Several airlines also support the proposal, including Frontier,
JetBlue, and Spirit. Frontier states that it supports the display bias
rule because if ticket agents bias they do so in favor of large legacy
airlines that have greater bargaining power than smaller carriers and
are able to pay for display bias, and that this creates an unfair
disadvantage to smaller carriers and to consumers. Spirit comments that
undisclosed bias distorts the air travel market and subjects consumers
to unfair and misleading information when travel agents and consumers
are not made aware that their search results are often tailored to
favor certain carriers due to undisclosed contract arrangements or
payments. Spirit states that if a carrier is not shown or incentives
are provided to the ticket agent for more prominently displaying a
particular carrier, disclosure is important to allow consumers and
travel agents to make informed decisions. United does not support or
oppose the proposal but states that the rule text does not clearly
reflect the Department's intent as stated in the preamble of the NPRM
regarding disclosure of biasing on corporate travel Web sites, i.e.
that disclosure is only required to the extent the bias is not agreed
to by contract regarding corporate travel. Lufthansa urges the
Department to exclude from this proposed rule airline and airline-
alliance Web sites, as well as direct connections between ticket agents
and airlines' internal reservations systems. Lufthansa argues that
``consumers and ticket agents intuitively understand that an airline
`biases' its Web site and internal reservations systems to prioritize
and promote its own services and those of its code-share and alliance
partner airlines. Consumers and ticket agents instinctively know that
they will not be able to access fares and schedules of other airlines
that compete against or are not aligned with the airline whose Web site
(and, in the case of ticket agents, internal reservations systems) they
access.'' Further, according to Lufthansa, there is no need for DOT to
implement and apply anti-biasing rules for corporate travel
arrangements that are contractually entered into by sophisticated
entities that are well aware that the fares and schedules offered
through their business travel programs are limited to certain airlines
and do not provide the full range of available fares and schedules
offered by other airlines that do not participate in a particular
program.
    Delta also supports requiring disclosure of any bias in a ticket
agent's display to the general public. However, Delta opposes
regulations that would change existing business practices in the
display algorithms used by agents, including GDSs, that do not bias
based on carrier identity. Delta also opposes biasing restrictions on
individual carrier Web sites. According to Delta, a customer shopping
for tickets on delta.com ``knows and expects that Delta is marketing
Delta flights in a manner advantageous to Delta over other carriers,
but that otherwise best meets the customer's needs and search
parameters.''
    Several commenters, including ticket agents and ticket agent
associations, oppose the proposed regulation prohibiting undisclosed
display bias. American Express Global Business Travel states that there
is no need for rules prohibiting undisclosed display bias because the
guidance issued in 2011 is sufficient, and that if any prohibition is
adopted it should not cover corporate travel. USTOA also opposes the
proposed regulation, stating that the existing guidance is sufficient
and new regulation is not necessary, and noting that the Department
decided against such a regulation in the CRS rulemaking. BCD travel
also opposes the regulation, stating that it is not needed and should
not apply to corporate travel arrangements where display bias is
included in contractual arrangements. Carlson Wagonlit Travel also
opposes the proposed regulation, noting that displaying information in
a particular order is one of the services travel agents offer, and it
inherently involves bias, which may be beneficial, and should be
permitted, particularly in corporate travel which involves preferred
vendors and other similar corporate programs.
    Travel Tech states that imposing such a disclosure requirement
would ``micromanage airfare displays, constituting regulatory overkill
that cannot be justified in the absence of any evidence of a
significant problem warranting such market intrusion.'' Travel Tech
states that the existing guidance is sufficient to adequately ensure
transparency in the disclosure of carrier preferences in ticket agent
displays, and it would not object to a simple rule applicable to any
ticket agent that would require appropriate disclosure of the use of
carrier identity as a ranking factor in ordering displays. Travel Tech
identifies several specific concerns with the proposed rule text
itself. Regarding ranking flights, the organization asserts that as
drafted, the requirement to identify the lowest airfare including all
mandatory fees but not including fees for optional services would not
allow for sequential listings or ranking options by total cost
including fees for optional services. As such, according to Travel
Tech, significantly less desirable flights may be the first flights
displayed, even if they involve circuitous routings, very long
layovers, or two separate tickets which prevent checking through bags,
or other drawbacks. Travel Tech's comments also indicate it is unclear
how the rule would apply to queries for schedule and availability that
don't seek fare information.
    Regarding the ordering criteria for identifying flights, Travel
Tech states that the same ordering criteria should not be required for
all markets because different criteria may identify flights that meet
consumer needs in different markets (e.g., international, U.S. short
haul, U.S. long haul). Regarding differentiating carriers, Travel Tech
objects to the requirement to treat ``listed carriers'' that have no
contractual relationship with the GDS or OTA creating the display the
same as ``participating carriers'' that enter into a contract with a
GDS or OTA. Travel Tech notes that a GDS or OTA may list schedules and
fares (but not availability) of some carriers that are not
participating carriers as a service to their users, even though the GDS
or OTA does not sell the listed carriers'

services. Travel Tech also comments that the proposed rule text seems
to create a violation in the event of an inadvertent but inevitable
data error if a GDS or OTA does not include in its system all
information provided by a carrier or inadvertently publishes inaccurate
information, subjecting it to the risk of a penalty. In response to the
question of whether any rule regarding display bias should be limited
to airfare and routings, Travel Tech states that such limitation is
appropriate.
    Finally, Travel Tech argues that there is no basis for applying a
prohibition on undisclosed display bias to corporate booking tools.
Amadeus also opposes this provision, commenting that the undisclosed
display bias prohibition is not needed. According to Amadeus, the
guidance on this matter issued by the Department's Enforcement Office
in 2011 is sufficient. Amadeus further states that if undisclosed bias
is prohibited, the rule should follow the 2011 guidance instead of the
elaborate proposed rule that creates excessive regulatory intrusion
into the market. As an example, Amadeus states that if it followed the
proposed rule, flights with excessive connections or layovers would be
displayed but the vast majority of consumers would find them
unreasonable or unattractive. Travelport also opposes the prohibition,
stating that the Department has not proven the inadequacy of the
existing Enforcement Office guidance. Travelport states that the
Department should ``outline the problem to be solved by additional
regulation and allow the industry to examine the evidence.''
    Skyscanner argues that a display bias prohibition is not beneficial
to consumers, because it is incorrect to assume that ``all consumers
are interested in is price.'' To illustrate its point, Skyscanner
compares flight search tools to other shopping search tools available
on the internet that allow consumers to sort display results in a
variety of ways. Skyscanner states that ``[s]ome display bias is
essential for metasearch sites to ensure that served content is
relevant to consumers.'' For example, Skyscanner points out that a
consumer searching for a flight may be interested in criteria such as
the travel duration, the number of transfers, the number of complaints
against a carrier, whether the carrier can process a booking on the
device being used by the consumer, and whether the route or carrier has
been popular with other travelers. Skyscanner argues that metasearch
algorithms are designed to provide the user with a high-quality
snapshot of the products available, taking their chosen criteria into
account. Skyscanner explains that bias describes the technical
processes that allow consumers to benefit from combining a large data
pool with their own preferences and notes that if price was consumers'
only concern, metasearch entities would not spend time, money, and
expertise developing what they find to be effective ways to provide
search results. The Mercatus Center at George Mason University
(Mercatus) also opposes the proposed requirement for similar reasons,
stating that travel agencies compete by offering their best judgment to
consumers but the proposed rule may limit travel agencies' ability to
continue to provide such judgement. Mercatus concedes that consumers
may be harmed if they believe a particular site provides unbiased
information on all of the options that are available but states that
``most consumers shop several sites for airfare.''
    Comments Regarding Disclosure of Incentives: Consumer advocacy
groups Consumers Union and US PIRG favor disclosing incentive payments.
Spirit Airlines also comments that disclosure of all companies
providing incentives and a summary of the incentives should be
required. However, many commenters oppose requiring disclosure of
incentive payments. ASTA comments that any language at all regarding
incentive payments would create a negative impression to consumers and
would brand travel agents as untrustworthy. Travel Tech also opposes
requiring disclosure of travel agency incentives received from
airlines. Amadeus comments that a requirement to disclose incentive
payments should not include GDS payments to ticket agents because the
information is of no value to consumers and has little or no
relationship to any biasing. BCD Travel acknowledges that it receives
incentives and states it would be detrimental to industry to disclose
specifics. Carlson Wagonlit Travel comments that disclosure of
incentives would provide no clear benefit and would confuse and
distract consumers. USTOA acknowledges that tour operators receive
incentives that may influence the information they provide but states
it would be detrimental to industry to disclose specifics and proposes
that if there is any disclosure requirement, it should be general and
not provide details of the incentives. Several smaller travel agencies
also oppose the proposed requirement, arguing that a travel agent's
first priority is its clients and that incentives always serve the
interest of the clients by allowing an agent to provide cheaper service
for a flight on a given airline, so to force disclosure of incentive
payments would only serve to demonize what is otherwise a positive
thing for consumers, agents, and airlines.
    DOT Response on Undisclosed Biasing: After reviewing and carefully
considering the comments, the Department has decided to prohibit
certain undisclosed bias in electronic displays that include
combinations of multiple carriers' schedules, fares, or availability
information, if the display is marketed to U.S. consumers or to ticket
agents that market to U.S. consumers. In response to comments regarding
the alleged overly prescriptive nature of the proposed rule and
potential unintended consequences of adopting the rule as proposed, the
Department has revised the rule text to clarify that entities still
have flexibility to provide the type of routings consumers are
interested in when purchasing air transportation. The rule only applies
to undisclosed display bias by ticket agents or carriers, not bias
requested by the users of the system. For example, if a user filters
for a particular carrier, schedule, or other criteria, and certain
airlines do not provide any flight options that meet that criteria, and
are consequently not displayed in search results, the Department does
not consider that to be a bias that must be disclosed. Only biasing by
ticket agents or carriers based on carrier identity must be disclosed--
i.e., a system presents flight options that favor or disfavor
individual carriers.
    As discussed in greater detail below, we have decided to prohibit
any undisclosed display bias favoring particular carriers over others
in search results because we agree with commenters noting that
undisclosed bias distorts the air travel market and potentially harms
consumers that are not aware of the biasing. This rule will apply not
only to ticket agents' Web sites but also to airline and airline
alliance Web sites. Our rule also applies to corporate booking tools as
well as displays available to the general public, but is limited to
undisclosed bias that is not based on contractual arrangements.
    Undisclosed display bias prevents consumers and travel agents who
advise consumers from realizing that they are not receiving neutral
information on schedules and fares and recognizing that they may have
to look elsewhere, or take additional steps on the Web site, to find
more accurate or complete information. Undisclosed display bias in
flight search results may mislead consumers who rely on that flight
search tool for neutral, complete and correct information, and result
in their not looking on different Web sites or not taking additional
steps

