[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 46 (Thursday, March 11, 2021)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 13819-13821]
[FR Doc No: 2021-04936]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0094; FRL-10019-05-OAR]
RIN 2060-AU98

Court Vacatur of Exemption From Emission Standards During Periods
of Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is amending the
Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) to reflect a court order regarding
the General Provisions for National Emissions Standards for Hazardous
Air Pollutants (NESHAP) issued on

December 19, 2008, by the United States Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia Circuit (the court). The court vacated two
provisions in the General Provisions that exempted sources from
hazardous air pollutant (HAP) non-opacity and opacity emission
standards during periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction (SSM).
The court held that under the Clean Air Act (CAA), emissions standards
or limitations must be continuous in nature and that the SSM exemptions
in these two provisions violate this requirement. This ministerial
action revises these two NESHAP General Provisions in the CFR to
conform to the court's order.

DATES: This final rule is effective on March 11, 2021.

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0094. All documents in the docket are
listed in https://www.regulations.gov/. Although listed, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., Confidential Business
Information or other information whose disclosure is restricted by
statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not
placed on the internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy
form. With the exception of such material, publicly available docket
materials are available electronically in https://www.regulations.gov/.
Out of an abundance of caution for members of the public and our staff,
the EPA Docket Center and Reading Room are closed to the public, with
limited exceptions, to reduce the risk of transmitting COVID-19. Our
Docket Center staff will continue to provide remote customer service
via email, phone, and webform. The EPA continues to carefully and
continuously monitor information from the Centers for Disease Control
and Prevention, local area health departments, and our Federal partners
so that we can respond rapidly as conditions change regarding COVID-19.
For further information and updates on EPA Docket Center services,
please visit us online at https://www.epa.gov/dockets or call the
Public Reading Room at<PHONE_NUMBER> or the EPA Docket Center at (202)
566-1742.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lisa Conner, Sector Policies and
Programs Division (D205-02), Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle
Park, North Carolina 27711, telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>You may
also consult your state or local permitting representative or the
appropriate EPA Regional office representative.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Organization of this document. The information in this preamble is
organized as follows:
I. Why is the EPA issuing this final rule?
II. Background
III. Which provisions are being amended?
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Why is the EPA issuing this final rule?

    This action is amending the CFR to reflect the 2008 court decision
in Sierra Club v. EPA vacating 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) and (h)(1). Section
553 of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B) provides
that, when an agency for good cause finds that notice and public
procedures are impracticable, unnecessary or contrary to the public
interest, the agency may issue a rule without providing notice and an
opportunity for public comment. The EPA has determined that there is
good cause for amending these provisions without prior proposal and
opportunity for public procedures because the correction of the CFR is
a ministerial act to effectuate the court order and public notice and
comment is unnecessary and would serve no useful purpose. Removal of
the two SSM exemptions in the General Provisions of the NESHAP at 40
CFR 63.6(f)(1) and (h)(1) has no legal effect beyond fulfilling the
court's vacatur in Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F. 3d 1019 (D.C. Cir. 2008)
and is ministerial in nature. The court issued the mandate for its
decision on October 16, 2009, at which point the vacatur became
effective.

II. Background

    The NESHAP program implementing requirements in section 112 of the
CAA regulates over 100 industrial source categories that emit HAP. The
NESHAP regulations applicable to specific source categories are
organized by subparts within part 63 of 40 CFR.\1\ As a component of 40
CFR part 63, the EPA established subpart A which contains the General
Provisions and, when incorporated by reference within a specific source
category NESHAP, eliminates unnecessary repetition of general
information and requirements that often apply (e.g., emission testing,
monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting provisions). As a result, the
General Provisions contain requirements that are general in nature and
apply only if the source category-specific NESHAP subpart states that
some (or all) of the subpart A requirements apply. See 59 FR 12408,
12408/3 (March 16, 1994) (``1994 Rule''). The General Provisions have
the legal force and effect of emission standards when incorporated by
reference into a NESHAP. 40 CFR 63.1(a)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ A list of the source categories regulated in the NESHAP
program can be found at: https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/national-emission-standards-hazardous-air-pollutants-neshap-9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Beginning in 2002, the Sierra Club and various other environmental
groups filed petitions seeking judicial review of the SSM exemptions in
the NESHAP General Provisions in 40 CFR part 63, subpart A. In response
to these petitions, the court vacated portions of two provisions
governing the emissions of HAP during periods of SSM. Sierra Club v.
EPA, 551 F. 3d 1019 (D.C. Cir. 2008). Specifically, the court vacated
the SSM exemptions contained in 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) and (h)(1) of the
General Provisions. When incorporated by reference into the NESHAP
regulations for specific source categories, these two provisions
exempted sources from the requirement to comply with the otherwise
applicable emission standards during periods of SSM. The court held
that under CAA section 302(k), emissions standards or limitations
issued pursuant to section 112 of the CAA must be continuous in nature
and that the SSM exemptions in 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) and (h)(1) violate
this CAA requirement.
    As noted above, the court mandated its decision on October 16,
2009, making it immediately effective. However, 40 CFR part 63, subpart
A, has not yet been amended in the record. Since then, the EPA has been
codifying the court decision by modifying SSM exemptions in individual
NESHAP as they are opened for review and modification.

III. Which provisions are being amended?

    This final rule amends the NESHAP General Provisions at 40 CFR part
63, subpart A, to remove universally the SSM exemptions contained in 40
CFR 63.6(f)(1) and (h)(1) from non-opacity and opacity emission
standards, respectively, by deleting the phrase ``except during periods
of startup, shutdown, and malfunction.'' As explained above, removal of
the exemptions corrects the CFR to conform to the court's order in
Sierra Club v. EPA and so is ministerial in nature and has no legal
effect. The legal effect of the vacatur occurred upon the court's

decision in 2008 and subsequently in the court's mandate issued in
2009.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Additional information about these statutes and Executive orders
can be found at https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/laws-and-executive-orders.

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review

    This action is not a significant regulatory action and was,
therefore, not submitted to the Office of Management and Budget for
review.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

    This action does not impose an information collection burden under
the PRA.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    I certify that this action will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. In
making this determination, the impact of concern is any significant
adverse economic impact on small entities. An agency may certify that a
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities if the rule relieves regulatory burden, has no
net burden, or otherwise has a positive economic effect on the small
entities subject to the rule. This regulatory action is ministerial in
nature as it codifies a court issued mandate vacating regulatory
provisions. We have, therefore, concluded that this action will have no
net regulatory burden for all directly regulated small entities.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

    This action does not contain any unfunded mandate as described in
UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538. This action imposes no enforceable duty on
any state, local, or tribal governments or the private sector.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have
substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between
the National Government and the states, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments

    This action does not have tribal implications as specified in
Executive Order 13175. The action presents no additional burden on
implementing authorities beyond existing requirements. Thus, Executive
Order 13175 does not apply to this action.

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks

    The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those
regulatory actions that concern environmental health or safety risks
that the EPA has reason to believe may disproportionately affect
children, per the definition of ``covered regulatory action'' in
section 2-202 of the Executive order. This action is not subject to
Executive Order 13045 because it does not concern an environmental
health risk or safety risk.

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211 because it is
not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    This rulemaking does not involve technical standards.

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

    The EPA believes that this action is not subject to Executive Order
12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) because it does not establish an
environmental health or safety standard. This regulatory action is
ministerial in nature as it codifies a court issued mandate vacating
regulatory provisions and does not have any impact on human health or
the environment.

K. Congressional Review Act (CRA)

    This action is subject to the CRA, and the EPA will submit a rule
report to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of
the United States. The CRA allows the issuing agency to make a rule
effective sooner than otherwise provided by the CRA if the agency makes
a good cause finding that notice and comment rulemaking procedures are
impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest (5
U.S.C. 808(2)). The EPA has made a good cause finding for this rule in
section I of this preamble, including the basis for that finding.

List of Subjects for 40 CFR Part 63

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedures,
Air pollution control, General Provisions, Hazardous substances.

Jane Nishida,
Acting Administrator.

    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the EPA amends 40 CFR
part 63 as follows:

PART 63--NATIONAL EMISSION STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS
FOR SOURCE CATEGORIES

0
1. The authority citation for part 63 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

Subpart A--General Provisions

0
2. Revise Sec.  63.6(f)(1) and (h)(1) to read as follows:

Sec.  63.6  Compliance with standards and maintenance requirements.

