its Airline
Family Seating Dashboard, that
highlights whether airlines guarantee
fee-free family seating,95 and on March
10, 2023, the Department sent a
proposal to Congress recommending
legislation to require fee-free family
seating subject to limited exceptions.96
Given these actions by the
Department to enable parents to sit next
to their young children without paying
fees, the Department does not see value
to requiring airlines and ticket agents to
display dynamic family seating fees in
this final rule. In addition, the
Department does not expand disclosure
requirements to seat fees or adjacent
seat fees more generally, as requested by
some commenters, for the reasons
discussed in section E (3)(d).
(d) Consideration of Additional
Ancillary Services
(i) Seat Selection
Proposal: The Department explained
in the NPRM its tentative view that
‘‘disclosure of an advance seat
assignment fee at the beginning of a
booking process is generally not needed
because airlines are required to provide
a seat with the cost of the air
transportation.’’ 97
Comments: Comments from some
ticket agents and groups representing
consumers, along with a few individual
consumers, requested that the
Department consider all seating fees to
be critical, not only the fees for family
seating as proposed. Some of those
commenters identified additional
2105–AF15) at https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/
eAgendaViewRule?pubId=202310&RIN=2105-AF15.
94 See https://www.transportation.gov/
individuals/aviation-consumer-protection/familyseating/June-2022-notice. That notice was issued in
response to section 2309 of the FAA Extension,
Safety and Security Act of 2016, which required
DOT to review U.S. airline family seating policies
and, if appropriate, establish a policy directing air
carriers to establish policies enabling a child 13 or
under to be seated next to an accompany family
member, subject to certain limitations.
95 See https://www.transportation.gov/
airconsumer/airline-family-seating-dashboard.
96 See https://www.transportation.gov/sites/
dot.gov/files/2023-03/Bill_Family%20
Seating%20Proposal_final.pdf.
97 87 FR 63726.

PO 00000

Frm 00026

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

groups of passengers for whom adjacent
seat assignments are, in their view,
critical. For example, Amadeus stated
that adjacent seating fees may be critical
for caregivers or family members of
individuals with disabilities or the
elderly. Travel Tech similarly identified
individuals traveling with the elderly as
well as ‘‘a newly-wed couple on a 17hour honeymoon flight or business
partners who need to sit together to
work during the flight.’’ The U.S. PIRG
Education Fund expressed its support
for ‘‘up-front disclosure of adjacent
seating fees involving adult relatives,
friends or colleagues.’’
In addition, some of these
commenters identified reasons that
consumers may wish to select their seats
when traveling alone. Among those
commenters, Travel Tech stated that
this may include ‘‘passengers who need
to sit near the front of the plane to make
a connecting flight or passengers who
need to be near the restroom for health
reasons.’’ FlyersRights commented that
consumers may want to select seats to
have more legroom or to sit near the
front of the plane or an emergency exit.
GBTA stated that seat selection could be
considered critical for business
travelers.
On the other hand, AARP agreed with
the Department’s preliminary
assessment in the NPRM that disclosure
of general seat selection fees at the
beginning of the booking process was
not critical. Instead of requiring
disclosure of seating fees, AARP
requested that DOT require a clear
disclosure ‘‘wherever advance seat
selections are made available, that
consumers do not need to pay an
additional fee unless they want to
reserve a particular seat.’’ AARP
recommended this addition to reduce
consumer confusion, explaining that
‘‘customers are often provided with a
limited range of seats to choose from,
many or all of which require a fee to
reserve’’ and ‘‘may believe that there are
no ‘free’ seats available and may
purchase an advance seat reservation
out of concern that they will not be
provided with a seat.’’
As discussed above, airlines and other
industry commenters raised concerns
about the costs and technological
challenges of displaying dynamic seat
fees in the context of the Department’s
family seating proposal. These concerns
would be equally applicable to required
disclosure of adjacent seating fees or
individual seating fess more generally.
In addition, consistent with its
comments on family seating fees,
American Airlines specifically asked the
Department not to expand its list of

E:\FR\FM\30APR3.SGM

30APR3

lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES3

Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 84 / Tuesday, April 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
covered critical ancillary fees to include
seating fees more generally.
DOT Response: The Department has
considered the comments stating that
seating fees are critical to consumers
purchasing decisions. Given that the
cost of air transportation includes a seat
and the lack of clarity about the
importance of seat selection fees to
consumers, the Department is not
requiring carriers or ticket agents to
disclose seating fees as required critical
ancillary service fees in this final rule.
In making this determination, the
Department also took into account the
concerns raised by industry commenters
about the challenges of displaying
dynamic seating fees discussed in
section E (3)(c). The Department intends
to monitor this issue for possible future
action if warranted. Regarding
passengers with disabilities, the
Department notes that carriers are
already required to provide seating
accommodations that meet passengers’
disability-related needs under the Air
Carrier Access Act and its implementing
regulation, 14 CFR part 382. These
required accommodations include an
adjoining seat for a personal care
attendant who performs a function for a
passenger with a disability that is not
required to be performed by airline
personnel, a reader for a passenger who
is blind or has low vision, an interpreter
for a passenger who is deaf or hard-ofhearing, or a safety assistant, if needed.
Finally, the Department agrees with
AARP that the option to purchase seats
could confuse consumers, who may
think that a seat purchase is necessary.
The Department has determined that it
is a deceptive practice in violation of
section 41712 for a carrier or ticket
agent to fail to disclose that the
purchase of a seat is not required for
travel, particularly when consumers are
provided seats from which to choose
where many, if not all, of those seats
require a fee to reserve. Without a clear
disclosure, a reasonable consumer being
offered seats to reserve where many of
these seats must be purchased would be
misled to believe that an advance seat
assignment purchase is required to have
a confirmed seat on the flight. The lack
of disclosure that consumers will be
assigned a seat without additional
payment is material as this omission is
likely to result in consumers
unnecessarily paying a fee for a seat.
Accordingly, this final rule requires
airlines and ticket agents to make the
following disclosure clearly and
conspicuously when a consumer is
offered a seat selection for a fee: ‘‘A seat
is included in your fare. You are not
required to purchase a seat assignment
to travel. If you decide to purchase a

VerDate Sep<11>2014

19:28 Apr 29, 2024

Jkt 262001

ticket and do not select a seat prior to
purchase, a seat will be provided to you
without additional charge when you
travel.’’
(ii) Other Ancillary Services
Proposal: The Department did not
propose ancillary services, beyond
transporting a first checked, second
checked, and/or carry-on bag, changing
or canceling a reservation, and obtaining
adjacent seating when traveling with a
young child, to be critical. However, the
Department sought comment on
whether the ancillary services proposed
to be critical in the NPRM should be
expanded or limited.
Comments: Airline commenters
generally opposed expanding the
ancillary services to be considered
critical to a consumer’s purchasing
decision. The Department received only
limited support for adding other specific
ancillary fees to the list of ancillary
services proposed to be covered as
critical in the NPRM. A few individual
commenters asked the Department to
include fees for food and a drink as well
as in-flight wi-fi as critical ancillary
service fees. In addition, GBTA stated
that wi-fi and priority boarding could be
considered critical for business
travelers. Finally, the Aircraft Owners
and Pilots Association asked that the
rule be expanded to cover all general
aviation parking fees and the location of
parking aprons at airports. Comments
suggesting the Department limit the
ancillary services proposed to be critical
are discussed in section E (3)(d)(iii).
DOT Response: The Department
declines to expand in this final rule the
list of specific critical ancillary fees
beyond those identified in its proposal
as the record does not support
considering fees for food, drinks, wi-fi,
priority boarding, or parking fees as
critical ancillary service fees as
suggested by a few commenters. As
discussed in the next section, the
Department may determine that
additional ancillary fees are critical after
notice and an opportunity for comment.
The Department maintains the existing
requirement that airlines must disclose
the fees for all ancillary services on their
websites. Carriers and ticket agents are
encouraged to provide consumers with
a clear and conspicuous link to this
existing website during the booking
process before ticket purchase. Airlines
will continue to be allowed to provide
the fees for ancillary services, aside
from baggage, in a range on this page.
Consumers will be provided the specific
fees that apply to them for all critical
ancillary services when the fare and
schedule information is provided
following an itinerary search.

PO 00000

Frm 00027

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

34645

(iii) Future Ancillary Services
Proposal: The Department solicited
comment on whether its proposed list of
critical ancillary fees should, among
other things, address future adoption by
airlines of additional ancillary service
fees. The Department also asked how to
ensure their disclosure to the extent that
they are of critical importance to
consumers.
Comments: Multiple consumer groups
asked the Department to require airlines
and ticket agents to display additional
ancillary service fees in the future to the
extent that the fees become more
prevalent or are of particular importance
to consumers. FlyersRights suggested
the Department require carriers and
ticket agents to display any fee that
comprises two percent of all reporting
carriers’ revenue or five percent of any
single airline’s revenue, stating that its
proposal was intended to address its
concern that ‘‘airlines may innovate
new ways to break up the base fare into
additional ancillary fees.’’ Similarly, a
joint comment from multiple groups
representing consumers asked the
Department to require disclosure of fees
that exceed two percent of a covered
entity’s revenue according to BTS
reporting and to adopt a regular review
schedule to periodically update the
covered ancillary fees with feedback
from consumer advocates. In addition,
multiple State attorneys general
requested that the Department adopt an
open-ended provision requiring
disclosure of ‘‘fees associated with any
products or services that a reasonable
traveler might foreseeably consider
necessary.’’
On the other hand, American Airlines
opposed any expansion of the list of
critical ancillary fees from the NPRM. It
stated that expanding the list would
‘‘further complicate the search queries,
slowing the return of search results and
cluttering displays’’ and provide
minimal, if any, benefit to consumers.
American Airlines asked the
Department to rely on enforcement
actions, rather than regulation, to
address any innovations in ancillary
fees that result in significant consumer
complaints.
DOT Response: Based on the
comments received, the Department has
not identified any fees beyond fees for
transporting a first checked bag, a
second checked bag, and a carry-on bag
and fees for changing and cancelling a
ticket that are currently critical to
consumers’ purchasing decisions. The
Department agrees with those
commenters who stated that the
Department should have a method for
regulating fee transparency for any

E:\FR\FM\30APR3.SGM

30APR3

34646

Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 84 / Tuesday, April 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations

ancillary services critical to consumers’
purchasing decisions in the future. The
Department disagrees, however, with
those commenters who suggested that
the Department should establish a fixed
interval to reevaluate the fees for critical
ancillary services. The Department
receives regular feedback from
stakeholders, including through the
ACPAC, and monitors trends in
consumer complaints filed with the
Department. If these or other sources
suggest that disclosure of additional
ancillary services fees early in the
purchasing process is needed based on
evolving industry practices, the
Department can provide notice and take
comment at that time. The regularity
with which the Department hears from
stakeholder groups renders it
unnecessary to establish a fixed time
interval for re-evaluating ancillary fees.
The Department is also not persuaded
by comments urging the Department to
require disclosure of ancillary fees that
reach a certain threshold of airline
revenue because carriers could design
their fee structures in a manner to avoid
any pre-established threshold. In this
final rule, the Department is not limiting
ancillary services that are critical to
those that meet a certain threshold but
instead adopting a definition of critical
ancillary service that includes ‘‘any
other services determined, after notice
and opportunity to comment, to be
critical by the Secretary.’’ Multiple State
attorneys general also recommended
establishing an open-ended provision
when defining critical ancillary fee.
This final rule differs from their
recommendation in that it provides the
public an opportunity for comment
before the Department delineates
additional critical ancillary fees. The
Department believes that effective and
meaningful public engagement before
determining additional ancillary
services that are critical will lead to a
better result.

lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES3

(4) Methods for Disclosing Critical
Ancillary Service Fees and Policies
(a) Website Disclosure of Fees
Proposal: The Department proposed
to require that the fees for ancillary
services that are critical to a consumer’s
purchasing decision be disclosed the
first time that an airfare is displayed to
consumers using airlines’ or ticket
agents’ websites. More specifically, the
Department proposed to require airlines
and ticket agents disclose the first and
second checked bag fees, the carry-on
bag fee, the change and cancellation fees
and the family seating fee at the first
point in a search process where a fare
and schedule is listed in connection

VerDate Sep<11>2014

19:28 Apr 29, 2024

Jkt 262001

with a specific flight itinerary. The
Department further proposed to prohibit
display of fees for critical ancillary
services by links and rollovers but
requested comment on whether to allow
these methods.
The Department further proposed to
require carriers and ticket agents to
indicate that a particular fare category
prohibits the checking of a bag or the
carriage of a carry-on bag, if that is the
case, and any applicable penalty to
transport the item, whenever fare and
schedule information is provided during
the itinerary search process. The
Department also proposed to require
carriers and ticket agents to disclose
whether ticket changes or cancellations
are allowed, which could be provided
via a pop-up or link adjacent to the
pertinent change or cancellation fee.
Comments: Industry commenters
expressed near-universal opposition to
the requirement to display fees for
critical ancillary services without the
use of links or rollovers when an airline
or ticket agent first provides schedule
and fare information in response to an
itinerary search. These commenters
expressed concerns about the costs,
technological feasibility, and impacts on
website clarity and function if airlines
and ticket agents are required to display
all proposed critical ancillary fees (first
checked bag, second checked bag, and
carry-on bag, ticket changes and
cancellations, and family seating)
without the use of links or rollovers
when airlines and ticket agents first
provide schedule and fare information.
Many industry commenters stated
that display of all critical ancillary fee
information required under the proposal
on a single page without the use links
or rollovers would result in airlines and
ticket agents displaying fewer itinerary
results and would overcrowd web
pages. For example, Frontier Airlines
stated that under existing regulations, it
could display four or five itinerary
options on the first page of search
results, but estimated that under the
proposal, it would only be able to
display one or two results per page.
Frontier Airlines further expressed
concern that crowded displays would
block out or minimize information that
it views as more relevant to consumers,
including additional flight options and
base fares. Similarly, United Airlines
estimated that it would be able to
display only half of the number of flight
options to consumers under the
proposal compared with its current
website. Booking Holdings stated that a
first-page display requirement for all
ancillary fees proposed could reduce the
number of itinerary results it could
display on a single page from 12 under

PO 00000

Frm 00028

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

existing regulations to only one or two.
Booking Holdings expressed concern
that the NPRM’s proposal to require
carriers or ticket agents to display all
critical ancillary fees when fare and
schedule information is first provided
would result in consumers spending
additional time scrolling or ‘‘giving up’’
on their search and selecting a less
optimal flight than they would under
existing disclosures. Finally, the U.S.
Travel Association stated that, under the
proposal, customers would need to
scroll through multiple pages of results,
increasing the time needed to consider
available ticket options.
Many industry commenters, including
Frontier Airlines, Google, Booking
Holdings, and others explained or
provided visual displays of how search
results would appear on their websites
under the proposal in written comments
or at the Department’s March 30, 2023,
public hearing. For example, Google
provided an example where both
vertical and horizontal scrolling was
needed to show all ancillary fee
information proposed at the first page of
search results. Amadeus also testified at
the hearing that providing all critical
ancillary fees required by the proposal
at the first point in the search process
where schedule and fare information is
provided would reduce the number of
flight options that could be displayed
and, correspondingly, reduce the interbrand competition that the indirect
channel provides.
In addition, industry commenters
raised concerns that, in their view,
displaying all required ancillary fees at
the first page of search results would
slow website loading times significantly
and degrade the consumer experience,
resulting in consumers abandoning
carrier and ticket agent websites. For
example, American Airlines estimated
that its current search takes three to five
seconds to process and load but believes
displaying all proposed critical ancillary
fees on the first page would take 45
seconds to process and load. In
addition, Spirit Airlines stated that
providing all proposed ancillary fees
would take seven times as long to load
as its current site and could require nine
minutes of transaction time. Further,
United Airlines expressed concern
about the effect that slower loading
times would have on sales, stating that
half of consumers abandon websites that
take more than six seconds to load and
over 50 percent expect a website to load
in three seconds or less. At the
Department’s March 30, 2023, hearing,
IATA cited studies stating that for every
second of loading performance, there is
an equivalent drop in customer
presence and sales. Booking Holdings

E:\FR\FM\30APR3.SGM

30APR3

lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES3

Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 84 / Tuesday, April 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
stated that ‘‘the calls for data under the
proposal could potentially be in the
hundreds of thousands (especially for
itinerary results that include multiple
carriers or multiple passengers),’’ and,
while its current system runs similar
queries, it does so only ‘‘after a
passenger selects a flight option, thus
reducing the search queries to that one
flight itinerary, instead of thousands of
potential flight itineraries.’’ In addition,
Travel Tech commented that every
second added to website load times
results in a seven percent loss in sales
and 11 percent fewer page views.
Further, industry commenters stated
that the proposed rule would require
airlines and ticket agents to provide
ancillary fee information at a time that
is not optimal for consumer decision
making and that the timing and method
for displaying ancillary fees is best left
to industry expertise. Among those
commenters, Spirit Airlines commented
that it conducted a survey of consumers
who abandoned booking and found that
less than one percent abandoned the
booking path because bag prices were
not displayed at the beginning of search,
which it stated demonstrates that
‘‘[a]lmost all customers who decide not
to fly Spirit are unbothered by ancillary
fees being provided later in the booking
path.’’ Further, Spirit Airlines stated
that it showed a sample web display
complying with the NPRM to
‘‘independent testers,’’ who preferred
Spirit’s current site and stated that they
preferred to select the flight first and
then select from baggage and seating
options. Air Canada stated that its
current practice of providing consumers
with a full price breakdown of all
charges on a summary page before
booking is ‘‘more informative and useful
for consumers’’ than the Department’s
proposal because it lists all charges, not
only those ancillary fees that the
Department deems critical. In addition,
Booking Holdings represented that its
customers prefer concise information at
the first page of search results and that
ancillary fee information is more helpful
after consumers select a specific
itinerary. A4A testified that display of
ancillary fees at the time of first search
could confuse consumers that such fees
are mandatory and cause consumers to
abandon their travel due to the
perceived expense or to purchase
ancillary services that are unnecessary
for their travel. Further, NACA stated
that providing ancillary fee information
at the time fare and schedule
information is first provided would
overwhelm ULCC consumers, adding
that selecting one ancillary at a time
makes the booking process easier and

VerDate Sep<11>2014

19:28 Apr 29, 2024

Jkt 262001

that the unbundled model ‘‘inherently
requires enhanced disclosure and
education, which the ULCCs already
provide.’’ NACA also noted that E.O.
14036 instructed the Department to
consider initiating a rulemaking to
ensure disclosure of ancillary fee
information, including change and
cancellation fees, ‘‘at the time of ticket
purchase,’’ but it did not require the
Department to initiate a rulemaking or
to require disclosure at the first point in
a search process where a fare is listed
in connection with a specific flight
itinerary.
Google provided some statistical data
related to its position that baggage fees
are more relevant to consumers later in
the booking process. Google reported
that 1.3 percent of consumers
conducting a search on Google Flights
use a feature allowing them to integrate
bag fees into the displayed costs for
flights before a specific itinerary has
been selected. At the Department’s
public hearing in March 2023, Google
testified that this statistic supported its
position that baggage information may
be relevant to consumers later in the
search process, rather than at the point
of initial search. Google also provided
the results of a study of U.S. consumers
it conducted in 2018. It cited this study
as evidence that consumers prefer to
think about baggage fees later in the
booking process, with 21 percent of
consumers in the survey stating that
they start thinking about baggage while
searching for flights but 23 percent of
consumers in the survey stating that do
not start thinking about baggage until
the time of flight booking. In addition,
according to the results reported by
Google, 19 percent of consumers
‘‘decide about baggage’’ at the time of
flight search, but another 35 percent do
not decide about baggage until the time
of flight booking.
A4A provided testimony on the costs
of the proposal at the Department’s
March 30, 2023, public hearing, stating
that the proposal to require display of
all critical ancillary fees on the first
page of search results would require an
overhaul of the entire air fare
‘‘ecosystem.’’ A4A further testified that
the costs would be exorbitant and
exceed the technical capacity of airline
systems, which it added are not
currently built to retrieve and display
the amount of fee information required.
Many other industry commenters
provided similar testimony or written
comments. Additional discussion of the
economic impacts of the final rule is
provided in the Regulatory Notices
section of this document.
Some industry commenters also
raised specific concerns with the

PO 00000

Frm 00029

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

34647

technical ability to calculate and display
fees for a first checked bag, a second
checked bag, and a carry-on bag at the
first page where airlines or ticket agents
provide fare and schedule information
in response to a search without the use
of rollovers or links. IATA stated that
this proposed requirement is
‘‘unreasonable’’ and added that the
calculation of baggage fees is ‘‘not
trivial, particularly with multi-carrier
itineraries, and neither airlines nor
agents today are capable of undertaking
the calculation on what could be more
than 100 itineraries presented on an
initial search page.’’ IATA added that,
in its view, the costs of the requirement
would outweigh any benefits. Similarly,
Air Canada stated that the calculation of
baggage fees ‘‘is a complex process,’’
particularly for multi-carrier itineraries,
and that the development of ‘‘ancillary
service packages or subscriptions that
allow passengers to, among other
services, have unlimited checked
baggage after paying an annual fee or the
bundling of baggage fees with those of
meals or Wi-Fi’’ would make displaying
baggage fees on the first page of search
results more challenging.
A few industry commenters
recommended that, if the Department
decides to require airlines and ticket
agents to display any ancillary fees
when fare and schedule information is
first provided, it should do so only for
the fees for first checked, second
checked, and carry-on baggage. For
example, Travel Tech stated that if the
Department chose to adopt ‘‘any
prescriptive rules,’’ those requirements
‘‘should be limited to requiring that
only critical baggage fees . . . be
displayed on the first search results
page.’’ Travel Tech added that ‘‘[b]y so
limiting the amount of information
required to be displayed on the first
search results page, DOT can largely
avoid the information overload and page
clutter problems’’ identified in its
comments. Skyscanner made similar
comments, stating that it recommended
‘‘that no display requirement mandating
a specific location for the display of
ancillary fee information should be
imposed,’’ but continuing that ‘‘if such
a rule is imposed, it should require that
only baggage fees be displayed on the
first page of ticket search results.’’
Skyscanner added that its
recommendation was based on its
internal user research indicating ‘‘that
many users are much more concerned
about baggage allowances and fees than
any single other type of ancillary fee,’’
with 84 percent indicating ‘‘it was
important to know whether a ticket
price includes checked bags.’’