on the Web site to find flight options that better meet their
preferences. Undisclosed display bias by a GDS may mislead travel
agents who rely on the information provided by GDSs, which in turn
causes misleading information on available service options being passed
on to a significant number of consumers who rely on their travel
agents. Undisclosed display bias on an airline or airline alliance Web
site may lead a consumer to book on that Web site when a flight on, for
example, a code-share partner's Web site, may better suit the
consumer's needs. For example, an airline might bias its displays to
favor flights that it operates over flights operated by a code-share
partner even though the flights operated by the code-share partner may
have a lower price or schedule that better suits the consumer. When
travel agents or consumers are unaware that information they thought
was neutral is, in fact, biased, they may decide to book relatively
inferior flights when other flights might better meet those travelers'
needs, for example, in terms of price or scheduling.
    In connection with biasing that results from business arrangements
or business disputes, we recognize that commercial harm to airlines
resulting from biasing may be a business matter but it also harms
consumers if it is not disclosed. Further, to the extent undisclosed
biasing is used to hinder competition in the distribution market, it
potentially stifles innovation that would provide consumer benefits.
Accordingly, the rule generally requires entities that operate systems
displaying fare, schedule or availability information for multiple
carriers to display the information for each carrier equitably with
that of all other carriers marketed on that system. In the alternative,
entities that wish to alter their displays to favor or disfavor any
particular carrier are free to do so if the fact that a carrier is
favored or disfavored is disclosed and there is no misrepresentation
that the information is being displayed in a neutral manner.
    To the extent a carrier or ticket agent operating an EAIS engages
in display bias based on carrier identity, it must clearly and
conspicuously disclose that fact. This applies to both ticket agents
and carriers. For example, if a ticket agent favors or disfavors a
particular carrier, that bias must be disclosed. Similarly, in
connection with systems operated by carriers or carrier alliances, if
carrier-identity is a factor in how flights are displayed, that must be
disclosed. The notice about display bias may not be in an obscure
location as that would not provide sufficient notice to avoid consumer
harm. Accordingly, if there is carrier identity bias, we require that
the notice appear prominently at the top of the first search result
display presented to the user in response to the user-selected search
criteria. The notice must specifically state that the order of flights
is not neutral with respect to carrier identity.
    Response to Display Issues Identified in the Comments: Some
commenters identified rule text that appeared to impose requirements
that would result in unintended consequences. For example, concerns
were expressed that the proposed rule text would require an EAIS to
display the lowest generally available airfare without allowing
screening out of certain flight options based on unreasonably lengthy
or circuitous routings or similar undesirable characteristics. Concerns
were also expressed that the requirement to rank flights by the lowest
airfare may not be the best ranking method for consumers as it may be
more beneficial to rank by total cost which would include not only
mandatory fees but also fees for optional services. We found these
comments to be persuasive and have made changes to the final rule. This
final rule does not contain a requirement for an EAIS to rank by the
lowest generally available airfare, or any other specific parameter.
Instead, it requires that each EAIS display information in an objective
manner, based either on search criteria selected by the user (e.g.,
lowest fare, lowest cost, date and time of travel, class of service,
stopovers, total elapsed time or duration of travel, number of stops,
limitations on carriers to be used, particular airport(s), number of
passengers, etc.) or default criteria established by the carrier or
agent.
    Ranking Flight Options and Innovation in Displays: Regarding the
ranking of flights, the rule requires systems to identify the flight
options that meet the parameters set by the user of the system without
ranking based on any undisclosed bias based on carrier identity.
However, systems are not precluded from setting default display
parameters that are not deceptive or offering users the option to
choose a variety of display methods within those parameters. Just as
systems already offer consumers many options, such as displaying only
non-stop flights in search results, or ranking flights by cost, or
elapsed time, or departure time, systems are not precluded from
offering additional options for displaying search results. Similarly,
as stated above, if a consumer specifies a particular carrier or
carriers in search parameters, displaying responsive search results
would not be considered undisclosed bias. Many commenters on the
various proposals in this rulemaking have emphasized the importance of
allowing innovation in the display of airfare and ancillary service fee
information. We agree that innovation is beneficial to consumers and
encourage systems to offer a variety of options for search result
displays. Based on comments in this rulemaking and on public statements
from a variety of industry participants, we understand that many
airlines and ticket agents are already working on providing more
options for consumers to choose in displaying search results. We
anticipate in the future that systems will continue to add more sorting
mechanisms that allow consumers to choose flight ranking options based
on their specific need, for example, fare plus cost of specific
ancillary services chosen by the consumer.
    We agree with Skyscanner that consumers will benefit from
innovations that allow different entities to improve and expand on how
to respond to consumer searches and to display search results. We
encourage such innovation and note that the requirement to disclose any
biases that are built into the system does not preclude creativity in
designing displays. For example, existing flight search tools are
already providing various display formats and sorting mechanisms that
allow consumers to choose how they want their flight options
prioritized.
    This is also relevant to Skyscanner's comment that consumers may be
interested in a variety of factors when selecting a flight and that
flight search tools offer a ``snapshot'' of options. We agree that
consumers consider a variety of factors when searching for a flight and
anticipate that flight search tools will continue to evolve, offering
more and more information and ways to sort flight options. However,
metasearch entities do not market flight search tools as offering a
``snapshot,'' they market themselves as a neutral source of as much
flight information as is available on the internet. Consumers should
know about the factors that may impact or limit what flight information
is displayed and how it is displayed.
    Ordering Criteria; Listed and Participating Carriers: Travel Tech's
comments also state that the proposed rule text appears to require the
same ordering criteria for identifying flights regardless of the market
(e.g., international, U.S. short haul, U.S. long haul). We agree that
as long as the criteria are not based on carrier identity, different
criteria may better identify