* * * * *
    (f) * * *
    (1) Applicability. The non-opacity emission standards set forth in
this part shall apply at all times except as otherwise specified in an
applicable subpart. If a startup, shutdown, or malfunction of one
portion of an affected source does not affect the ability of particular
emission points within other portions of the affected source to comply
with the non-opacity emission standards set forth in this part, then
that emission point must still be required to comply with the non-
opacity emission standards and other applicable requirements.
* * * * *
    (h) * * *
    (1) Applicability. The opacity and visible emission standards set
forth in this part must apply at all times except as otherwise
specified in an applicable subpart. If a startup, shutdown, or
malfunction of one portion of an affected source does not affect the
ability of particular emission points within other portions of the
affected source to comply with the opacity and visible emission
standards set forth in this part, then that emission point shall still
be required to comply with the opacity and visible emission standards
and other applicable requirements.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2021-04936 Filed 3-10-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 56 (Friday, March 24, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 15096-15097]
[FR Doc No: 2017-05879]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

[Summary Notice No. PE-2017-11]

Petition for Exemption; Summary of Petition Received; Logistic
Gliders

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This notice contains a summary of a petition seeking relief
from specified requirements of Title 14 of the Code of Federal
Regulations. The purpose of this notice is to improve the public's
awareness of, and participation in, the FAA's exemption process.
Neither publication of this notice nor the inclusion or omission of
information in the summary is intended to affect the legal status of
the petition or its final disposition.

DATES: Comments on this petition must identify the petition docket
number and must be received on or before April 13, 2017.

ADDRESSES: Send comments identified by docket number FAA-2016-1618
using any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and follow the online instructions for sending your
comments electronically.
     Mail: Send comments to Docket Operations, M-30; U.S.
Department of Transportation (DOT), 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room
W12-140, West Building Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: Take comments to Docket
Operations in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Fax: Fax comments to Docket Operations at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Privacy: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments
from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT posts
these comments, without edit, including any personal information the
commenter provides, to http://www.regulations.gov, as described in the
system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at
http://www.dot.gov/privacy.
    Docket: Background documents or comments received may be read at
http://www.regulations.gov at any time. Follow the online instructions
for accessing the docket or go to the Docket Operations in Room W12-140
of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jake Troutman,<PHONE_NUMBER>, 800
Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591.
    This notice is published pursuant to 14 CFR 11.85.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on March 17, 2017.
Lirio Liu,
Director, Office of Rulemaking.

Petition for Exemption

    Docket No.: FAA-2016-1618.
    Petitioner: Logistics Gliders, Inc.

    Section(s) of 14 CFR Affected: Part 21, Subpart H and Sec. Sec.
91.7(a), 91.9(b)(2), 91.203 (a) and (b), 91.405(a), 91.407(a)(1),
91.409(a)(1) and (2), 91.417(a) and (b), 409(a)(2).
    Description of Relief Sought: The petitioner is requesting an
exemption to operate a unmanned aircraft systems (weighing 400 lbs
empty and 2,200 lbs loaded) with simulated cargo to perform test
flights and gather critical performance data for research and
development contracts with U.S. military agencies, with release at
1,500 feet AGL, and maximum altitude of 5,000 feet AGL.

[FR Doc. 2017-05879 Filed 3-23-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 202 (Thursday, October 20, 2022)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 63709-63712]
[FR Doc No: 2022-21449]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2022-1248; Project Identifier MCAI-2022-00609-T]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus SAS Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD)
for certain Airbus SAS Model A350-941 and -1041 airplanes. This
proposed AD was prompted by a report that during flight and fatigue
testing it was detected that some fasteners installed in the center
wing box (CWB) rotated inside their fastener holes. This proposed AD
would require replacing affected fasteners and applying additional head
nut cap protection at the front and rear spars in the CWB, as specified
in a European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD, which is proposed
for incorporation by reference. The FAA is proposing this AD to address
the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: The FAA must receive comments on this proposed AD by December 5,
2022.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR
11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to regulations.gov. Follow
the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building, Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail address above between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    AD Docket: You may examine the AD docket at regulations.gov under
Docket No. FAA-2022-1248; or in person at Docket Operations between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD
docket contains this NPRM, the mandatory continuing airworthiness
information (MCAI), any comments received, and other information. The
street address for Docket Operations is listed above.
    Material Incorporated by Reference:
     For material that will be incorporated by reference (IBR)
in this

AD, contact EASA, Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3, 50668 Cologne, Germany;
telephone +49 221 8999 000; email [email protected]; website
easa.europa.eu. You may find this material on the EASA website at
ad.easa.europa.eu. It is also available in the AD docket at
regulations.gov under Docket No. FAA-2022-1248.
     You may view this material at the FAA, Airworthiness
Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des
Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the
FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dan Rodina, Aerospace Engineer, Large
Aircraft Section, FAA, International Validation Branch, 2200 South
216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    The FAA invites you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed
under ADDRESSES. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2022-1248; Project Identifier
MCAI-2022-00609-T'' at the beginning of your comments. The most helpful
comments reference a specific portion of the proposal, explain the
reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. The FAA
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposal because of those comments.
    Except for Confidential Business Information (CBI) as described in
the following paragraph, and other information as described in 14 CFR
11.35, the FAA will post all comments received, without change, to
regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. The
agency will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal
contact received about this NPRM.

Confidential Business Information

    CBI is commercial or financial information that is both customarily
and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of
Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public
disclosure. If your comments responsive to this NPRM contain commercial
or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that
you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to
this NPRM, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted
comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission containing
CBI as ``PROPIN.'' The FAA will treat such marked submissions as
confidential under the FOIA, and they will not be placed in the public
docket of this NPRM. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to Dan
Rodina, Aerospace Engineer, Large Aircraft Section, FAA, International
Validation Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email [email protected]. Any commentary that
the FAA receives which is not specifically designated as CBI will be
placed in the public docket for this rulemaking.

Background

    EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the
European Union, has issued EASA AD 2022-0080, dated May 9, 2022 (EASA
AD 2022-0080) (also referred to as the MCAI), to correct an unsafe
condition for certain Airbus SAS Model A350-941 and -1041 airplanes.
    This proposed AD was prompted a report that during flight and
fatigue testing it was detected that some fasteners installed in the
CWB rotated inside their fastener holes. Investigation revealed there
was insufficient friction for the application. The FAA is proposing
this AD to address fasteners installed in the CWB rotating inside their
fastener holes, which if not corrected, could lead to loss of a
fastener clamping and cracking of the nut sealant cover, possibly
resulting, in case of lightning strike, in a fuel tank explosion and
consequent loss of the airplane. See the MCAI for additional background
information.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    EASA AD 2022-0080 specifies procedures for replacing affected
fasteners installed on the left-hand and right-hand CWB at the front
and rear spar areas and for adding head nut cap protection at the front
and rear spars in the CWB. This material is reasonably available
because the interested parties have access to it through their normal
course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

FAA's Determination

    These products have been approved by the aviation authority of
another country and are approved for operation in the United States.
Pursuant to the FAA's bilateral agreement with the State of Design
Authority, it has notified the FAA of the unsafe condition described in
the MCAI referenced above. The FAA is issuing this NPRM after
determining that the unsafe condition described previously is likely to
exist or develop in other products of the same type design.

Proposed AD Requirements in This NPRM

    This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions specified
in EASA AD 2022-0080 described previously, except for any differences
identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of this proposed AD.

Explanation of Required Compliance Information

    In the FAA's ongoing efforts to improve the efficiency of the AD
process, the FAA developed a process to use some civil aviation
authority (CAA) ADs as the primary source of information for compliance
with requirements for corresponding FAA ADs. The FAA has been
coordinating this process with manufacturers and CAAs. As a result, the
FAA proposes to incorporate EASA AD 2022-0080 by reference in the FAA
final rule. This proposed AD would, therefore, require compliance with
EASA AD 2022-0080 in its entirety through that incorporation, except
for any differences identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of
this proposed AD. Using common terms that are the same as the heading
of a particular section in EASA AD 2022-0080 does not mean that
operators need comply only with that section. For example, where the AD
requirement refers to ``all required actions and compliance times,''
compliance with this AD requirement is not limited to the section
titled ``Required Action(s) and Compliance Time(s)'' in EASA AD 2022-
0080. Service information required by EASA AD 2022-0080 for compliance
will be available at regulations.gov by searching for and locating
Docket No. FAA-2022-1248 after the FAA final rule is published.