E:\FR\FM\30APR3.SGM

30APR3

lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES3

34648

Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 84 / Tuesday, April 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations

Industry commenters, including
IATA, also stated that the complexity of
calculating multiple change and
cancellation fees for multiple itineraries
would be technologically infeasible
(particularly for multi-carrier
itineraries), result in significantly slow
website loading, and be extremely costly
to implement. For example, IATA
commented that the cost of calculating
multiple change and cancellation fees
‘‘for every itinerary at the initial search
cannot be justified in terms of search
time saved by passengers.’’
Instead of first page display of fees for
critical ancillary services in text form,
industry commenters generally
requested more flexible display of these
fees. Alternatives recommended by
these commenters included the
Department allowing the display of fee
information later in the booking process;
the use of links, pop-ups, rollovers, and
other methods; and the display of fee
information outside of the booking
process. For example, individual
airlines also recommended that the
Department allow links and rollovers.
United Airlines suggested that the
Department permit disclosures through
links, pop-ups, banners, landing pages,
and acknowledgements. American
Airlines explained that links and
rollovers ‘‘would allow consumers to
access the fee information as needed on
an individual basis and avoid
overwhelming consumers by flooding
them with information at the first
shopping point.’’
Similarly, ticket agent representatives
such as Travel Tech recommended
allowing critical ancillary fee
information to be displayed using popups and links. Booking Holdings
recommended that the Department
allow airlines and ticket agents to
display fees by hovering over or clicking
a link or allowing disclosures on the
second page of the booking process after
a flight is selected. Further, Google
stated that more flexibility in display
would better serve consumers, and
expounded that rollovers, hyperlinks,
and pop-ups would give disclosures to
consumers in a readable and
customizable format. Hopper and other
commenters advocated for display at
any time before ticket purchase. At the
Department’s March 2023 public
hearing, Amadeus advocated for
allowing more flexible displays such as
hyperlinks, mouseovers, pop-ups,
expandable text, and other shortcuts to
facilitate faster and cost-efficient
implementation across the industry.
According to Amadeus, those methods
help avoid performance issues and
reduce the number of transactions,
extending computing resources and

VerDate Sep<11>2014

19:28 Apr 29, 2024

Jkt 262001

improving the time necessary to provide
search results. In addition, Air Canada
asked the Department to clarify when
‘‘fare and schedule information is first
provided’’ if it chose to finalize the
proposal. The carrier also asked the
Department to allow carriers to display
required ancillary fee disclosures
‘‘external to the booking process.’’
Specific to change and cancellation
fee disclosures, Amadeus asked the
Department to allow display of
minimum and maximum change and
cancellation fees, rather than all
potentially applicable change and
cancellation fees. IATA suggested that
carriers could include a link on the
initial search page to clear language on
whether the carrier imposes change or
cancellation fees and what factors are
considered in setting that fee.
Skyscanner recommended that DOT
require display of one change fee and
not on the first page of search results.
In their comments and public hearing
testimony, multiple groups representing
consumers expressed support for the
Department’s proposal to require
airlines and ticket agents to display
critical ancillary service fees when fare
and schedule information are first
displayed in response to a consumer
search. FlyersRights commented that the
proposal would achieve better price
transparency for consumers. In addition,
at the Department’s March 30, 2023,
public hearing, FlyersRights testified
that current market conditions reward
those airlines that hide the ball at the
expense of more transparent airlines
and asserted that one airline’s website
requires many clicks from the first page
where schedule and fare information is
displayed before a consumer reaches the
web page where static baggage fees are
disclosed. Further, a joint comment
from multiple groups representing
consumers supported the Department’s
proposal to prohibit the use of links and
rollovers to display fees for critical
ancillary services. The U.S. PIRG
Education Fund added that in its view,
fee information should be provided
before beginning the booking process,
not once it has begun, and expressed
concerns about drip pricing. Finally, the
ACPAC Chair, representing state and
local governments, stated at the January
12, 2023, ACPAC meeting that the
Department’s proposal was ‘‘fair’’ in
permitting airlines and ticket agents to
display baggage policies, but not
baggage fees, in links and pop-ups based
on her belief that the average flyer better
understands what constitutes an
oversized bag than the actual bag fee
amounts.
A few organizations representing
consumers, however, expressed concern

PO 00000

Frm 00030

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

about the potential for consumer
confusion under this aspect of the
Department’s proposal. AARP was
generally supportive of the
Department’s proposal, noting that not
providing critical ancillary fee
information when a fare is provided
would inhibit the ability of consumers
‘‘to make an informed decision about
which price and itinerary combination
best suits their need,’’ and adding that
if fees are disclosed at the end of the
booking process ‘‘that consumer is
much less likely to re-start the process
of comparison shopping, leading to a
less than optimal outcome.’’ But AARP
further recommended that any
‘‘disclosures must be made in such a
way as to minimize visual clutter and
confusion and be easy to read and
comprehend.’’ In addition, Travelers
United testified at the Department’s
March 30, 2023, public hearing that
more disclosure was preferrable but also
expressed concern in its written
comment that ‘‘DOT is seriously
underestimating the technology needed
for this NPRM as it stands now. Perhaps
limiting it to only baggage may provide
enough information to deal with today’s
competition and prepare for the coming
age of AI [artificial intelligence].’’
Individuals also expressed differing
views. For example, one individual
stated that how and when airlines
display the elements of a total fare
should be left to airlines and suggested
that consumers could purchase from a
different airline should a particular
airline provide a confusing display.
However, another took the position that
baggage fees are the most important
charges to consumers and displays with
this information would not confuse
consumers or be excessive. This
commenter noted that airlines already
provide first and business class fares
that many consumers will never use.
The ACPAC solicited information on
the appropriate timing of disclosure for
critical ancillary service fees at its
December 2022 meeting. At that
meeting, the ACPAC member
representing consumers observed that to
minimize problems with drip pricing,
consumers should have information on
critical ancillary service fees early in the
process. However, he also noted that
providing early information on all
ancillary fees could lead to consumers
being overwhelmed. Specifically, he
opined that baggage fees, change/
cancellation fees, and seat reservation
fees were the biggest ‘‘pain points’’ for
consumers that should be disclosed
early. Similarly, a consumer advocacy
organization suggested that fees for
carry-on and checked bags, as well as
change/cancellation fees and on-time/

E:\FR\FM\30APR3.SGM

30APR3

lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES3

Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 84 / Tuesday, April 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
cancellation statistics, should be
displayed on the first page where a price
is quoted.98
At its January 12, 2023, meeting, the
ACPAC recommended that the
Department adopt its proposal to require
change and cancellation fee information
be displayed during the itinerary search
process and not just before ticket
purchase. The ACPAC member
representing consumers noted that
change and cancellation fees impact
consumers’ buying decisions when
shopping for an airline ticket, and that
if the disclosures are not made early in
the purchase process, consumers would
not have change and cancellation fee
information on all the options available
to them when making a purchasing
decision. The ACPAC member
representing airlines expressed his
concern that disclosure of the baggage
and change and cancellation fees during
the itinerary search process would
present too much information to
consumers and advocated for links or
pop-ups to be permitted for the display
of baggage and change and cancellation
fee information if there is a requirement
to display such fee information.
The ACPAC also recommended at its
January 12, 2023, meeting that the
Department require ticket agents and
metasearch entities to display airlines’
change and cancellation fee information
in a consistent manner to avoid creating
confusion for consumers. The ACPAC
member representing airports explained
that a ticket agent should not be allowed
to display an itinerary for one airline
that shows the total change or
cancellation fees for a group of travelers,
while the itinerary for another airline
shows the change or cancellation fees
on a per passenger basis. Travel Tech
commented that the ACPAC
recommendation goes beyond the
proposals of the NPRM and fails to
recognize that ticket agents do not
receive data from airlines consistently
and lack the resources to implement this
recommendation.
Regarding the Department’s proposal
that consumers be informed when fare
and schedule information is provided if
the fare category does not permit
traveling with a first checked bag, a
second checked bag, or a carry-on bag or
permit changing or cancelling a
reservation, various commenters
expressed support for it and stated that
clear disclosure upfront of these
prohibitions is necessary to avoid
consumer harm. Southwest Airlines
explained that basic economy fares are
98 Presentation of FlyersRights, available at
https://www.regulations.gov/document/DOT-OST2018-0190-0046.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

19:28 Apr 29, 2024

Jkt 262001

increasingly common and likely to
appeal to occasional, less savvy budget
travelers, making early disclosure that
these tickets cannot be changed or
canceled and that passengers cannot
travel with a carry-on bag or checked
bag if that is the case especially
necessary. Southwest Airlines added
that because the least expensive basic
economy tickets often are at the top of
search results, it is particularly
important to provide complete and
timely notice of such restrictions on all
distribution channels. FlyersRights and
Travelers United recommended that the
Department require a clear disclosure
for fares that prohibit ticket changes or
cancellations, similar to the disclosure
proposed for fares that prohibit baggage.
DOT Response: This final rule
requires airlines and ticket agents to
clearly and conspicuously disclose
accurate fees for all critical ancillary
services (i.e., a first checked bag, a
second checked bag, a carry-on bag,
ticket change, and ticket cancellation)
on the airline’s or ticket agent’s website
at the time fare and schedule
information is initially provided when a
consumer conducts a search for air
transportation. The Department
acknowledges the concern of airline
commenters that ancillary packages or
subscriptions that allow passengers to
have unlimited checked baggage for an
annual fee or bundle baggage fees with
other ancillary services such as wi-fi or
food would make displaying baggage
fees on the first page of search results
more challenging. The Department is
clarifying that, while airlines and ticket
agents must disclose the standalone fees
for critical ancillary services required
under this rule, they are not required to
disclose the ancillary service packages
or bundles that include one or more
critical ancillary services but may do so
if they choose.
The Department disagrees with those
commenters who stated that the
Department should allow fee
information for critical ancillary
services to be displayed later in the
booking process, after consumers have
already spent time selecting an itinerary
based on incomplete fee information.
The challenges cited by Air Canada and
IATA that industry faces in calculating
baggage fees favors requiring airlines
and ticket agents to disclose these fees
to consumers, rather than placing the
burden on consumers to make complex
calculations. Regarding Air Canada’s
request for clarification of the meaning
of ‘‘when fare and schedule information
is first provided,’’ that phrase means the
first point at which a fare is quoted for
a particular flight itinerary. This first
point will typically be the first page of

PO 00000

Frm 00031

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

34649

search results provided in response to a
consumer’s itinerary search. The
Department disagrees with A4A that
displaying baggage fee information
when schedule and fare information is
first provided will confuse consumers
that payment of such fees is mandatory.
Many industry commenters touted their
ability to design innovative and clear
web displays, and the Department
expects that the industry will use those
skills to meet the disclosure
requirements of this rule in a manner
that mitigates the potential for consumer
confusion. The Department
acknowledges NACA’s statement that
E.O. 14036 does not require the
Department to mandate disclosure of
critical ancillary fees at the first point in
the search process where a fare is listed
in connection with a specific flight
itinerary. For the reasons discussed in
this preamble, however, the Department
has determined that disclosure of
critical ancillary fees at that point is
necessary to mitigate unfair and
deceptive practices and that the
requirements in this final rule are
consistent with the E.O.
The Department does not adopt the
alternatives to providing itinerary- and
passenger-specific change and
cancellation fees recommended by some
industry commenters, such as requiring
airlines and ticket agents to display the
factors used by the airline to set the
relevant change and cancellation fees
(rather than the fees themselves), a
single change or cancellation fee (rather
than all change and cancellation fees),
or minimum and maximum change and
cancellation fees. Each of those
recommended alternatives would result
in disclosure that is insufficiently
precise to advise consumers of the true
cost of selecting a particular itinerary.
In response to the ACPAC
recommendation, the Department notes
that this final rule does not mandate
change and cancellation fee disclosures
to be displayed in a consistent manner
or use standardized definitions. The
Department is of the view that, so long
as the required information is presented
in a clear and conspicuous manner,
there is no identified consumer harm
from ticket agents developing their own
displays. The Department believes that
the requirement in this rule to disclose
a summary of the applicable change and
cancellation policies will be sufficient
to clarify any potential inconsistencies
in the presentation of such fees. Should
the Department determine in the future
that a problem regarding the consistency
of critical ancillary service fee
disclosures exist, the Department may
revisit this issue. The requests by AARP
and others that the Department work to

E:\FR\FM\30APR3.SGM

30APR3

lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES3

34650

Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 84 / Tuesday, April 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations

eliminate change and cancellation fees
are beyond the scope of this rulemaking.
The Department acknowledges
concerns raised by commenters about
the cost and technological feasibility of
providing all critical ancillary fee
information in text form where an
airline or ticket agent first provides fare
and schedule information in response to
a consumer’s itinerary search. To
address these concerns, the Department
is providing additional flexibility for
ticket agents and airlines in how they
disclose the required fees. This final
rule requires that fees be ‘‘clearly and
conspicuously’’ disclosed but does not
limit the display of critical ancillary fees
to only static text next to the fare. While
the final rule continues to prohibit
display of fees for critical ancillary
services by links, the Department is not
prohibiting the use of pop-ups or other
methods to avoid the page clutter
problems that commenters identified.
To further explain this requirement, the
final rule defines ‘‘clear and
conspicuous’’ to mean that a disclosure
is difficult to miss (i.e., easily
noticeable), easily understandable by
ordinary consumers, and presented in a
manner that allows ordinary consumers
to determine the true cost of travel. In
other words, it should be readily
apparent to a consumer that fee
information is available, the process for
calling up such information should be
uncomplicated, and the fee information
should be understandably presented.
Also, the fees themselves and how to
access them should not be hidden or
involve significant effort to ascertain by
the consumer. Further, the consumer’s
booking process should not be disrupted
in such a way that causes the consumer
to have to start over their search process
from the beginning or to lose their
location on the page being viewed. The
rule prohibits airlines and ticket agents
from displaying critical ancillary fees by
hyperlink because displaying fees in
that manner would disrupt the
consumer’s search.
To evaluate whether a disclosure is
clear and conspicuous, the Department
intends to consider the clarity of the fee
disclosure (whether in text or through a
pop-up, in expandable text, or by other
means); the font size used for the
disclosure compared with other text on
the page; and the placement of the
disclosure on the page, among other
information. Provided that the fees for
critical ancillary services are disclosed
in a manner that meets the regulatory
criteria of clear and conspicuous and
not provided by hyperlink, airlines and
ticket agents have the flexibility to
display or disclose these fees through
various methods, including in text form

VerDate Sep<11>2014

19:28 Apr 29, 2024

Jkt 262001

on the page with the fare, through a
pop-up, or other method that does not
navigate the consumer away from the
page and place on the page being
viewed at the time the user action is
taken, or through expandable text on the
page where the fare is displayed. The
Department concludes that these
modifications from the proposal will
better enable industry to use innovative
web design to display fees in a manner
that is technologically feasible while
still ensuring that consumers are
provided with critical information about
the true cost of travel at the time of
itinerary search. Given the increased
flexibility afforded by this final rule
compared to the initial proposal, as
sought by many commenters, the
Department concludes that compliance
should be feasible and reduce the
potential for slow loading times or
cluttered or confusing displays for
consumers.
Also, as proposed, the Department is
requiring that airlines and ticket agents
disclose to consumers if a particular fare
category prohibits the checking of a first
or second checked bag or the carriage of
a carry-on bag and display the penalty,
if applicable, for carrying on or checking
the item. The Department is also
adopting its proposal to require carriers
and ticket agents to disclose upfront
whether ticket changes or cancellations
are allowed. The Department agrees
with commenters who stated that it is
particularly important for airlines and
ticket agents to disclose that a given fare
prohibits changes and cancellations if
that is the case. Under this final rule,
airlines and ticket agents are required to
disclose that a particular fare category
prohibits a first checked bag, a second
checked bag, a carry-on bag, ticket
change, or ticket cancellation, if that is
the case, when fare and schedule
information is provided during an
itinerary search. The disclosures must
be clear and not mislead consumers into
believing that the fee for a particular
fare category is zero, when in fact a bag
or ticket change or cancellation is
simply prohibited.
Finally, we note that this rule’s
disclosure requirements for critical
ancillary fees and policies must also be
reflected in carriers’ customer service
plans. By adding an assurance in their
plans, carriers commit to consumers
that they will meet the minimum
standards set forth in this rule regarding
the disclosure of critical ancillary fees
and policies. This customer service
commitment is merely reinforcing new
requirements imposed elsewhere in this
final rule.

PO 00000

Frm 00032

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

(b) Website Disclosure of Policies
DOT Proposal: The Department
proposed to require airlines and ticket
agents disclose, along with the fare and
schedule information, the policies
applicable to transporting a first
checked bag, a second checked bag, and
a carry-on as well as changing and
cancelling a reservation, taking into
account the consumer’s passengerspecific information, if provided. For
baggage, the Department proposed that
carriers and ticket agents must display
the weight and dimension limitations
that a carrier imposes for each checked
and carry-on bag, with passengerspecific adjustments if applicable. For
ticket changes and cancellations, the
Department proposed to require carriers
and ticket agents provide a summary of
the ticket change and cancellation
policies applicable to the consumer’s
chosen itinerary and fare category,
considering the consumer’s passengerspecific information, if provided. The
Department proposed to allow carriers
and ticket agents to display policy
information for baggage, ticket changes,
and ticket cancellations using links or
pop-ups adjacent to the display of the
pertinent fee.
In the NPRM, the Department
explained that these brief policy
summaries should include clear,
adequate notice of the rules applicable
to the chosen itinerary and fare
category, including whether ticket
changes or cancellations are allowed (as
well as when and in what circumstances
they are allowed), the form that refunds
or airline credits may be provided (e.g.,
travel voucher or a credit to the original
form of payment), any prohibitions or
conditions that may limit the ability to
change or cancel a ticket, and other
information. The Department did not
propose specific requirements for how
carriers and ticket agents should address
the need for passengers to pay a fare
difference between the old and new
ticket prices in the event of a change but
requested comment on that issue. The
Department also asked about consumer
confusion from the material change in
fare that occurs with many ticket
changes being a larger component of the
overall price relative to the change fee
itself.
Comments: Air Canada asked for
additional clarification, including
‘‘whether baggage fees that must be
displayed also include additional costs
associated with those bags. For example,
is it an obligation to display excess
baggage and overweight fees or is it
appropriate that these fees are charged
at the airport when the baggage is
dropped off?’’

E:\FR\FM\30APR3.SGM

30APR3

lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES3

Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 84 / Tuesday, April 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
On the method of displaying baggage
policy information, the ACPAC
recommended that the Department
retain its proposal that pop-ups and
links are acceptable for specific
information about size and dimension
allowances for baggage in any final rule.
At the January 12, 2023, ACPAC
meeting, the ACPAC Chair, who is the
member representing state and local
governments, stated that it should be
acceptable to provide baggage size
policies by link because the average
flyer has an understanding of what
constitutes an oversized bag. The
member representing airports agreed,
adding that much baggage comes in
standard sizes. Travel Tech also
supported this proposal.
For policies applicable to changes and
cancellations, among industry
commenters, IATA objected to the
requirement for air carriers and ticket
agents to provide a brief summary of the
applicable change and cancellation
policy, stating that ‘‘[a]irlines are under
no obligation to provide passengers
explanations as to why they are
imposing fees on passengers who decide
on their own not to use a particular
ticket.’’ Representing consumers,
FlyersRights asked the Department to
require that airlines and ticket agents
display information on whether any
refund provided would be as a cash or
a cash equivalent, non-expiring travel
credits or vouchers, or expiring travel
credits or vouchers, and whether those
amounts would be for the entire ticket
price less the change or cancellation fee
or discounted.
The Department received a few
responses to its request for comment on
the issue of fare differentials. Air
Canada noted that most of the cost to
change a flight would be due to the fare
differential. Other commenters noted
that, given that fare differentials may be
a part of the cost to change tickets, it
was not possible to disclose the full cost
of a ticket change at the time of ticket
purchase, since the full cost may not be
known until the consumer changes their
ticket. In addition, Travelport stated that
‘‘fare differentials due to dynamic
pricing are common knowledge,’’ and
deemed a requirement to disclose that a
fare differential may apply
‘‘unnecessary.’’ In contrast, FlyersRights
requested that the Department require
disclosure that a fare differential may
apply and whether the airline or ticket
agent would refund the fare difference
if the replacement flight was less costly
than the originally purchased flight.
Regarding the method of displaying
policy information on ticket changes
and cancellations, the ACPAC
recommended that the Department

VerDate Sep<11>2014

19:28 Apr 29, 2024

Jkt 262001

retain its proposal that change or
cancellation policy information may be
displayed by links or pop-ups in any
final rule. The ACPAC also
recommended that the Department
provide greater clarification on the
specific location rollovers or pop-ups
should be placed for consumers to view
additional change or cancellation policy
information. Travel Tech commented
that the Department should permit
disclosure of change and cancellation
policies by links or pop-ups as
proposed. In addition, Travel Tech
opposed the ACPAC recommendation
regarding the specific location rollovers
or pop-ups should be placed and
asserted that the Department should
allow flexibility instead.
DOT Response: The Department
largely maintains the proposed
requirements for the disclosure of
baggage and ticket change and
cancellation policies applicable to the
itinerary, taking into account the
consumer’s passenger-specific
information, if affirmatively provided.99
The Department is adopting its
proposal requiring that the weight and
dimension limitations that the carrier
imposes for first and second checked
bags and carry-on bags be disclosed,
with passenger-specific adjustments, if
applicable. The Department has
determined that the failure to provide
weight and dimension information
before ticket purchase is an unfair
practice, as discussed in section D (1)(a).
The Department is not requiring that
airlines and ticket agents disclose the
fees for excess and overweight baggage
as part of the required disclosure on
weight and dimension limitations.
The Department makes clear in this
final rule that the disclosure of baggage,
change, and cancellation policies must
be accurate as well as clear and
conspicuous. Unlike the fees
themselves, however, the Department
allows as proposed the use of links for
these policies. Allowing the option for
airlines and ticket agents to provide
these disclosures by hyperlink was
recommended by the ACPAC and
supported by public comment. Further,
to reduce screen clutter, the Department
is allowing summaries of applicable
baggage, change, and cancellation
policies to be disclosed any time before
ticket purchase, rather than requiring
them to be disclosed
contemporaneously with the fees as
proposed. The Department is persuaded
by commenters that providing the
policy information later in the
purchasing process will not harm
99 Passenger-specific requirements are discussed
in section E (5).

PO 00000

Frm 00033

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

34651

consumers. The Department concludes
that the requirement to provide these
policies in a clear and conspicuous
manner, as defined in this final rule and
further explained in section E (4)(a) of
this preamble, provides adequate
information regarding where and how
baggage and change and cancellation
policies must be disclosed, while
maintaining flexibility for airlines and
ticket agents to develop their own
consumer-friendly displays.
Regarding change and cancellation
policy summaries, the Department
disagrees with IATA’s interpretation of
the NPRM proposal. The Department
did not propose to require carriers to
disclose ‘‘why they are imposing’’
change and cancellation fees, but
instead proposed that carriers and ticket
agents should disclose, among other
information, whether ticket changes and
cancellations are permitted, the
conditions under which change and
cancellation fees would apply, and the
form of any refund provided. The
Department is adopting this proposal in
this final rule.
More specifically, given that the
Department’s conclusion that change
and cancellation fees are critical to a
consumer’s purchasing decision, the
Department is identifying in this final
rule the types of information that must
be included in the summaries of change
and cancellation policies. First, the
Department agrees with those
commenters who stated that it is
particularly important for airlines and
ticket agents to disclose that a given fare
prohibits change and cancellations if
that is the case (as discussed in section
E 4(a)), and so this final rule requires
any prohibitions or conditions that may
limit a consumer’s ability to change or
cancel a ticket to be clearly and
conspicuously provided in the summary
of the change or cancellation policy. In
addition, the final rule requires, as
suggested by FlyersRights, that airlines
and ticket agents disclose the form of
the refund or credit that would be
provided in the event a change or
cancellation is permitted. Finally, the
change and cancellation summary must
include notice that the consumer is
responsible for any fare differential if
that is the case. As noted by Air Canada,
a large portion of the cost for a
passenger to change their flight in many
cases could be the fare differential.
Given the potentially significant cost of
fare differentials, the Department
concludes that it would be deceptive to
disclose a change fee without also
disclosing that the passenger may also
be required to pay the difference in fare.
As such, the Department does not
believe that this disclosure is

E:\FR\FM\30APR3.SGM

30APR3

34652

Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 84 / Tuesday, April 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations

lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES3

unnecessary, as urged by Travelport,
and, accordingly, the final rule requires
this additional disclosure. Further, the
Department agrees with FlyersRights
that the airline or ticket agent must
disclose whether it will refund the
difference in fare if the consumer
changes their flight and selects a less
costly replacement flight. This
disclosure must be provided in the
change policy. The Department has
determined that the failure to provide
the change and cancellation policy
information required by this rule before
ticket purchase is an unfair and
deceptive practice, as discussed in
section D (1)(b).
(c) Mobile Site and App Disclosure of
Fees and Policies
Proposal: The Department proposed
to require disclosure of fees and policies
for ancillary services critical to a
consumer’s purchasing decision at the
first point in a search process where a
fare is listed in connection with a
specific flight itinerary on airlines’ and
ticket agents’ websites, including mobile
websites. In the NPRM, the Department
noted that consumers increasingly use
mobile devices to book travel, and so it
is important that the same disclosures
provided on airlines’ and ticket agents’
desktop websites are also provided on
mobile websites. While the Department
did not propose to require critical
ancillary fee and policy disclosures on
airlines’ and ticket agents’ mobile apps,
it sought comment on whether to extend
the proposal to mobile apps and
whether there are any practical
distinctions between information
accessed on mobile websites and mobile
apps.
Comments: Multiple commenters
provided data through their written
comments and at the Department’s
March 30, 2023, public hearing
regarding the frequency with which
consumers book air travel on mobile
websites and apps. AELP testified that
70 percent of consumers research travel
on mobile devices. IATA provided the
same statistic in its comments and
further noted that 44 percent of online
bookings were completed on mobile
devices, citing a 2022 report. Priceline
testified that more than half of its
business is from mobile customers,
Google stated that 68 percent of its users
browse on mobile devices, and Hopper
reported that its entire business is
conducted ‘‘exclusively through the
Hopper mobile app.’’ A joint comment
from multiple consumer groups noted
that the top five free travel apps that sell
airline tickets through the Apple
operating system, iOS, have a combined
13.6 million user ratings, demonstrating

VerDate Sep<11>2014

19:28 Apr 29, 2024

Jkt 262001

that such apps have reached millions of
consumers.
Industry commenters opposed both
the proposed requirement that airlines
and ticket agents disclose all critical
ancillary fees at the first page of search
results on mobile websites and the
extension of that proposal to cover
mobile apps. These commenters noted
that challenges with screen clutter are
particularly acute on mobile devices
and apps, which have limited screen
space, and stated that the proposed
requirement would likely limit the
number of search results provided or
require excessive scrolling on mobile
apps and websites. In addition, Air
Canada asserted that ATPCO was never
designed to work in conjunction with
mobile apps and therefore there is an
inherent level of disconnect in the
transferability of information between
ATPCO and mobile apps. Further,
Travel Tech stated that accommodating
screen readers for individuals with
disabilities on mobile devices would be
more difficult given the volume of
information required at the first page of
search results under the proposal.
Some industry commenters, including
Frontier Airlines, Campbell-Hill
Aviation Group (on behalf of A4A),
Sprit Airlines, and Google, provided
visual illustrations to demonstrate the
challenges of displaying first checked,
second checked, and carry-on bag fees,
change and cancellation fees, and family
seating fees on the first page of mobile
search results. For example, in Google’s
presentation at the Department’s March
30, 2023, public hearing, it provided a
sample mobile display it had created
which it stated would require both
horizontal and vertical scrolling for a
consumer to see all ancillary fees
required by the NPRM at the first page
of search results.
A few commenters stated that
challenges in displaying information on
mobile devices would only continue to
grow with continued technological
evolution. For example, Amadeus
testified that in the future more
consumers will book air travel through
mobile devices or other devices, such as
wearables, with very small screens that
might provide search results in the form
of a voice message. Similarly, IATA
noted that consumers are ‘‘increasingly
conducting ticket searches via voice
recognition, with the only major
impediment being too much
information to sort through.’’ IATA
stated that a requirement that all
ancillary fee data be provided on the
initial search page would inhibit
consumer-friendly innovation. Travelers
United expressed concern about the
Department’s ability to adapt its rule to

PO 00000

Frm 00034

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

future technology such as artificial
intelligence. This comment observed
that by the time the rule takes effect,
‘‘new technology will be leading us in
a different direction.’’
American Airlines and Hopper
submitted comments addressing how
the functionality of mobile devices
differs from traditional desktop
websites. American Airlines stated that
carriers provide similar functionalities
for mobile devices as for desktop
websites and that those mobile
functionalities ‘‘allow the consumer to
view or hide information at the
consumer’s choosing, even if a mobile
device does not have a cursor.’’ This
comment further explained: ‘‘in lieu of
‘hovering,’ [for mobile devices]
American [Airlines] will provide a
dropdown arrow which the consumer
can click to display or hide the relevant
information. These dropdown arrows
are familiar and intuitive to consumers
and provide the same benefits as
rollovers.’’ Hopper commented that
rollovers, hyperlinks, and non-adjacent
disclosures are ineffective on mobile
websites and apps, but other
comparable methods can be
implemented by travel agencies for
mobile websites and apps if the final
rule ‘‘is not overly proscriptive.’’
Hopper stated that ‘‘using expandable
native results boxes’’ is ‘‘an effective
approach’’ for mobile devices.
Industry commenters suggested
different approaches for whether and
how the final rule’s requirements
should apply to mobile apps and
websites. American Airlines favored
applying the same requirements to
desktop and mobile displays, noting
that different disclosures would be
costly to develop and ‘‘far more
confusing for the consumers who would
receive different disclosures depending
on the portal they use.’’ Other industry
commenters asked the Department to
either exclude mobile apps from the
final rule entirely or to allow more
flexibility or more limited disclosures
on mobile devices. For example, NACA
recommended permitting links to
critical ancillary fee information on
mobile apps given limited screen space.
Air Canada asked that DOT not extend
the rule’s requirements to mobile apps,
other than a possible disclosure that
‘‘additional fees may apply’’ or directing
the passenger to the carrier’s website.
Observing that ‘‘mobile apps are not
scaled-down versions of desktop
websites but rather use display formats
that are uniquely designed to make
information more accessible,’’ Travel
Tech asked DOT to exclude mobile apps
from the final rule to allow engineers to
develop innovative displays for apps.