flights that meet consumers' specific needs depending on the market.
Accordingly, we are not requiring that the same ordering criteria be
used for every market. Rather, the search results should match the
user-selected criteria and disclose any bias based on carrier identity.
Regarding differentiating carriers, Travel Tech objects to the
requirement to treat ``listed carriers'' (carriers that have no
contractual relationship with the GDS or OTA) the same as
``participating carriers'' (carriers that enter into a contract with a
GDS or OTA). Travel Tech suggests that if an OTA or GDS chooses to
provide a ``listed'' carrier's fare and schedule information then there
should be no requirement to display that carrier's flight information
equitably with the information of participating carriers. We agree that
there is no requirement to display a non-participating carrier's flight
information. However, if an agent chooses to display a non-
participating carrier's flight information, then it must display it
equitably or disclose that the information is not being displayed
equitably because otherwise consumers could be misled or deceived into
thinking that the information is being displayed in a neutral manner.
Travel Tech also noted that in many cases the OTA or GDS does not have
availability information for carriers that are only listed and not
participating. To the extent ticket agents provide fare and schedule
information without availability information, this rule requires that,
absent disclosure about bias, the information must be provided in a
manner that does not favor or disfavor a particular carrier. Finally,
Travel Tech commented that ``[i]f adopted as proposed, the rule could
encourage GDSs and OTAs to simply remove all information about non-
participating carriers from their systems, another perverse result that
would clearly not benefit consumers.'' It is our understanding that
GDSs and OTAs make a business decision to provide consumers with non-
participating carrier flight information even though those carriers do
not provide all fare, schedule, and availability information and do not
pay the same fees to GDSs or OTAs as participating carriers. To the
extent that entities such as those represented by Travel Tech determine
that they have a greater interest in not providing non-participating
carriers' information rather than disclosing it in an unbiased manner
or disclosing that the information is not provided in an unbiased
manner, that is a business decision that must be made by each entity.
However, we are not persuaded that this is sufficient reason to allow a
GDS or OTA to bias displays in a manner that ranks differently those
carriers that do not ``participate,'' or pay fees to the GDS or OTA,
without disclosing that information to consumers.
    Biasing Based on Carrier-Identity on Airline and Airline Alliance
Web sites: Regarding airline and airline alliance Web sites' displays
that incorporate the flights of more than one carrier, we also believe
consumers are entitled to be informed of any biasing that occurs in
those displays. We note that most, if not all, alliance and carrier Web
sites that display flight options for alliance or code-share flights
already provide information regarding the carriers that are marketed on
the Web site. The additional disclosure that would be necessary would
be a statement regarding the manner in which the display favors or
disfavors particular carriers. For example, if an alliance Web site
marketed to U.S. consumers biases its displays to favor carriers that
operate flights to and from the United States over carriers that only
market flights to and from the United States that are operated by
another carrier under the code of the marketing carrier, then that fact
should be disclosed to consumers.
    Corporate Booking Tools: We disagree with the comments that there
is no basis for applying a prohibition on undisclosed display bias to
corporate booking tools. To the extent that bias is built into
corporate booking tool displays pursuant to a contractual agreement
that makes clear the parameters of the displays, we would not consider
such bias to be biasing that must be disclosed to users of the system
and agree that there is no need to disclose that information on every
display of search results. However, if changes to a corporate booking
tool display were made by the operator of the system so that flight
options were biased based on carrier identity, we would consider that
to be a violation of the rule and an unfair or deceptive practice
unless the bias based on carrier identity was disclosed as required by
the rule. For example, if an entity operates a corporate booking tool
under a contract with a corporation, and the entity operating the tool
is having a business dispute with a particular carrier, that entity may
not remove the carrier's flights from search results or place them in a
less favorable location in the search results, independent of any
contractual terms to favor or disfavor particular carriers in that
particular corporate booking tool, without providing disclosure to the
users of the booking tool in the manner required by this rule. Business
entities benefit from the requirement for biases to be disclosed as
they may have policies that require selection of best available fare,
or other financial, recordkeeping, or auditing requirements. Further, a
business entity that does not have contracts providing benefits or
discounts on a particular carrier may still rely on corporate
management tools to book business travel as well as to integrate cost
and booking data for its travel into its own systems. Those entities
are also entitled to be informed if the flight options being displayed
reflect bias based on carrier-identity.
    Incentives: We have decided not to require the disclosure of
information regarding incentives. We have determined that the
prohibition on undisclosed biasing is sufficient to protect consumers
without mandating the disclosure of specific information about
incentive payments. Regardless of the reasons for the biasing, whether
due to undisclosed contract arrangements, commercial disputes, or
financial incentives, consumers should be made aware when a display is
not neutral with respect to carrier identity. Being informed that
carrier identity is a factor in the display of flight options,
regardless of underlying reason, likely would be useful to consumers.
However, we do not see a benefit to requiring disclosure of incentives
such as specific commercial arrangements or dollar amounts when there
are a variety of other reasons, in addition to incentive payments, that
may lead an entity to bias its display. We believe providing
information on incentives might result in consumer confusion regarding
the significance of the information and not necessarily provide
information that would be helpful in making decisions about air travel
purchases. We also agree with commenters that it would be difficult to
define how and what types of incentives should be disclosed. Further,
we acknowledge that disclosure may touch on sensitive commercial
information. As such, this final rule does not require the disclosure
of incentive payments but simply prohibits undisclosed biasing based on
carrier identify.

(6) Amendments/Corrections to Second Enhancing Airline Passenger
Protections Rule and Certain Other Provisions

a. Standard Applicable to Reportable Tarmac Delays Under Part 244
    In 14 CFR part 244, the Department requires U.S. and foreign air
carriers to file Form 244 ``Tarmac Delay Report'' with the Department
with respect to any