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this proposed AD would affect 30 airplanes
of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with
this proposed AD:

                                      Estimated Costs for Required Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per       Cost on U.S.
                          Labor cost                              Parts cost        product         operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
83 work-hours x $85 per hour = $7,055........................          $7,500          $14,555         $436,650
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FAA has included all known costs in its cost estimate.
According to the manufacturer, however, some or all of the costs of
this proposed AD may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the
cost impact on affected operators.

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,
describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
    The FAA is issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.
Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight
of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for
practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary
for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that
authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to
exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

    The FAA determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not
have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship
between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed
regulation:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866,
    (2) Would not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
    (3) Would not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by
reference, Safety.

The Proposed Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

0
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

Sec.  39.13   [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness
directive:

Airbus SAS: Docket No. FAA-2022-1248; Project Identifier MCAI-2022-
00609-T.

(a) Comments Due Date

    The FAA must receive comments on this airworthiness directive
(AD) by December 5, 2022.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Airbus SAS Model A350-941 and -1041
airplanes, certificated in any category, as identified in European
Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD 2022-0080, dated May 9, 2022
(EASA AD 2022-0080).

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 57, Wings.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by a report that during flight and fatigue
testing it was detected that some fasteners installed in the center
wing box (CWB) rotated inside their fastener holes. The FAA is
issuing this AD to address fasteners installed in the CWB rotating
inside their fastener holes, which if not corrected, could lead to
loss of a fastener clamping and cracking of the nut sealant cover,
possibly resulting, in case of lightning strike, in a fuel tank
explosion and consequent loss of the airplane.

(f) Compliance

    Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified,
unless already done.

(g) Requirements

    Except as specified in paragraph (h) of this AD: Comply with all
required actions and compliance times specified in, and in
accordance with, EASA AD 2022-0080.

(h) Exceptions to EASA AD 2022-0080

    (1) Where EASA AD 2022-0080 refers to its effective date, this
AD requires using the effective date of this AD.
    (2) The ``Remarks'' section of EASA AD 2022-0080 is does not
apply to this AD.

(i) Additional AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
International Validation Branch, FAA, has the authority to approve
AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR
39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your
principal inspector or responsible Flight Standards Office, as
appropriate. If sending information directly to the International
Validation Branch, send it to the attention of the person identified
in paragraph (j) of this AD. Information may be emailed to: [email protected]. Before using any approved AMOC, notify your
appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector,
the manager of the responsible Flight Standards Office.
    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any requirement in this AD
to obtain instructions from a manufacturer, the instructions must be
accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, International
Validation Branch, FAA; or EASA; or Airbus SAS's EASA Design
Organization Approval (DOA). If approved by the DOA, the approval
must include the DOA-authorized signature.
    (3) Required for Compliance (RC): Except as required by
paragraph (i)(2) of this AD, if any service information contains
procedures or tests that are identified as RC, those procedures and
tests must be done to comply with this AD; any procedures or tests
that are not identified as RC are recommended. Those procedures and
tests that are not identified as RC may be deviated from using
accepted methods in accordance with the operator's maintenance or
inspection program without obtaining approval of an AMOC, provided
the procedures and tests identified as RC can be done and the
airplane can be put back in an airworthy condition. Any
substitutions or changes to procedures or tests identified as RC
require approval of an AMOC.

(j) Additional Information

    For more information about this AD, contact Dan Rodina,
Aerospace Engineer, Large Aircraft Section, FAA, International
Validation Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email [email protected].

(k) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed
in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.

    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD 2022-0080,
dated May 9, 2022.
    (ii) Reserved.
    (3) For EASA AD 2022-0080, contact EASA, Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3,
50668 Cologne, Germany; telephone +49 221 8999 000; email
[email protected]; website easa.europa.eu. You may find this EASA
AD on the EASA website at ad.easa.europa.eu.
    (4) You may view this service information at the FAA,
Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200
South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability
of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (5) You may view this service information that is incorporated
by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration
(NARA). For information on the availability of this material at
NARA, email [email protected], or go to: www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued on September 28, 2022.
Christina Underwood,
Acting Director, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, Aircraft
Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2022-21449 Filed 10-19-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: January 22, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 13)]
[Notices]
[Page 4029]
[DOCID:fr22ja09-37]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 13351-000]

Marseilles Land & Water Company; Notice of Application Tendered
for Filing With the Commission, Soliciting Additional Study Requests,
and Establishing a Deadline for Submission of Final Amendments

January 13, 2009.
    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been
filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection.
    a. Type of Application: Original License.
    b. Project No.: 13351-000.
    c. Date filed: December 30, 2008.
    d. Applicant: Marseilles Land & Water Company.
    e. Name of Project: Marseilles Lock and Dam Project.
    f. Location: On the Illinois River, in the town of Marseilles, La
Salle County, Illinois. This project would not occupy any federal
lands.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act 16 U.S.C. 791 (a)-825 (r).
    h. Applicant Contact: Lee W. Mueller, Architect and Vice President,
Marseilles Land & Water Company, 4132 S. Rainbow Blvd., 247,
Las Vegas, NV 89103,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    i. FERC Contact: Steve Kartalia<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(202)
502-6131.
    j. Cooperating Agencies: We are asking Federal, state, and local
agencies and Indian tribes with jurisdiction and/or special expertise
with respect to environmental issues to cooperate with us in the
preparation of the environmental document. Agencies who would like to
request cooperating status should follow the instructions for filing
comments described in item l below. Cooperating agencies should note
the Commission's policy that agencies that cooperate in the preparation
of the environmental document cannot also intervene. See 94 FERC ]
Sec.  61,076 (2001).
    k. Pursuant to Section 4.32(b)(7) of 18 CFR of the Commission's
regulations, if any resource agency, Indian tribe, or person believes
that an additional scientific study should be conducted in order to
form a factual basis for complete analysis of the application on its
merits, the resource agency, Indian tribe, or person must file a
request for the study with the Commission no later than 60 days from
the application filing date, and serve a copy of the request on the
applicant.
    l. Deadline for filing additional study requests and requests for
cooperating agency status: March 2, 2009.
    All documents (original and eight copies) should be filed with:
Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888
First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    Additional study requests may be filed electronically via the
Internet in lieu of paper. The Commission strongly encourages
electronic filing. See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions
on the Commission's Web site (http://www.ferc.gov) under the
``eFiling'' link. After logging into the eFiling system, select
``Comment on Filing'' from the Filing Type Selection screen and
continue with the filing process.
    m. This application is not ready for environmental analysis at this
time.
    n. Project Description: The Marseilles Lock and Dam Project would
utilize the head created by the existing 24-foot-high Army Corps of
Engineers (Corps) Marseilles Lock and Dam and two existing Corps
headgate structures and would consist of: (1) The existing north and
south headraces in which a portion of the south headrace would be
filled in and joined to the existing north headrace which would be
deepened to accommodate the flow from both headraces leading to; (2) a
new intake structure and forebay leading to; (3) a new powerhouse
containing four generating units with a total installed capacity of
10.26 megawatts (MW); (4) a new tailrace discharging water back to the
Illinois River; (5) a new underground transmission line; and (6)
appurtenant facilities.
    The project would operate in a run-of-river mode.
    o. A copy of the application is on file with the Commission and is
available for public inspection. This filing may also be viewed on the
Web at http://www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the
docket number, excluding the last three digits in the docket number
filed to access the documents. For assistance, please contact FERC
Online Support at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll free at (866) 208-
3676 or for TTY, contact<PHONE_NUMBER>. A copy is also available for
inspection and reproduction at the address in item h above.
    p. You may also register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/
esubscription.asp to be notified via e-mail of new filings and
issuances related to this or other pending projects. For assistance,
contact FERC Online Support.
    q. With this notice, we are initiating consultation with the
Illinois Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO), as required by section
106, National Historic Preservation Act, and the regulations of the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, 36 CFR pt. 800.4.
    r. Final amendments: Final amendments to the application must be
filed with the Commission no later than 30 days from the issuance date
of the notice of ready for environmental analysis.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-1133 Filed 1-21-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