E:\FR\FM\30APR3.SGM

30APR3

lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES3

Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 84 / Tuesday, April 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
Like Travel Tech, Hopper requested
‘‘flexibility for agents to design new and
innovative methods for serving their
customers on mobile devices.’’ Hopper
asked that both mobile websites and
apps be excluded from any requirement
to provide disclosure at the first page of
search results and that disclosure
instead be required prior to the time of
purchase for mobile devices and apps.
Among groups representing
consumers, AARP and a joint comment
from multiple consumer groups
supported covering mobile apps in the
final rule. However, Travelers United
expressed concern about the possibility
of screen clutter on mobile devices. The
joint comment from multiple consumer
groups urged the Department to cover
mobile apps to avoid excluding from fee
disclosures the millions of consumers
who book flights via mobile apps. That
comment further noted that ‘‘mobile
apps are just as capable of disseminating
airlines’ unfair and deceptive
commercial practices’’ as mobile
websites or desktop websites and have
expanded reach due to push
notifications. Finally, this comment
explained that many consumers,
especially those who are younger or low
income, are likely to rely on
smartphones as their primary internet
connection, and so the final rule should
cover mobile applications to avoid
‘‘disproportionately exclud[ing] these
populations.’’ AARP suggested that DOT
could allow opt-outs or links and
rollovers for mobile devices.
The few individual commenters who
addressed coverage of mobile apps
recommended different approaches.
Individuals recommending that the
Department cover mobile apps stated
that covering mobile apps was necessary
given increased use of those apps by
consumers, to avoid misleading and
confusing consumers by providing
different information on various
platforms, and because mobile apps
provide a more ‘‘accessible’’ interface
for users than mobile websites. One
individual commenter, however,
expressed concern about screen clutter
on mobile apps due to the proposed
requirement to display all critical
ancillary fee data at the first page of
search results.
DOT Response: Under this final rule,
airlines and ticket agents must provide
the same disclosures for critical
ancillary service fees and policies on all
online platforms. As commenters
explained, consumers now widely use
mobile websites and apps to shop for
and purchase air transportation. The
Department agrees with commenters
who stated that it would be confusing to
have different critical ancillary fee

VerDate Sep<11>2014

19:28 Apr 29, 2024

Jkt 262001

requirements for mobile apps than for
mobile and desktop websites. Further,
the Department concludes that
excluding airline and ticket agent apps
from this rule’s requirement to disclose
ancillary fee data that the Department
has determined is critical to consumers’
purchasing decisions would not
sufficiently protect consumers who use
mobile apps to purchase air
transportation.
Several commenters noted that
methods of consumer search are
evolving to include wearable devices,
artificial intelligence, and voice
recognition technology. To adequately
cover desktop websites, mobile
websites, mobile apps, and other
technologies in this final rule, the
Department uses the term ‘‘online
platform’’ This term is defined as ‘‘any
interactive electronic medium,
including, but not limited to, websites
and mobile applications, that allow the
consumer to search for or purchase air
transportation from a U.S. carrier,
foreign carrier, or ticket agent.’’
The Department makes modifications
from the proposal in this final rule that
mitigate the concerns raised by
commenters about the volume of
information required to be disclosed at
the first point in the search process
where a fare is listed in connection with
a specific flight itinerary. This final rule
does not require airlines and ticket
agents that sell air transportation to
display family seating fees, which the
Department had proposed. In addition,
while fees for critical ancillary services
must still be disclosed at the first point
in the search process where a fare is
provided in connection with a specific
flight itinerary, this final rule provides
significant flexibility to airlines and
ticket agents regarding the method of
displaying that information so long as it
is displayed in a clear and conspicuous
manner and not by hyperlinks. This
allowance includes the option to use
expandable native results boxes or
dropdown arrows on mobile websites
and apps, which as described in
comments from American Airlines and
Hopper, is the type of flexibility that
would permit airlines and ticket agents
to produce innovative, consumerfriendly ancillary fee displays without
overwhelming consumers, unduly
cluttering search results, or limiting the
number of search results. These same
flexibilities apply to desktops, mobile
apps, and other online platforms.
Further, to reduce screen clutter, the
Department is allowing summaries of
baggage, change, and cancellation
policies to be disclosed any time before
ticket purchase, rather than requiring
them to be disclosed

PO 00000

Frm 00035

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

34653

contemporaneously with the fees as
proposed.
(d) In-Person and Telephone Disclosure
of Fees
Proposal: The Department proposed
disclosure of critical ancillary service
fees for tickets purchased by telephone
or in-person like those proposed for
online purchases. Under the proposal,
ticket agents and airlines would be
required to disclose to consumers
shopping in-person or by phone the fees
for first checked, second checked, and
carry-on bags, ticket changes and
cancellations, and family seating that
apply to an itinerary for which a fare is
quoted to the consumer. The
Department proposed to require ticket
agents and carriers to provide this
ancillary fee information for offline
transactions when schedule information
is provided during the ‘‘information’’
and ‘‘decision making’’ portion of the
transaction. The Department explained
its proposal would not allow ticket
agents and carriers to wait to provide
this information until after the
consumer has decided to make a
reservation or purchase a ticket. The
Department solicited comment on
alternative options for providing fee
information on the phone or in person
(e.g., explaining that fees may apply and
referring the consumer to the carrier or
ticket agent’s website, provided that the
website is accessible to consumers with
disabilities).
Comments: The ACPAC
recommended that the Department
retain its proposal to require disclosure
of fees for a first checked bag, a second
checked bag, and a carry-on bag when
a fare is quoted to a consumer during an
in-person or telephone inquiry. The
ACPAC did not adopt as a
recommendation a suggestion from
ticket agents that DOT modify its
proposal to require bag fees and ticket
change and cancellation fees to be
provided ‘‘upon request’’ for offline
transactions. At the January 12, 2023,
ACPAC meeting, the member
representing consumers expressed
concern that the suggestion by ticket
agents to provide baggage fees only
upon request could lead to consumers
having an incorrect understanding of
the cost of the itinerary selected, and the
member representing airport operators
noted that the ticket agent suggestion
regarding baggage fees appeared to
conflict with the proposed requirement
that ticket agents must refund baggage
fees not disclosed during the ticket
purchase process. Regarding change and
cancellation fees, the ACPAC member
representing consumers stated that
consumers in offline transactions

E:\FR\FM\30APR3.SGM

30APR3

lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES3

34654

Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 84 / Tuesday, April 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations

should not have less information than
those who transact online, and the
member representing state and local
governments noted that seniors and
low-income individuals may not have
access to or knowledge of online
booking tools and stated that those
individuals were no less deserving of or
interested in fee information than those
searching online.
Similarly, AARP supported DOT’s
proposal to require airlines and ticket
agents to provide critical ancillary fee
information at the time that schedule
information is provided to the consumer
for offline transactions. AARP stated
that ‘‘due to disability, lack of access, or
simply preference, some consumers will
seek fare information by phone or in
person’’ and noted that these same
factors ‘‘would likely inhibit [those
consumers] from looking for the fee
disclosures online.’’ An individual
commenter similarly requested that the
Department require disclosure of critical
ancillary fee information during phone
bookings, stating that disclosure is
necessary for accessibility and equal
access to information for consumers
using offline booking channels. This
commenter stated that the alternative of
referring offline consumers to a website
for ancillary fee information improperly
places the burden on consumers to
obtain fees when the burden should rest
with sellers of air transportation.
Industry commenters generally
opposed the proposal to require
affirmative disclosure of first checked,
second checked, and carry-on bag fees,
change and cancellation fees, and family
seating fees at the time that fare and
schedule information is provided during
offline transactions. These commenters
expressed concerns about the effect that
the proposed offline disclosures would
have on the ability to maintain
reasonable wait times and assist
passengers in a timely manner, with
IATA noting that such concerns would
be particularly acute when serving
travelers at the ticket counter. Airlines
further stated that the requirement to
provide potentially dozens of critical
ancillary fees would confuse and
overwhelm passengers, and Air Canada
asserted that it is likely that consumers
preferring phone or in-person services
are not looking to compare prices.
ASTA estimated that the proposed
disclosures would add at least 20
seconds to each offline transaction by
ticket agents at an estimated cost of
$21.3 million per year in ‘‘talk time’’ for
agents.
Industry commenters recommended
alternatives to the Department’s
proposal for offline disclosures. Ticket
agents and their associations generally

VerDate Sep<11>2014

19:28 Apr 29, 2024

Jkt 262001

suggested that DOT should require
airlines and ticket agents to provide
ancillary fee disclosures ‘‘upon
request,’’ rather than affirmatively. For
example, ASTA stated that requiring
ancillary fee disclosures for offline
transactions only upon request ‘‘would
allow ticket agents to use their
professional judgement as to the feerelated information their clients need
when such information is not
specifically requested,’’ with different
levels of information appropriate for
seasoned and infrequent travelers. TMC
suggested that the Department allow
airlines and ticket agents to direct
consumers to an online source for fee
information, such as ‘‘an airline’s
website, a corporate travel booking tool,
or other available reference.’’ Similarly,
some airlines and their associations
asked the Department to allow carriers
to advise passengers that additional fees
may apply and direct passengers to an
airline website for detailed ancillary fee
disclosures. IATA asked that DOT allow
disclosure that additional fees may
apply ‘‘either to begin the call or during
the time the customer is holding for an
agent.’’ GBTA recommended that the
Department consider requiring
disclosure of a ‘‘total likely price’’ after
the agent obtains information on
whether the consumer plans to check a
bag.
DOT Response: After carefully
considering the comments, the
Department is modifying its proposal for
offline transactions in this final rule to
require airlines and ticket agents to
disclose critical ancillary fees to
consumers who request them following
disclosure that such fees apply to the
searched itinerary. Specifically, the
airline or ticket agent must disclose in
an offline transaction that baggage fees,
change fees, and cancellation fees apply
when a fare is quoted with an itinerary
if that is the case, and ask the consumer
if they wish to hear the specific baggage
fees, change or cancellation fees, and
any other critical ancillary service fees
that apply. If the consumer requests
information about a single or multiple
critical ancillary fees, then the airline or
ticket agent must disclose the requested
information that applies to the fare and
itinerary quoted, adjusted based on any
passenger-specific information provided
by the consumer.
The Department agrees with
comments stating that requiring
disclosure of critical ancillary fee
information for all possible flight
options to all offline consumers at the
time that schedule information is
provided might significantly increase
hold times and delay airlines and ticket
agents in assisting consumers.

PO 00000

Frm 00036

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

Therefore, the Department is permitting
such offline disclosures to be made
upon the consumer’s request, provided
that affirmative notice is given that a fee
applies to the quoted itinerary. The
Department disagrees with comments
asking that it authorize airlines and
ticket agents to refer passengers who
seek booking assistance offline to
critical ancillary fee information in
online sources or that it should allow
ticket sellers to provide this information
only upon request without any
affirmative disclosure required. While
carrier websites must be accessible for
passengers with disabilities,100 the
Department agrees with AARP that the
same factors that lead some consumers
to seek offline information about
schedules and fares may also inhibit
those consumers seeking critical
ancillary fee information online, and so
the recommendation to refer consumers
to online sources would not
appropriately address the needs of
passengers. In addition, because fees for
change and cancellation are often
provided as a range on airline websites,
finding the specific applicable change or
cancellation fee for an itinerary quoted
offline would be impracticable.
The Department’s requirement that
sellers of air transportation inform
consumers in offline transactions that
bag fees and change and cancellation
fees apply to a particular itinerary is
intended to provide consumers notice
that a specific itinerary being quoted to
them carries additional fees for these
ancillary services. It is not sufficient to
provide a generic disclosure that
‘‘additional fees may apply,’’ as
recommended by IATA. Such a
statement provides little useful
information to consumers searching for
the total cost of an itinerary and does
not indicate what fees apply or the
amount of those fees. The Department
found that a similar notice in online
search tools, as required by existing
regulation, was equally insufficient. As
provided in this final rule, the
requirement is to provide a statement
that bag fees, change fees, and
cancellation fees apply to a specific
itinerary being quoted, if that is the
case. If, for the quoted itinerary, there is
no additional charge for the consumer to
check one or two bags or to bring onboard a carry-on bag, or to change or
cancel the ticket, then no statement
about these fees need be made in
association with the quoted itinerary. If,
however, a fee for one or more critical
ancillary services applies to the quoted
itinerary, then, under the requirement in
this rule, the airline or ticket agent must
100 14

E:\FR\FM\30APR3.SGM

CFR 382.43(c).

30APR3

Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 84 / Tuesday, April 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations

lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES3

notify the consumer that an additional
fee applies for baggage or change or
cancellation and permit the consumer to
request the fee information. If the
consumer requests fee information for
any critical ancillary service, the airline
or ticket agent must disclose it.
The requirement in this rule strikes
the appropriate balance between
minimizing delays in assisting
passengers at the ticket counter or by
phone and ensuring that consumers
receive critical ancillary fee
information. The Department does not
adopt GBTA’s proposal to permit
airlines and ticket agents to quote a
‘‘total likely price’’ based on whether a
consumer plans to check a bag because
that proposal does not address all
critical ancillary fee information nor
would the allowance for a ‘‘likely’’ price
quote allow a passenger to assess the
true cost of air travel.
(5) Passenger-Specific and Anonymous
Search Fee Disclosures
Proposal: The Department proposed
to require passenger-specific or
anonymous itinerary search disclosure
of critical ancillary service fees, based
on the consumer’s choice, whenever
fare and schedule information is
provided. For searches where the
passenger elects to provide passengerspecific information to the carrier or
ticket agent, such as frequent flyer
status, payment method, or military
status, the Department proposed to
require carriers and ticket agents display
the fees for critical ancillary services in
the form of passenger-specific charges
for the itinerary. The Department
proposed to treat a search as passengerspecific if a user provided passengerspecific information to the airline or
ticket agent before conducting the
search ‘‘including when conducting
previous searches if the information is
cached, or if the user conducts a search
while logged into the search website
and the operating entity of that website
has passenger-specific information as
part of the user’s profile.’’ 101 If the
consumer conducting a search elects not
to provide passenger-specific
information to the carrier or ticket agent
(i.e., the consumer conducts an
‘‘anonymous itinerary search’’), then the
Department proposed to require carriers
and ticket agents to display the fees for
critical ancillary services as itineraryspecific charges.
Comments: The ACPAC
recommended that the Department
maintain its proposal to require airlines
and ticket agents to display passengerspecific baggage and change and
101 87

FR 63736.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

19:28 Apr 29, 2024

Jkt 262001

cancellation fees in any final rule. At
the January 12, 2023, meeting, the
ACPAC member representing airlines
stated that providing passenger-specific
fees increases the complexity of the
search process. He urged ACPAC
members to consider the amount of
information required to be presented to
consumers under the NPRM and the
impact these disclosures could have on
the speed of providing search results to
consumers given the number of
ancillary fees required to be displayed at
the time schedule and fare information
is first provided.
In their written comments and
hearing testimony, other industry
commenters also opposed the
requirement to provide passengerspecific fees for critical ancillary
services. These commenters stated that
passengers who have status with an
airline already know about the benefits
associated with their status, and so the
disclosure would have little benefit for
those consumers. The commenters
added that it was impractical for
consumers to provide ticket agents with
all possible loyalty numbers before
conducting a search. They further added
that it was technologically infeasible to
comply with the passenger-specific
requirement, particularly on the first
page of search results, with many citing
concerns about technology for ticket
agents to validate the passenger’s status
before displaying passenger-specific
fees. For example, Booking Holdings
stated that ‘‘to enable passenger-specific
displays that would need validation
from airlines (e.g., frequent flyer
account status and credit card affinity
status) or third parties (e.g., military
status), would be technically
prohibitive.’’ Booking Holdings added
that, without validation of information
provided by the consumer, there is a
risk that online travel agents would
provide incorrect information to
consumers about applicable fees.
Similarly, American Airlines testified
at the Department’s March 30, 2023,
public hearing about challenges with
validating passenger status using the
EDIFACT platform and stated that
querying and displaying passengerspecific fees at the first page of search
results would affect the reliability and
speed of search results. American
Airlines further acknowledged in its
comments, however, that it currently
provides passenger-specific information
‘‘to the extent technologically feasible,’’
including seat and bag fees for
passengers with status logged in to the
airline’s website and military personnel
who access the American Airlines site
through a military booking channel.
Echoing concerns raised by other

PO 00000

Frm 00037

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

34655

commenters, American Airlines stated
that other passenger-specific fee
information is impracticable to provide
at the first page of search results because
it cannot be validated at that time, citing
the example of military status for
individuals booking travel outside of an
official military booking channel. In
addition, Google expressed concern
about consumer privacy if metasearch
entities were required to collect and
share customer data with airlines and
ticket agents to comply with the
passenger-specific search requirement.
Ticket agents uniformly expressed
concerns about the volume of queries
they would need to conduct to provide
passenger-specific information. For
example, USTOA commented that ‘‘the
volume of data transmission necessary
to provide for the level of specificity [for
passenger-specific fees] contemplated
under the proposed rule is
unmanageably large and complex,’’
noting that there are currently 47
different co-branded credit cards for
‘‘major’’ U.S. airlines, with various
policies across airlines regarding when
the airline waives the passenger’s bag
fee (e.g., some credit cards entitle a
passenger’s travel companion to a free
bag, while others do not). Similarly,
Sabre commented that the proposed rule
required passenger-specific information
for too many passenger characteristics
and added that it was unclear that the
list of passenger-specific criteria in the
NPRM was exhaustive. In addition,
Sabre expressed concern that the
requirement to provide passengerspecific ancillary fee information could
lead to providing inapplicable fee
information if only one passenger in a
travel party has status or if status is lost
between the time of booking and travel.
Further, Travel Tech stated that ‘‘ticket
agents would need to receive a huge
volume of data from airlines for this
proposal to work, but systems to
exchange vast amounts of passengerspecific status information between
airlines, agents and GDSs do not
currently exist.’’ Given the concerns
raised by ticket agents, Booking
Holdings requested that DOT not
require passenger-specific disclosures,
at least until new systems could be
developed, and asked the Department to
modify the proposal to require airlines
and ticket agents to inform passengers
how fees may differ based on frequent
flyer privileges, military status, and
other factors, instead of providing
specific fees.
A joint comment from multiple
consumer groups stated that the options
for anonymous and passenger-specific
searches ‘‘will be beneficial to
consumers, allowing them to customize

E:\FR\FM\30APR3.SGM

30APR3

lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES3

34656

Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 84 / Tuesday, April 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations

their purchasing process.’’ This
comment further stated that any
additional time necessary to implement
passenger-specific requirements should
not be used to delay the implementation
timeline for the rest of the NPRM’s
requirements. Travelers United stated
that passenger-specific characteristics
can make a significant difference in
determining the total price of an airfare
but noted that the complexity of
ancillary fee structures makes providing
that information on a single page
‘‘difficult, if not impossible with current
technology.’’
DOT Response: This final rule
maintains, with modifications, the
requirement for airlines and ticket
agents to provide passenger-specific fees
for critical ancillary services if the
consumer elects to provide passengerspecific information, and to provide
itinerary-specific fees for critical
ancillary services if the consumer does
not do so. The Department clarifies that
the list of information specific to the
passenger provided in the rule text—
frequent flyer status, military status, and
credit card status—is illustrative and
not exhaustive. Because variation in fees
within each carrier depends on the
status of the passenger, fares provided
without additional disclosure of the
critical ancillary fees specific to the
passenger fail to provide consumers
with adequate notice of the total cost of
the air transportation. Disclosure of the
passenger-specific fees will promote
informed buyers, enhance competition,
and lower prices.
The Department disagrees with
comments stating that the complexity of
airline policies for assessing passengerspecific fees or the number of queries
that must be conducted to produce
passenger-specific fees counsels against
adopting a passenger-specific fee
requirement. Ancillary fee structures
that ticket agents or airlines find
complex to administer are likely to lead
to consumer confusion regarding fees.
The costly and time-consuming burdens
of determining passenger-specific fees
are currently borne by consumers, a key
harm that the Department seeks to
remedy in this final rule, and makes
disclosure of such fees necessary, even
for experienced travelers with airline
status. In addition, this final rule allows
additional flexibility for industry
beyond what was proposed, which will
reduce the burdens to airlines and ticket
agents in disclosing passenger-specific
fees for critical ancillary services.
Further, many of the commenters who
opposed the requirement to provide
passenger-specific fees appear to believe
that the proposal would require airlines
and ticket agents to validate the

VerDate Sep<11>2014

19:28 Apr 29, 2024

Jkt 262001

passenger-specific information provided
by the consumer before displaying
itinerary search results. Those
comments misunderstood the
Department’s proposal. Neither the
NPRM nor this final rule would require
an airline or ticket agent to verify
passenger-provided information before
disclosing critical ancillary fees when
schedule and fare information is
provided. To address this
misunderstanding, in this final rule, the
Department clarifies that the disclosure
of critical ancillary fees to consumers
may be based on information provided
by consumers. If a consumer elects to
provide passenger-specific information
to the carrier or ticket agent, that
consumer has a responsibility for
ensuring the information provided is
accurate. An airline or ticket agent that
relies on the information provided by a
consumer when disclosing the critical
ancillary service fees applicable to that
consumer would not be in violation of
the requirement for the fee information
to be accurate should the consumer
provide inaccurate information (e.g.,
incorrect frequent flyer account status or
credit card affinity status). An airline or
ticket agent may elect to verify
passenger-provided information at the
point that the critical ancillary service is
purchased rather than at the time of
itinerary search. While this may result
in the passenger later being charged a
different fee than what was disclosed
during the initial search (e.g., if the
passenger entered erroneous passengerspecific information), such harm is
reasonably avoidable by the consumer
providing the airline or ticket agent with
accurate passenger-specific information.
The Department concludes that it is
feasible for airlines and ticket agents to
provide passenger-specific information
as required by this final rule. American
Airlines’ comment suggests that it
already provides much of the passengerspecific ancillary fee information
required by the rule, providing strong
evidence that the proposal can be
implemented. In addition, many
consumers, including those with a
beneficial status, may choose to conduct
an anonymous itinerary search, limiting
the potential burden on carriers and
ticket agents to conduct passengerspecific adjustments in the aggregate.
The barrier that American Airlines
identified to passenger-specific fees (i.e.,
the need for validation of passenger data
before the display of fees) is not
required for compliance, and the
Department expects this fact to further
mitigate the concerns of regulated
entities regarding potential burdens. In
addition, the Department has made