covered flight that experienced a lengthy departure or arrival delay on
the tarmac at a large, medium, small, or non-hub U.S. airport. A
``lengthy'' tarmac delay for purposes of this report is defined in part
244 as any tarmac delay that lasts ``three hours or more.'' This
standard is inconsistent with the standard applicable to the tarmac
delay contingency plan requirements under 14 CFR part 259 and the
existing reporting requirements of BTS, both of which refer to any
tarmac delay of ``more than three hours.'' In a Frequently Asked
Questions document issued by the Department following the issuance of
the final rule for part 244, we acknowledged this discrepancy and
stated that we intend to correct it in a future rulemaking. In the NPRM
for the instant proceeding, we proposed to amend the rule text of part
244 and to adopt the ``more than three hours'' standard so this part
would be consistent with other parts of our rules. Under this action,
any tarmac delay that lasts exactly three hours would not be covered
under the requirements of part 244. We received no comments on this
proposal and are adopting it as proposed.
b. Civil Penalty for Tarmac Delay Violations
    In the NPRM, we proposed to amend the tarmac delay rule to clarify
that the Department may impose penalties for tarmac delay violations on
a per-passenger basis. We received numerous comments opposing this
proposal, primarily from carriers and carrier associations stating that
the Department lacks statutory authority to impose such a civil penalty
on a per-passenger basis.
    Since the tarmac delay rule became effective in 2011, the
Department's Enforcement Office has maintained that even if all of the
violations took place on a single flight, it is not limited to a single
civil penalty per flight for tarmac delay violations. It has
consistently exercised its discretion and assessed civil penalties for
tarmac delay violations on a per-passenger basis, through consent
orders that have become actions of the Department. The Enforcement
Office has taken the position that the Department has the authority to
assess a civil penalty on a per-passenger basis, based on 49 U.S.C.
41712, which prohibits unfair or deceptive practices, and 49 U.S.C.
42301, which requires that carriers adhere to their tarmac delay
contingency plans.
    Nonetheless, the Department has decided not to amend the tarmac
delay rule as we had proposed on this particular issue. Instead, the
Enforcement Office will continue to exercise its discretion to enforce
the tarmac delay rule as appropriate, on a case-by-case basis.
c. Required Oral Disclosure of Material Restrictions on Travel Vouchers
Offered to Potential Volunteers in Oversale Situations Under Part 250
    The second Enhancing Airline Passenger Protections rule amended the
Department's Oversales rule (14 CFR part 250) in a number of ways. One
of the issues was requiring oral disclosure of any material
restrictions on travel vouchers offered to both voluntarily and
involuntarily bumped passengers. The preamble discussed extensively the
reasons for adopting this new provision. But inadvertently, the rule
text in part 250 only requires oral disclosures to passengers who are
involuntarily denied boarding. The rule text, as it currently stands,
allows carriers to provide such disclosure solely by written notice to
passengers who are orally solicited to be volunteers in exchange for
travel vouchers. We proposed in the NPRM to require carriers to provide
oral notification of restrictions to these passengers who are solicited
to volunteer.
    Travelers United and National Consumers League submitted joint
comments in support of this proposal but urge the Department to go
further by requiring gate agents to verbally disclose to passengers who
are involuntarily denied boarding that they are eligible to receive the
maximum amounts of denied boarding compensation in cash for domestic
and international flights. The commenters state that such disclosure
would put consumers in an educated position when dealing with denied
boarding situations. The commenters further state that basic consumer
rights involving compensation should be explained in writing by
airlines on ticket itineraries and computer generated boarding passes
to include compensation for lost luggage, denied boarding and flight
delays from Europe to the United States and within Europe.
    Spirit Airlines opposes the Department's proposal to require gate
attendants to provide a verbal explanation of the terms of vouchers
given to volunteers in an overbooking situation. Spirit states that the
Department lacks any demonstrable evidence that consumers are harmed by
receiving only written disclosures. Spirit states that it would first
ask the passengers being solicited to volunteer to read the terms of
the vouchers and check a box to state that they agree to the terms and
conditions. Spirit asserts that it is completely impractical to require
a gate agent to give a private presentation of the material restriction
applicable to the travel voucher to each potential volunteer.
    The Department continues to believe that oral notification of
material restrictions of vouchers is necessary especially when
passengers being solicited to volunteer their seats are constrained by
time pressure to make a quick decision as to whether to volunteer. We
further believe that the written notice that is often embedded in the
printed contents of the travel voucher is hard for passenger to review
and comprehend in a short time before he or she commits to the
acceptance of the voucher. By adopting this requirement, we note that a
brief oral summary of the material restrictions applicable to the
travel vouchers delivered through the gate PA system following the
announcement of a request for volunteers would not place an
unreasonable burden on carriers and would benefit consumers by offering
them a clear and precise summary description of what they are receiving
in exchange for giving up their seats. Such verbal disclosure is not
required to be provided individually to each potential volunteer. We
expect such disclosure would reduce the likelihood of consumer
confusion that in turn would reduce complaints filed with carriers and
the cost associated with carriers' handling of these complaints. With
respect to the suggestion of Travelers United and National Consumers
League to require verbal disclosure of maximum denied boarding
compensation amounts to passengers denied boarding involuntarily, and
the suggestions to include compensation amounts on boarding passes, we
decline to address these proposals in this final rule because they are
beyond the scope of our Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.
d. Limitation of Flight Status Notification Requirement of 14 CFR 259.8
    Guidance in the Frequently Asked Questions that accompanied the
second Enhancing Airline Passenger Protections final rule limits the
flight status notification requirement in 14 CFR 259.8 to any qualified
flight status changes that occur within seven calendar days prior to
the scheduled date of the operation. In the NPRM for the instant
proceeding, we proposed to codify this standard in the rule. We
received no comments on this proposal. We adopt the ``seven-calendar-
day'' timeframe in this final rule as we recognize that the closer to
the date of the scheduled operations, the more

important it is for carriers to provide notice of a flight status
change promptly. Limiting the flights for which carriers are required
to comply with section 259.8 according their departure timeframe will
also reduce carriers' burdens and ensure that their primary focus is on
those flights where the status change would have the most significant
impact on consumers. We emphasize, however, that notifications of
changes that occur earlier than the seven-day threshold are still
required to be delivered to the passengers ``in a timely manner'' by
the carriers as provided by 14 CFR 259.5(b)(10).
    We are also adopting some proposed editorial changes to section
259.8 to clarify that flight status change notifications required in
this section should be provided not only to passengers, but also to any
member of the public who may be affected by the changes and who
subscribes or attempts to subscribe to a flight status notification
system, including persons meeting passengers at airports or escorting
them to or from airports. In this regard, we are changing the word
``passengers'' to ``consumers'' in the title of section 259.8, changing
the first instance of the word ``passengers'' in subsection 259.8(a)(1)
to the phrase ``passengers and other interested persons,'' and changing
the second instance of that word to ``subscribers.''
e. Removing the Rebating Provision in Section 399.80(h)
    14 CFR 399.80(h) of DOT's Statements of General Policy states that
it is an unfair or deceptive practice or unfair method of competition
for a ticket agent to advertise or sell air transportation at less than
the rates specified in the tariff of the air carrier, or offer rebates
or concessions, or permit persons to obtain air transportation at less
than the lawful fares and rates. In the NPRM for this proceeding, we
proposed to remove this provision. It is a vestige of the period before
deregulation of the airline industry. Domestic air fares were
deregulated effective 1983, and in most cases international air fares
to and from the United States are no longer included in tariffs that
specify ``lawful'' fares. In those markets where international fares
are still subject to regulation, carriers that do not comply with their
tariff are potentially subject to enforcement action under 49 U.S.C.
41510 concerning adherence to tariffs or 49 U.S.C. 41712 concerning
unfair or deceptive practices and unfair methods of competition (the
statutory basis for section 399.80(h)). The Department's Enforcement
Office has said that it will pursue enforcement action against a
carrier that does not comply with its tariff when there is clear
evidence of a pattern of direct fraud against consumers or deception,
invidious discrimination, or violations of the antitrust laws. It has
been the longstanding policy of that office to decline to prosecute
instances of noncompliance with tariff obligations that result in
benefits to consumers absent clear evidence of such fraud, deception,
discrimination or antitrust violations. (See the Frequently Asked
Questions for ``Rule #2'' of the Enhancing Airline Passenger
Protections regulation, www.transportation.gov/individuals/air-consumer/aviation-rules, section X, question 38a, footnote 1.) There
have been no enforcement actions solely for tariff compliance for over
20 years, and should such action become appropriate in the future, it
can proceed under the authority of sections 41510 or 41712.
    The American Society of Travel Agents supported the proposal to
remove this provision. There were no other comments on this issue. As
indicated above, 14 CFR 399.80(h) is not necessary and consequently we
are removing this provision.
f. Removing Part 255 Pursuant to Its Sunset Provision
    We are removing the rule text of 14 CFR part 255 pursuant to
section 255.8 that provides that part 255 shall terminate on July 31,
2004, unless extended by a document published in the Federal Register.
We are replacing the text of part 255 with ``Reserved.''

Regulatory Analyses and Notices

A. Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) and DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures

    This action has been determined to be significant under Executive
Order 12866 and the Department of Transportation's Regulatory Policies
and Procedures. It has been reviewed by the Office of Management and
Budget under that Executive Order and Executive Order 13563. This
section contains a summary of costs and benefits associated with this
final rule. More detail on the economic impact of this final rule can
be found in the Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA), which is available in
the docket.
    The RIA provides information on the benefits and costs associated
with the Final Rule. The rule is not economically significant, as the
costs which were able to be quantified, which relate only to the
requirements that expand the definition of ``reporting carrier'' and
the reporting requirements for reporting carriers, totaled $7.74 over a
ten-year period, or an annualized cost of $0.96 million, when
discounted using a seven percent rate. Any potential additional costs
which could not be quantified are expected to be minimal. The benefits
could not be quantified and monetized with reasonable accuracy for the
Rule and thus, were evaluated qualitatively.
Provision 1: Expand ``Reporting Carrier'' Pool and Provision 2: Expand
Reporting Requirements for Reporting Carriers
    Provision 1 expands the ``reporting carrier'' threshold to include
more carriers by lowering the threshold for ``reporting carrier'' to
0.50 percent of domestic scheduled passenger revenues. Provision 2
expands the information that each reporting carrier is required to
submit to USDOT to include an additional set of performance data for
the carrier's domestic code-share flight segments operated by a
partner.
    Reporting carriers are required to submit the following flight
performance data regularly:
     BTS Form 234 ``On-Time Performance Report'' on a monthly
basis;
     Report baggage mishandling, statistics monthly;
     BTS Form 251 regarding denied boarding/oversales on a
quarterly basis; and
     Lengthy tarmac delays and incidents relating to transport
of animals, when/if they occur.
    In addition, reporting carriers are currently required to post on-
time performance data on their Web sites for each flight they operate
and for each flight their U.S. code-share partners operate.
    Provisions 1 and 2 will lead to additional performance data
reported to the BTS, and in turn made available to consumers through
publication in the Air Travel Consumer Report. In addition, new
reporting carriers that market directly to consumers will now post on-
time performance data on their Web sites for each flight they operate
and for each flight its U.S. code-share partners operate. Several
larger regional carriers and some of the smaller national carriers will
provide a great deal of information regarding their performance to BTS.
The public will now be able to compare the performance of these newly
reporting carriers across a range of critical performance indicators
(e.g. on-time performance, rate of mishandled baggage, etc.).
    The costs to carriers are calculated by multiplying the number of
impacted carriers by the one-time programming cost to collect and
report data and on-going costs to process and report data to

the Department. Additional costs associated with training for data
gathering and for carriers to report performance data of code-share
partners were identified but not quantified or monetized, but are not
expected to be very significant.