that the sheer volume of information displayed is likely to overwhelm
rather than assist consumers. A4A also stated that the proposed display
requirements are contrary to the current carrier trend to offer bundled
pricing and differentiated seat products and limit carriers' ability to
provide such offerings. In addition, A4A stated that a requirement that
airlines and ticket agents provide itinerary-specific display results
that are not based on the identity of the customer will provide
inaccurate information to consumers that may be eligible for ancillary
service fee discounts based on factors such as frequent flyer
membership or method of payment. Regarding searches for multiple
passengers, A4A stated the search results displayed might not reflect
the discounts available to some members of the group. A4A also noted
that if more information must be displayed, search results will likely
take longer to display due to increased processing time.
    Regarding mobile applications, A4A commented that the problem of
displacing information such as additional flight options on Web sites
is particularly acute on mobile devices ``because first-screen space is
limited and valuable,'' therefore the Department should not expand the
display rules to mobile applications. Delta also opposed display
requirements stating that it would have a negative impact on speed and
performance of reservations systems and would be costly and time
consuming to implement. United opposed a requirement to display basic
ancillary service fees at the first point in a search process where a
fare is listed, stating that it will waste time for consumers because
search results will be slowed by additional processing time for the
information, then consumers must review additional information they are
not interested in or click on links or pop-ups to see the information.
Meanwhile, fewer flight options will be displayed on each screen.
United also argued that search results may display inaccurate
information depending on whether the consumer is conducting an
anonymous search but is entitled to reduced fees, or a consumer is
searching for multiple passengers, and similar concerns.
    CCIA also commented that display of ancillary service fee
information could result in screen clutter, which would be frustrating
to users and that the proposed display requirements ``are not
adequately designed to work on a mobile platform'' and may impede the
consumer experience. TripAdvisor also commented that the Department
should exempt mobile displays from display requirements or tailor
requirements to a range of display sizes. Skyscanner commented that
display of a large volume of information is unfeasible on a mobile
device so, if implemented, displays would become less useful to users
of mobile sites or mobile applications. Displays would be slower and
include fewer options in a more cluttered presentation. USTOA opposed
the proposed display requirements, stating that they will limit
development of new business models, and questions how tour operators
that sell bundled packages that may include airfare would comply with
disclosure requirements.
DOT Response
Disclosure and Display Requirements
    We recognize that the comments reflect legitimate concerns about
the fact that if more information must be displayed, more screen space
is consumed and search results will likely take longer to display due
to increased processing time. However, we also note that many of the
comments on this issue focused on the amount of screen space and
increased processing time required for the display of seat assignment
fees, which are generally dynamically priced and therefore would
require additional processing time. As noted earlier, we have decided
not to include disclosure of seat assignment fees in this proposal.
Regarding baggage fees, although displaying such fees may also require
some additional processing time and

will use some additional screen space, it is a cost that carriers have
chosen to state separately from airfare and is information that
consumers and consumer advocates have repeatedly stated that consumers
need in order to determine the true cost of travel.
    Nevertheless, we agree it is important to make the information as
easy to provide and as useful to consumers as possible. Accordingly, we
request comment on whether we should permit the baggage fee information
to be displayed by links or roll-overs on all displays or on certain
mobile displays.
    Regarding the comment by A4A and others that the fee information
might vary for every segment of the itinerary and the volume of
information displayed is likely to overwhelm rather than assist
consumers, this concern does not apply to baggage fees since carriers
must apply the baggage allowances and fees that apply at the beginning
of a passenger's itinerary throughout his or her entire itinerary
pursuant to 14 CFR 399.87.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ We note that carriers always have the option of waiving a
baggage fee or offering a lower baggage fee than advertised for any
segment of an itinerary. As the Department's Office of Aviation
Enforcement and Proceedings has stated regarding Section 399.87, it
does not prevent a carrier from charging a lower fee as a courtesy.
[Cite is FAQ 50]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Some comments expressed concern that the Department's proposed
display requirements are contrary to the current carrier trend to offer
bundled pricing and customized pricing. The Department's consumer
protection rules in this area are intended to protect consumers from
being surprised by unexpected fees and to allow them to discern the
true cost of air transportation before making a purchase. To the extent
carriers or ticket agents choose to offer bundled fares that include
baggage in addition to, or instead of, offering fares that do not
include baggage fees, they would not be prohibited from doing so. Under
this proposal the display of such fares would only be required to make
clear that there is no additional baggage fee associated with that fare
if that is the case.
    Regarding air-tour packages, we recognize that air transportation
may be purchased in bulk by the seller of the tour package and the
carrier may be unknown at the time of purchase which may make it
difficult to provide specific baggage fee information. Accordingly, we
have tentatively concluded not to require ticket agent sellers of air-
tour packages to provide disclosure of specific baggage fees in certain
circumstances. Specifically, if air transportation is arranged at a
later date and specific airline and baggage fee information is not
known at the time of booking, ticket agents would not be required to
display the baggage fee. However, when displaying such air-tour package
prices, such ticket agent displays would be required to prominently
disclose that baggage fees may apply if that is the case. In addition,
ticket agents would be required to disclose in online displays and oral
communications that baggage fees may apply and that those fees may be
reduced or waived based on the passenger's frequent flyer status,
method of payment or other consumer characteristic. This exception
would not apply to air carriers or foreign air carriers selling air-
tour packages. We request comment on whether this exception for certain
air-tour packages adequately addresses concerns of air-tour package
sellers. We also request comment on whether such an exception
adequately protects consumers.
Opt-Out
    Regarding the concern that consumers may not be interested in
baggage fee information being displayed and it may take up screen space
that could be used to provide additional flight options or other
information, we recognize there may be reasons that consumers wish to
opt-out of display of baggage fees, for example if the consumer will be
traveling without checked baggage. We agree that it is reasonable to
provide entities the flexibility to provide such an option. Most of the
comments on this issue agreed that it was reasonable to provide an opt-
out option. In addition, if an entity anticipates that there will be a
significant impact on the speed of search results or particular display
options the entity provides, the option to provide an opt-out for
baggage fees would address those concerns by providing carriers and
ticket agents the option to provide consumers what may be a faster or
more streamlined display of search results, if consumers choose such
displays. We anticipate that basic baggage fee information will be
useful to many, if not most, consumers, and that they will often choose
displays that include such information. However, by providing an opt-
out option for baggage fee information, entities that display flight
information would still have the flexibility to provide search results
without that information if the consumer chooses a display option that
does not include it. Accordingly, our proposal would permit carriers
and ticket agents to provide various opt-out options. Opt-out options
could include the choice to opt-out of seeing all baggage fee
information that would otherwise be required to be displayed (first and
second checked bag and carry-on bag) or to opt-out of seeing some of
those fees. For example, a consumer might choose to see fees for carry-
on and first checked bag, but not second checked bag. Another option
might be that a consumer could choose to see only carry-on bag. A third
option could be to see first and second checked bag fees but not the
carry-on bag fee. The opt-out options that may be provided would be up
to the carrier or ticket agent and no opt-out would be required under
the proposal.
    We seek comment on whether providing the flexibility to furnish a
variety of opt-out options addresses some of the concerns of carriers
and ticket agents regarding increased processing times and screen
clutter. We also seek comment on whether providing opt-out options
would adequately protect consumers.
Display of Search Results on Mobile Displays
    In connection with applicability to mobile applications (apps) and
mobile Web sites, several commenters state that the Department should
consider more limited requirements for mobile outlets because
implementation of new rules in the mobile environment is technically
more difficult and detailed disclosures may be difficult to incorporate
and display, particularly considering the screen size of some mobile
devices. We recognize some of the inherent limitations of displays
designed for mobile outlets. Comments suggesting more limited
disclosure requirements for mobile outlets focused on the complexity of
potential disclosure requirements. The limitation of disclosure
requirements to certain baggage fees will reduce the amount of screen
space used for additional disclosures.
    In addition, some commenters stated concern that there would be
technical difficulty in implementing increased disclosure requirements
and increased processing time; however, we note that similar concerns
apply to non-mobile internet displays. However, we have determined that
the consumer benefit to having basic ancillary service fee information
outweighs the potentially increased processing times. As some
commenters noted, consumers in increasing numbers are using apps to
book travel. Therefore, we believe it is important that the same
consumer protections apply to apps as to other outlets directed to
consumers. Accordingly, we have tentatively concluded that the
disclosure requirements should be the same on apps as on Web sites or
mobile Web