PO 00000

Frm 00038

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

several changes and clarifications from
the NPRM that address concerns
commenters raised about the feasibility
of the proposed passenger-specific fee
requirement. First, the Department has
extended the period for compliance
with the final rule’s requirements, as
discussed in section F, to allow
additional time for data sharing and
implementation of the final rule’s
requirements. In addition, this final rule
does not require airlines and ticket
agents to disclose or transact family
seating fees, a key area of technical
concern for many industry commenters.
Further, this final rule provides
flexibility in how fee information is
displayed so long as the information is
accurate, clear, and conspicuous, rather
than limiting these disclosures to a
display in static text as proposed. The
Department expects that these changes
will greatly reduce the technological
burdens of disclosing passenger-specific
fee information when schedule and fare
information is provided in response to
a consumer’s search.
Because this final rule does not
require ticket agents to validate
passenger-specific data, the privacy
concerns raised by Google do not apply.
The Department nonetheless concludes
that privacy concerns could be
implicated if an airline or ticket agent
treats an itinerary search as ‘‘passengerspecific’’ based on information not
affirmatively provided by the passenger
for that search, such as a search based
on cached information. Under this rule,
a consumer is entitled the option to
conduct an anonymous itinerary search,
which does not consider any passengerspecific information. A consumer
should not see a specific fee or ticket
price tailored to the consumer if the
consumer elects to conduct an
anonymous itinerary search. If such a
search did, in fact, take into account
passenger-specific information not
affirmatively provided by the passenger
for that search, the Department may take
the view that the consumer was not
afforded an anonymous itinerary search,
which would be a violation of this
regulation. Accordingly, this final rule
defines a search as passenger-specific
only when the search is based on
information affirmatively provided by
the passenger to the airline or ticket
agent for purposes of that search.
(6) Opt-Out Provisions
Proposal: The Department did not
propose to permit airlines and ticket
agents to enable consumers to opt out of
receiving fee information for any critical
ancillary services during the search
process. Instead, the Department sought
comment on whether to allow carriers

E:\FR\FM\30APR3.SGM

30APR3

lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES3

Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 84 / Tuesday, April 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
and ticket agents to provide consumers
an opt-out option from receiving
ancillary service fee information that
would otherwise be required. The
Department explained that opt-out
options could potentially include the
choice to opt out of seeing all baggage
fee information that would otherwise be
required to be displayed (first and
second checked bag and carry-on bag),
to opt out of seeing fee information
related to changing or canceling a
reservation, to opt out of seeing seat fee
information for a child traveling with an
adult, or to opt out of seeing some of
those fees.
Comments: Industry commenters
generally supported permitting
consumers to opt out of critical ancillary
fee disclosures. These commenters
stated that experienced travelers aware
of airline ancillary fees may want to opt
out of disclosures and that allowing
consumers to opt out would provide a
more efficient search with customized
results for consumers. Spirit Airlines
commented that a binary choice of
whether a consumer wishes to view
ancillary fee information provided at the
start of the search process avoids any
concern about ‘‘click wrap’’ tactics that
do not represent a meaningful choice for
consumers. Among industry
commenters who recommended
variations on this general approach,
Booking Holdings recommended that
consumers be required to affirmatively
opt in to receive critical ancillary fee
disclosures, stating that its
recommendation was based on studies
that demonstrate that schedule and fare
are the most important factors in a
consumer’s decision. Google supported
either an opt-out or opt-in provision for
metasearch sites.
Groups representing consumers and
individual commenters recommended
different approaches. AARP
recommended allowing opt outs in
limited circumstances, stating, for
example, it may be acceptable to allow
‘‘a traveler to opt out of certain
disclosures (such as a single traveler
opting out of adjacent seating fee
disclosures)’’ on a mobile app where
screen space is limited, but it added that
any circumstance in which opt outs are
permitted ‘‘should be the exception
rather than the rule.’’ One individual
supported allowing consumers to opt
out of ancillary fee disclosures based on
concern about information overload
from disclosure of all critical ancillary
fees at the first page of search results.
Another opposed opt outs with the view
that opt outs improperly empower
airlines and ticket agents to frame the
question to the user about whether to
forgo the otherwise-required

VerDate Sep<11>2014

19:28 Apr 29, 2024

Jkt 262001

information. That individual instead
recommended that fees be ‘‘zeroed out’’
when both the airline and consumer
have reason to believe based on
information from the initial fare search
or customer profile that the consumer
does not need a particular ancillary
service.
For first checked, second checked,
and carry-on baggage, the ACPAC
recommended that consumers should be
given the opportunity to indicate how
many bags they will be traveling with
early in the itinerary search process, and
the fees applicable to the consumers’
selections should then be displayed.
This recommendation was proposed by
the ACPAC Chair who stated that she
did not believe that her
recommendation was an opt-in or an
opt-out. The ACPAC member
representing airlines viewed this
proposal as an opt in by consumers and
stated that the recommendation was
contrary to the Department’s proposal.
This member expressed concern about
how regulating the search landing page
could impact efficient search options
currently available to consumers.
At the Department’s March 30, 2023,
public hearing, NCL supported the same
approach recommended by the ACPAC,
and FlyersRights made a similar
recommendation in its written
comments. Travel Tech objected to the
ACPAC recommendation on the basis
that, in its view, the recommendation
was outside the scope of the NPRM.
Travel Tech further commented that the
ACPAC recommendation would require
ticket agents to redesign their websites
to include a bag inquiry, which would
require significant resources. Travel
Tech asked that ticket agents be
provided with flexibility to adopt this
method at their option.
Regarding change and cancellation
fees, the ACPAC recommended that the
Department should not provide the
option for consumers to opt out of
receiving change and cancellation fee
information. The ACPAC member
representing airport operators stated
that because change and cancellation
fees are not an a la carte item that
consumers select but instead operate as
penalties, the Department should
require their display with no opt-out
allowance.
DOT Response: The Department
agrees with AARP that enabling opt outs
from disclosure of ancillary fees that
DOT has determined are critical to
consumers’ purchasing decisions
‘‘should be the exception rather than the
rule.’’ Accordingly, this final rule
requires airlines and ticket agents to
disclose change and cancellation fees to
all consumers before ticket purchase

PO 00000

Frm 00039

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

34657

without any opt-out allowance. It also
prohibits airlines and ticket agents from
enabling consumers to opt out of
receiving fee information for a first
checked bag, a second checked bag, or
a carry-on bag during the search process
with one exception. In response to the
recommendation by the ACPAC, the
Department is allowing an exception to
the requirement to disclose fees for
transporting a first checked bag, second
checked bag, and carry-on bag on online
platforms in circumstances where a
consumer affirmatively indicates that no
one in their booking party plans to
travel with a first checked bag, a second
checked bag, or a carry-on bag.
More specifically, under the final
rule, a carrier or ticket agent is excepted
from the requirement to disclose bag
fees with the fare and schedule
information if (1) an airline or ticket
agent asks its consumers if they intend
to travel with a carry-on bag or checked
bags; and (2) consumers affirmatively
indicate that no one in the booking
party intends to travel with a carry-on
bag or first or second checked bags. The
Department notes that if consumers
affirm that they are not traveling with
any bags, then the carrier or ticket agent
does not have to disclose any of the bag
fees. If consumers affirm that they are
not traveling with a checked bag, then
the carrier or agent is not required to
disclose the fees for first or second
checking bags. If consumers fail to
provide an affirmation, then the carrier
and ticket agent must display all the
required bag fees. The Department is
making this exception available to
carriers and ticket agents should they
prefer it to providing fees for a first
checked bag, a second checked bag, and
a carry-on bag in all instances when fare
and schedule information is provided. A
carrier or ticket agent that elects to use
this exception must still provide the
baggage weight and dimension
information discussed in section E (4)(b)
before ticket purchase so that a
consumer has access to information
about whether their travel plans are
consistent with a particular carrier’s
weight and dimension limitations.
In contrast to baggage fees, consumers
are unlikely to know at the time of
booking that they would later need to
cancel or change a flight and are unable
to opt-out of these fees on an informed
basis. As explained in the NPRM,
change and cancellation fees can be
significant and, in some cases, higher
than the original fare paid by the
consumer. Accordingly, this final rule
does not allow airlines and ticket agents
to enable consumers to opt out of
disclosure of change and cancellation
fees.

E:\FR\FM\30APR3.SGM

30APR3

lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES3

34658

Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 84 / Tuesday, April 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations

(7) Transactability
Proposal: The Department proposed
to require airlines and ticket agents that
impose a fee for children 13 or under to
be seated next to an accompanying adult
to enable the purchase of family seating
at the point of ticket purchase (i.e.,
transactability). The Department
explained that transactability is
necessary because consumers are not
able to save the seat or lock in the price
for adjacent seating at the time of ticket
purchase. The Department did not
prescribe a particular way for the
regulated entities to comply. It noted
that, to ensure that a consumer receives
family seating information as part of the
itinerary search results and
accompanying fare quotations, a carrier
or ticket agent could decide to enable
consumers to disclose that a passenger
13 or under will be traveling prior to
initiating an itinerary search. The
Department also stated that a carrier or
ticket agent could alternatively decide
to display seating fees for all itinerary
searches, regardless of whether a
consumer disclosed that a passenger
was 13 or under.
In contrast, the Department did not
propose to require fees for a first
checked, second checked, or carry-on
bag or a ticket change or cancellation to
be transactable at the point of purchase.
The Department explained that it has
not identified evidence of consumer
harm resulting from a lack of
transactability of baggage, change, or
cancellation fees because these fees
cannot increase after ticket purchase. In
addition, the Department observed that
there is no change or cancellation fee to
transact at the point of ticket purchase
because the consumer would not know
at that time that they will cancel or
change the ticket.
Comments: Ticket agents, including
GDSs, and their associations generally
requested that the Department require
transactability of all critical ancillary
fees, not only fees for children 13 or
younger to be seated adjacent to an
accompanying adult. Representatives of
the travel technology industry also
made this recommendation at the June
2022 ACPAC meeting.102 Among the
concerns expressed by Amadeus,
Travelport, Travel Tech, and others
were that the inability to purchase
ancillary services from ticket agents
would drive consumers away from
ticket agents, harm the ability of
consumers to comparison shop, and
102 See presentations of ASTA, Travel Tech, and
Amadeus, and Skyscanner, available at https://
www.transportation.gov/airconsumer/ACPAC/
June2022Meeting/webcast (June 2022, Day 1
afternoon session).

VerDate Sep<11>2014

19:28 Apr 29, 2024

Jkt 262001

result in consumers spending additional
time to purchase ancillary services on
airline websites after purchasing fares
from ticket agents. These commenters
stated that consumers might pay more to
purchase ancillary services at a later
time if the Department elects not to
require transactability of all critical
ancillary fees. For example, Travel Tech
stated that, if airlines are able to quote
different baggage fee amounts
depending on when the passenger pays
for the bag (e.g., a higher fee applies if
paid closer to the flight date or at the
airport instead of at the time of
booking), then the lack of transactability
for a first checked, second checked, and
carry-on bag could still result in a
passenger paying more than they would
at the point of ticket purchase.
Some ticket agents, including GDSs,
and associations also asked the
Department to expand the proposed
requirement for transactable family
seating fees to include all seat fees. For
example, Booking Holdings asked DOT
to require transactability of all seat fees
if DOT maintained the proposed
requirement that family seating fees be
transactable because the ‘‘significant
expense of building the required
technology would be offset by greater
functionality for most consumers’’ if the
proposal were expanded. Amadeus
asserted that there was a particularly
strong argument for transactability of all
seat fees due to availability and price
changes. However, the U.S. Tour
Operators Association (USTOA) and
others stated that ticket agents currently
lack the technology to make seat fees
transactable.
Airlines and metasearch providers
urged the Department not to require
transactability of any critical ancillary
service fee including family seating fees.
For example, IATA and Southwest
submitted comments opposing
transactability requirements for any
ancillary fees. These commenters
expressed concern that airlines and
ticket agents operate through
contractual arrangements and stated that
airlines should not be required to
contract with third parties to sell
airlines services. IATA testified at the
Department’s March 30, 2023, public
hearing that travel agent websites would
require new digital connections to
airlines to display transactable seat fees,
which would require years of
information technology development.
Metasearch providers Skyscanner and
Google expressed concern that the
proposed rule’s transactability
requirement would alter the nature of
their business by requiring metasearch
sites to sell seating.

PO 00000

Frm 00040

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

DOT Response: The Department has
decided not to impose any requirement
in this final rule that ancillary fees be
transactable at the point of ticket
purchase. As discussed in section E
(3)(c), the Department is not moving
forward with its proposal to require
carriers and ticket agents disclose fees
for young children to be seated next to
an accompanying adult on an aircraft
and is instead pursuing a separate
rulemaking to prohibit these fees.103
Additionally, as discussed in section E
(3)(d), given that the cost of air
transportation includes a seat and the
lack of clarity about the importance of
seat selection fees to consumers, the
Department is not requiring carriers or
ticket agents to disclose seating fees as
required critical ancillary service fees in
this final rule. Further, the Department
continues to be of the view that the lack
of transactability of baggage, change, or
cancellation fees does not harm
consumers.
The Department is not persuaded by
comments asserting that consumers
might pay more to purchase ancillary
services if the Department elects not to
require transactability of all critical
ancillary service fees. The Department
has identified transporting a first
checked, second checked, and/or carryon bag and changing or canceling a
reservation as critical ancillary services.
The fee rules for these critical ancillary
services do not change after a consumer
has purchased a ticket. The fees that are
disclosed to the consumer during the
booking process will be those fees that
apply to the ticket. Because the fee
schedules for critical ancillary services
are effectively frozen at the time of
ticket purchase—which may include
disclosing that fees will be higher if
paid at the airport rather than at time of
booking so long as that is disclosed up
front—requiring transactability of
critical ancillary service fees at the point
of ticket purchase would provide little
value, as consumers would be able to
pay for critical ancillary services in the
time and manner of their choosing.
Through the fee disclosures required by
this rule, consumers should be aware,
for example, that a bag fee may be
higher on the day of travel, if that is the
case, so they can plan accordingly.
Also, as noted in the NPRM, because
consumers would not know that they
will cancel or change a flight at the time
of ticket purchase, there is nothing to
transact for those fees at the time of
purchase. As with baggage fees,
103 See Fall 2023 Unified Agenda for rulemaking
titled ‘‘Family Seating in Air Transportation’’ (RIN
2105–AF15) at https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/
eAgendaViewRule?pubId=202310&RIN=2105-AF15.

E:\FR\FM\30APR3.SGM

30APR3

Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 84 / Tuesday, April 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
increases beyond the fees that were
disclosed at the time of ticket purchase
are prohibited for change or cancellation
fees, and so there is no consumer harm
from not requiring change or
cancellation fees to be transactable at
the point of ticket purchase.
The Department disagrees with
commenters that the lack of a
requirement to make critical ancillary
fees transactable on ticket agent
websites will drive consumers away
from ticket agents. This rule maintains
the status quo on the transactability of
ancillary fees. A significant percentage
of airline ticket sales are handled by
ticket agents today, even in the absence
of a regulatory requirement that
ancillary fees be transactable on ticket
agent websites, and ticket agents will
continue to have the option under this
final rule to enter into contractual
agreements with carriers to sell ancillary
services.

lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES3

(8) Data Sharing
Proposal: The Department proposed
to require airlines that provide fare,
schedule, and availability information
to ticket agents to sell or display the
carrier’s flights directly to consumers, to
provide such ticket agents useable,
current, and accurate information of the
fee rules for a first checked bag, a
second checked bag, one carry-on bag,
canceling a reservation, and changing a
reservation. The Department also
proposed that such airlines provide
family seating fee rules to ticket agents
and enable these fees to be transactable
by ticket agents. The intention of the
proposal was for ticket agents to have
access to critical ancillary service fee
information sufficient to enable the
ticket agents to disclose such fees to
consumers.
Under the proposal, carriers would
not be required to distribute ancillary
service fee information to any ticket
agent to whom the carrier does not
choose to distribute its fare, schedule,
and availability information. If a carrier
did not share fare information with a
ticket agent, then this proposal would
not require that carrier to share ancillary
service fee information with that ticket
agent. The proposal left open the
method by which carriers could choose
to distribute fee information to ticket
agents. The Department did not propose
to require carriers use GDSs to distribute
fee information to ticket agents. Each
carrier would determine for itself
whether to distribute critical ancillary
service fee information through GDSs as
most carriers already use GDSs to

VerDate Sep<11>2014

19:28 Apr 29, 2024

Jkt 262001

distribute fare and schedule
information.104
Comments: Industry comments on
this issue were extensive. While airlines
generally agreed that the rule should not
require that they use GDSs to distribute
fee information to ticket agents that sell
or display directly to consumers, some
airlines also expressed concern
regarding the proposed requirement to
distribute information. Ticket agents, on
the other hand, expressed the view that
airlines should be required to distribute
information to any entity to which the
airlines distribute fare and schedule
information, including GDSs.
The ACPAC deliberated on the subject
of data sharing, and although it did not
make a recommendation on whether or
how the data should be shared, the
ACPAC member representing
consumers commented that he did not
see how ticket agents could display fees
if the fee information was not provided
to them.105 The ACPAC members
representing airlines and airports
supported the Department’s proposal on
not requiring airlines to share fee
information with GDSs, with the
member representing airlines expressing
agreement with the Department’s
rationale to not interfere with
contractual relationships.106 During
deliberations, the member representing
airlines commented that airline
contractual relationships are the result
of bargained-for terms, and he cautioned
the committee from weighing into those
relationships and giving one party veto
power over the other in negotiations.
The member representing airports noted
that the sharing of data is the foundation
for all other disclosure
recommendations regarding ticket
agents. The ACPAC’s recommendation
on data sharing was for the Department
to clarify and refine what is meant by
‘‘useable, current, and accessible in realtime’’ and ‘‘non-static dynamic fashion’’
when describing how data is to be
shared by airlines to ticket agents.
In written comments, IATA, A4A, the
National Airlines Council of Canada,
and several other airlines supported the
proposal’s lack of a mandate on
104 The Department has also discussed the airline
distribution system in prior rulemakings. See, e.g.,
79 FR 29970, 29975 (May 23, 2014), available at
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2014-0523/pdf/2014-11993.pdf and 82 FR 7536 (Jan. 19,
2017), available at https://www.govinfo.gov/
content/pkg/FR-2017-01-19/pdf/2017-00904.pdf.
105 See Aviation Consumer Protection Advisory
Committee—January 12, 2023, Meeting Minutes,
available at https://www.regulations.gov/document/
DOT-OST-2018-0190-0111.
106 No recommendations were made on this
specific question, as two of the four ACPAC
members were prepared to abstain from voting on
this issue.

PO 00000

Frm 00041

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

34659

providing fee information to GDSs.
IATA also commented that airlines
should not be required to share data
with metasearch companies that are not
authorized agents of the airline. IATA
noted two available options for
establishing agent-airline connections
sufficient to present dynamic bag fee
information: direct connect, where the
agent or agency enters into a direct
connection with an airline, or IATA’s
New Distribution Capability (NDC),
essentially an XML-based technical
standard for use in airline distribution
where an airline shares its NDC
application programming interface with
the ticket agent or the agent’s
technology provider. On NDC,
American Airlines added that NDC
provides more information and better
customization than GDSs. IATA stated
that some online ticket agents contract
directly with ATPCO for fee information
rather than relying on GDSs. IATA
expressed concern about the capabilities
of GDSs, stating that GDSs would need
to divert IT resources away from
improving the passenger booking
experience to instead deliver ancillary
fee information. It noted that GDSs had
trouble implementing the requirements
of the 2011 final rule, due to its
outdated system EDIFACT, and that
GDSs have not met their commitments
to support the NDC. IATA also stated
that a requirement to use GDSs would
give the three major GDS companies the
ability to extract exorbitant fees from
airlines and artificially extend the use of
an outdated network. A4A added its
view that GDSs generally resist carrier
innovation in product offerings, and
American Airlines agreed that GDSs
lack technological capabilities.
Some individual airlines and an
individual commenter opposed any
requirement to distribute ancillary fee
information to ticket agents. Air Canada
stated that the rule would force carriers
to manage GDSs and how their
information would be displayed on
other channels, and the individual
commenter asserted that airlines would
be put in the position of being called to
task for problems caused and errors
made by third parties. Frontier Airlines
stated that it uses proprietary
technology and algorithms incompatible
with GDSs, and any requirement that it
provide data to ticket agents would
require rebuilding the airline’s
distribution capabilities. Southwest
Airlines stated that it does not generally
contract with ticket agents and that the
decision on whether to contract with a
ticket agent should be left to the airline.
The individual commenter also stated
that the proposal was contrary to the

E:\FR\FM\30APR3.SGM

30APR3

lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES3

34660

Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 84 / Tuesday, April 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations

Airline Deregulation Act by forcing
airlines to conduct business with OTAs
and GDSs, even though the carrier’s
own business plan and IT system may
be designed only for direct sales to the
customer.
Ticket agents, including GDSs,
generally asserted that the rule should
require airlines to distribute fee
information to GDSs. Travel Tech, for
example, stated that the rule should
include GDSs as ticket agents, and it
added that it would support requiring
fee information to be provided to all
intermediaries to which an airline
provides fares for distribution,
including ATPCO and GDSs. Travel
Tech noted that airlines already provide
fare data to GDSs, and it disagreed with
airlines’ expressed concern that GDSs
were wedded to old technology and will
abuse market power. According to
Travel Tech, the requirement to display
passenger-specific baggage fees is
infeasible for ticket agents, and not
requiring the use of GDSs will add to
development time and costs. Travel
Tech and others noted that significant
resources would be required for travel
agencies to negotiate separately with
each airline, with Travelport noting that
this may cause agencies to shut down.
Travel Tech added that GDSs are the
only entities capable of distributing
ancillary fee data in the short-term. The
organization asserted that NDC is not an
adequate replacement for GDSs.
Amadeus expressed disagreement with
IATA’s assertion that its technology was
outdated or that GDSs would need to
divert resources away from making
technological improvements to meet the
requirements in the rule. Amadeus
added that requiring that airlines share
data with GDSs would not delay
implementation of the NDC, and that
the NDC and EDIFACT would need to
coexist for some time, with NDC still in
its infancy. Other ticket agent
associations and individual ticket
agents, such as ASTA and Hopper, as
well as GDSs, agreed with the viewpoint
that airlines should be required to
distribute fee information to GDSs.
Metasearch entities supported the
objective of having access to airline fee
information, but they noted several
concerns. Skyscanner stated that it
supported the sharing of ancillary fee
information with metasearch entities,
noting that the requirement would
address a longstanding lack of fee
disclosure by airlines and ensure that
metasearch sites can display fee
information. Skyscanner also stated that
it depends on direct connect
arrangements and ATPCO and GDSs as
the primary source of its data, and that
the information sharing requirements

VerDate Sep<11>2014

19:28 Apr 29, 2024

Jkt 262001

should be extended to include those
latter entities. Google agreed that fee
information should be provided to all
intermediaries and distribution
channels that may be relied upon by
consumer-facing entities. Skyscanner
also urged the Department not to permit
airlines to impose restrictions on the
way their fee information is used by the
recipients of the information.
Several commenters expressed
viewpoints on the terms ‘‘useable,
current, and accessible in real-time’’ and
‘‘non-static, dynamic fashion,’’ as
referenced in the NPRM. Travel Tech
expressed agreement with the ACPAC
recommendation to clarify the meaning
of these terms, and it believed that these
changes should not require expensive or
costly manipulation for the display of
fees. Travel Tech also expressed the
view that airlines should be encouraged
to work toward data uniformity or
standardization, with Travelport adding
that airlines can more efficiently bear
the cost of standardizing their own data
rather than individual ticket agents.
Sabre stated that airlines should be
made to distribute ancillary fee
information in a standardized machinereadable format across all channels they
already use to distribute fares, including
GDSs. USTOA expressed concern that
terms like ‘‘useable’’ would be
susceptible to differing interpretations,
and it agreed that a lack of industry
standards for furnishing information to
ticket agents would impose increased
compliance costs and practical burdens.
Skyscanner stated that fee data is not
‘‘useable’’ if it requires costly processing
or other manipulation before it can be
displayed.
Multiple commenters, including
Travel Tech, Bookings Holdings, and
Skyscanner, expressed concern about
being held responsible for inaccurate or
incomplete fee data provided by
airlines. Travel Tech noted, for example,
that ticket agents should not be
responsible for failing to display
information not provided by airlines
and should not be barred from
providing flight information because
airlines have not provided accurate fee
data. Skyscanner urged the Department
to clarify that metasearch sites and other
entities will not be held responsible if
airlines fail to provide covered fee
information, which would prevent these
entities from displaying the information
to consumers, and it also believes that
it should be allowed to display fare,
schedule, and availability information
even if it has not received
accompanying ancillary fee information
from the airline.
DOT Response: After carefully
considering the comments on this issue,

PO 00000

Frm 00042

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

the Department is requiring airlines to
share critical ancillary fee information
with any entity that is required by law
to disclose critical ancillary service fee
and policy information directly to
consumers.107 The Department agrees
with commenters, including members of
the ACPAC, regarding the need for
airlines to share fee information with
ticket agents for those ticket agents to
make the required fee disclosures. In the
Department’s view, the requirement for
fee data sharing is necessary to enable
ticket agents to disclose fees to
consumers when providing fare and
schedule information. The Department
provides its analysis of how the failure
to share critical ancillary fee
information is an unfair practice in
section D (1)(d). In this final rule, as
discussed in section E (1), the
Department is requiring ticket agents to
disclose critical ancillary service fees
and policies to consumers. The
Department is excluding corporate
travel agents from these requirements
and deferring to another rulemaking its
determination on whether metasearch
sites that do not sell airline tickets but
display airline flight search options
directly to consumers are ticket agents
that must disclose ancillary fee
information required. Accordingly, this
final rule does not require airlines to
share critical ancillary service fees with
corporate travel agents. It also does not
require sharing of information with
metasearch entities unless and until
metasearch entities are required to
disclose that information to consumers.
Despite the absence of a regulatory
requirement, the Department recognizes
that it benefits consumers, metasearch
sites, and airlines if all critical ancillary
fee information is available through all
sources that consumers use to shop for
air transportation. As a result, the
Department encourages airlines and
metasearch sites to enter into voluntary
agreements to share critical ancillary fee
information while further regulatory
action is under consideration.
The Department continues to hold the
view that it is not appropriate to require
carriers to use GDSs to distribute fee
information to ticket agents. The
Department’s interest is in ensuring that
ticket agents disclose critical ancillary
service fees to consumers whenever fare
and schedule information is provided.
Whether carriers share the required data
through GDSs or by direct connect or by
NDC are business decisions, and the
Department seeks to minimize
107 As noted in sections E (3)(c) and E (7), the
Department has decided not to move forward with
its data sharing and transactability proposals related
to family seating fees at this time.