                                 Table 1--Estimated Costs for Provision 1 and 2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               2017 (first      2018 (second
                                                              year-- set-up    year-- ongoing    2017-2026 (ten
                                                                 costs)            costs)            years)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            Reporting Threshold 0.50%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                            Reporting Carriers to Provide Data for Code-Share Flights
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of newly reporting carriers who market flights.....                 1  ................  ................
One-time set-up cost per carrier to post flight delay               $441,914  ................  ................
 information to consumers, $/carrier......................
                                                           -----------------------------------------------------
    Total one-time set-up costs for newly reporting                 $441,914  ................          $441,914
     carriers who market flights to post on-time
     performance information to consumers, $____..........
One-time set-up cost per carrier to be able to collect/             $106,173  ................  ................
 report performance data for USDOT, $/carrier.............
Number of newly reporting carriers........................                 7  ................  ................

    n,sTotal one-time set-up costs for all newly                   $743,213  ................          $743,213
     reporting carriers to collect/report performance data
     to USDOT, $____......................................
Per carrier one-time set-up costs for newly reporting                 $8,000  ................  ................
 carriers and code-share partners to set up system for
 revised reporting mishandled baggage rates...............
Number of newly reporting carriers........................                 7  ................  ................
Number of code share partnerings, for newly reporting                      8  ................  ................
 carriers only and their domestic code-share segments.....
                                                           -----------------------------------------------------
    Total one-time set-up costs for newly reporting                 $120,000  ................          $120,000
     carriers and code-share partners to set up system for
     revised reporting mishandled baggage rates...........
One-time setup cost to create a link between reporting              $106,173  ................  ................
 carriers and code-share partners to share code-share
 performance data.........................................
    Total links established between reporting carriers and                17  ................  ................
     code-share partners..................................
                                                           -----------------------------------------------------
    Total one-time set-up costs for reporting carriers and        $1,804,947  ................        $1,804,947
     code-share partners to establish links to transmit
     data, $____..........................................
Hours per carrier for filling performance data Form 234     ................               240  ................
 (on-time performance), Hrs/carrier.......................
Hours per carrier for filling performance data Form 251     ................                16  ................
 (denied boarding/oversales), Hrs/carrier.................
Hourly labor costs of reporting, $/Hr.....................  ................            $94.57  ................
                                                           -----------------------------------------------------
    Total ongoing labor costs for newly reporting carriers  ................          $169,464        $1,600,470
     to collect and report data on their own flights,
     $____................................................
Number of current or newly reporting carriers who have at   ................                 9  ................
 least one code-share partner.............................
Additional hours per reporting carrier to report            ................               384  ................
 performance data if filing separate reports for code-
 share partners and main carriers, Hrs/carrier............
                                                           -----------------------------------------------------
    Total ongoing labor costs for reporting carriers to     ................           $544,70        $5,144,368
     collect and report data on their code-share flights,
     $____................................................
Annual cost of Report Preparation for mishandled baggage..  ................            $2,969  ................
Number of newly reporting carriers........................  ................                 7  ................
                                                           -----------------------------------------------------
    Total costs for newly reporting carriers to prepare     ................           $20,783          $187,047
     annual reports for mishandled baggage................
Number of passengers on newly reporting carriers (0.5%)...  ................        64,122,957  ................
Passengers of newly reporting carriers with checked         ................           705,353  ................
 wheelchairs and scooters,................................
additional cost per item/passenger for the airlines to      ................            $0.036  ................
 enter data re wheelchairs and scooters...................
                                                           -----------------------------------------------------
    Total ongoing data entry costs for newly reporting      ................           $25,393          $251,795
     carriers to enter data re wheelchairs and scooters...
                                                           -----------------------------------------------------
    Total Component Costs (millions):
        Undiscounted costs................................             $3.11             $0.76            $10.29
                                                           -----------------------------------------------------
        Discounted costs (7%).............................             $2.91             $0.66             $7.74
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The hourly labor cost for reporting is an average of hourly rates presented in Enhancing Airline Passenger
  Protections Final Rule of April 25, 2011 RIA and 2003 hourly rates for this specific technical work provided
  by a reporting carrier which shared this confidential data under agreement that they would not be named
  publically. The hourly labor cost for reporting includes benefits and supervisory review time. It is adjusted
  in years going forward by 1.6 percent annually during the study period. Refer to the RIA for detailed
  information.

Provision 3: Disclosure of Code-Share Segments in Schedules,
Advertisements and Communications With Consumers
    This provision of the Rule clarifies the Department's code-share
disclosure regulation to ensure that carriers and ticket agents
disclose any code-share arrangements in schedules, advertisements and
communications with consumers. It amends the Department's code-share
disclosure regulation to codify the statutory requirement that carriers
and ticket agents must disclose any code-share arrangements on their
Web sites, including mobile Web sites and applications; clarifies the
format in which that information must be displayed; and adds a
requirement that verbal codeshare disclosures be made the first time a
flight involving a code-share arrangement is offered to consumers or
inquired about by consumers during telephone or in person
conversations. The provision is very similar to that presented in the
NPRM, on which the public provided comments.
    Much of the substance of Provision 3 is already in effect, as
existing statute (49 U.S.C. 41712(c)) already requires that carriers
and ticket agents disclose their code-shared segments, and therefore
all carriers and ticket agencies should already be complying with most
of this requirement. The aspect of this provision which is new is the
specification of when during the booking process a carrier or ticket
agent must disclose the code-share information. The existing rule
requires airlines and ticket agents to disclose code-share information
to the consumer ``before booking transportation'' which the Department
has explained means at any point during the information-gathering and
decision-making process; the new rule's provision stipulates that the
disclosure must be made at the first time a flight involving a code-
share arrangement is mentioned or offered to consumers. Benefits from
this provision will arise from the requirement that verbal code-share
disclosures should be made the first time a flight involving a code-
share arrangement is mentioned or offered to consumers and will include
some time savings for a small number of consumers during ticket
reservations and purchase. Since this provision mostly codifies and
clarifies existing statute, there are few costs associated with it.
Some costs will arise, though, as some carriers may have longer
reservation calls and increased training costs. The most notable
additional costs would be borne by those carriers and ticket agents
that currently do not present code-share information at the first
mention of a flight during a reservation call or in-person booking.
These carriers and ticket agents may have slightly longer reservation
calls and longer in-person bookings.
Provision 4: Prohibition on Undisclosed Biasing Based on Carrier
Identity
    The Department is aware of instances in which GDSs and large OTAs
have manipulated flight search results and provided biased or filtered
flight and fare information that disfavored the flights of the airline
that was the target of the biasing. These incidents occurred in the
course of business disputes when certain GDSs and OTAs influenced and
threatened to influence itinerary search results to disfavor particular
carriers' flights or not display certain flights in search results. The
display bias was not disclosed to consumers or ticket agents that
market to consumers. Thus, the fifth provision of the rule prohibits
undisclosed biasing by carriers and ticket agents in any online
displays of the fare, schedule or availability information of multiple
carriers. This provision applies to online travel agencies, corporate
booking tools, and carrier and carrier alliance Web sites and is
substantially the same as presented in the NPRM.
    Undisclosed bias in the display of flight search results can
distort the air travel market and potentially harm consumers that are
not aware of the biasing. If consumers assume that search results
contain no bias and that flights are ranked by lowest fare (or other
factors which they can select) they may not fully examine all the
results, potentially missing some flights which are either cheaper or a
better match for their criteria but are ranked lower. Ensuring that
online ticket agents disclose whether they use criteria besides those
chosen by the consumer for presenting search results will alert
consumers to any potential bias. It would still be the consumers'
responsibility to review the results carefully, but there will be
greater transparency in the search results, decreasing chances of a
misinformed consumer.
    Additional costs to carriers and travel agents of this provision
should be minimal. The only additional costs of instituting this
provision would be small programming costs to add a disclosure
specifying what factors or biases, if any, beyond price and those which
can be specified by the consumer are used to display search results.
Since these disclosures should be relatively simple statements and are
not expected to change frequently, these per entity programming costs
should be small. Additionally, these costs would not be incurred by all
carriers and ticket agents, only by those which use biases or other
non-consumer specified factors when organizing flight search results.
Alternatives Considered
    The Department considered multiple alternatives to individual
provisions of this Final Rule. Costs could only be quantitatively
estimated for one of these alternatives--that of lowering the reporting
threshold from 1.0 percent of domestic passenger revenue to 0.25
percent, instead of to 0.5 percent as adopted in the final rule. Costs
under this alternative increased from $7.74 million over ten years to
$9.44 million (both discounted at 7 percent); or higher annualized
costs of $1.18 million versus $0.96 million.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