sites. We request comment on whether allowing disclosure via links or
pop-ups would simplify the disclosure process and reduce technical
issues and speed processing times for mobile outlets.
    We also note that the FTC has provided guidance regarding internet
disclosures (See .com Disclosures: How to Make Effective Disclosures in
Digital Advertising, available at https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/plain-language/bus41-dot-com-disclosures-information-about-online-advertising.pdf). The FTC's guidance notes that using
hyperlinks, rollovers, or pop-ups for price and certain other
disclosures may be less effective. Consistent with DOT's position in
this SNPRM, the guide states that ``consumers should not have to click
on hyperlinks to understand the full amount they will pay.'' The guide
therefore suggests that fee or cost information should be disclosed
adjacent to the price claim, unless the information is very complex.
Similarly, the guide notes that rollovers or mouseovers ``may not work
on mobile devices that have no cursor to hover over a link.'' Finally,
the guide cautions that pop-ups may be blocked by software or otherwise
ignored by consumers.
    Accordingly, we request that commenters provide any consumer
research or data that indicates whether hyperlinked or other
disclosures not adjacent to the fare on a mobile site would or would
not be effective.
Implementation Period
    In connection with the time to implement rule, the Department is
tentatively of the view that a six month implementation period to
display consumer-specific fee information for a first checked bag, a
second checked bag and a carry-on bag to consumers whenever fare and
schedule information is provided would be appropriate and should
provide enough time for both carriers and ticket agents to update Web
sites and apps. We recognize that in order to make technical changes
and accommodate new information, individual ticket agents will need to
know in detail how the information will be distributed from carriers to
the ticket agent and have the information from carriers well before the
display deadline. We anticipate carriers will work in good faith with
ticket agents, including GDSs and other ticket agent intermediaries, to
ensure that the distribution method and details are worked out well in
advance of the display deadline. In this regard, we have tentatively
concluded that carriers should ensure ticket agents have the
information no later than three months before the display deadline. We
note many of the comments state that a lengthy implementation period
will be necessary to implement any disclosure requirement and some
suggested several years. However, many of the reasons presented for the
multi-year implementation period had to do with the complexity of
disclosing multiple dynamic fees. Since the Department is limiting the
requirement to disclosure of one carry-on item and a first and second
checked bag, the Department believes a six month implementation period
is appropriate.
    We request comment on whether this proposed implementation period
is too lengthy or too short. If the proposed implementation period is
either too lengthy or too short, how long of an implementation period
would be appropriate?

H. Revised Baggage Fee Disclosure Requirements and 14 CFR 399.85(b) and
(c)

    This proposed rule, if adopted, would require carriers and ticket
agents to provide customer-specific baggage fee information for one
carry-on item and a first and second checked bag if they provide fare
information. We are tentatively of the view that there would no longer
be a need for a requirement that airlines and ticket agents provide a
general statement on the first screen on which the agent or carrier
offers a fare quotation for a specific itinerary that additional
airline fees for baggage may. We are proposing in this SNPRM to remove
the requirement under 14 CFR 399.85(b) that displays of fare quotations
must include a statement that fees for baggage may apply and where
consumers can see these baggage fees. The requirement to provide the
more general statement that baggage fees may apply would be limited to
certain ticket agent displays related to air tour packages that are
unable to provide customer-specific baggage fee information.
    In addition to eliminating rule text under 14 CFR 399.85(b), we are
considering eliminating the requirement in 14 CFR 399.85(c) regarding
disclosure of bag fee information on e-ticket confirmations as it may
be of limited use.
    We seek comment on whether eliminating 14 CFR 399.85(b) would be
appropriate if the proposed requirement to display customer-specific
baggage fee information is adopted. We also seek comment on whether we
should consider keeping the existing requirement 14 CFR 399.85(b) with
revisions to reflect the proposed changes. If the 14 CFR 399.85(b)
disclosure requirement should be kept but modified, what changes would
be appropriate?
    Regarding 14 CFR 399.85(c), we request comment on whether the
proposed revision would be appropriate and adequately inform consumers
of the applicable baggage fees if the proposed requirement to display
more specific baggage fee information is adopted. If not, what changes
or additions would better ensure that consumers are provided with the
specific baggage fee information that will be required if the proposal
is adopted?

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. This section contains a summary of
costs and benefits associated with this SNPRM. More detail on the
economic impact of this proposed rule can be found in the Regulatory
Impact Analysis (RIA), which is available in the docket. Due to the
lack of key pieces of data, the Department was unable to quantify the
costs and the benefits of the rule proposed in this SNPRM.
    Under this SNPRM, the Department is proposing that all ticket
agents and airlines that provide fare and schedule information to
consumers while doing business in the United States be required to
provide fee information to consumers for first and second checked bag,
and one carry-on item adjacent to the fare. The information would
include the necessary fee information to allow the display of these
fees as either the standard fees charged by the carriers, or, at the
consumer's choice, as the customer-specific charge if the consumer
elects to provide his or her customer category information including,
but not limited to, military/veteran status, frequently flier category,
and method of payment. Airlines can potentially establish a large
number of customer-specific factors that impact the fee that a consumer
would pay for a carry-on and first and second checked bag. We solicit
comment on whether the Department should limit the categories that have
to be displayed on a ticket agent's Web site to the most commonly used
categories. If the Department adopts such a limitation, how should

the most commonly used categories be determined?
    Carriers would be required to transmit this baggage fee information
to all ticket agents to which they provide fare and schedule
information, including GDSs and other intermediaries in the air
transportation marketplace. Ticket agents and carriers would be
required to be compliant with the rule within six months of its final
publication date.
    Ticket agents would be allowed to design the presentation of these
fees as best suits them as long as they are available at the time when
fares are first presented. This fee information must be customer-
specific, i.e. specific to the individual and his/her any unique
circumstances, unless the passenger opts out.
Costs of the SNPRM
1. Direct Costs to Carriers
    Carriers would incur costs related to preparing and transmitting
ancillary service fee information to OTAs and GDSs. These costs would
include the one-time set up costs to develop internal systems/processes
to distribute the baggage fee information. These set-up costs would
include upfront planning time to develop procedures to collect and
distribute the necessary data, as well as any potential IT and software
development costs to transmit data which is not already being
transmitted to GDSs and ticket agents via ATPCO or NDC.
    Carriers would also incur some incremental ongoing costs to manage
and transmit data relating to any changes in baggage fees defined as
basic ancillary service fees by this rulemaking. Carriers might also
incur some additional costs for system updates to any new IT systems or
programs incorporated for the purposes of complying with this rule. For
this analysis, only the ongoing costs which would not have occurred
except for the rulemaking are considered.
    Carriers can present the information in a format of their choosing,
including allowing consumers to opt out of viewing the information, or
choosing only some of it, if that is their preference. The Department
is requesting further comments on this specific issue with this SNPRM.
    Multiple commenters to the 2014 NPRM provided information on likely
costs to carriers of the proposed requirement for basic ancillary
service fee information, though most of these costs comments were
directed at the possible inclusions of requiring transactability for
these fees as well as their display (i.e., that consumers would be able
to pay for these ancillary services on the OTAs and GDSs), an
alternative which was considered by the Department but not adopted for
this SNPRM.
    One mainline carrier (Delta) commented that the proposed rule as
described in the NPRM would require the redesign of carrier
distribution systems to provide ancillary fees at the first point of
search. Delta estimates it would take 12 months and cost $1 million
redesign its systems.
    An economic consultant (who submitted comments with the carrier
trade association, A4A) argued that the costs to carriers to comply
with the requirement for greater transparency as proposed in the NPRM
would cost more than $3 million in the first year, and $7.2 million
over 10 years. This commenter also argued that carriers would incur
significant additional ongoing costs for managing estimates of the
process of ``development and debugging programs and procedures that the
carriers will have to create to report ancillary fee information.'' The
commenter noted that carriers typically employ one full time employee
to monitor and debug the baggage fee information reporting to ATPCO. He
also noted that carriers spend approximately $1 million to ``establish
each link to a GDS''.
    ATPCO also commented that the costs to carriers of compliance with
the requirement as proposed in the NPRM could be quite high, noting
that ATPCO's efforts alone to comply with the simpler baggage fee
information requirements of the 2011 consumer rule cost over $1
million.
    The Department believes that the estimates from commenters to the
2014 NPRM overstate the likely costs to carriers of this SNPRM for
several reasons. While reviewing these comments, the Department noted
that much of the comments were directed to the challenges and
additional costs of transferring information for advance seat
assignment, which is dynamic information, changing frequently as
carriers manage their loads. The cost for the transmittal of real-time
advance seat assignment information to ticket agents would thus be
significantly more than the transmittal of baggage fee information,
which changes much less frequently. Additionally, the Department notes
that several carriers are already in agreement to start providing that
information to GDSs; and some carriers are moving to IATA's NDC which
will allow for easier customization of flight and pricing options to
consumers and at a lower cost to carriers (once they have incorporated
NDC into their systems). And while the Department agrees that there
will be ongoing costs to maintain and transmit data required by the
rule, the Department does not believe that the SNPRM, if adopted as
proposed, would generate the need for an additional full-time staff
equivalent for each carrier, on average, to monitor and debug ancillary
fee data shared with travel agents, given the current pace of
technological improvements in all reporting systems, the pace at which
carriers are adopting NDC, and the staff resources already committed to
monitoring data transmittals.
    Given the existing questions and comments to the 2014 NPRM, the
Department does not believe that it has enough information to
confidently quantify the total cost to carriers of complying with the
proposed rule. The Department believes that the costs of compliance are
likely to be less than $1 million per carrier, but is nevertheless
seeking additional information on the likely costs to carriers of the
requirement as specified in this SNPRM.
2. Direct Costs to Ticket Agents
    Ticket agents would incur costs related to accepting ancillary
service fee information from GDSs and carriers and posting that
information on their Web site engines, and of communicating the
additional fee information to consumers during reservation phone calls.
The most significant cost to ticket agents is likely to be the one-time
cost to reprogram their Web site search engines to provide the
necessary baggage information.
    Larger ticket agents and OTAs are likely to have in-house
capability to reprogram their Web sites accordingly, but small tickets
agents probably will not. As the US Tour Operators Association (USTOA)
noted in its comment to the 2014 NPRM, many tour operators are unlikely
to have in-house web programmers and would likely need to hire
consultants and contractors to bring their Web sites into compliance.
    Ticket agents that market and sell online to consumers already have
systems in place to receive flight and cost information from carriers
and GDSs, but it is unclear whether these systems have the capacity to
receive and process all the necessary information to comply with the
proposed rule. Several commenters to the NPRM argued that the RIA for
the 2014 NPRM underestimates the costs to ticket agents to update their
systems to comply with the rule. The Department is seeking comments on
this specific issue with this SNPRM.