E:\FR\FM\30APR3.SGM

30APR3

lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES3

Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 84 / Tuesday, April 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
government interference with the
business relationships between airlines,
GDSs, and others. The Department notes
that changes appear to be ongoing in the
marketplace for information
distribution, including the adoption and
use of NDC. Further, the comments
illustrate that there continue to be
disagreements between airlines and
GDSs on whether GDSs have the
modern technology airlines need to
merchandise and sell their products the
way the airlines choose. The
Department is unwilling to impose a
prescriptive requirement on this issue
while the situation is evolving and
while the dynamic between airlines and
GDSs remains highly complex. We
believe that these airline-GDS
relationships are best left to the
marketplace. Nothing in this rule
precludes or requires airlines to use
GDSs to distribute critical ancillary fee
information to consumer-facing ticket
agents. As noted in the NPRM, GDSs
may provide the lowest cost and most
efficient way of distributing this
information to ticket agents that sell the
carrier’s ancillary services. This may
lead airlines to conclude that they need
or want to use GDSs to distribute fee
information to meet the implementation
deadlines imposed by this rule. The
Department notes that these
circumstances may change in the future
and an overly prescriptive requirement
may become too rigid and may
ultimately hurt, rather than improve, the
consumer experience.
Also, the Department is adopting its
proposal requiring the sharing of critical
ancillary fee information only with the
entities that a carrier chooses to
distribute its fare, schedule, and
availability information. Under this
final rule, airlines are required to share
critical ancillary fee information only
with those entities with whom they
provide fare, schedule, and availability
information and who are required to
disclose this information directly to
consumers. Airlines are not required to
share ancillary service fee information
with entities with whom they have no
existing relationship for sharing airline
schedule and fare information.
On the terms ‘‘current, useable, and
accessible in real-time’’ (or ‘‘useable,
current, and accurate,’’ as this phrase
appears in this final rule) and
‘‘dynamic, non-static fashion,’’ the
Department does not define these terms
in the regulation. The Department
recognizes commenters’ concerns about
the lack of standardization in the data
sharing process; however, as with other
aspects of the data sharing requirement
in the regulation, the Department
believes that the requirement is better

VerDate Sep<11>2014

19:28 Apr 29, 2024

Jkt 262001

suited to a performance-based, rather
than prescriptive, standard. A more
performance-based framework could
enable the marketplace to coalesce
around several functioning models of
data transfer that will work to meet the
regulation’s objectives—namely, for
ticket agents to have access to ancillary
fee information sufficient to meet the fee
disclosure requirements under this rule.
We do note that, to meet the fee
disclosure requirements of this final
rule, ticket agents would need to be able
to access fee rules and/or specific fee
information such that each consumer
itinerary search will result in the
provision of accurate and applicable
critical ancillary fee information that
this rule requires. The Department
expects that this will mean automated
data transfers rather than manual. We
also note that the requirement is for
airlines to provide information
‘‘sufficient to ensure compliance by
such entities’’ with the disclosure
requirement. If airlines transfer the data
in a way that is generally inaccessible to
ticket agents despite reasonable efforts
by the ticket agents to incorporate the
data into their systems, then the
information provided by the airlines is
not considered sufficient. We expect
both airlines and ticket agents to work
in good faith to ensure that the data is
useable to the recipient. Understanding
that smaller ticket agents may require
additional time to modify their systems
to receive data and to disclose fee
information in accordance with the
regulation, this rule provides for
additional time for small ticket agents to
come into compliance. See section F.
The Department has considered ticket
agents’ concern that they could be held
liable for missing or inaccurate data
provided by the airlines. After
considering these comments, the
Department has determined that this
concern is best addressed through
OACP’s investigatory process since
OACP would be able to determine
whether ticket agents’ failure to
properly disclose fees is a result of
receiving incomplete or inaccurate data
from an airline, based on the specific
facts and circumstances of each case.
The disclosures required by this
rulemaking apply to both airlines and
ticket agents. Under the regulation, if
OACP were to investigate and find that
missing or erroneous fee information
displayed on a ticket agent’s website
was entirely the result of airline action
or inaction, then OACP would pursue
action against the airline and not the
ticket agent. This rule affords airlines
flexibility on how fee information is
transmitted to ticket agents (i.e.,

PO 00000

Frm 00043

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

34661

whether the airline decides to use direct
connect, GDS, or another method of
delivery) but also requires airlines to
ensure that information is accurately,
timely, and effectively transmitted.
(9) Remedies for Noncompliance
Proposal: The Department proposed
to treat as an unfair and deceptive
practice within the meaning of 49 U.S.C.
41712: (1) the failure by a carrier or
ticket agent to provide the critical
ancillary fee disclosures required by the
proposed rule, and (2) the collection of
a fee for critical ancillary services if that
fee was not disclosed when fare and
schedule information was provided. In
addition, the Department proposed to
require a seller of air transportation to
refund any fee charged for a critical
ancillary service if the fee was not
disclosed at the time the consumer
searched for and purchased air
transportation.
Comments: The Department received
only a few comments directly
addressing these proposed provisions,
all from industry commenters who
opposed the requirement for a ticket
agent to refund fees charged by an
airline. USTOA stated that the proposed
requirement for ticket agents to provide
refunds for services actually provided,
in contrast to refunds for services not
provided, exceeds the Department’s
statutory authority. This comment
asserted that the Department is
authorized to issue civil penalties for
violations of 49 U.S.C. 41712, but not
equitable relief like disgorgement, and
the comment urged the Department to
rely on investigations and civil penalties
to incentivize compliance. USTOA also
raised concerns about the burdens of
retaining information to demonstrate
what critical ancillary fee information
was provided to the consumer at the
time of search. Similarly, ASTA raised
concerns with the purported challenges
of demonstrating what was disclosed by
the ticket agent to a consumer in an
offline transaction and the burden of
providing refunds for funds collected by
the airline, not the ticket agent. Finally,
Google stated that an entity that
displays and relies on ancillary fee
information provided by an airline
should not be liable for a later
overcharge by the airline and expressed
concern that the proposal was likely to
impose ‘‘a severe financial burden on
ticket agents.’’ Google added that
metasearch entities would need to
collect and retain personal information
for purposes of issuing a refund and
would not be able to validate data
provided by a consumer, such as
frequent flier status, that may result in

E:\FR\FM\30APR3.SGM

30APR3

34662

Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 84 / Tuesday, April 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations

an airline charging a higher fee than was
originally displayed.108
DOT Response: After carefully
considering the comments, the
Department is maintaining its proposal
to treat as an unfair and deceptive
practice the failure by a carrier or ticket
agent to provide and adhere to the
critical ancillary fee disclosures
required by this rule but is not moving
forward with its proposal to require a
seller of air transportation to refund a
fee for any critical ancillary service
charged if the fee was not disclosed at
the time the consumer searched for and
purchased air transportation. While the
Department disagrees with USTOA’s
comment that the proposed remedy
exceeds DOT’s authority, the
Department has determined that any
violations of the disclosure
requirements can be adequately
addressed through its existing
enforcement process, which can be
initiated by a consumer’s filing of a
complaint through OACP’s website. The
Department notes that, as an
enforcement policy, OACP ensures that
the violating entity has corrected the
problematic issue and made whole any
consumer that was negatively impacted.
This includes the Department seeking
monetary relief for consumers in
negotiated settlement agreements
addressing violations of 49 U.S.C.
41712, where appropriate. The
Department has obtained monetary
relief for consumers in previous
enforcement matters in addition to
assessing civil monetary penalties. See
49 U.S.C. 46301.
(10) Other Proposals

lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES3

(a) Air Tour Packages
Proposal: The Department proposed
that the fee disclosures for a carry-on
bag, a first checked bag, and a second
checked bag under the NPRM would not
apply to air-tour packages advertised or
sold online by ticket agents if the air
transportation component is not
finalized and the carrier providing air
transportation is not known at the time
of booking. Instead, the Department
proposed to require ticket agents in such
situations to disclose that additional
airline fees for baggage may apply and
that those fees may be reduced or
waived based on the passenger’s
frequent flyer status, method of
payment, or other information specific
to the consumer. The Department
108 Google noted that the proposed rule’s
preamble stated that the refund would be owed by
the ‘‘seller of air transportation,’’ but the draft
regulatory text did not use this term and instead
referred to a refund by a ‘‘ticket agent,’’ which the
Department has previously asserted includes
metasearch entities.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

19:28 Apr 29, 2024

Jkt 262001

further proposed that, once the identity
of the carrier providing the air
transportation becomes known, the
ticket agent must provide passengerspecific fee information for a first
checked, second checked, and carry-on
bag to prospective passengers and those
passengers who booked the air-tour
package before the identity of the carrier
was known. The Department requested
comment on whether this exception for
certain air tour packages adequately
addresses concerns of air-tour package
sellers and whether such an exception
adequately protects consumers.
Comments: American Airlines
opposed the Department’s proposal to
require sellers of air tour packages to
state ‘‘baggage fees may apply’’ if the
carrier is unknown at the time of
booking. Asserting that the Department
is essentially exempting air tour package
sellers from the requirement to disclose
baggage fees, American recommended
that sellers of air tour packages instead
be required to provide a range of
baggage fees when a carrier’s identity is
unknown. American Airlines argued
that the Department’s proposal would
expand a technology gap to the
detriment of consumers, adding that
‘‘packagers are capable of providing
reasonable estimates or ranges for
potential expenses for travelers. These
requirements would increase
transparency and cost certainty for
travelers.’’ USTOA supported the
Department’s proposal but noted that
the NPRM did not specify the timeframe
within which a ticket agent must
provide the required baggage fee
disclosures to consumers after the
identity of the air carrier becomes
known.
DOT Response: The Department
disagrees with American Airlines’
assertion that the Department is
exempting air tour package sellers from
baggage fee disclosure requirements.
The Department is adopting the
proposal requiring that air tour package
sellers provide the relevant fee
information once the identity of the
carrier is known. The rule does not
require that air tour package sellers
disclose specific bag fees at the time of
sale when the identity of the airline is
not known, as identifying specific bag
fees without knowing the operating
airline could lead to guessing and
inaccurate information, thereby
confusing consumers. The Department
has long required carriers and ticket
agents to provide specific fees for first
checked, second checked, and carry-on
baggage, even under existing regulations
that permit other ancillary fees to be
expressed as a range. Baggage fees
across carriers vary significantly and so

PO 00000

Frm 00044

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

requiring air tour package sellers to
provide a range of baggage fees, as
American Airlines recommends, would
not assist consumers to assess the costs
of transportation as the range of baggage
fees for multiple carriers would be so
wide as to render the information
useless.
Under this final rule, if the airline for
an air-tour package is unknown when a
passenger books the package, then the
ticket agent must disclose in a clear and
conspicuous manner at the time that the
ticket agent first offers a package fare
quotation that additional airline fees for
baggage may apply and that those fees
may be reduced based on the
passenger’s frequent flyer status,
method of payment, or other consumer
information. In addition, in response to
the comment from USTOA, this final
rule clarifies that, once the identity of
the airline for a tour package is known,
the ticket agent must provide the
baggage fee disclosures otherwise
required by this final rule at the same
time that the ticket agent discloses the
name of the carrier to the passenger.
The failure to disclose that additional
baggage fees may apply when a
passenger books an air tour package
without an identifiable carrier and the
failure to disclose the passenger-specific
fees for a carry-on bag, first checked bag,
and second checked bag when the
carrier is known is unfair because it
causes or is likely to cause substantial
injury, which is not reasonably
avoidable, and the harm is not
outweighed by benefits to consumers or
competition. This practice is likely to
cause substantial injury because of the
additional funds spent to transport bags
that might have been avoided if the
consumer had been able to determine
the true cost of travel up front. This
harm is not reasonably avoidable
because consumers likely will not know
that the bag fees are not included
without the disclosure that there may be
additional bag fees. Also, consumers
would not know the cost of the bag fee
without the ticket agent sharing that
information with the passenger when
the carrier is identified. Further, the
harm is not outweighed by benefits to
consumers or competition as the
disclosures would ensure consumers are
making informed decisions and would
enhance competition. It is also
deceptive to fail to disclose that bag fees
may apply when the carrier is not
known and to fail to disclose the
passenger-specific fees when the carrier
is known. Without these disclosures, a
reasonable consumer is likely to be
misled to believe that baggage fees were
included in the price and also misled
about the total purchase price. This

E:\FR\FM\30APR3.SGM

30APR3

Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 84 / Tuesday, April 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations

lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES3

matter is material as it impacts
consumers’ funds.
Air tour package sellers should
provide consumers the opportunity to
modify their air tour package at no cost
or to cancel their air tour package for a
refund, if the consumer chooses, once
the applicable bag fees are disclosed to
the consumer.
(b) 24-Hour Rule Disclosure
Proposal: The Department proposed
to require carriers and ticket agents with
websites marketed to U.S. consumers to
display on the last page of the booking
process a brief statement on whether the
carrier or ticket agent permits the
consumer’s booking to be cancelled
without penalty within 24 hours, or
whether the carrier or ticket agent
permits the consumer to hold the
reservation without payment for 24
hours, provided that the reservation was
made at least one week before the
flight’s departure. Carriers are already
required to either permit consumers to
cancel their tickets within 24 hours
without penalty or hold their
reservations at the quoted fare for 24
hours without payment if the
reservation is made more than a week
before the flight’s departure. Similar
requirements currently do not exist for
ticket agents though agents may do so
voluntarily. This proposal is that the
carrier’s and ticket agent’s chosen policy
be disclosed on the last page of the
booking process, which is distinct from
the existing requirement that the
carrier’s chosen policy (i.e., 24-hour
hold or cancel within 24 hours with no
penalty) be disclosed in that carrier’s
customer service plan pursuant to 14
CFR 259.5.
Comments: The Department received
few comments on this issue and those
comments either supported the
Department’s proposal or were neutral.
For example, IdeaWorks, a consulting
firm, agreed that ‘‘[a]wareness of this
benefit should be reinforced.’’ In
addition, IATA noted that it had no
objection to the requirement for carriers
to display the 24-hour cancellation
policy on their websites, while USTOA
stated that it did not object to the new
requirement provided that the final rule
was clear that ticket agents are not
required to allow passengers to cancel a
booking within 24 hours or to hold the
ticket for 24 hours at the quoted price.
DOT Response: The Department
adopts this proposal with three
clarifying edits. As proposed, this final
rule requires carriers to disclose on the
last page of the booking process whether
the consumer’s booking can be
cancelled within 24 hours of purchase
without penalty or whether it can be

VerDate Sep<11>2014

19:28 Apr 29, 2024

Jkt 262001

held at the quoted fare for 24 hours
without payment. The Department
clarifies that this disclosure must be
made only if the reservation is made at
least one week before the flight’s
departure, consistent with the existing
regulatory requirement for carriers in 14
CFR 259.5(b)(4). Ticket agents are
required to provide the same disclosure
of their policy on allowing a passenger
to hold a reservation for 24 hours or
cancel a reservation within 24 hours
without a penalty, for flights departing
one week or more after the reservation.
Ticket agents that do not offer either the
24-hour free cancellation or 24-hour
reservation hold options without charge
must disclose before ticket purchase
that the consumer will not be able to
cancel his or her booking after it is
executed, consistent with this rule. The
Department has an open rulemaking
that would address, among other things,
requiring travel agents to adopt
minimum customer standards such as
the 24-hour rule similar to those
imposed on carriers.109 The Department
clarifies in this rule that airlines and
ticket agents must make the required
disclosure in a clear and conspicuous
manner. In addition, the Department is
amending the requirement for carriers to
include an assurance in their customer
service plan that they will offer either a
24-hour free cancellation or 24-hour
reservation hold option at no cost to
also include an assurance to disclose
their chosen 24-hour policy on the last
page of the booking process before ticket
purchase as required in this rule. The
Department has determined that the
failure to make the required disclosure
before ticket purchase is an unfair and
deceptive practice, as discussed in
section D (1)(b).
(c) E-Ticket Confirmations
Proposal: Section 399.85(c) currently
requires air carriers and ticket agents to
include information regarding the
passenger’s free baggage allowance and
the specific fee information for first and
second checked bags and a carry-on
item on all e-ticket confirmations for air
transportation, taking into account
factors such as frequent flyer status that
affect those charges. This regulation
currently provides that carriers must
provide this information in text form on
the e-ticket confirmation. Agents may
provide this information either in text
form on the e-ticket confirmations or
109 Information on the rulemaking titled ‘‘Air
Transportation Consumer Protection Requirements
for Ticket Agents’’ (RIN 2015–AE57) is available in
the Fall 2023 Unified Agenda of Regulatory and
Deregulatory Action at https://www.reginfo.gov/
public/do/eAgendaViewRule?
pubId=202310&RIN=2105-AE57.

PO 00000

Frm 00045

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

34663

through a hyperlink to the specific
location on an airline website or their
own website where this information is
displayed. In the NPRM, the Department
requested comment on whether there is
a benefit in retaining these
requirements.
Comments: Few commenters
addressed this issue. A4A urged DOT to
remove the e-ticket disclosure because,
in its view, existing disclosures are
‘‘redundant, unnecessary, and
burdensome’’ and because consumers
would have already received the
information required in the e-ticket
confirmation during the search
process.110 On the other hand, AARP
called the e-ticket confirmation ‘‘an
essential element of consumer
protection.’’ AARP further noted that
‘‘the dates of travel may be weeks or
months after the tickets were booked,
and many consumers will have
forgotten the specific fee amounts
presented to them at the time of
booking,’’ making the e-ticket
confirmation ‘‘an important record for
consumers to have at the time of travel.’’
FlyersRights asked the Department to
require additional disclosure after ticket
purchase of the size limitations for
personal items, carry-on bags, checked
bags, instruments, and sporting
equipment.
DOT Response: The Department
maintains in this final rule, with
modifications, the requirements that
carriers and ticket agents must include
specific fee information for first and
second checked bags and a carry-on
item on all e-ticket confirmations for air
transportation and that the fee
information provided must take into
account the passenger-specific factors
that affect those charges. The
Department agrees with AARP that the
e-ticket confirmation serves as a
valuable record for consumers
concerning the fee information provided
at the time of booking and disagrees
with A4A that listing this information
on the e-ticket is redundant or
burdensome. To ensure that the e-ticket
provides an accurate record of the fees
disclosed to consumers at the time of
purchase, the Department is removing
110 In its comment, A4A also asked DOT to
eliminate the existing requirement at 14 CFR
399.85(b) that U.S. carriers, foreign air carriers,
agents of either, and ticket agents provide a
prominent disclosure that ‘‘additional bag fees may
apply’’ and where consumers can see these baggage
fees. The Department proposed to replace that
existing requirement with the requirement to
disclose itinerary-specific or passenger-specific
fees, depending upon the consumer’s search type,
for a first checked bag, second checked bag, and
carry-on bag. The final rule removes the existing
requirement as proposed. Requirements for the
display of baggage fees under this final rule are
discussed in section E (4).

E:\FR\FM\30APR3.SGM

30APR3

34664

Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 84 / Tuesday, April 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations

lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES3

the allowance for ticket agents to
provide a link to baggage fees as an
alternative to providing the information
in text form.
The Department has determined that
it is an unfair practice to provide links
to bag fees in the e-ticket confirmation
instead of providing the information in
text form. Links to bag fees that lead to
complex charts are confusing to
consumers and may ultimately not be
instructive for many consumers in
determining the bag fee that would
apply to them. Further, the lack of an eticket confirmation with the bag fee in
text form is likely to cause substantial
injury for consumers who are charged a
bag fee that is higher than the one
disclosed during the search process
because consumers would lack a
valuable record to demonstrate the fee
information provided at the time of
booking. This harm is not reasonably
avoidable because consumers are not
able to generate the confirmation on
their own. Also, the harm that these
consumers experience is not
outweighed by benefits to consumers or
competition because lack of clarity
about applicable bag fees harms, rather
than benefits, consumers, and
competition. As such, the Department is
imposing in this final rule the same
requirement for ticket agents to display
baggage fees in text form on the e-ticket
confirmation that has traditionally
applied to carriers. In response to the
comment from FlyersRights, the
Department also clarifies that the
information about the passenger’s free
baggage allowance currently required to
be included in the e-ticket confirmation
must include information about a
personal item. This is not a substantive
change to existing requirements.
(d) Bag Policy Change Disclosures
Proposal: The existing regulation at
14 CFR 399.85(a) requires carriers to
disclose any increase in applicable fees
for carry-on or first or second checked
bags promptly and prominently, along
with any change in baggage allowances,
on the homepages of their websites for
at least three months after the change
becomes effective. In the NPRM, the
Department proposed language changes
to clarify the scope of websites covered
by this existing requirement but did not
propose substantive changes. DOT also
requested comment on whether these
requirements would still be useful to
consumers if the NPRM was finalized.
Comments: The Department received
few comments on this issue. One
individual stated that additional
guidance on how airlines should
communicate baggage fee increases to
consumers is needed. A4A urged the

VerDate Sep<11>2014

19:28 Apr 29, 2024

Jkt 262001

Department to remove this required
disclosure because it would be
redundant and unnecessary if the rule
were adopted as proposed.
DOT Response: The Department
agrees with A4A that the existing
requirement to disclose baggage fee
increases and changes in baggage
allowances on the carrier’s homepage is
no longer necessary. Under this final
rule, airlines and ticket agents must
provide the consumer with passengerspecific or itinerary-specific fees,
depending on the consumer’s search
type, for a first checked bag, a second
checked bag, and a carry-on bag when
a fare and itinerary is displayed in
response to a consumer’s search. As
discussed in section E (10)(e), under 14
CFR 399.88, these fees may not increase
from what was displayed to the
consumer before ticket purchase.
Applicable baggage fees must also be
memorialized on the e-ticket
confirmation. Accordingly, prominent
disclosure of baggage fee increases on
carriers’ websites would be unnecessary
under this final rule because carriers
may not apply such increases to ticketed
passengers.111
(e) Post Purchase Price Increases
Proposal: The Department proposed
to amend 14 CFR 399.88, which
prohibits sellers of air transportation
from increasing the price for air
transportation including the price for
ancillary services that have not yet been
purchased after a ticket is purchased,
except in the case of an increase in a
government-imposed tax or fee or if the
potential for an increase was disclosed
as required prior to purchase. Although
the existing regulation includes a broad
prohibition on increases to all ancillary
service fees, regardless of whether these
items are purchased along with the air
transportation, in 2011, the Department
announced that with respect to fees for
ancillary services that were not
purchased with the air transportation, it
would only enforce the prohibition on
post-purchase price increases for carryon bags and first and second checked
bags.112 The application of the
prohibition of the post-purchase price
increase was also at issue in a lawsuit
filed by two airlines against the
111 In response to the individual commenter, the
Department notes that the post-purchase price
increase prohibition at 14 CFR 399.88 does not
prohibit an airline from charging different fees for
a first-checked, second-checked, or carry-on bag
based on when the passenger pays the baggage fee
(e.g., in advance or at the airport), but that it instead
prohibits airlines from changing baggage fee rules
that apply when a ticket is purchased.
112 See Guidance on Price Increases of Ancillary
Services and Products not Purchased with the
Ticket (December 28, 2011).

PO 00000

Frm 00046

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

Department. The court considered the
rule as applied under the Department’s
2011 guidance and upheld the
Department’s rule prohibiting post
purchase price increases as it is
currently being applied.113 The
proposed revisions were intended to
make the regulatory text consistent with
the Department’s rule as applied under
the Department’s 2011 guidance and
upheld by the Court.
The Department did not propose
changes to the rule as it is applied but
sought comment on whether it should
require that the price for ancillary
services not purchased with the ticket
be frozen beyond first and second
checked bag and a carry-on item. More
specifically, the Department asked
whether prohibition on post purchase
price increase should extend to fees for
all baggage (including fees for oversized
or overweight bags) or all ancillary
services that have been identified as
being critical to a consumer’s
purchasing decision.
Comments: IATA and American
Airlines opposed any expansion of the
post-purchase price increase beyond the
fees for first checked bag, second
checked bag, and carry-on bag. Citing
seat fees as one example, American
Airlines stated that many ancillary fees
are dynamically priced, and so
prohibiting post-purchase increase of
those fees ‘‘would have the unintended
consequence of foreclosing discounts for
early purchases and likely result in
increased prices.’’
AARP and FlyersRights commented
on this proposal on behalf of consumers.
AARP stated that the prohibition should
apply to ‘‘the ancillary fees covered by
this rule’’ and added that allowing fees
to increase at a later date would
undermine the regulatory goal of
enabling consumers to make informed
purchasing decisions based on the full
cost of travel. FlyersRights advocated for
extending the post-purchase price
increase prohibition to all ancillary fees,
not only those critical ancillary fees
required to be displayed by this rule.
This commenter stated that fees
advertised at the time of ticket sale
should not be increased once a
consumer is locked into a ticket
purchase.
DOT Response: The final rule extends
the post-purchase price increase
prohibition to all fees for critical
ancillary services. The Department
notes that, in addition to the postpurchase price increase prohibition on
113 Spirit Airlines, Inc., v. U.S. Dept. of
Transportation (D.C. Cir. July 24, 2012), slip op. at
20–21. Petition for Writ of Certiorari denied on Apr.
1, 2013.