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

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

C. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)

    This final rule has been analyzed in accordance with the principles
and criteria contained in Executive Order 13132 (``Federalism''). The
rule does not contain any provision that (1) has substantial direct
effects on the States, the relationship between the national government
and the States, or the distribution of power and responsibilities among
the various levels of government; (2) imposes substantial direct
compliance costs on State and local governments; or (3) preempts State
law. States are already preempted from regulating in this area by the
Airline Deregulation Act, 49 U.S.C. 41713. Therefore, the consultation
and funding requirements of Executive Order 13132 do not apply.

D. Executive Order 13084

    This final rule has been analyzed in accordance with the principles
and criteria contained in Executive Order 13084 (``Consultation and
Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments''). Because none of the
provisions in the final rule significantly or uniquely affect the
communities of the Indian tribal governments or impose substantial
direct compliance costs on them, the funding and consultation
requirements of Executive Order 13084 do not apply.

E. Paperwork Reduction Act

    As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Department
has submitted the Information Collection Request (ICR) abstracted below
to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Before OMB decides
whether to approve those proposed collections of information that are
part of this final rule and issue a control number, the public must be
provided 30 days to comment. Organizations and individuals desiring to
submit comments on the information collection requirements should
direct them to the Office of Management and Budget, Attention: Desk
Officer for the Office of the Secretary of Transportation, Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs, Washington, DC 20503, and should
also send a copy of their comments to: Department of Transportation,
Office of Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings, Office of the General
Counsel, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590. OMB is
required to make a decision concerning the collection of information
requirements contained in this rule between 30 and 60 days after
publication of this document in the Federal Register. Therefore, a
comment to OMB is best assured of having its full effect if OMB
receives it within 30 days of publication.
    We will respond to any OMB or public comments on the information
collection requirements contained in this rule. The Department may not
impose a penalty on persons for violating information collection
requirements which do not display a current OMB control number, if
required. The Department intends to renew the OMB control number for
the information collection requirements resulting from this rulemaking
action. The OMB control number, when renewed, will be announced by
separate notice in the Federal Register.
    The ICR was previously published in the Federal Register as part of
the NPRM. See 79 FR 29995. The Department invited interested persons to
submit comments on any aspect of each of these two information
collections: The first collection of information is a requirement that
more carriers report on-time performance, mishandled baggage, and
oversales data to the Department (i.e., expansion of reporting carriers
from any U.S. airline that accounts for at least one percent of annual
domestic scheduled passenger revenue to any U.S. airline that accounts
for at least 0.5 percent of annual domestic scheduled-passenger
revenues). The second information collection is a requirement that
mainline carriers provide enhanced reporting for flights operated by
their domestic code-share partners including requiring reporting
carriers to separately report on-time performance, mishandled baggage,
and oversales data for all domestic scheduled passenger flights
marketed by the reporting carriers but operated by domestic code-share
partners.
    The final rule modifies the information collection titled
``Reporting on-time performance/Reporting baggage-handling'' (OMB No.
2138-0041), the information collection titled ``Reporting oversales''
(OMB No. 2138-0018), and the information collection titled ``Posting
on-time performance data on carrier's Web site'' (OMB No. 2105-0561).
The first collection of information contained in the final rule is a
requirement that U.S. carriers that account for at least 0.5 percent
but less than one percent of the domestic scheduled passenger revenue
to report to the Department the on-time performance, mishandled
baggage, and oversales information for the flights they operate. As
discussed above, this requirement expands the reporting requirement
from one percent of domestic scheduled passenger revenue to 0.5
percent, and therefore expanding the number of reporting carriers from
12 to 19 carriers, an increase of 7 carriers. The second collection of
information requires reporting carriers that market codeshare flights
operated by another carrier to file separate reports for on-time
performance, mishandled baggage, and oversales for those flights. Seven
of the 19 reporting carriers will be subject to this requirement. The
third information collection is a requirement that U.S. carriers that
account for at least 0.5 percent but less than one percent of the
domestic scheduled passenger revenue to post on-time performance
records on its Web site, if the carrier has a Web site marketing
flights to the consumers. One carrier will be subject to this
requirement because of this final rule.
First Information Collection
    Title: Reports by Carriers on On-time Performance and Mishandled
Baggage Data for Flights Operated by Themselves and for Code-share
Flights Operated by Another Carrier.
    OMB Control Number: 2138-0041.
    Type of Request: Modification of Information Collection Request.
    Respondents: U.S. carriers operate scheduled passenger service that