    At least three commenters noted that there could be significant
ongoing compliance costs for ticket agents and tour operators to
provide baggage fee information as per the proposed requirement,
primarily in terms of longer times during reservation phone calls. The
Department acknowledges that there may be additional time at the
beginning of a call as ticket agents discuss baggage fees earlier in
the reservation process but notes that such earlier discussion of
baggage fees may also limit the likelihood of increased call time at
the end of the call as some consumers are surprised by additional
baggage fees and may revisit their flight searches.
    Ticket agents would also incur some ongoing costs to refresh the
required baggage fee information when it changes. The Department does
not expect that these costs would be significant, since the systems to
transmit the data are already in place and the programming to display
the required baggage fee has already occurred. In addition, these fees
need only be updated when changed.
    We believe that the cost impacts of the proposal in this SNPRM
would differ significantly from the costs which would have been
incurred under the 2014 NPRM, since the current proposed rule no longer
includes advance seat assignment in the basic ancillary service fees to
be covered. Thus, the Department is seeking additional information on
the potential costs of this SNPRM on ticket agents.
3. Other Cost Issues--Additional Costs to GDSs and/or ATPCO
    It is unclear if GDSs would incur additional costs to process the
information required by this SNPRM. For this analysis, the relevant
incremental costs to the GDSs would be those costs of efforts/
improvements which they would otherwise not have incurred, but for this
rulemaking. Costs for efforts of GDSs to collect and transmit the
needed baggage fee information to ticket agents that were already
planned or which would occur in the future for reasons other than this
rule (such as responding to market forces) are not considered to be due
to the rule. According to some of the comments received, GDSs are
already improving the capacity of their systems to manage more
ancillary service fee information.
    Comments to 2014 NPRM regarding costs to GDSs to comply with it
were somewhat inconsistent. At least two comments (one for from a
carrier and another carrier trade association supported study) claimed
that GDSs would incur significant costs. Yet one GDS (Sabre) commented
that it already has the capability to comply with the requirements
proposed in the 2014 NPRM (although it noted that ticket agents do not
already have the needed systems in place). The Department thus expects
that this SNPRM, if adopted as proposed, would not have significant
costs to GDSs.
    ATPCO could also potentially incur additional costs to process the
required information, due solely to this rulemaking, although this is
also very uncertain. In its comments to the NPRM, ATPCO stated that it
already has the capacity to meet the proposed 2014 NPRM requirements.
The Department also expects that the SNPRM would not entail significant
costs for ATPCO.
Costs to Consumers of Additional Time Waiting for Search Results
    Several commenters to the 2014 NPRM, including A4A, Delta, and
IATA, argued that the Department's analysis should take into account
potential costs to consumers from additional time spent waiting for the
research results to load, given additional processing time required to
display more ancillary fees. These commenters specifically cited the
likely increased time needed to access real time information for up-to-
date seat assignment fee information. A study prepared for A4A by Dr.
Daniel L. Rubinfeld estimated the additional wait times to consumers
would cost approximately $805 million per year, based on the assumption
that the proposed rule would add approximately 20-40 seconds to each
itinerary search (drawn from a survey by A4A of its members). Elsewhere
in its submittal, A4A estimates that the additional processing time for
the proposed ancillary service fee information would cost approximately
$139 million a year from an estimated loss of 5.5 million hours per
year for online ticket agents alone.
    The Department notes that most of the costs relating to additional
processing times and added wait times for consumers raised by
commenters focus on the additional time and cost for transmitting
advance seat assignment information, which, as noted above, is dynamic
and thus more complicated and expensive to keep up-to-date. Since the
SNPRM does not include advance seat assignment, the needed time to
process and display the required fee information should be much less
than what was estimated by commenters in response to the 2014 NPRM.
    Additionally, to provide more flexibility to ticket agents, this
SNPRM would permit ticket agents to provide consumers the opportunity
to opt-out of receiving the baggage fee information for carry-on and
first and second checked baggage, if so desired. If ticket agents do
choose to incorporate such an opt-out feature, additional time for
processing and displaying information on baggage fees which the
consumer does not want to see should be significantly reduced. The cost
of waiting for baggage fee information, which the consumer does want to
see, should be off-set by the value to the consumer of getting that
information (hence the choice made to receive it). The Department
acknowledges that some portion of consumers may misjudge/underestimate
the amount of time it would take to receive all the baggage
information, especially in the beginning period after implementation
and that, therefore, there will be some additional wait time and costs
to consumers but that this cost will decrease over time.
    Since the SNPRM does not include seat assignment fees in the basic
ancillary fee data that must be communicated, the Department believes
that there would not be significant additional wait time for consumers.
Nevertheless, the Department is seeking additional comment on this
issue.
Benefits of the SNPRM
1. Time Saving Benefits to Consumers
    Both consumers who purchase directly from carrier Web sites and
those who use travel agents would benefit. A significant number of
leisure travelers book online via online travel agencies, use
metasearch engines, or even use their businesses travel management
company. But since OTA Web sites do not currently have customer
category-specific bag fees, these consumers must check multiple airline
Web sites in order to get an accurate estimate of the flight costs
including the fees for basic ancillary services related to carry-on and
first and second checked bags. While information on baggage fees is
already required to be available from travel agents, it is often
available through links, which requires significant time and effort
from the consumer to determine the actual fee that must be paid. The
consumer must click the link or links to get the baggage information
for the itinerary being considered and recalculate their cost. Not all
consumers purchasing tickets via an OTA would experience a time
savings, as not all consumers are concerned with baggage fees. For some
consumers the additional cost for baggage will not factor into their
choice of a flight, and as such these consumers