E:\FR\FM\30APR3.SGM

30APR3

Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 84 / Tuesday, April 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
fees for first checked, second checked,
and carry-on baggage, as currently
applied and discussed above, change
and cancellation fees may not be
increased beyond what was disclosed to
the consumer at the time of purchase
under 14 CFR 253.7. Because the only
critical ancillary services identified in
this final rule are first checked, second
checked, and carry-on baggage and
ticket changes and cancellations, the
modification from the proposal to cover
all critical ancillary service fees does
not impose any new burdens on carriers
or ticket agents. If the Department
identifies additional critical ancillary
services, after notice and opportunity
for comment, then the post-purchase
price increase prohibition will apply to
those services at that time. The
Department declines to extend the
prohibition to additional ancillary fees
not critical to a consumer’s purchasing
decision at this time due to the
complexity and dynamic nature of many
ancillary services. For example, as noted
by the airlines, some airlines offer
dynamic seat fee pricing that may adjust
based on demand and availability, and
consumers relying on a specific seat fee
may be confused if the seat associated
with that fee is no longer available by
the time the consumer is ready to
purchase a seat assignment. As another
example, freezing the price of inflight
food offerings at the time of ticket
purchase could cause different
passengers to have different pricing
regarding the same food product
purchased at the same time, a situation
which could cause consumer confusion
and be difficult for airlines to manage.

lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES3

(f) Full Fare Rule and Percentage Off
Discounts
Proposal: The Department proposed
non-substantive changes to the current
‘‘full fare’’ requirement in 14 CFR
399.84(a) that when a carrier or ticket
agent quotes a price in advertising or a
solicitation, the price must be the total
fare, inclusive of taxes and fees. The
proposed changes consisted of minor
changes to § 399.84(a) to promote
readability and accommodate the
ancillary fee disclosures proposed in the
NPRM. Specifically, the Department
proposed that, if a consumer wishes to
view ancillary service fees, such as bag
fees, incorporated into the total quoted
price during an itinerary search, carriers
and ticket agents may display the total
price of the transportation, inclusive of
mandatory taxes and fees and the
consumer’s selected ancillary service
fees, more prominently than a price that
includes only all mandatory charges.
These adjustments were not intended to

VerDate Sep<11>2014

19:28 Apr 29, 2024

Jkt 262001

make substantive changes to the full fare
rule.
Under the existing full fare rule,
carriers and ticket agents may state
separately any charges included within
the single total price on their websites,
but such charges may not be false or
misleading, may not be displayed more
prominently than the total price, may
not be presented in the same or larger
size as the total price, and must provide
cost information on a per-passenger
basis that accurately reflects the cost of
the item covered by the charge.
Consistent with this requirement, the
Department explained that
advertisements that state discounts in
the form of percentage-off sales must
refer to a discount off the total price to
be paid by the consumer for the ticket,
unless the airline or ticket agent
explicitly states that the discount is
based on only a portion of the fare. For
example, an advertisement that
indicates air transportation is on sale for
a percentage off but does not apply the
discount to the total price would be
misleading if it did not specify that it is
a percentage off only the ‘‘base fare’’ or
other fare component. The Department
further elaborated that, when the terms
‘‘flight,’’ ‘‘ticket,’’ or ‘‘fare’’ are used in
an advertisement stating a percentage
off (e.g., ‘‘a 25% discount off the
flight’’), a reasonable consumer would
understand that the percentage off
applies to the total price of the
transportation. In the NPRM, the
Department explained that there is a
lack of clarity about the meaning of the
term ‘‘base fare’’ and offering a
percentage discount off of the ‘‘base
fare’’ may be misleading if the discount
only applies to a portion of the carrierimposed charges, and not the total
amount of carrier-imposed charges (i.e.,
the fare for the transportation plus
carrier-imposed charges such as fuel
surcharges and other mandatory carrier
fees). The Department solicited
comment on whether and how to
address this issue in the final rule.
Comments: Several commenters
representing both industry and
consumers asked the Department to
define ‘‘base fare’’ to mean all
mandatory carrier-imposed charges and
agreed with the Department’s
assessment in the NPRM that providing
a ‘‘base fare’’ discount would be
misleading if the base fare did not
include all such mandatory charges. For
example, Southwest Airlines stated that
some airlines advertise ‘‘generous eyecatching percentage-off discounts that
can be fairly described as ‘bait-andswitch’ tactics’’ of a large percentage off
a low ‘‘base fare’’ that does not include
all mandatory carrier-imposed fees.

PO 00000

Frm 00047

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

34665

Southwest explained that in such
circumstances mandatory carrierimposed fees ‘‘often make up the
majority of the ticket price’’ and are not
discounted. In addition, both Travelers
United and Southwest Airlines
requested that DOT clarify that the
‘‘base fare’’ must include all mandatory
airline-imposed fees on the distribution
channel where a fare is viewed (e.g., if
there is a charge for online booking and
the consumer is searching for airfare
online, then the online booking fee must
be included in the base fare). A small
travel agent asked the Department to go
further and prohibit all fuel surcharges
and carrier-imposed fees, stating that
fares are filed to ATPCO with the base
fare only, making it difficult to compare
fares between carriers. On the other
hand, IATA opposed any additional
regulation in this area, stating that
consumers understand that percentageoff discount offers do not discount
carrier surcharges.
Regarding the existing full fare rule, a
joint comment from multiple State
attorneys general noted that airlines
often charge fees in connection with
different methods of booking, including
online, telephone, or in-person booking
fees. These commenters noted that they
understand that the existing full fare
rule already requires such fees to be
included in the full fare, but asked DOT
to cover such fees in this rulemaking in
the event that this understanding was
incorrect.
DOT Response: In this final rule, the
Department is permitting airlines and
ticket agents to disclose a total price
inclusive of mandatory taxes and fees
and ancillary fees in place of or more
prominently than a total price that only
includes all mandatory taxes and fees.
In response to comments, the
Department is adding a new paragraph
(e) to § 399.84, which provides that it is
an unfair and deceptive practice for an
airline or ticket agent to offer a
percentage-off discount for air
transportation, a tour, or a tour
component that does not make clear at
the outset the terms and conditions of
the offer, including how the discount is
calculated. This new provision further
provides that, when used in any
advertising or solicitation, the term
‘‘base fare’’ must refer to the amount
that includes all mandatory carrierimposed charges. The Department
agrees with commenters that an
advertisement of a percentage-off
discount that is unclear about its terms
or is offered as a percentage off a ‘‘base
fare’’ that does not include all
mandatory carrier-imposed charges is
unfair and deceptive to consumers. The
Department is unpersuaded by IATA’s

E:\FR\FM\30APR3.SGM

30APR3

34666

Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 84 / Tuesday, April 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations

lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES3

unsupported statement that consumers
understand that base fare discounts do
not include discounts off carrierimposed surcharges, particularly as to
those consumers who purchase air
transportation infrequently. The
Department notes that carriers and
ticket agents may continue to list the
components of the ‘‘base fare’’
separately, consistent with § 399.84(a).
Also, as requested in a joint comment
from multiple State attorneys general,
the Department is making clear that
mandatory booking charges are required
to be included in the quoted fare under
the full fare rule. Southwest Airlines
and Traveler’s United also requested
confirmation that if there is a charge for
online booking and the consumer is
searching for airfare online, then the
online booking fee must be included in
the base fare. That is correct. As the
Department explained when it issued its
final rule that addresses full fare
advertising in 2011, while a carrier or
ticket agent generally is not required to
include a booking fee in its advertised
fare if there are other means for the
passenger to obtain the air
transportation (e.g., a booking fee only
applies for tickets that are purchased
over the telephone), where airfares are
advertised via an internet site that
permits consumers to purchase fares,
the fares advertised on the site must
include all charges required to make the
purchase on the site. For example, it
would be unfair and deceptive to hold
out on such an internet site a fare that
can be purchased only at airport ticket
counters but that excludes a
convenience fee that is applied to
internet sales.114 To avoid confusion in
this area, the Department is adding this
clarification to its full fare rule.
(g) Codeshare Flights
Proposal: The Department did not
propose any new requirements specific
to codeshare flights, separate from the
general proposal that airlines and ticket
agents disclose critical ancillary fees on
an itinerary-specific basis.
Comments: A comment from multiple
State attorneys general stated that
‘‘where there is a codeshare
arrangement in place, the consumer
must be notified of the fees that will
actually be charged, whether they are
imposed by the airline through which
the consumer booked the flight or the
airline operating the flight.’’ Though
this comment noted that the issue
appeared to be addressed by the
requirement that the fees provided be
accurate, these commenters asked DOT
to consider whether special
114 76

FR 23110, 23143 (Apr. 25, 2011).

VerDate Sep<11>2014

19:28 Apr 29, 2024

Jkt 262001

requirements were necessary for
codeshare flights. Two individual
commenters similarly stated that
carriers should be required to disclose
the fees of their partners.
DOT Response: The Department has
determined that no revisions to the
proposed rule are necessary to address
these comments. The Department
proposed, and this final rule requires,
that airlines and ticket agents disclose
critical ancillary fees on an itineraryspecific basis. This includes the
requirement in § 399.85(c) of this rule
for a carrier to accurately display
itinerary-specific fees, including those
involving flights operated by a partner
carrier. In addition, this final rule
maintains the existing regulatory
requirement in § 399.85(e) (recodified in
this rule at § 399.85(i)) that airlines must
disclose through their websites any
differences between their optional
services and related fees and those of a
carrier operating the flight under a
codeshare arrangement. This existing
requirement includes the fees for
ancillary services that are not covered
by the requirements of this final rule.
This final rule also maintains the
existing regulatory requirement in 14
CFR 399.87 that, for passengers whose
ultimate ticketed origin or destination is
a U.S. point, U.S. and foreign carriers
must apply the baggage allowances and
fees that apply at the beginning of a
passenger’s itinerary throughout his or
her entire itinerary. That section also
specifies that, in the case of code-share
flights that form part of an itinerary
whose ultimate ticketed origin or
destination is a U.S. point, U.S. and
foreign carriers must apply the baggage
allowances and fees of the marketing
carrier throughout the itinerary to the
extent that they differ from those of any
operating carrier.
(h) Additional Comments
The Department received several
comments that did not specifically
address the proposals in the NPRM.
Comment: Google noted that the
NPRM did not address how the
proposed requirements would affect
existing requirements at 14 CFR part
256 governing how ticket agents and air
carriers must respond to consumer
searches and disclose display bias.
Specifically, Google asked whether fees
for baggage, ticket changes and
cancellations, and seat assignments
should be included in the total price
when ranking responses based on the
lowest total price.
DOT Response: The Department’s
existing regulation at 14 CFR 256.4
prohibits undisclosed display bias and
requires each electronic airline

PO 00000

Frm 00048

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

information system to ‘‘display
information in an objective manner
based on search criteria selected by the
user;’’ the regulation provides ‘‘lowest
total cost’’ as one example of search
criterion. This regulation further
requires that those flight options best
satisfying the user’s selected search
criteria ‘‘must be ranked in lists above
other flight options,’’ but provides that
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.’’
The Department clarifies that this
final rule does not alter the existing
requirements in part 256. If an airline or
ticket agent’s site enables a consumer to
select desired ancillary services (e.g.,
baggage) to be included in the total
quoted price for search results and the
consumer requests to receive search
results by ‘‘lowest total cost,’’ then any
ancillary fees selected by the passenger
should be included in the total price for
purposes of ranking flight options to
reflect the consumer’s selected search
parameters.
Comments: FlyersRights and multiple
State attorneys general stated that states
should be provided with statutory
authority to regulate aviation consumer
protection.
DOT Response: This issue is outside
the Department’s authority and cannot
be addressed by the Department in this
final rule. The Department works with
state authorities on aviation consumer
protection issues where appropriate and
within the confines of existing statutory
authority.115
Comment: The U.S. PIRG Education
Fund asked the Department to update
its method of reporting consumer
complaints, suggesting models currently
used by the National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration (NHTSA) and the
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
(CFPB).
DOT Response: The Department has
been examining how best to review,
process, and report air travel service
consumer complaints, which has
included looking at various models
including models currently used by
NHTSA and CFPB. The Department
anticipates that its new modernized
system will be operational in 2024 and
will be further enhanced with funding
115 On April 16, 2024, the Department announced
a new partnership with State attorneys general to
prioritize misconduct cases referred to DOT by
State attorneys general who uncover unfair or
deceptive airline practices. See https://
www.transportation.gov/briefing-room/secretarybuttigieg-launches-bipartisan-partnership-stateattorneys-general-protect.

E:\FR\FM\30APR3.SGM

30APR3

Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 84 / Tuesday, April 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
from the Technology Modernization
Fund (TMF) in the coming years.
Comments: A few individual
commenters asked the Department to
impose a comprehensive passengers’
bill of rights.
DOT Response: This comment is
outside of the scope of this rulemaking.
The Department notes that it provides a
comprehensive list of current consumer
protections for air consumers at https://
www.transportation.gov/airconsumer/
fly-rights and an Airline Passengers with
Disabilities Bill of Rights at https://
www.transportation.gov/airconsumer/
disabilitybillofrights. Also, the
Department has an open rulemaking to
respond to section 429 of the 2018 FAA
Act which directs the Department to
require carriers to submit a one-page
document that describes the rights of air
consumers to the agency and require
those carriers to make that document
available on their websites.116
F. Compliance Period

lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES3

Proposal: The Department proposed a
six-month implementation period for
the rule’s requirements. In support of
the proposed six-month implementation
period, the Department noted that, at
the June 2022 ACPAC meeting, one
airline representative indicated that,
broadly speaking, sharing ancillary fee
data with ticket agents is not
technologically difficult and could be
accomplished within a short time
frame.117 The Department specifically
sought comment on whether it should
impose a date certain by which carriers
must share ancillary service fee
information with ticket agents.
Comments: The ACPAC decided to
refrain from recommending a specific
timeframe for compliance with the final
rule. Instead, the ACPAC recommended
at its January 12, 2023, meeting that the
Department should consider what can
be done realistically, as well as the need
for consumers to have ancillary fee
information as soon as possible, in
determining the timeframe for
compliance with the final rule.
A few groups representing consumers
requested that the Department adopt
either the six-month period from the
NPRM or a shorter three-month
implementation period. For example,
AARP supported the proposed sixmonth compliance period, calling it a
116 ‘‘One-Page Document on Passenger Rights’’
(RIN 2015–AE82) is available in the Fall 2023
Unified Agenda of Regulatory and Deregulatory
Action at https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/
eAgendaViewRule?pubId=202310&RIN=2105-AE82.
117 Remark of American Airlines, available at
https://www.transportation.gov/airconsumer/
ACPAC/June2022Meeting/webcast (Day 1 afternoon
session).

VerDate Sep<11>2014

19:28 Apr 29, 2024

Jkt 262001

‘‘reasonable amount of time’’ and urged
the Department to finalize and
implement the rule quickly ‘‘so that the
benefits of fee disclosure can be
extended to travelers as soon as
possible.’’ In addition, FlyersRights
asked the Department to instead require
a three-month implementation period.
In support, it cited the June 2022
ACPAC testimony that the Department
cited in the NPRM as evidence that
airlines and ticket agents could
implement the proposed rule more
quickly. On the other hand, Travelers
United commented that the significant
technological changes required by the
proposal would require additional time
to implement.
Industry commenters uniformly
opposed the proposed six-month
compliance period, stating that it was
far too short and recommending
significantly longer periods, with many
stating at least three years was needed.
Specifically, industry commenters
raised concerns with the ability to
complete data-sharing agreements,
develop the proposed first page display
of critical ancillary fees, display realtime, transactable family seating fees,
and calculate and display passengerspecific fees within the six-month
timeframe proposed. For example, A4A
stated that a compliance period of at
least three years was ‘‘necessary to
provide time for all parties to reengineer their own marketing platforms
and re-design and re-engineer
connections to other stake holders,
especially with regard to family seating
transactions and passenger-specific
search information.’’ IATA also
recommended a three-year
implementation period, citing prior
challenges with data sharing using
EDIFACT and testifying at the
Department’s March 30, 2023, hearing
that providing transactable family
seating fees would take years. In
addition, Frontier Airlines suggested
that required data sharing with ticket
agents ‘‘would be measured in years,
and perhaps decades,’’ and American
Airlines stated that ‘‘to disclose
passenger-specific ancillary fees on the
first page of search results requires a
highly complex reconfiguration’’ of its
distribution technology that ‘‘could take
years to resolve.’’
Other industry commenters suggested
less than three years was needed but
still emphasized that implementation of
the proposal would take longer than the
six months proposed. For example,
USTOA recommended an
implementation period of at least 18
months, Travelport suggested a period
of 24 months (with the first 12 months
for data sharing) if the Department

PO 00000

Frm 00049

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

34667

elected not to require data sharing with
GDSs, and Travel Tech stated that at
least two years would be needed to
display all critical ancillary fees at the
first point in the search process where
schedule and fare information is
provided.
Some industry commenters stated or
suggested that their time estimates
would be shorter if the Department
modified its proposal. For example,
American Airlines stated that if the
Department allowed itinerary-specific
disclosures later in the booking process,
its ‘‘estimate would change
meaningfully.’’ Bookings Holdings
commented that its three-year
implementation estimate could be
reduced to two years if the Department
required data sharing through GDSs and
to 18 months if the Department allowed
affirmative opt-ins or static rollovers,
links, or pop-ups for the display of fees.
Amadeus noted that ‘‘[r]evision of the
rules to allow more flexible displays
and to eliminate the proposed
requirement that all critical fee data be
provided on the first search results page
will go far to allow for timely and costefficient implementation.’’ Travel Tech
stated that the rule could possibly be
implemented in as few as 18 months
with modifications to the proposal.
DOT Response: After carefully
considering the comments received, the
Department extends the proposed
compliance period as follows: (1)
airlines must share data with ticket
agents as required in this rule not later
than six months after this rule’s
publication date, or October 30, 2024;
(2) airlines must meet the critical
ancillary service fee disclosure
requirements not later than 12 months
after this rule’s publication date, or
April 30, 2025; (3) ticket agents that do
not meet the SBA definition of a small
entity 118 must meet the critical
ancillary service fee disclosure
requirements to consumers not later
than 18 months after this rule’s
publication date, or October 30, 2025;
and (4) ticket agents that meet the SBA
definition of small entity must meet
critical ancillary fee disclosure
requirements to consumers not later
than 24 months after this rule’s
publication date, or April 30, 2026. The
additional six months for large ticket
agents to comply beyond the deadline
for airlines reflects that carriers already
have access to the required ancillary fee
information, but ticket agents cannot
implement the disclosure requirements
118 A ticket agent is a small entity if it has total
annual revenues below $25 million See https://
www.sba.gov/document/support--table-sizestandards, NAICS Code 561510.

E:\FR\FM\30APR3.SGM

30APR3

34668

Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 84 / Tuesday, April 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations

in this rule until data-sharing
arrangements are complete. The longer
implementation period for small ticket
agents reflects that those businesses may
require additional time for compliance
as discussed in section E (1)(b).
The Department believes that the
implementation period set forth in this
final rule is reasonable. The Department
has modified several key aspects of the
proposal in this final rule,—including in
areas that were of particular concern to
industry commenters—which will
permit quicker implementation than the
periods generally suggested by industry
commenters. Among those significant
changes, this final rule does not require
display or transactability of family
seating fees and provides additional
flexibility in how critical ancillary fees
must be disclosed, as requested by many
commenters. In addition, while some
commenters cited the requirement to
provide passenger-specific fees as a
challenge to timely implementation, the
Department notes that some
commenters appeared to misunderstand
this requirement and mistakenly
believed that information provided by
the consumer would need to be
validated before the airline or ticket
agent could disclose passenger-specific
fees, posing technological challenges.
As discussed in section E (5), airlines
and ticket agents may present
passenger-specific ancillary fees based
on the information provided by the
consumer, and so this requirement
should not significantly slow
implementation.
Finally, although this final rule does
not require data sharing with GDSs as
requested by some commenters to speed
implementation, the Department
expects that airlines and ticket agents
will work in good faith to come to an
agreement on the method used to
transmit the ancillary fee information
required by this final rule. Nothing in
this final rule prevents airlines and
ticket agents from voluntarily agreeing
to use GDSs to distribute the ancillary
fee information if that is their preferred

method for meeting the rule’s
requirements within the timeframe
provided.
Regulatory Notices
Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory
Planning and Review) and DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures
The final rule meets the threshold for
a significant regulatory action as defined
in section (3)(f)(1) of E.O. 12866,
‘‘Regulatory Planning and Review,’’ as
amended by E.O. 14094, ‘‘Modernizing
Regulatory Review,’’ because it is likely
to have an annual effect on the economy
of $200 million or more. Accordingly,
the Department has prepared a
regulatory impact analysis for the
proposed rule, summarized in this
section and available in the docket.
Table X summarizes the results of the
analysis.
The final rule changes how U.S. air
carriers, foreign air carriers, and ticket
agents disclose information about
certain ancillary fees for flights.
Expected benefits of the rule are due to
the reduction of excess consumption of
air travel, or deadweight loss, which
occurs because consumers who are
unaware of ancillary service fees behave
as if the price for air travel is lower than
it is. Annual benefits expected from
reducing deadweight loss amount to
$5.5 million. The other source of
expected benefits is from the time
consumers will save when they search
for airfare because they no longer need
to interrupt their search to find
information on ancillary service fees.
The amount in expected benefits due to
time savings varies significantly
depending on assumptions regarding
the number of consumers who consider
ancillary fee information when they
search for airfare.
Expected costs of this rule include
costs to consumers uninterested in
receiving this information due to the
time needed to navigate increased
amounts of information, which again,
varies according to the percentage of

consumers who consider ancillary fee
information relevant to their purchase
decision. The primary costs of the rule
to carriers and ticket agents are the costs
that they would incur to modify their
websites to adjust their displays of fares,
schedules, and fees. Third parties
involved in data exchange, such as
GDSs and direct-channel companies
might incur some costs due the need to
upgrade their systems, though the
Department understands that these
entities are already upgrading systems
for market reasons and have been for
several years. As shown in table X, the
analysis considered two scenarios, each
representing an alternative estimate
regarding the percentage of consumers
who consider ancillary fee information
when they purchase airfare. Across the
two scenarios, the estimate of annual
net benefits ranges from $30 million to
$254 million, indicating that this
percentage is a key driver of the results.
Formal uncertainty analysis suggests
that the final rule might be expected to
produce net societal benefits with a
probability of about 53 percent under
plausible assumptions about the
percentage of consumers who consider
ancillary fees when they purchase
airfare.
One effect of better information on
ancillary fees, however, is that some
consumers will pay less for the ancillary
services they use when they travel by
air. These economic effects are not
societal benefits or costs but represent a
transfer from airlines to consumers,
estimated to be about $543 million
annually. This transfer represents $543
million in overpayment in fees for
consumers, or from the perspective of
airlines, additional revenue from
consumers who are surprised by fees
and, for example, then need to pay a
higher fee at the airport to check a bag.
This transfer, as well as the benefits due
to any reduction in deadweight loss,
accrue to consumers and are expected to
occur regardless of any time savings
impacts.

TABLE X—SUMMARY OF ANNUAL ECONOMIC EFFECTS
[Millions of $2022]
Annual amount
Item

lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES3

Scenario 1 *
Benefits:
Reduction in deadweight loss ..........................................................................................................................
Reduction in search time for consumers interested in ancillary service fees when they search for airline
tickets on airline sites ...................................................................................................................................
Reduction in search time for consumers interested in ancillary service fees when they search for airline
tickets on non-airline sites ............................................................................................................................
Total annualized benefits ..........................................................................................................................
Costs:

VerDate Sep<11>2014

19:28 Apr 29, 2024

Jkt 262001

PO 00000

Frm 00050

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

E:\FR\FM\30APR3.SGM

30APR3

Scenario 2 **

$5.5

$5.5

365.2

484.3

37.4

49.5

408.1

539.4

34669

Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 84 / Tuesday, April 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE X—SUMMARY OF ANNUAL ECONOMIC EFFECTS—Continued
[Millions of $2022]
Annual amount
Item
Scenario 1 *

Scenario 2 **

Increased time navigating search results .........................................................................................................
Annualized one-time and recurring costs for airlines to update price displays and provide fee information
to ticket agents ..............................................................................................................................................
Annualized one-time and recurring costs for ticket agents to update price displays ......................................
Annualized costs to ticket agents for offline disclosures .................................................................................
Costs to GDSs and other third-parties engaged in data exchange to upgrade systems ................................