account for at least 0.5 percent and less than 1.0 percent of domestic
scheduled passenger revenue will be required to report on-time
performance and mishandled baggage data for flights that they operate.
U.S. carriers operate scheduled passenger service and account for at
least 0.5 percent of total domestic scheduled passenger service revenue
that market code-share flights only carrying the carrier's code will be
required to report separately on-time performance and mishandled
baggage data for these code-share flights.
    Frequency: For each respondent, one information set each month for
on-time performance for flights they operate and one information set
each month for mishandled baggage for flights they operate; for each
respondent that market code-share flight, one information set each
month for on-time performance for code-share flights they market and
one information set for mishandled baggage for code-share flights they
market.
    Estimated Annual Burden on Respondents: Estimated Initial Set-up
Cost in the First Year: The 7 non-marketing newly reporting carriers
will incur an initial cost of 1,123 hours per carrier for setting up
the reporting systems needed to collect data needed for on-time
performance reporting and oversales (this figure is calculated from the
estimated one-time cost of $106,173 per carrier to be able to collect/
report performance data for USDOT and divided by an hourly labor cost
of $94.57, derived from which was derived from hourly labor cost
estimates from a reporting carrier and research conducted for the
Regulatory Evaluation in support of Consumer Rulemaking: Enhancing
Airline Passenger Protections II]). The total for all newly reporting
carriers will be 7,859 hours. Using an hourly labor rate of $94.57
(derived from which was derived from hourly labor cost estimates from a
reporting carrier and research conducted for the Regulatory Evaluation
in support of Consumer Rulemaking: Enhancing Airline Passenger
Protections II), the 7,859 hours will translate into a total of
$743,213.
    All reporting carriers which have code-share partnerships will have
set-up costs associated with establishing links to their partners for
the necessary data reporting. The costs are estimated to be
approximately $106,173 per link, and there will be 17 such links among
all the reporting carriers. The total cost will be $1,804,947, or
approximately 19,086 for all 15 reporting carriers with code-share
partners.
    An additional $120,000 set-up costs for previously reporting
carriers to create links to their code-share partners for mishandled
baggage data, and for the seven newly reporting carriers to submit for
mishandled baggage data to USDOT will total $120,000 in the first year,
or approximately 1,269 hours. Thus, the total hour burden for this all
carriers will total 28,215 hours, or $ $2,668,160 for first year set up
costs.
    Annual on-going burden will total 5,624 hours per year, which
includes 240 hours per carrier for the 7 newly marketing carriers to
complete form 234 for their own operated flights, an estimated 488 per
carrier in ongoing data entry costs for newly reporting carriers to
enter data regarding wheelchairs and scooters; and a total of 3,456 for
all carriers with code-share partners (varies by carrier based on
number of code-share) for reporting on-time performance and mishandled
baggage data, which is filed monthly. Using an hourly labor rate of
$94.57 (derived from which was derived from hourly labor cost estimates
from a reporting carrier and research conducted for the Regulatory
Evaluation in support of Consumer Rulemaking: Enhancing Airline
Passenger Protections II), the 5,624 will translate into a total of
$531,871 first year set-up costs.
Second Information Collection
    Title: Reports by Carriers on Oversales Data for Flights Operated
by Themselves and for Code-share Flights Operated by Another Carrier.
    OMB Control Number: 2138-0018.
    Type of Request: Modification of Information Collection Request.
    Respondents: U.S. carriers operate scheduled passenger service that
account for at least 0.5 percent and less than 1.0 percent of domestic
scheduled passenger revenue will be required to report oversales data
for flights that they operate. U.S. carriers operate scheduled
passenger service and account for at least 0.5 percent of total
domestic scheduled passenger service revenue that market code-share
flights only carrying the carrier's code will be required to report
separately oversales data for these code-share flights.
    Frequency: For each respondent, one information set each quarter
for oversales for flights they operate; for each respondent that market
code-share flight, one information set each quarter for oversales for
code-share flights they market.
    Estimated Annual Burden on Respondents: The set-up costs for newly
reporting carriers to put into place systems for reporting oversales
data are included in the set-up costs for reporting performance data,
since they are no separate systems. The annual on-going burden will be
approximately 16 hours per carrier per year, or 592 hours for all 8
carriers, to report oversales data, which is filed quarterly. The 592
hours translates into $56,000 per years when using an hourly labor cost
of $94.57 (see above).
Third Information Collection
    Title: Posting on-time performance data on carriers' Web sites.
    OMB Control Number: 2105-0561.
    Type of Request: Modification of Information Collection Request.
    Respondents: U.S. carriers operate scheduled passenger service that
account for at least 0.5 percent and less than 1.0 percent of domestic
scheduled passenger revenue and marketing flight directly to consumers
via a Web site will be required to post on-time performance records for
the flights it markets on its Web site.
    Frequency: For each respondent, updating on-time performance
records once a month on its Web site.
    Estimated Annual Burden on Respondents: The 1 newly reporting
carrier which markets to consumers will incur approximately 4,673 hours
to set up the Web site to post online the on-time performance records
for flights marketed on their Web sites. (The estimate of 4,673 is
calculated from the estimated one-time cost of posting delay
information online of $400,000 in 2009, from U.S. DOT Final RIA
Enhanced Airline Passenger Protections [http://www.dot.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/docs/Final_Rule_on_Enhancing_Airline_Passenger_Protections.pdf and brought
forward to 2015 and divided by an hourly labor cost of $94.57, which
was derived from hourly labor cost estimates from a reporting carrier
and research conducted for the Regulatory Evaluation in support of
Consumer Rulemaking: Enhancing Airline Passenger Protections II]).
Ongoing costs for updating the Web site are assumed to be minimal once
the systems are in place and the carrier is reporting its on-time
performance to BTS as required elsewhere.

F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Department has determined that the requirements of Title II of
the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 do not apply to this final
rule.

G. National Environmental Policy Act

    The Department has analyzed the environmental impacts of this final
rule pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA)
(42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and has determined that it is categorically
excluded pursuant to DOT Order 5610.1C, Procedures for Considering
Environmental Impacts (44 FR 56420, Oct. 1, 1979). Categorical

exclusions are actions identified in an agency's NEPA implementing
procedures that do not normally have a significant impact on the
environment and therefore do not require either an environmental
assessment (EA) or environmental impact statement (EIS). See 40 CFR
1508.4. In analyzing the applicability of a categorical exclusion, the
agency must also consider whether extraordinary circumstances are
present that would warrant the preparation of an EA or EIS. Id.
Paragraph 3.c.6.i of DOT Order 5610.1C categorically excludes
``[a]ctions relating to consumer protection, including regulations.''
The purpose of this rulemaking is to enhance protections for air
travelers and to improve the air travel environment. The Department
does not anticipate any environmental impacts, and there are no
extraordinary circumstances present in connection with this rulemaking.

List of Subjects

14 CFR Part 234

    Air carriers, Consumer protection, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.

14 CFR Part 244

    Air carriers, Consumer protection, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.

14 CFR Part 250

    Air carriers, Consumer protection, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.

14 CFR Part 255

    Air carriers, Antitrust.

14 CFR Part 256

    Air carriers, Air rates and fares, Antitrust.

14 CFR Part 257

    Air carriers, Air rates and fares, Consumer protection, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements.

14 CFR Part 259

    Air carriers, Air rates and fares, Consumer protection.

14 CFR Part 399

    Administrative practice and procedure, Air carriers, Air rates and
fares, Air taxis, Consumer protection, Small businesses.

    Issued this 18th day of October 2016, in Washington, DC.
Anthony R. Foxx,
Secretary of Transportation.

    Accordingly, 14 CFR chapter II is amended as follows:

PART 234--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 234 continues to read as follows:

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

0
2. The definitions of ``reportable flight'' and ``reporting carrier''
in Sec.  234.2 are revised to read as follows:

Sec.  234.2   Definitions.

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

0
3. Section 234.3 is revised to read as follows:

Sec.  234.3  Applicability.

    For air transportation taking place before January 1, 2018, this
part applies to reportable flights as defined in Sec.  234.2 that are
held out to the public by certificated air carriers that account for at
least 1 percent of domestic scheduled passenger revenues. As stated in
Sec.  234.7, certain provisions also apply to voluntary reporting of
on-time performance by carriers. For air transportation taking place on
or after January 1, 2018, this part applies to reportable flights as
defined in Sec.  234.2 that are held out to the public by certificated
air carriers that account for at least 0.5 percent of domestic
scheduled passenger revenues. As stated in Sec.  234.7, certain
provisions also apply to voluntary reporting of on-time performance by
carriers.

0
4. Section 234.4 is amended by revising paragraph (a) introductory text
and adding paragraph (k) to read as follows:

Sec.  234.4  Reporting of on-time performance.

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

agencies, or in other generally recognized sources of schedule
information, and operated by any code-share partner that is a
certificated air carrier or commuter air carrier. If the operating
carrier of the flight is not a reporting carrier, the non-operating
reporting carrier must file a BTS Form 234 ``On-time Flight Performance
Report'' with the Office of Airline Information on a monthly basis,
setting forth the information regarding those flights in a form and
manner consistent with the requirements set forth in paragraph (a)
through (j) of this section. If the operating carrier of the flight is
a reporting carrier, the non-operating reporting carrier must file a
simplified BTS Form 234 ``On-Time Flight Performance Report'' with the
Office of Airline Information on a monthly basis, setting forth the
information regarding those flights in a form and manner consistent
with the requirements set forth in paragraph (a)(1) through (a)(4) and
paragraph (a)(10) of this section, and in accordance with the
requirements set forth in accounting and reporting directives issued by
the Office of Airline Information.

0
5. Section 234.6 is amended by revising paragraph (b) to read as
follows:

Sec.  234.6   Baggage-handling statistics.

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

PART 244--[AMENDED]

0
6. The authority citation for part 244 continues to read as follows:

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

0
7. Section 244.2 is amended by revising the last sentence of paragraph
(a) to read as follows:

Sec.  244.2   Applicability.

    (a) * * * Covered carriers must report all passenger operations
that experience a tarmac time of more than 3 hours at a U.S. airport.
* * * * *

0
8. Section 244.3 is amended by revising paragraph (a) introductory text
to read as follows:

Sec.  244.3   Reporting of tarmac delay data.

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

PART 250--[AMENDED]

0
9. The authority citation for part 250 continues to read as follows:

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

0
10. Section 250.2b is amended by revising paragraph (c) to read as
follows:

Sec.  250.2b  Carriers to request volunteers for denied boarding.

* * * * *
    (c) If a carrier offers free or reduced rate air transportation as
compensation to volunteers, the carrier must disclose all material
restrictions, including but not limited to administrative fees, advance
purchase or capacity restrictions, and blackout dates applicable to the
offer before the passenger decides whether to give up his or her
confirmed reserved space on the flight in exchange for the free or
reduced rate transportation. If the free or reduced rate air
transportation is offered orally to potential volunteers, the carrier
shall also orally provide a brief description of the material
restrictions on that transportation at the same time that the offer is
made.