wouldn't search for baggage fees and thus would not benefit from the
requirements proposed in this SNPRM. Additionally, in some markets
there is only one (or perhaps two) carriers that offer flights at the
preferred time or at a fare which the consumer would consider; these
consumers also would not benefit. But the Department believes that many
consumers seek out at least some baggage information, which would
result in the time savings for those individuals.
    Meanwhile, a little more than a fourth of airline passengers
purchase tickets directly from carrier Web sites (PhoCusWright
estimates this figure at 23%).\7\ While these consumers have the most
direct access to ancillary service fees, many carrier Web sites also do
not include basic ancillary service fees when first quoting an
itinerary fare. Thus, some consumers must access multiple Web pages to
reach the information they need to calculate a cost to them which
includes posted fare plus the fees for carry-on and first and second
checked bags. Since the SNPRM would require that basic ancillary
service fee information be consolidated in one place on carrier fare
displays, some portion of consumers purchasing tickets on carrier Web
sites would spend less time searching for the desired fee information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ PhoCusWright (2011) ``U.S. Online Travel Overview.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Not all consumers purchasing from carrier Web sites would benefit.
Consumers who purchase from a carrier Web site are more likely as a
group to be aware of the carrier's baggage fees and policies. Many of
these consumers are going directly to the carrier Web site because that
carrier is one of the few or the only one to offer flights at the
desired time and to the desired destination, or because the consumer is
a member of the carrier's affinity program. Nevertheless, some portion
of those consumers who purchase tickets on a carrier Web site do check
to see what the baggage fees would be for their desired itinerary, and
these consumers would save time under this SNPRM.
    Together, the time savings may be quite significant. The Department
does not yet have the information to confidently estimate the value of
this benefit so it is seeking additional comment on it.
2. Better Informed Consumer Purchasing Decisions
    The increased transparency in ancillary service fee information
would also lead to some portion of consumers making more informed
purchasing choices: (1) Those who learn of the baggage fees for a
flight they intend to purchase but do so near the end of the purchasing
process, and (2) those who remain unaware of the baggage fee
information until after they make a purchase. Both of these consumer
groups may end up making purchasing decisions they otherwise would not
have made had they been aware of the associated baggage fees when first
reviewing search results.
    Research has shown that when consumers first see a price which is
lower than the final price they must pay (whether due to delayed
display of taxes, fees, shipping and handling, etc.) they often end up
paying more than if the first price they see is the final, total price
(including taxes, fees, and/or shipping and handling). Studies and
experiments have demonstrated that partitioned pricing (the separating
of a price into its components) and the timing for when different
pieces of pricing information (such as taxes) are revealed in a
purchasing situation can lead to increases in consumer demand.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Deborah Shenck, ``Exploiting the Salience Boas in Designing
Taxes,'' (New York University Law and Economics Working Papers,
Paper 233, 2010) has an informative and extensive review of past
work in this area. See also Morwitz, Vicki, Greenleaf, Eric, Shalev,
Edith and Johnson, Eric J., The Price Does Not Include Additional
Taxes, Fees, and Surcharges: A Review of Research on Partitioned
Pricing (February 26, 2009). Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1350004. Note, though that some studies have found that
partitioned pricing can also lead to negative brand recognition and
may hurt sales in the future, if the fees are perceived to be
excessive and within the seller's ability to control. This differs
somewhat from the situation here, since the separate portions of the
price are taxes imposed by state, local and federal governments (as
opposed to shipping fees, etc.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    If revealing full prices later in the purchasing process leads to
more purchases than if the full price had been seen immediately, (at
least some) consumers are purchasing at a price higher than they
otherwise would have. These ``sub-optimal'' choices lead to what
economists call a ``dead-weight loss.''
    In other research conducted in market situations in which one group
of consumers knows more about products and/or prices than others, some
economists have proposed a ``tourists and natives'' framework, in which
consumers are divided into two groups--those with access to more
information about lower prices/better quality (the natives) and those
with very limited information who will often pay more (the tourists).
(Some researchers have called these two groups ``savvy'' and
``unsavvy'' travelers.) This framework has two price-equilibriums; the
``tourist'' one is higher than the one for ``natives.'' With respect to
this SNPRM, one could consider the consumers who are well informed
regarding fees for ancillary services (i.e. aware of itinerary-specific
baggage fees) in contrast to other travelers (perhaps those who rarely
travel) who are not aware of variance in carry-on and checked baggage
fees. The result is that the latter group would end up, on average,
paying more.
    While both of these theoretical constructs are useful in
understanding how and why some consumers may be making sub-optimal air
travel purchasing decisions, the Department does not have enough
information to quantify or monetize this benefit.
3. Benefits to Businesses Employees That Travel
    Many businesses are also concerned with the ancillary fees
associated with baggage. Travel can be a significant expense for many
companies and ancillary service fees can substantially increase trip
costs.
    Many business travelers book flights via travel management
companies that seek the best flight at the best price for the traveler,
given his or her parameters. But much of the information needed to
ensure that each traveler gets the best full price taking into account
base fare, mileage club memberships, specific credit cards used and any
other potential discounts are not often readily available. Travel
managers have complained that not all baggage fee information needed to
ensure that business travel is booked according to company policy is
readily accessible and readily incorporated into internal reservation
tracking or accounting programs. The information must be manually
entered, often based on receipts or information provided by the
travelers themselves. Thus, many businesses either pay more than they
needed to for a particular flight or must have employees spend time
seeking out the appropriate fee information in order to make the best
choice. The increased effort results in higher company travel costs.
    These costs associated with searching for baggage fee information
have been identified repeatedly to the Department by travel management
company representatives and raised at meetings of the Advisory
Committee for Aviation Consumer Protection. In addition, several
commenters, including trade associations, a GDS and at least one
advocacy group, noted that benefits to business travelers of this
requirement could be significant.
    While there is much interest in the industry on the impact of
unbundling

and ancillary service fees on the costs of business travel, the
Department did not find adequate data on this impact to estimate the
benefits of this requirement for these business travelers, but notes
that they may be significant for some entities.
4. Benefits to Ticket Agents
    While there is concern about the added costs of this provision to
ticket agents in terms of additional programming expenditures and staff
time to communicate the added baggage fee information, there is also
the possibility that ticket agents may experience some benefits of the
SNPRM. At least one commenter raised the point that ticket agents would
be able to access ancillary service fee information more quickly in
response to consumer requests, and could conclude some transactions
with consumers more quickly. The Department agrees that ticket agents
may benefit from the rule in this manner but is unable to estimate by
how much.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires an
agency to review regulations to assess their impact on small entities
unless the agency determines that a rule is not expected to have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
The rule proposed in this SNPRM would have some impact on a significant
number of small entities, as discussed in the Initial Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis.
    For purposes of rules promulgated by the Department 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.\9\ 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 the most applicable
categories for which such data was found).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See 14 CFR Chapter 11. Note that the Small Business
Administration definition of small carriers is not used.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A significant number of small entities would be impacted by this
SNPRM. Due to the relative lack of key pieces of data, the Department
was unable to quantify the costs of the proposed rule to small (or
large) entities, but notes that some small entities may incur
substantial costs. The primary costs of the rule arise from
programming, data management and other related costs to carriers and
ticket agents to transmit or display the required baggage information.
The Department is seeking additional information on the potential costs
and benefits of the requirements proposed in the SNPRM.

C. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)

    This SNPRM has been analyzed in accordance with the principles and
criteria contained in Executive Order 13132 (``Federalism''). The
notice 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 SNPRM has been analyzed in accordance with the principles and
criteria contained in Executive Order 13084 (``Consultation and
Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments''). The SNPRM would not
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

    The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.)
requires that the Department consider the impact of paperwork and other
information collection burdens imposed on the public and, under the
provisions of PRA section 3507(d), obtain approval from the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information it
conducts, sponsors, or requires through regulations. DOT has determined
that the proposals included in this SNPRM would impose new information
collection requirements on the affected entities. Accordingly, we are
seeking comment on the impact of the requirements proposed in this
SNPRM.
    The first collection of information proposed here is a requirement
that air carriers and foreign air carriers provide useable, current,
and accurate fee information for a first checked bag, a second checked
bag, and one carry-on bag to all ticket agents that receive and
distribute the air carrier's or foreign carrier's fare and schedule
information. The second information collection is a requirement that
air carriers, foreign air carriers, and ticket agents that provide an
air carrier's or foreign carrier's fare and schedule information to
consumers in the United States receive the information from carriers
and disclose the air carrier's or foreign air carrier's fees for a
first checked bag, a second checked bag, and one carry-on bag.
    For each of these information collections, the title, a description
of the respondents, and an estimate of the annual recordkeeping and
periodic reporting burden are set forth below:
    1. Requirement that air carriers and foreign air carriers provide
certain baggage fee information to all ticket agents that receive and
distribute the carrier's fare and schedule information.
    Respondents: Air carriers and foreign air carriers that provide
fare and schedule information to ticket agents and charge baggage fees
for a carry-on bag, first checked bag, or second checked bag. We
estimate that approximately 206 carriers will be impacted by this
requirement.
    Estimated Annual Burden on Respondents: Approximately 8 hours per
respondent. Note that 8 hours is the basis used for computing the costs
of providing baggage fee information, but since airlines already share
this information with each other to facilitate code-share and interline
ticketing, it likely overestimates the actual amount of additional time
that most carriers will have to spend to meet the requirement.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden: 1,648 hours for all respondents.
    Frequency: Once information is provided, new or additional
information only needs to be provided when baggage fee information
changes; varies by airline but for most carriers is infrequent and will
likely be less than annually.
    2. Requirement that air carriers, foreign air carriers, and ticket
agents that provide carrier fare and schedule information to consumers
in the United States disclose carrier's fees for a first checked bag, a
second checked bag, and one carry-on bag.
    Respondents: Air carriers, foreign air carriers, and ticket agents
that provide carrier fare and schedule information to consumers in the
United States. We estimate that as many as 206 air carriers and foreign
air carriers and as many as 600 ticket agents may be impacted by this
requirement.
    Our estimate is based on the following information and assumptions:
Ticket