330.8

238.9

32.1
13.9
1.0
Unquantified

32.1
13.9
1.0
Unquantified

Total annualized costs ..............................................................................................................................

377.8

285.9

Net benefits (costs) ..................................................................................................................................................
Transfers:
Reduction in prices paid for ancillary services (airlines to consumers) ...........................................................

30.3

253.5

543.1

543.1

* Scenario 1: 46% of consumers consider ancillary fees when they search for airfare.
** Scenario 2: 61% of consumers consider ancillary fees when they search for airfare.

Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)
This final rule has been analyzed in
accordance with the principles and
criteria contained in E.O. 13132
(‘‘Federalism’’). This final rule does not
include any requirement 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 E.O. 13132 do not apply.

lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES3

Executive Order 13175
This final rule has been analyzed in
accordance with the principles and
criteria contained in E.O. 13175
(‘‘Consultation and Coordination with
Indian Tribal Governments’’). Because
none of the provisions of this final rule
will significantly or uniquely affect the
communities of the Indian tribal
governments or impose substantial
direct compliance costs on them, the
funding and consultation requirements
of E.O. 13175 do not apply.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
When a Federal agency is required to
publish a notice of proposed rulemaking
(5 U.S.C. 553), the Regulatory Flexibility
Act of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.)
requires the agency to conduct a final
regulatory flexibility analysis (FRFA). A
FRFA describes the impact of the rule
on small entities and describes the steps
the agency has taken to minimize the
significant economic impact on small
entities consistent with the stated

VerDate Sep<11>2014

19:28 Apr 29, 2024

Jkt 262001

objectives of applicable statutes (5
U.S.C. 604). A FRFA is not required if
the agency head certifies that a rule will
not have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities
(5 U.S.C. 605). The Department has
prepared a FRFA for this final rule, set
forth in the paragraphs that follow. DOT
has provided a statement of the need
for, and objectives of, the rule elsewhere
in the preamble and does not restate
them here. In the preamble to this final
rule, DOT responds to the comments
received on the economic impacts of the
rule, including on small entities, and
provides DOT’s assessment of those
comments and any changes made as a
result of those comments (e.g., the
extended compliance period, exclusion
of corporate travel agents, removal of
family seat fee disclosure and
transactability, flexibilities provided in
the way carriers and ticket agents
display ancillary fee information, and
permitting baggage and change and
cancellation policies to be displayed
later in the booking process). DOT does
not repeat that information here. The
Department’s Regulatory Impact
Analysis developed in support of this
final rule also provides information on
the economic impacts of the final rule,
as modified in response to public
comments and further consideration by
the Department. DOT did not receive
comments from the Chief Counsel for
Advocacy of the Small Business
Administration in response to the
proposed rule.
Description of and an estimate of the
number of small entities to which the
rule will apply.
The rule will have some impact on
U.S. air carriers, foreign air carriers and
ticket agents that qualify as small
entities. It would also have some impact
on GDSs, but none of the three major

PO 00000

Frm 00051

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

GDS companies in the market
(Amadeus, Sabre, and Travelport)
qualify as small businesses.
A carrier is a small entity if it
provides air transportation exclusively
with small aircraft, defined as any
aircraft originally designed to have a
maximum passenger capacity of 60 seats
or less or a maximum payload capacity
of 18,000 pounds or less, as described
in 14 CFR 399.73. In 2020, 28 carriers
meeting these criteria reported
passenger traffic data to the Bureau of
Transportation Statistics.119
A ticket agent is a small entity if it has
total annual revenues below $25
million.120 This amount excludes funds
received in trust for an unaffiliated third
party, such as bookings or sales subject
to commissions, but includes
commissions received. In 2017, the
latest year with available data, 7,827
travel agency establishments had annual
revenues of less than $25 million.121
Description of the projected reporting,
recordkeeping, and other compliance
requirements of the rule, including an
estimate of the classes of small entities
which will be subject to the requirement
and the type of professional skills
necessary for preparation of the report
or record.
The final rule would have impacts on
small entities because carriers and ticket
agents would incur costs to modify
websites and upgrade systems to
exchange ancillary fee data. The
Department stated in its initial
regulatory flexibility analysis prepared
in support of the proposed rule that
119 Bureau of Transportation Statistics. No date.
‘‘T1: U.S. Air Carrier Traffic and Capacity Summary
by Service Class.’’ https://transtats.bts.gov/.
120 See https://www.sba.gov/document/support-table-size-standards, NAICS Code 561510.
121 U.S. Census Bureau. 2022. ‘‘Economic
Census.’’ https://www.census.gov/programssurveys/economic-census.html.

E:\FR\FM\30APR3.SGM

30APR3

lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES3

34670

Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 84 / Tuesday, April 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations

because the Department could not
estimate these costs reliably, it could
not determine whether the proposed
rule would impose a significant impact
on a substantial number of small
entities. For this final rule, the
Department estimated that the primary
costs of the rule to carriers and ticket
agents are the costs that they would
incur to modify their websites by
adjusting their displays of fares,
schedules, and fees. Third parties
involved in data exchange, such as
GDSs and direct-channel companies
might incur some costs due the need to
upgrade their systems, though the
Department understands that these
entities are already upgrading systems
for market reasons and have been for
several years. DOT estimated quantified
costs range from $658 million to $1.5
billion annually. The Department
acknowledges that some portion of these
costs would be incurred by small
entities.
Description of the steps the agency
has taken to minimize the significant
economic impact on small entities
consistent with the stated objectives of
applicable statutes, including a
statement of the factual, policy, and
legal reasons for selecting the
alternative adopted in the final rule and
why each one of the other significant
alternatives to the rule considered by
the agency which affect the impact on
small entities was rejected.
The Department considered several
alternatives to the measures adopted in
this final rule. In this section, the
Department describes the steps taken to
minimize the significant economic
impact on small entities consistent with
the objectives of 49 U.S.C. 41712 and
the other authorities discussed in the
Statutory Authorities section of this
final rule.
The Department proposed to cover
U.S. air carriers, foreign air carriers, and
ticket agents that advertise or sell airline
tickets, whether traditional brick-andmortar travel agencies, corporate travel
agents, OTAs or metasearch sites that
display airline flight search options
directly to consumers. The final rule
defers for a separate rulemaking a
determination on whether metasearch
sites that display airline flight search
options directly to consumers are ticket
agents subject to the disclosure
requirements in this rule. To ensure
consumers have access to critical
ancillary service fee information under
this final rule while metasearch entities
are excluded from the rule’s disclosure
requirements, the Department requires
that airlines and ticket agents display
the required critical ancillary service fee
information on the landing page on the

VerDate Sep<11>2014

19:28 Apr 29, 2024

Jkt 262001

airline or ticket agent’s online platform
to which consumers are directed after
using a metasearch site. The Department
believes that this option best balances
the concerns that more examination is
needed in the Department’s separate
rulemaking on ticket agents before the
Department determines whether to
cover metasearch sites that display
airline flight search options directly to
consumers as ticket agents required to
disclose critical ancillary fee and policy
information to consumers.
The final rule also excludes corporate
travel agents from the final rule’s
requirements. Ancillary fee disclosures
by those agents are the subject of
contractual agreements between a
business client and the travel agent,
with the relevant ancillary services and
fees negotiated as part of the contract.
Moreover, the fees often are irrelevant
for corporate clients, and are not a
significant consideration in corporate
travelers’ purchasing decisions. The
corporate client, not the business
traveler, generally pays the cost of
transportation, including fees. The
benefits of covering corporate agents
would therefore be limited but would
involve costs.
The Department also considered
differing compliance periods for the
requirements established in the rule. In
the proposed rule, the Department
proposed a compliance period of 6
months for all covered entities to
comply with the rule’s requirements.
The Department received comment that
additional time was needed for
compliance, including from small
entities. In consideration of these
comments, the Department requires in
this final rule that: (1) airlines must
provide fee and policy information of
critical ancillary services to entities
required to disclose this information
directly to consumers no later than six
months after this rule’s publication date,
(2) airlines must comply with all other
regulatory requirements not later than
12 months after this rule’s publication
date, (3) ticket agents that do not meet
the SBA definition of small entity must
comply with all regulatory requirements
not later than 18 months after this rule’s
publication date, and (4) ticket agents
that that meet the SBA definition of
small entity must comply with all
regulatory requirements not later than
24 months after this rule’s publication
date.
In the proposed rule, DOT would
have required airlines and ticket agents
to provide fee information for first and
second checked bags, carry-on bags, and
change and cancellation fees in text
form next to the fare information
provided to consumers. On

PO 00000

Frm 00052

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

consideration of comments that the
proposed requirements would result in
screen clutter and be potentially
confusing to consumers, the Department
determined in this final rule to allow fee
information to be displayed using popups, expandable text, or other means
except for hyperlinks as long as the
disclosure is clear and conspicuous.
This is intended to minimize clutter and
allow airlines and ticket agents
flexibility in how they disclose
information. The Department also
allows some information—specifically,
airline policies for baggage and ticket
changes and cancellations—later in the
process, as long as the disclosure occurs
before ticket purchase. Policy
information can be displayed using
hyperlinks. The Department believes
that these additional flexibilities will
reduce costs to airlines and assist
consumers because airlines will be able
to present the information in a manner
that, while clear and conspicuous, is not
confusing to consumers.
In this final rule, the Department also
made changes to the proposed
requirements for offline disclosures. In
the proposed rule, the Department
required these disclosures to be made
for every quoted itinerary. The
Department received comments that
such disclosures would add a
significant amount of ‘‘talk time’’ that
would burden airlines and ticket agents
with having to provide the information
and consumers with having to spend
time listening to the disclosures even if
the information was not relevant to
them. As a result of these comments, the
Department is finalizing a requirement
that airlines and ticket agents inform
consumers purchasing air travel offline
about whether a critical ancillary fee
applies to the itinerary being quoted and
give the consumer an opportunity to
request information on the fee. The
airline or ticket agent must then provide
the critical ancillary fee information
upon request of the consumer. This
modification is expected to reduce extra
time spent on the phone, which will
benefit not only airlines and ticket
agents, but also consumers who will not
have to listen to information not
relevant to them.
The Department considered whether
to apply the disclosure requirements to
all online platforms, in addition to
computer websites. The Department
finalizes the requirement that the
disclosure requirements apply to all
online platforms in this final rule. While
this option may increase costs, the
Department determined that it was
necessary to ensure consumers received
the same information on critical
ancillary fees and policies regardless of

E:\FR\FM\30APR3.SGM

30APR3

Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 84 / Tuesday, April 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations

lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES3

the online platform used to purchase
their tickets for air travel.
DOT also considered whether to
require disclosure of family seating fees
in this rulemaking and to make those
fees transactable by ticket agents. The
Department is not finalizing the
proposal to require carriers and ticket
agents to disclose applicable fees for
passengers 13 or under to be seated next
to an accompanying adult on an aircraft,
and to make those fees transactable.
Instead, the Department is pursuing a
separate rulemaking to address the issue
of a young child being able to sit
adjacent to an accompanying adult at no
additional cost beyond the fare. Not
requiring family seating disclosures and
fee transactability reduces the cost
burden on airlines and ticket agents.
Paperwork Reduction Act
In this final rule, the Department
imposes new collections of information
that require approval by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) under
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
(Pub. L. 104–13, 49 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
The Department also amends an existing
collection of information, 2105–0561, in
this final rule, with regard to the
requirements for customer service plans.
The Department has sought approval
from OMB for the collections of
information established in this final rule
and will also seek approval for the
amendment to the collection approved
under OMB Control No. 2105–0561 as
part of the renewal of that OMB control
number, due to expire August 31, 2024.
The Department will publish a separate
notice in the Federal Register
announcing OMB approval of the new
and amended collections and advising
the public of the associated OMB
control numbers. Notwithstanding any
other provisions of law, no person shall
be subject to penalty for failing to
comply with a collection of information
if the collection of information does not
display a currently valid OMB control
number.
Industry commenters generally
expressed the view that the proposed
rule’s disclosure requirements would
impose significant burdens on industry.
Many airlines stated that the disclosure
requirements would require a
reconfiguration of their processes. A
study of the NPRM commissioned by
A4A estimated $33 billion in costs to
airlines over 10 years. A4A estimated
that the initial airline cost of
implementation would be $86.5 million
and $9 million annually for
maintenance and additional
development. American Airlines stated
that over 100,000 engineering hours
would be required to begin reworking

VerDate Sep<11>2014

19:28 Apr 29, 2024

Jkt 262001

the search process on the airline’s
desktop website and other platforms.
Booking Holdings and USTOA stated
that the Department’s PRA analysis in
the NPRM greatly underestimated
burdens for planning, development, and
programming by ticket agents to provide
online displays of ancillary fee
information on their websites. In
addition, Booking Holdings estimated
that the initial costs of engineering and
testing the required displays, including
to ensure readability and timeliness,
would be multiple millions of dollars
per entity covered by the regulation for
initial development. Similarly, while
USTOA did not provide an alternative
burden hour estimate, USTOA stated
that the 80 hours per entity that DOT
estimated for programming, data
management, website modification, and
other related costs was an
underestimate, given what it
characterized as the ‘‘extensive and
ongoing website revisions that would be
necessary to compile ancillary fee
options,’’ 122 and that the hourly wage of
$45.90/hour used by the Department for
web and interface designs was too
low.123
Booking Holdings and USTOA
asserted that the Department was
incorrect to assume no costs for ongoing
website maintenance by ticket agents.
Instead, Booking Holdings estimated
that the proposal would impose annual
maintenance costs of hundreds of
thousands of dollars per entity/ticket
agent, stating that the proposal would
require ticket agents to employ
‘‘multiple full time engineers/
developers, a project manager, and a
full-time quality assurance associate to
ensure that dynamic displays continue
to operate appropriately’’ and to
periodically update and maintain
hardware associated with the searches,
for example, as carriers update and
change their ancillary service fee
policies. Further, Booking Holdings
stated that the Department failed to
account for any costs of negotiating new
data-sharing agreements with carriers.
A4A estimated that $8.8 million would
be spent to supply data to agents.
In USTOA’s view, the Department
underestimated the number of ticket
agents who would be required to
comply with the rule’s requirements,
given the rule’s applicability to offline
122 USTOA further stated that the costs of
complying with the full fare rule were not
analogous to the costs of displaying complex
ancillary fee information, as DOT suggested.
123 USTOA stated that an inflation adjustment of
the Department’s estimated hourly rate for such
services from the 2014 NPRM would result in an
hourly of wage of $142.85/hour for a total annual
cost to ticket agents of ‘‘at least $6,856,800.’’

PO 00000

Frm 00053

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

34671

transactions. USTOA and ASTA also
disagreed with the Department’s
assessment that orally conveying the
proposed ancillary fee information in
offline transactions would involve only
a ‘‘marginal increase in time’’ with
minimal burden. ASTA estimated that
17.2 million offline transactions are
completed each year by ticket agents
and that the proposed disclosures for
offline transactions would add at least
20 seconds to each offline transaction at
an estimated cost of $21.3 million per
year in ‘‘talk time’’ for ticket agents.
The Department has carefully
considered public comments regarding
the costs of the information collections
required by this rule and reexamined
the burden estimates presented in this
section in light of the regulatory impact
analysis developed in support of the
final rule. As noted above, the
Department has made modifications in
this final rule that may have differing
effects on the information collection
burdens implicated by the NPRM. In
contrast to the NPRM, the final rule
does not impose a requirement to
disclose family seating fees and
provides additional flexibility in how
critical ancillary fee information is
disclosed and when policy information
is disclosed. The final rule also extends
information collection requirements to
online platforms, which includes
mobile applications.
Based on comments that the hours
used to account for the initial
information disclosures in the NPRM
was too low and comments that the
rule’s impact on maintenance and other
ongoing costs is measurable
(recognizing, however, that regulated
entities have already been operating and
maintaining their own online platforms
prior to implementation of this rule), the
Department increased the number of
hours per entity that DOT estimated for
programming, data management,
website modification, and other related
costs from 80 to 120 and also added
additional burden hours for ongoing
maintenance of online platforms. The
Department also updated the applicable
hourly wage from $45.90 to $53.27. The
updated hourly wage was calculated
using an hourly rate of $53.27 for
computer programmers, which is based
on a median wage of $40.02 for web and
digital interface designers from the BLS
Occupational Employment and Wage
Statistics from May 2022, multiplied by
1.41 to account for employee benefits
and other costs to employers.
The Department has also updated the
number of ticket agents to whom this
rule would apply using data from the
US Census Bureau, 2017 Economic

E:\FR\FM\30APR3.SGM

30APR3

lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES3

34672

Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 84 / Tuesday, April 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations

Census based on NAICS Code 561501
Travel Agencies.
The Department also accepts
commenters’ arguments that the rule
imposes a measurable burden on offline
transactions and has added this
additional burden to its estimates.
The Department has not added costs
of negotiating new data-sharing
agreements between ticket agents and
carriers because contract negotiations
are a cost that carriers and ticket agents
incur to do business and are not a
paperwork burden for purposes of the
PRA.
The Department has consolidated all
the information collections involving
the disclosure of critical ancillary fees
and policies into one information
collection (i.e., the 24-hour cancellation
and hold policy disclosure is included
in the information collection for change
and cancellation fee and bag fee
disclosures). Consolidating the
information collections better reflects
the burden of respondents to implement
the changes to their online platforms to
implement this rule’s disclosure
requirements. At the same time, the
Department is separately estimating the
burden for offline disclosures of bag,
change, and cancellation fees, as the
labor type involved is substantially
different from other disclosures in this
rule.
This rule requires three information
collections: (1) U.S. air carriers, foreign
air carriers, and ticket agents must
disclose, during the online booking
process, applicable fee and policy
information for the first and second
checked baggage and for carry-on
baggage, and applicable fee and policy
information for changing and cancelling
reservations (including 24-hour
cancellation or reservation hold policy);
(2) U.S. air carriers, foreign air carriers,
and ticket agents in offline transactions
must disclose that bag, change, or
cancellation fees apply to a quoted
itinerary and disclose such fees upon
request, and (3) U.S. air carriers and
foreign air carriers must ensure that
entities to which they provide fare,
schedule, and availability information
that display or sell the carrier’s flights
directly to consumers receive
information regarding baggage fee rules
and policies as well as ticket change and
cancellation fees and policies, if the
entities are required to disclose this
information to consumers.
For each of the information
collections, the title, a description of the
respondents, and an estimate of the
burdens are set forth below:
1. Requirement that U.S. air carriers,
foreign air carriers, and ticket agents

VerDate Sep<11>2014

19:28 Apr 29, 2024

Jkt 262001

disclose, during the online booking process,
the applicable fee and policy information for
the first and second checked baggage, one
carry-on bag, and the applicable fee and
policy information for changing and
canceling reservation (including 24-hour
cancellation or reservation hold policy).

Title: Disclosure of Ancillary Fees and
Policies During the Air Transportation
Booking Process
Respondents: U.S. carriers, foreign air
carriers, and ticket agents that sell or
display carrier fare and schedule
information to consumers in the United
States.
Number of Respondents: We estimate
that as many as 206 U.S. air carriers and
foreign air carriers and as many as 7,497
ticket agents may be impacted by this
requirement. Our estimate is based on
the following information and
assumptions: Ticket agents includes
OTAs, brick-and-mortar travel agencies,
and tour operators that market airline
tickets. We updated our number of
ticket agents based on data from NAICS
code 561510 (Source: US Census
Bureau, 2017 Economic Census),
although not all of those entities market
air transportation online to consumers
in the United States. In addition, most
ticket agents rely on GDSs to create
online fare and schedule displays. GDSs
and entities that create or develop and
maintain their own online fare and
schedule displays, such as many of the
impacted carriers and the largest travel
agents, will incur some planning,
development, and programming costs to
reprogram their systems to provide
online displays of fare and schedule
information that includes baggage fee
information on their websites. Thus, our
estimate of the number of impacted
ticket agents may be overstated.124
Many smaller carriers also rely on GDSs
to create online fare and schedule
displays, so our estimate of 206
impacted carriers may be overstated.
Estimated Annual Burden on
Respondents: Approximately 133 hours
per respondent (120 hours of initial
display updates and 13 hours for
ongoing maintenance). We base our
estimate on the following information
and assumptions: the primary costs to
respondents for the disclosure
124 In the NPRM, we assumed for the PRA
analysis that about five percent of United States
ticket agents, including GDSs and large travel
agencies would be impacted by this requirement. In
the Department’s FRIA developed in support of this
final rule, however, the cost estimates for ticket
agents included the total number of ticket agents
who may incur costs, or 7,497. Therefore, we do not
include the five percent assumption in our PRA
analysis for the final rule and instead assume all
ticket agents are impacted. This is consistent with
the approach taken for airlines, even though smaller
airlines may also use GDSs.

PO 00000

Frm 00054

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

requirement would arise from
programming, data management,
website modification, and other related
costs to carriers and ticket agents to
display the required ancillary fee
information. The Department has
modified the estimated annual burden
on respondents to account for the
following: extension of this rule to
online platforms, which have increased
in usage; an incremental increase in one
time and ongoing costs to maintain
online platforms; inclusion of 24-hour
cancellation and hold policy disclosures
in this information collection; 125 and a
reduction in burden from removal of the
proposed requirement for family seating
fee disclosures.126 The more significant
burdens in this rulemaking are expected
to be incurred one time by regulated
entities. Once the modifications
required by this information collection
have been incorporated into the online
platforms of regulated entities, we
expect that this information collection
will impose smaller additional ongoing
costs, such as website maintenance,
beyond what regulated entities were
already incurring for operating online
platforms prior to the promulgation of
this rulemaking. In response to the
comments received on this point,
however, the Department estimates that
this information collection adds
approximately 13 hours of burden per
respondent to maintain online platform
systems. This rulemaking does not
require the creation of new websites or
online platforms by regulated entities
that did not already maintain such
online platforms for the purpose of
selling air transportation.
Estimated Total Annual Burden:
Approximately 1,024,499 hours for all
respondents (based on an assumption of
27,398 hours for carriers (24,720 hours
for the initial upgrade and 2,678 hours
for ongoing costs) and 997,101 hours for
ticket agents (899,640 hours for the
initial upgrade and 97,461 hours for
ongoing maintenance costs)). Based on
125 The NPRM estimated an average annual
burden of 80 hours per respondent for the design,
programming, and modification of websites to
provide disclosure of 24-hour cancellation or hold
information. The Department believes this number
was an overestimate due to the static nature of this
disclosure (i.e., the disclosure should not have
noticeable variation due to the relatively stagnant
nature of 24-hour cancellation or hold policies).
Such policies also exist generally unchanged in
carrier customer service plans. The burden is also
reduced as this final rule does not require this
disclosure if the ticket is purchased within 7 days
of the flight.
126 The Department acknowledges USTOA’s
comment that the burdens of this rulemaking are
not analogous to those in the full fare rule (76 FR
23110). The Department has taken this comment
into account in increasing the paperwork burdens
in this analysis, including the considerations noted
above.

E:\FR\FM\30APR3.SGM

30APR3

Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 84 / Tuesday, April 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
Department estimates that respondents
will incur 4.3 additional hours of
burden on average annually on
providing the offline disclosures
required by this rule.
Estimated Total Annual Burden:
Approximately 33,123 hours for all
respondents (based on an assumption of
886 hours for carriers and 32,237 hours
for ticket agents). Based on an estimated
median hourly wage of $31.46 for travel
agents,128 this results in a total annual
cost of $1,042,050 ($27,874 for carriers
and $1,014,176 for ticket agents). The
PRA estimate developed here supports a
2. U.S. air carriers, foreign air carriers, and
determination that the additional ‘‘talk
ticket agents in offline transactions must
disclose that bag, change, or cancellation fees time’’ for carriers is de minimis.
Frequency: This information
apply to a quoted itinerary and disclose such
collection imposes an additional cost for
fees upon request.
carriers and ticket agents for each
Title: Disclosure of Ancillary Fees
interaction between a consumer and the
During the Offline Booking Process
carrier or ticket agent’s in-person or
Respondents: U.S. carriers, foreign air telephone reservation agents. Costs are
carriers, and ticket agents that sell or
annual.
market tickets to U.S. consumers by
3. Requirement that U.S. air carriers and
phone or in-person
foreign air carriers ensure that entities to
Number of Respondents: We estimate which they provide fare, schedule, and
that as many as 206 U.S. air carriers and availability information to display or sell the
foreign air carriers and as many as 7,497 carrier’s flights directly to consumers receive
ticket agents may be impacted by this
information regarding baggage fee rules and
ticket change and cancellation fees and
requirement. We base our estimate on
policies, if the entities are required to
the following information and
disclose this information to consumers.
assumptions: Ticket agents includes
Title: Disclosure of critical ancillary
OTAs, brick-and-mortar travel agencies,
fee information to other entities
and tour operators that market airline
tickets. There may be an estimated 7,497 required to disclose fee information to
consumers.
travel agencies in the United States,
Respondents: U.S. air carriers and
based on data from NAICS code 561510
foreign air carriers that provide fare,
(Source: US Census Bureau, 2017
schedule, and availability information
Economic Census), although not all of
to ticket agents to sell or display flights
those entities market air transportation
within, to, or from the United States.
by phone or in-person to U.S.
Number of Respondents: We estimate
consumers. Many carriers and ticket
that approximately 206 carriers will be
agents may not offer sales to U.S.
impacted by this requirement. This
consumers by phone or in-person;
includes foreign carriers that may not
therefore, our estimate of 7,497
serve the United States on their own
impacted ticket agents and 206
equipment but may sell connecting
impacted carriers may be overstated.
itineraries between the United States
Estimated Annual Burden on
and a foreign point, when at least one
Respondents: Approximately 4 hours
of the foreign-to-foreign segments is
per respondent. This information
collection adds additional disclosures to operated by the foreign carrier.
Estimated Annual Burden on
in-person or phone transactions when a
Respondents: Approximately 30 hours
ticket is marketed to U.S. consumers.
per respondent. The information
The time required to provide the
collection requires carriers to either
additional disclosure is not expected to
be significant, and some consumers may distribute baggage and change and
cancellation fee rules or make the
not request additional disclosures.
The rule would require entities selling specific rules, including the calculation
of baggage and change and cancellation
tickets marketed to U.S. consumers by
phone or in-person to inform consumers fees applicable for passenger-specific
itineraries, available to third parties.
about certain ancillary service fees at
Carriers selling tickets in the United
the time a fare is quoted. The
States already display baggage and

ancillary fee information on their
websites, as required by existing
regulation (14 CFR 399.85(d)). This
information includes the use of baggage
fee calculators and other tables
accessible to consumers. The
rulemaking requires that this
information be made available in such
a way that other entities to which they
provide fare, schedule, and availability
information to display or sell the
carrier’s flights directly to consumers
have access to this information in a nonstatic, dynamic format such that the
entities can disclose baggage fee and
change and cancellation fee information
to consumers during each itinerary
search. The Department adjusted its
number of burden hours per respondent
based on comments suggesting that the
cost of data sharing with ticket agents is
higher than the Department initially
estimated. Several carriers, however,
already share this information with
other entities by agreement, which
suggests that the added cost of
implementing any modifications
required by this rule may be limited for
many carriers. This potential burden of
30 hours per respondent, as referenced
here, may overestimate the actual
burden for most carriers.
Estimated Total Annual Burden: This
information collection would result in
an estimated annual burden of 6,180
hours. Based on an estimated mean
hourly wage of $66.30 for computer
programmers,129 this results in a total
cost of approximately $409,734.
Frequency: This information
collection imposes an additional cost for
carriers to provide information on
critical ancillary fees to ticket agents
required to disclose this information to
consumers. Costs are annual.