0
11. Section 250.5 is amended by adding a sentence at the end of
paragraph (c)(3) to read as follows:

Sec.  250.5   Amount of denied boarding compensation for passengers
denied boarding involuntarily.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (3) * * * (See also Sec.  250.9(c)).
* * * * *

0
12. Section 250.10 is revised to read as follows:

Sec.  250.10   Report of passengers denied confirmed space.

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

aircraft that have a designed passenger capacity of 30 or more seats.

PART 255--[REMOVED AND RESERVED]

0
13. Under the authority of 49 U.S.C. 40101, 40102, 40105, 40113, and
41712, part 255, is removed and reserved.

0
14. Part 256 is added to read as follows:

PART 256--ELECTRONIC AIRLINE INFORMATION SYSTEMS

Sec.
256.1 Purpose.
256.2 Applicability.
256.3 Definitions.
256.4 Prohibition on undisclosed display bias.
256.5 Minimum disclosure requirements for biased displays.
256.6 No requirement to provide access to systems.

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 40101 and 41712.

Sec.  256.1   Purpose.

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

Sec.  256.2   Applicability.

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

Sec.  256.3   Definitions.

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

Sec.  256.4   Prohibition on undisclosed display bias.

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

Sec.  256.5   Minimum disclosure requirements for biased displays.

    To the extent an EAIS engages in display bias based on carrier
identity, it must clearly and conspicuously disclose that fact at the
top of each search result display presented to the user in response to
the user-selected search criteria. The notice must state that the
flights are not displayed in neutral order and that certain airlines'
fare, schedule or availability information is given preferential
treatment in how it is displayed.

Sec.  256.6   No requirement to provide access to systems.

    Nothing in this section requires an air carrier, foreign air
carrier, or ticket agent to allow a system to access its internal
computer reservation system or to permit ``screen scraping'' or
``content scraping'' of its Web site; nor does it require an air
carrier or foreign air carrier to permit the marketing or sale of the
carrier's services through any ticket agent or other carrier's system.
``Screen scraping'' as used in this paragraph refers to a process
whereby a company uses computer software techniques to extract
information from other companies' Web sites without permission from the
company operating the targeted Web site.

PART 257--[AMENDED]

0
15. The authority citation for part 257 continues to read as follows:

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

Sec.  257.3   [Amended]

0
16. Section 257.3 is amended by removing the term ``Transporting
carrier'' and adding ``Operating carrier'' in its place, removing the
paragraph designations [(a) through (g)] from the definitions in this
section, and placing the definition of ``Operating carrier'' in
alphabetical order after the definition of ``Long-term wet lease.''

0
 17. Section 257.5 is revised to read as follows:

Sec.  257.5   Notice requirement.

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

itineraries and/or schedules for scheduled passenger air transportation
to the public in the United States and to the Official Airline Guides
and comparable publications, and, where applicable, computer
reservation systems, shall ensure that each flight on which the
designator code is not that of the operating carrier is clearly and
prominently identified and contains the following disclosures. If there
is more than one operating carrier for a particular flight (e.g.,
change of gauge), the required disclosures shall be made for each
flight segment where the designator code is not that of the operating
carrier.
    (1) In flight schedule information provided by an air carrier,
foreign air carrier, or ticket agent to U.S. consumers on desktop
browser-based Web sites or applications in response to any requested
itinerary search, for each flight in scheduled passenger air
transportation that is operated by a carrier other than the one listed
for that flight, the corporate name of the transporting carrier and any
other name under which the service is held out to the public must
appear prominently in text format, with font size not smaller than the
font size of the flight itinerary itself, on the first display
following the input of a search query, immediately adjacent to each
code-share flight in that search-results list. Roll-over, pop-up and
linked disclosures do not comply with this paragraph.
    (2) In flight schedule information provided by an air carrier,
foreign air carrier, or ticket agent to U.S. consumers on mobile
browser-based Web sites or applications in response to any requested
itinerary search, for each flight in scheduled passenger air
transportation that is operated by a carrier other than the one listed
for that flight, the corporate name of the transporting carrier must
appear prominently in text format, with font size not smaller than the
font size of the flight itinerary itself, on the first display
following the input of a search query, immediately adjacent to each
code-share flight in that search-results list. Roll-over, pop-up and
linked disclosures do not comply with this paragraph.
    (3) For static written schedules, each flight in scheduled
passenger air transportation that is operated by a carrier other than
the one listed for that flight shall be identified by an asterisk or
other easily identifiable mark that leads to disclosure of the
corporate name of the operating carrier and any other name under which
that service is held out to the public.
    (4) Each air carrier and foreign air carrier that provides flight
schedule information to any computer reservation system or global
distribution system that receives and distributes the U.S. or foreign
carrier's fare, schedule, or availability information shall ensure that
each flight on which the designator code is not that of the operating
carrier is clearly and prominently identified and the corporate name of
the transporting carrier and any other name under which the service is
held out to the public appears prominently in text format, with font
size that is not smaller than the font size of the flight itinerary
itself, immediately adjacent to each code-share flight in that search-
results list.
    (b) Notice in oral communications with prospective consumers. In
any direct oral communication in the United States with a prospective
consumer, and in any telephone call placed from the United States by a
prospective consumer, concerning a flight within, to, or from the
United States that is part of a code-sharing arrangement or long-term
wet lease, a ticket agent doing business in the United States or a
carrier shall inform the consumer, the first time that such a flight is
offered to the consumer, or, if no such offer was made, the first time
a consumer inquires about such a flight, that the operating carrier is
not the carrier whose name or designator code will appear on the ticket
and shall identify the transporting carrier by its corporate name and
any other name under which that service is held out to the public.
    (c) Notice in ticket confirmations. At the time of purchase, each
selling carrier or ticket agent shall provide written disclosure of the
actual operator of the flight to each consumer of scheduled passenger
air transportation sold in the United States that involves a code-
sharing arrangement or long-term wet lease. For any flight on which the
designator code is not that of the operating carrier the notice shall
state ``Operated by'' followed by the corporate name of the
transporting carrier and any other name in which that service is held
out to the public. The following form of statement will satisfy the
requirement of this paragraph:
    Important Notice: Service between XYZ City and ABC City will be
operated by Jane Doe Airlines d/b/a QRS Express. At the purchaser's
request, the notice required by this part may be delivered in person,
or by fax, electronic mail, or any other reliable method of
transmitting written material.
    (d) In any written advertisement distributed in or mailed to or
from the United States (including those that appear on an internet Web
site that is marketed to consumers in the United States) for service in
a city-pair market that is provided under a code-sharing arrangement or
long-term wet lease, the advertisement shall prominently disclose that
the advertised service may involve travel on another carrier and
clearly indicate the nature of the service in reasonably sized type and
shall identify all potential operating carriers involved in the markets
being advertised by corporate name and by any other name under which
that service is held out to the public. In any radio or television
advertisement broadcast in the United States for service in a city-pair
market that is provided under a code-sharing or long-term wet lease,
the advertisement shall include at least a generic disclosure
statement, such as ``Some flights are operated by other airlines.''

PART 259--[AMENDED]

0
 18. The authority citation for part 259 continues to read as follows:

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

0
 19. Section 259.8 is amended by revising the second sentence in
paragraph (a) introductory text, and paragraph (a)(1), to read as
follows:

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

    (a) * * * A change in the status of a flight means, at a minimum, a
cancellation, diversion or delay of 30 minutes or more in the planned
operation of a flight that occurs within seven calendar days of the
scheduled date of the planned operation. * * *
    (1) With respect to any U.S. air carrier or foreign air carrier
that permits passengers and other interested persons to subscribe to
flight status notification services, the carrier must deliver such
notification to such subscribers, by whatever means the carrier offers
that the subscriber chooses.
* * * * *

PART 399--[AMENDED]

0
20. The authority citation for part 399 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 41712.

0
21. Section 399.80 is amended by removing and reserving paragraph (h)
to read as follows:

Sec.  399.80  Unfair and deceptive practices of ticket agents.

* * * * *
    (h) [Reserved]
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2016-26178 Filed 11-2-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-9X-P