agents includes online travel agencies (OTAs), brick-and-mortar travel
agencies, corporate travel agencies, and tour operators that market
airline tickets. As described in the Regulatory Impact Analysis
accompanying this SNPRM, there may be approximately 9,500 travel
agencies and over 2,500 tour operators in the United States, although
not all of those entities market air transportation online to consumers
in the United States. In addition, most ticket agents rely on GDSs to
create online fare and schedule displays. GDSs and entities that create
or develop and maintain their own online fare and schedule displays,
such as many of the impacted airlines and the largest travel agents,
will incur some planning, development, and programming costs to
reprogram their systems to provide online displays of fare and schedule
information that includes baggage fee information on their Web sites.
Therefore we estimate that about five percent of United States ticket
agents, including GDSs and large travel agencies, or as many as 600
ticket agents, will be impacted by this requirement. Many smaller
carriers also rely on GDSs to create online fare and schedule displays
so our estimate of 206 impacted carriers may be overstated.
    Estimated Annual Burden on Respondents: Approximately 80 hours per
respondent. Our estimate is based on the following information and
assumptions: The primary costs to respondents for the disclosure
requirement would arise from programming, data management, Web site
modification and other related costs to carriers and ticket agents to
display the required baggage information. Revising Web site displays in
this manner would likely be similar to the revisions that carriers and
ticket agents needed to make to their Web sites to comply with the
requirement to include all taxes and fees in fare displays in
connection with the Enhanced Airline Passenger Protections II
rulemaking. Our estimate of those costs was 80 hours per respondent as
discussed in the Regulatory Impact Analysis prepared in connection with
the Enhanced Airline Passenger Protections II rulemaking (2011) (see
page 59, https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=DOT-OST-2010-0140-2046.)
    Estimated Total Annual Burden: Approximately 64,480 hours for all
respondents (based on an assumption of 16,480 hours for carriers and
48,000 hours for ticket agents).
    Frequency: Once information is incorporated into Web site displays,
the displays would not need to be revised. It would likely be a one-
time cost.

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 SNPRM.

G. National Environmental Policy Act

    The Department has analyzed the environmental impacts of this SNPRM
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.

    Issued this 9th day of January 2017 in Washington, DC.
Anthony R. Foxx,
Secretary of Transportation.

List of Subjects

14 CFR Part 399

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

PART 399--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 399 is revised to read as follows:

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

0
2. Section 399.85 is amended by removing paragraph (b).

Sec.  399.85  Notice of baggage fees and other fees.

* * * * *
    (b) Removed.
* * * * *
0
3. A new section 399.90 is added to read as follows:

Sec.  399.90  Transparency in airline pricing, including ancillary
service fees.

    (a) The purpose of this section is to ensure that air carriers,
foreign air carriers and ticket agents doing business in the United
States clearly disclose to consumers at all points of sale the fees for
a first checked bag, a second checked bag, and one carry-on bag
wherever fare and schedule information is provided to consumers that
may be purchasing or considering purchasing air transportation. Nothing
in this section should be read to require that these ancillary services
must be transactable (e.g., purchasable online or at other points of
sale).
    (b) Each air carrier and foreign air carrier shall provide useable,
current, and accurate information for fees for a first checked bag, a
second checked bag, and one carry-on bag to all ticket agents that
receive and distribute the air carrier's or foreign carrier's fare and
schedule information. The information should be sufficient to allow
ticket agents to express fees as itinerary-specific or customer-
specific charges. ``Customer-specific'' refers to variations in fees
that depend on, for example, the passenger type (e.g., military),
frequent flyer status, method of payment, geography, travel dates,
cabin (e.g., first class, economy), ticketed fare (e.g., full fare
ticket--Y class), etc.
    (c) Each air carrier, foreign air carrier or ticket agent that
provides an air carrier's or foreign carrier's fare and schedule
information to consumers in the United States must disclose the air
carrier's or foreign air carrier's fees for a first checked bag, a
second checked bag, and one carry-on bag.
    (i) The fee information disclosed to a consumer for these ancillary
services must be expressed as customer-specific charges as provided in
subpart (b) if the consumer elects to provide his or her customer
category information to the carrier or ticket agent, such as frequent
flyer type, payment method, or military status.
    (ii) If the consumer conducting a search does not opt out of
receiving baggage fee information but elects not to provide his or her
customer category information to the carrier or ticket agent, and
conducts an ``anonymous'' search, the fee information disclosed to
consumers for these ancillary services must be expressed as itinerary-
specific charges. ``Itinerary-specific'' refers to variations in fees
that depend on, for example, geography, travel dates, cabin (e.g.,
first class, economy), and ticketed fare class (e.g., full fare
ticket--Y class).

    (iii) This provision does not apply to air-tour packages advertised
or sold online by ticket agents if the air transportation component is
not finalized and the carrier providing air transportation is not known
at the time of booking. However, the agent must clearly and prominently
disclose on the first screen in which the agent or carrier offers a
fare quotation for a specific itinerary selected by a consumer that
additional airline fees for baggage may apply and where consumers can
see these baggage fees unless no baggage fees will apply. An agent may
refer consumers to carrier Web sites where specific baggage fee
information may be obtained or to its own site if it displays carriers'
baggage fees. In online displays and oral communications, prior to
purchase, each ticket agent must disclose that baggage fees may apply
if that is the case and that those fees may be reduced or waived based
on the passenger's frequent flyer status, method of payment or other
consumer characteristic.
    (d) If a U.S. or foreign air carrier or ticket agent has a Web site
marketed to U.S. consumers where it advertises or sells air
transportation, the carrier and ticket agent must disclose the fees for
a first checked bag, a second checked bag and one carry-on bag as
specified in paragraph (c) at the first point in a search process where
a fare is listed in connection with a specific flight itinerary,
adjacent to the fare. When providing customer-specific fee information,
if more than one baggage fee may be responsive to the search
parameters, e.g., fee for a particular frequent flyer status and fee
for a particular method of payment, the lowest cost option must be
identified and displayed. Carriers and ticket agents may permit a
consumer to opt out of being provided search results with the fees for
a first checked bag, a second checked bag or one carry-on bag, or any
single baggage fee (e.g., second checked bag) or any combination of
baggage fees (e.g., carry-on and second checked bag) but the opt-out
option must not be pre-selected and must make clear which fee or fees
will not be displayed.
    (e) In any oral communication with a prospective consumer and in
any telephone calls placed from the United States, an air carrier,
foreign air carrier or ticket agent must inform a consumer, upon
request, of the fees for a first checked bag, a second checked bag and
one carry-on bag as specified in paragraph (c).
    (f) Ticket agents with an existing contractual agreement at the
time this rule becomes effective with an air carrier or foreign air
carrier to act as an intermediary for the distribution of that
carrier's fare and schedule information to other ticket agents shall
not charge separate or additional fees for the distribution of the
ancillary service fee information described in paragraph (b). Nothing
in this paragraph should be read as invalidating any provision in an
existing contract among these parties with respect to compensation.
    (g) It is an unfair and deceptive practice in violation of 49
U.S.C. 41712 for an air carrier or foreign air carrier to fail to
provide the fees for a first checked bag, a second checked bag and one
carry-on bag as described in paragraph (b) to those ticket agents to
which the carrier provides its fare and schedule information or for a
U.S. carrier, foreign carrier, or ticket agent to fail to provide the
fees for a first checked bag, a second checked bag and one carry-on bag
to consumers as described in paragraph (c) and (d).

[FR Doc. 2017-00904 Filed 1-18-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-9X-P