127 The median base wage for web and digital
interface developers in 2022 was $37.78, https://
www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes151254.htm. We
multiply this by 1.41 to account for benefits https://
www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/ecec_
09202022.pdf.

129 The median base wage for computer
programmers in 2022 was $47.02, https://
www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes151251.htm. We
multiply this by 1.41 to account for benefits,
https://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/ecec_
09202022.pdf.

an estimated median hourly wage of
$53.27 for web and digital interface
designers,127 this results in a total
annual cost of $49,240,657 ($1,316,834
for carriers and $47,923,823 for ticket
agents) for the first year. Note that after
the initial costs are incurred, the annual
cost will decrease to an estimated
$142,657 per year for carriers and
$5,191,747 per year for ticket agents.
Frequency: One time incorporation of
information into online platform
displays and ongoing costs (such as for
maintenance). Costs are annual.

lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES3

34673

VerDate Sep<11>2014

19:28 Apr 29, 2024

Jkt 262001

128 The

median base wage for travel agents in
2022 was $22.31, https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/
oes413041.htm. We multiply this by 1.41 to account
for benefits, https://www.bls.gov/news.release/
archives/ecec_09202022.pdf.

PO 00000

Frm 00055

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
(UMRA) of 1995, 2 U.S.C. 1501, requires
agencies to prepare a written assessment
of the costs, benefits, and other effects
of proposed or final rules that include
a Federal mandate likely to result in the
expenditures by States, local, or Tribal
governments, or by the private sector, of
$100 million or more (adjusted annually
for inflation with base year of 1995) in
any one year. The 2023 threshold after
adjustment for inflation is $198 million,
using the Implicit Price Deflator for the
Gross Domestic Product. The
assessment may be included in
conjunction with other assessments, and

E:\FR\FM\30APR3.SGM

30APR3

34674

Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 84 / Tuesday, April 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations

the Department has provided the
assessment required by UMRA within
the RIA prepared in support of the final
rule.
National Environmental Policy Act
The Department has analyzed the
environmental impacts of this action
pursuant to the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C.
4321 et seq.) and has determined that it
is categorically excluded pursuant to
DOT Order 5610.1C, Procedures for
Considering Environmental Impacts (44
FR 56420, Oct. 1, 1979). Categorical
exclusions are actions identified in an
agency’s NEPA implementing
procedures that do not normally have a
significant impact on the environment
and therefore do not require either an
environmental assessment (EA) or
environmental impact statement
(EIS).130 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.131 Paragraph 4(c)(6)(i) of
DOT Order 5610.1C provides that
‘‘actions relating to consumer
protection, including regulations’’ are
categorically excluded. The purpose of
this rulemaking is to enhance
protections for air travelers and to
improve the air travel experience. The
Department does not anticipate any
environmental impacts, and there are no
extraordinary circumstances present in
connection with this rulemaking.
Congressional Review Act
Pursuant to subtitle E of the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (the Congressional
Review Act), OMB’s Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs has
found that this rule falls within the
scope of 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
List of Subjects
14 CFR Part 259
Air carriers and foreign air carriers,
Consumer protection, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.

lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES3

14 CFR Part 399
Administrative practice and
procedure, Air carriers and foreign air
carriers, Air rates and fares, Air taxis,

Consumer protection, Law enforcement,
Small businesses.

and revising paragraph (s) to read as
follows:

Peter Paul Montgomery Buttigieg,
Secretary of Transportation.

§ 399.80 Unfair and deceptive practices of
ticket agents.

For the reasons stated in the
preamble, DOT amends 14 CFR chapter
II, subchapters A and F, as follows:

It is the policy of the Department to
regard as an unfair or deceptive practice
or unfair method of competition the
practices enumerated in paragraphs (a)
through (o) of this section by a ticket
agent of any size and the practice
enumerated in paragraph (s) of this
section by a ticket agent that sells air
transportation online and is not
considered a small business under the
Small Business Administration’s size
standards set forth in 13 CFR 121.201:
*
*
*
*
*
(o) Failing to disclose ancillary
service fee information as required by
§ 399.85.
*
*
*
*
*
(s) Failing to disclose and offer webbased discount fares to prospective
passengers who contact the agent
through other channels (e.g., by
telephone or in the agent’s place of
business) and indicate they are unable
to use the agent’s website due to a
disability.
■ 5. Amend § 399.84 by revising
paragraph (a) and adding paragraphs (d)
and (e) to read as follows:

PART 259—ENHANCED
PROTECTIONS FOR AIRLINE
PASSENGERS
1. 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, 41708, 41712,
and 42301.

2. Amend § 259.5 by:
a. Revising paragraphs (a) and (b)(4);
b. Removing the word ‘‘and’’ at the
end of paragraph (b)(13);
■ c. Removing the period at the end of
paragraph (b)(14) and adding ‘‘; and’’ in
its place; and
■ d. Adding paragraph (b)(15).
The revisions and addition read as
follows:
■
■
■

§ 259.5

Customer Service Plan.

(a) Adoption of Plan. Each covered
carrier must adopt a Customer Service
Plan applicable to its scheduled flights
as specified in paragraphs (b)(1) through
(15) of this section and adhere to the
plan’s terms.
(b) * * *
(4) Allowing reservations to be held at
the quoted fare without payment, or
cancelled without penalty, for at least
twenty-four hours after the reservation
is made if the reservation is made one
week or more prior to a flight’s
departure, and disclosing its chosen
twenty-four hour policy on the last page
of the booking process;
*
*
*
*
*
(15) Disclosing critical ancillary
service fees to consumers on the
carrier’s online platform or when a
customer contacts the carrier’s
reservation center to inquire about a fare
or make a reservation in person or by
telephone and disclosing policies for
critical ancillary service fees to
consumers on the carrier’s online
platform as required by § 399.85 of this
chapter.
*
*
*
*
*
PART 399—STATEMENTS OF
GENERAL POLICY
3. The authority citation for part 399
continues to read as follows:

■

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 40113(a), 41712,
46106, and 46107.
130 See

4. Amend § 399.80 by revising the
introductory text, adding paragraph (o),

■

40 CFR 1508.4.

131 Id.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

19:28 Apr 29, 2024

Jkt 262001

PO 00000

Frm 00056

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

§ 399.84 Price advertising and opt-out
provisions.

(a) The Department considers any
advertising or solicitation by a direct air
carrier, indirect air carrier, an agent of
either, or a ticket agent, for passenger air
transportation, a tour (i.e., a
combination of air transportation and
ground or cruise accommodations) or
tour component (e.g., a hotel stay) that
must be purchased with air
transportation that states a price for
such air transportation, tour, or tour
component to be an unfair and
deceptive practice in violation of 49
U.S.C. 41712, unless the price stated is
the entire price (all mandatory charges)
to be paid by the customer to the carrier,
or agent, for such air transportation,
tour, or tour component. Mandatory
charges refer to all taxes and fees that
are required to purchase air
transportation on the channel where the
advertising or solicitation occurs (e.g., if
a fare is advertised online for $100 then
that means the fare must be available for
the consumer to purchase for $100
online). Mandatory charges included
within the single total price listed may
be stated separately or through links or
‘‘pop ups’’ on online platforms that
display the total price, but such charges
may not be false or misleading, may not
be displayed prominently, may not be
presented in the same or larger size as

E:\FR\FM\30APR3.SGM

30APR3

Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 84 / Tuesday, April 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
the total price, and must provide cost
information on a per passenger basis
that accurately reflects the cost of the
item covered by the mandatory charge.
*
*
*
*
*
(d) A carrier or ticket agent may
display a price that includes all
mandatory charges and one or more
ancillary service fees (i.e., fees charged
for any optional service related to air
travel beyond passenger air
transportation) in place of or more
prominently than a price that only
includes all mandatory charges.
(e) The Department considers any
offer of a percentage-off discount for
passenger air transportation or for a tour
(i.e., a combination of air transportation
and ground or cruise accommodations)
or tour component (e.g., a hotel stay)
that must be purchased with air
transportation, that does not make clear
at the outset the terms and conditions of
the offer, including how the discount is
calculated, to be an unfair and deceptive
practice in violation of 49 U.S.C. 41712.
When used in any advertising or
solicitation, the term ‘‘base fare’’ must
refer to an amount that includes all
mandatory carrier-imposed charges and
the terms ‘‘flight,’’ ‘‘ticket,’’ or ‘‘fare’’
must refer to an amount that includes
all mandatory carrier-imposed and
government charges.
■ 6. Revise § 399.85 to read as follows:

lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES3

§ 399.85

Notice of ancillary service fees.

(a) Definitions. For purposes of this
section, the following definitions apply:
Air transportation means interstate air
transportation, foreign air
transportation, or the transportation of
mail by aircraft as defined in 49 U.S.C.
40102(a)(23) and (25).
Ancillary service fee means the fee
charged for any optional service related
to air travel that a U.S. or foreign air
carrier provides beyond passenger air
transportation. Such fees may include,
but are not limited to, fees for checked
or carry-on baggage, advance seat
selection, access to in-flight
entertainment programs, in-flight
beverages, lounge access, snacks and
meals, pillows and blankets, and seat
upgrades.
Ancillary service package means a
package or bundle of one or more
ancillary services offered for sale by a
carrier or ticket agent.
Anonymous itinerary search means a
search that does not take into account
information specific to the passenger
but does take into account information
specific to the itinerary (e.g., geography,
travel dates, cabin class, and ticketed
fare class) that may impact the critical
ancillary service fees to be charged or
policies to be applied.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

19:28 Apr 29, 2024

Jkt 262001

Break in journey means a deliberate
interruption by a passenger of a journey
between a point in the United States
and a point in a foreign country where
a stopover at a foreign point is
scheduled. The factors to consider to
determine whether a stopover is a
deliberate interruption include whether
the segment between two foreign points
and the segment between a foreign point
and the United States were purchased in
a single transaction and as a single
ticket/itinerary, whether the segment
between two foreign points is operated
or marketed by a carrier that has no
codeshare or interline agreement with
the carrier operating or marketing the
segment to or from the United States,
and whether the stopover at a foreign
point involves the passenger picking up
checked baggage, leaving the airport,
and continuing the next segment after a
substantial amount of time.
Clear and conspicuous means that a
disclosure is difficult to miss (i.e., easily
noticeable), easily understandable by
consumers, and presented in a manner
that allows consumers to determine the
true cost and enable them to select the
best flight options for them.
Critical ancillary service means any
ancillary service critical to consumers’
purchasing decisions. Such services are:
transporting the first checked bag, the
second checked bag, or a carry-on bag,
the ability for a consumer to cancel or
change a reservation, and any other
services determined, after notice and
opportunity to comment, to be critical
by the Secretary.
Consumer or user refers to a person
who seeks to obtain information about
or purchase air transportation from a
U.S. carrier, a foreign carrier, or a ticket
agent, whether through an online
platform or other means (e.g., over the
telephone, in person).
Corporate travel agent refers to a
ticket agent engaged in providing travel
services to the employees of a business
entity pursuant to a written contract
with that entity for the business travel
of its employees.
Online platform refers to any
interactive electronic medium,
including, but not limited to, websites
and mobile applications, that allow the
consumer to search for or purchase air
transportation from a U.S. carrier, a
foreign carrier, or a ticket agent.
Passenger-specific itinerary search
means a search that takes into account
information specific to the passenger
(e.g., the passenger’s status in the
airline’s frequent flyer program, the
passenger’s military status, or the
passenger’s status as a holder of a
particular credit card) that was
affirmatively provided by that passenger

PO 00000

Frm 00057

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

34675

and information specific to the itinerary
(e.g., geography, travel dates, cabin
class, and ticketed fare class) that may
impact the critical ancillary service fees
to be charged or policies to be applied.
(b) Passenger-specific and anonymous
itinerary searches. Each U.S. air carrier,
foreign air carrier, and ticket agent
(except a corporate travel agent) that
advertises or sells air transportation
marketed to U.S. consumers must offer
consumers both the option to conduct a
passenger-specific itinerary search and
the option to conduct an anonymous
itinerary search.
(c) Online disclosures of ancillary
service fees—(1) Critical ancillary
service fees. Each U.S. air carrier,
foreign air carrier, and ticket agent
(except a corporate travel agent) that has
an online platform marketed to U.S.
consumers where it advertises or sells
air transportation must clearly and
conspicuously disclose on its online
platform the accurate fee that applies, if
any, for all critical ancillary services.
The fee cannot be designated as $0 in
circumstances where a critical ancillary
service is not available to the consumer
but rather must state ‘‘not available’’ or
a similar notation. The fee information
must be provided the first time that fare
and schedule information is disclosed
after a consumer conducts a passengerspecific itinerary search or an
anonymous itinerary search. The fees
cannot be displayed through a
hyperlink.
(2) Other ancillary service fees. Each
U.S. air carrier, foreign air carrier, and
ticket agent (except a corporate travel
agent) that has an online platform
marketed to U.S. consumers where it
advertises or sells air transportation may
disclose ancillary service fees that are
not critical ancillary service fees at the
same time as critical ancillary service
fees.
(3) Ancillary service packages. Each
U.S. air carrier, foreign air carrier, and
ticket agent (except a corporate travel
agent) that has an online platform
marketed to U.S. consumers where it
advertises or sells air transportation
must disclose the standalone fee for
each critical ancillary service required
under paragraph (c)(1) of this section
when fare and schedule information is
provided. Nothing in this section
requires or prohibits a carrier or ticket
agent from disclosing an ancillary
service package that includes critical
ancillary services if it chooses to do so.
(4) Air tour packages. Each ticket
agent that has an online platform
marketed to U.S. consumers where it
advertises or sells air tour packages
must clearly and conspicuously
disclose, at the time the ticket agent

E:\FR\FM\30APR3.SGM

30APR3

lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES3

34676

Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 84 / Tuesday, April 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations

offers a package fare quotation for a
specific itinerary selected by a
consumer, where the carrier providing
air transportation is not known, that
additional fees for baggage may apply
and that those fees may be reduced or
waived based on the passenger’s
frequent flyer status, method of
payment, or other consumer
characteristic. When the carrier
providing air transportation for an airtour package is known, that ticket agent
must provide baggage fee information as
prescribed by this paragraph (c) at the
time that the ticket agent discloses the
name of the carrier to the consumer.
(5) Website disclosure of all ancillary
service fees. A U.S. or foreign air carrier
that has a website marketed to U.S.
consumers where it advertises or sells
air transportation must clearly and
conspicuously disclose on its website
accurate information on ancillary
service fees available to a passenger
purchasing air transportation with a
clear and conspicuous link from the
carrier’s homepage directly to a page or
a place on a page where all such
ancillary services and related fees are
disclosed. In general, fees for particular
services may be expressed as a range;
however, baggage fees must be
expressed as specific charges taking into
account any factors (e.g., frequent flyer
status, early purchase) that affect those
charges.
(d) Online disclosure of baggage
policies. Each U.S. air carrier, foreign air
carrier, and ticket agent (except a
corporate travel agent) that has an
online platform marketed to U.S.
consumers where it advertises or sells
air transportation must clearly and
conspicuously disclose on its online
platform, before ticket purchase, the
accurate weight and dimension
limitations that the carrier imposes for
a first and second checked bag and a
carry-on bag after a consumer conducts
a passenger-specific itinerary search or
an anonymous itinerary search.
(e) Intent to travel with a bag. Each
U.S. air carrier, foreign air carrier, and
ticket agent that has an online platform
marketed to U.S. consumers where it
advertises or sells air transportation may
clearly and conspicuously solicit
information from a consumer prior to
the consumer conducting a passengerspecific itinerary or an anonymous
itinerary search for air transportation
regarding the consumer’s intention to
travel with a carry-on bag, a first
checked bag, or a second checked bag.
If the consumer affirmatively takes
action to indicate that the consumer and
all others in the booking party do not
intend to travel with a carry-on bag, a
first checked bag, or a second checked

VerDate Sep<11>2014

19:28 Apr 29, 2024

Jkt 262001

bag, then the carrier or ticket agent may
forego disclosing the fees for that bag
with the fare and schedule information
as required by paragraph (c) of this
section. Carriers and ticket agents
(except a corporate travel agent) must
disclose the baggage policies before
ticket purchase as required by paragraph
(d) of this section and must disclose
information regarding the passenger’s
free baggage allowance and fee
information for a carry-on bag, a first
checked bag, and a second checked bag
on e-ticket confirmations as required by
paragraph (k) of this section even if a
consumer indicates an intention not to
travel with a bag.
(f) Online disclosure of cancellation
and change policies. Each U.S. carrier,
foreign air carrier, and ticket agent
(except a corporate travel agent) that has
an online platform marketed to U.S.
consumers where it advertises or sells
air transportation must accurately,
clearly, and conspicuously, disclose on
its online platform, before ticket
purchase, the components of change
and cancellation policies identified in
paragraphs (f)(1) through (4) of this
section.
(1) Restrictions and prohibitions. A
summary of the applicable restrictions
and prohibitions to change or cancel a
ticket that apply to the consumer
conducting a passenger-specific
itinerary or an anonymous itinerary
search, including any prohibitions or
restrictions to obtaining a refund of the
full amount paid;
(2) Form of refund. A summary of the
applicable policy regarding the form of
the refund for a change or cancellation
(e.g., a credit to the original form of
payment, airline credits or voucher) that
apply to the consumer conducting a
passenger-specific itinerary or an
anonymous itinerary search;
(3) Fare differential. A summary of
the applicable policy regarding a
consumer’s right to, or responsibility
for, any fare differential, including
whether the consumer is entitled to a
refund in fare difference if the consumer
changes to a lower cost replacement
flight, that apply to the consumer
conducting a passenger-specific
itinerary or an anonymous itinerary
search; and
(4) 24-Hour hold or cancellation. A
statement disclosed clearly and
conspicuously on the last page of the
booking process on allowing the
reservation to be held at the quoted fare
without payment, or cancelled without
penalty, for at least twenty-four hours
after the reservation is made, consistent
with a carrier’s customer service plan in
§ 259.5(b)(4) of this chapter and
consistent with a ticket agent’s policy. A

PO 00000

Frm 00058

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

ticket agent that has a policy of not
allowing a 24-hour hold or cancellation
must disclose that information clearly
and conspicuously on the last page of
the booking process. The disclosures in
this paragraph (f)(4) are required if the
reservation is made one week or more
prior to a flight’s departure.
(g) Disclosures on landing page. Each
U.S. air carrier, foreign air carrier, and
ticket agent (except a corporate travel
agent) that has an online platform
marketed to U.S. consumers where it
sells air transportation and that accepts
a redirect of consumers to its online
platform to complete the booking must
ensure that the required critical
ancillary service fee information in
paragraph (c) of this section is
accurately, clearly, and conspicuously
displayed on the first page of the online
platform to which the consumer has
been directed, unless the consumer was
provided accurate fee information of
critical ancillary services on the
directing entity’s online platform.
(h) Seat guarantee notice. Each U.S.
carrier, foreign air carrier, and ticket
agent (except a corporate travel agent)
that has an online platform marketed to
U.S. consumers where it advertises or
sells air transportation must clearly and
conspicuously disclose the following
notice on any page or step of the
booking process in which a consumer is
offered a seat selection for a fee: ‘‘A seat
is included in your fare. You are not
required to purchase a seat assignment
to travel. If you decide to purchase a
ticket and do not select a seat prior to
purchase, a seat will be provided to you
without additional charge when you
travel.’’
(i) Code-share partner disclosures. For
air transportation within, to or from the
United States, a carrier marketing a
flight under its identity that is operated
by a different carrier, otherwise known
as a code-share flight, must through its
website disclose to consumers booked
on a code-share flight any differences
between its optional services and
related fees and those of the carrier
operating the flight. This disclosure may
be made through a conspicuous notice
of the existence of such differences on
the marketing carrier’s website or a
conspicuous hyperlink taking the reader
directly to the operating carrier’s fee
listing or to a page on the marketing
carrier’s website that lists the
differences in policies among codeshare partners.
(j) Offline fee disclosures of ancillary
services. Each U.S. air carrier, foreign air
carrier, and ticket agent (except a
corporate travel agent) that markets air
transportation to U.S. consumers in
person or by phone must disclose to

E:\FR\FM\30APR3.SGM

30APR3

Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 84 / Tuesday, April 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations

lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES3

consumers, at the time a fare is quoted
for an itinerary, that baggage fees (for a
first checked, second checked, or carryon bag), change fees, and cancellation
fees apply, if that is the case. The U.S.
carrier, foreign carrier, or ticket agent
(other than a corporate travel agent)
must then ask the consumer if they wish
to hear more about the specific baggage
fees, change fees, cancellation fees, and
any other critical ancillary service fees
that apply. These carriers and ticket
agents, upon request from the consumer,
must disclose those specific fees taking
into account passenger-specific
information provided by the consumer.
(k) Disclosures of baggage fees on eticket confirmations. A U.S. carrier, a
foreign air carrier, or a ticket agent
(except a corporate travel agent) that has
an online platform marketed to U.S.
consumers where it advertises or sells
air transportation must include
information regarding the passenger’s
free baggage allowance (including
personal item) and the applicable fee for
a carry-on bag and the first and second
checked bag on all e-ticket
confirmations for air transportation
within, to or from the United States,

VerDate Sep<11>2014

19:28 Apr 29, 2024

Jkt 262001

including on the summary page at the
completion of an online purchase and in
a post-purchase email confirmation.
Carriers and ticket agents must provide
the fee information for a carry-on bag,
first checked bag, and second checked
bag in text form in the e-ticket
confirmation taking into account any
passenger-specific factors that affect
those charges.
(l) Sharing information on fee rules
and policies. Each U.S. and foreign air
carrier that provides fare, schedule, and
availability information for air
transportation within, to, or from the
United States to an entity that is
required by law to disclose critical
ancillary service fee and policy
information directly to consumers must
disclose fee and policy information for
critical ancillary fee services to that
entity. The information provided must
be useable, current, accurate, and
sufficient to ensure compliance by such
entities.
(m) Unfair and deceptive practice.
The Department considers the failure to
provide and adhere to the disclosures
required by this section to be an unfair
and deceptive practice within the
meaning of 49 U.S.C. 41712.

PO 00000

Frm 00059

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 9990

34677

7. Amend § 399.88 by revising
paragraph (a) to read as follows:

■

§ 399.88 Prohibition on post-purchase
price increase.

(a) It is an unfair and deceptive
practice within the meaning of 49 U.S.C.
41712 for any seller of scheduled air
transportation within, to or from the
United States, or of a tour (i.e., a
combination of air transportation and
ground or cruise accommodations), or
tour component (e.g., a hotel stay) that
includes scheduled air transportation
within, to or from the United States, to
increase the ticket price of that air
transportation, tour or tour component,
or to raise the price for critical ancillary
services as defined in § 399.85(a) to a
consumer after the air transportation has
been purchased by the consumer, except
in the case of an increase in a
government-imposed tax or fee. A
purchase is deemed to have occurred
when the full amount agreed upon has
been paid by the consumer.
*
*
*
*
*
[FR Doc. 2024–08609 Filed 4–29–24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–9X–P

E:\FR\FM\30APR3.SGM

30APR3