Enhancing Airline Passenger Protections, 32318-32341 [2010-13572]

Agencies

• Office of the Secretary
• DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 109 (Tuesday, June 8, 2010)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 32318-32341]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-13572]



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



DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION



Office of the Secretary



14 CFR Parts 234, 244, 250, 253, 259, and 399



[Docket No. DOT-OST-2010-0140]

RIN No. 2105-AD92




Enhancing Airline Passenger Protections



AGENCY: Office of the Secretary (OST), Department of Transportation 

(DOT).



ACTION: Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM).



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



SUMMARY: The Department of Transportation is proposing to improve the 

air travel environment for consumers by: increasing the number of 

carriers that are required to adopt tarmac delay contingency plans and 

the airports at which they must adhere to the plan's terms; increasing 

the number of carriers that are required to report tarmac delay 

information to the Department; expanding the group of carriers that are 

required to adopt, follow, and audit customer service plans and 

establishing minimum standards for the subjects all carriers must cover 

in such plans; requiring carriers to include their contingency plans 

and customer service plans in their contracts of carriage; increasing 

the number of carriers that must respond to consumer complaints; 

enhancing protections afforded passengers in oversales situations, 

including increasing the maximum denied boarding compensation airlines 

must pay to passengers bumped from flights; strengthening, codifying 

and clarifying the Department's enforcement policies concerning air 

transportation price advertising practices; requiring carriers to 

notify consumers of optional fees related to air transportation and of 

increases in baggage fees; prohibiting post-purchase price increases; 

requiring carriers to provide passengers timely notice of flight status 

changes such as delays and cancellations; and prohibiting carriers from 

imposing unfair contract of carriage choice-of-forum provisions. The 

Department is proposing to take this action to strengthen the rights of 

air travelers in the event of oversales, flight cancellations and long 

delays, and to ensure that passengers have accurate and adequate 

information to make informed decisions when selecting flights. In 

addition, the Department is considering several measures, including 

banning the serving of peanuts on commercial airlines, to provide 

greater access to air travel for the significant number of individuals 

with peanut allergies.



DATES: Comments should be filed by August 9, 2010. Late-filed comments 

will be considered to the extent practicable.



ADDRESSES: You may file comments identified by the docket number DOT-

OST-2010-0140 by any of the following methods:

     Federal eRulemaking Portal: go to https://www.regulations.gov and follow the online instructions for submitting 

comments.

     Mail: Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of 

Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Ave., SE., Room W12-140, Washington, DC 

20590-0001.

     Hand Delivery or Courier: West Building Ground Floor, Room 

W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Ave., SE., between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET, 

Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays.

     Fax: (202) 493-2251.

    Instructions: You must include the agency name and docket number 

DOT-OST-2010-XXXX or the Regulatory Identification Number (RIN) for the 

rulemaking at the beginning of your comment. All comments received will 

be posted without change to https://www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided.

    Privacy Act: Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all 

comments received in any of our dockets by the name of the individual 

submitting the comment (or signing the comment if submitted on behalf 

of an association, a business, a labor union, etc.). You may review 

DOT's complete Privacy Act statement in the Federal Register published 

on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78), or you may visit https://DocketsInfo.dot.gov.

    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or 

comments received, go to https://www.regulations.gov or to the street 

address listed above. Follow the online instructions for accessing the 

docket.



FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Daeleen Chesley or Blane A. Workie, 

Office of the Assistant General Counsel for Aviation Enforcement and 

Proceedings, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Ave., 

SE., Washington, DC 20590, 202-366-9342 (phone), 202-366-7152 (fax), 

daeleen.chesley@dot.gov or blane.workie@dot.gov (e-mail).



SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:



Pilot Project on Open Government and the Rulemaking Process



    On January 21st, 2009, President Obama issued a Memorandum on



[[Page 32319]]



Transparency and Open Government in which he described how ``public 

engagement enhances the Government's effectiveness and improves the 

quality of its decisions'' and how ``knowledge is widely dispersed in 

society, and public officials benefit from having access to that 

dispersed knowledge.'' To support the President's open government 

initiative, DOT plans to continue its partnership with the Cornell 

eRulemaking Initiative (CeRI) in a pilot project, Regulation Room, to 

discover the best ways of using Web 2.0 and social networking 

technologies to: (1) Alert the public, including those who sometimes 

may not be aware of rulemaking proposals, such as individuals, public 

interest groups, small businesses, and local government entities, that 

rulemaking is occurring in areas of interest to them; (2) increase 

public understanding of each proposed rule and the rulemaking process; 

and (3) help the public formulate more effective individual and 

collaborative input to DOT. We anticipate, over the course of several 

rulemaking initiatives, that CeRI will use different Web technologies 

and approaches to enhance public understanding and participation, work 

with DOT to evaluate the advantages and disadvantages of these 

techniques, and report their findings and conclusions on the most 

effective use of social networking technologies in this area.

    DOT and the Obama Administration are striving to increase effective 

public involvement in the rulemaking process and strongly encourage all 

parties interested in this rulemaking to visit the Regulation Room Web 

site, https://www.regulationroom.org, to learn about the rule and the 

rulemaking process, to discuss the issues in the rule with other 

persons and groups, and to participate in drafting comments that will 

be submitted to DOT. A Summary of the discussion that occurs on the 

Regulation Room site and participants will have the chance to review a 

draft and suggest changes before the Summary is submitted. Participants 

who want to further develop ideas contained in the Summary, or raise 

additional points, will have the opportunity to collaboratively draft 

joint comments that will be also be submitted to the rulemaking docket 

before the comment period closes.

    Note that Regulation Room is not an official DOT Web site, and so 

participating in discussion on that site is not the same as commenting 

in the rulemaking docket. The Summary of discussion and any joint 

comments prepared collaboratively on the site will become comments in 

the docket when they are submitted to DOT by CeRI. At any time during 

the comment period, anyone using Regulation Room can also submit 

individual views to the rulemaking docket through the federal 

rulemaking portal Regulations.gov, or by any of the other methods 

identified at the beginning of this Notice. For questions about this 

project, please contact Brett Jortland in the DOT Office of General 

Counsel at 202-421-9216 or brett.jortland@dot.gov.



Summary of Preliminary Regulatory Analysis



    The preliminary regulatory analysis suggests that the benefits of 

the proposed requirements exceed its costs, even without considering 

non-quantifiable benefits. This analysis, outlined in the table below, 

finds that the expected net present value of the rule for 10 years at a 

7% discount rate is estimated to be $61.6 million. At a 3% discount 

rate, the expected net present value of the rule is estimated to be 

$75.7 million.



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

                                                          Present value

                                                            (millions)

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

Total Quantified Benefits:

    10 Years, 7% discounting...........................            $87.6

    10 Years, 3% discounting...........................            104.2

Total Quantified Costs:

    10 Years, 7% discounting...........................             26.0

    10 Years, 3% discounting...........................             28.5

Net Benefits:

    10 Years, 7% discounting...........................             61.6

    10 Years, 3% discounting...........................             75.7

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



A comparison of the estimated benefits and costs for each of the 11 

proposed requirements is provided in the Regulatory Analysis and 

Notices section, along with information on additional benefits and 

costs for which quantitative estimates could not be developed.



Background



    On December 8, 2008, the Department published a Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking (NPRM) on enhancing airline passenger protections. See 73 FR 

74586 (December 8, 2008). After reviewing and considering the comments 

on the NPRM, on December 30, 2009, the Department published a final 

rule in which the Department required certain U.S. air carriers to 

adopt contingency plans for lengthy tarmac delays; respond to consumer 

problems; post flight delay information on their Web sites; and adopt, 

follow, and audit customer service plans. The rule also defined 

chronically delayed flights and deemed them to be an ``unfair and 

deceptive'' practice. That rule took effect on April 29, 2010. See 74 

FR 68983 (December 30, 2009).

    In the preamble to the final rule, the Department noted that it 

planned to review additional ways to further enhance protections 

afforded airline passengers and listed a number of subject areas that 

it was considering addressing in a future rulemaking. The areas 

specifically mentioned as being under consideration were as follows: 

(1) DOT review and approval of contingency plans for lengthy tarmac 

delays ; (2) reporting of tarmac delay data; (3) standards for customer 

service plans; (4) notification to passengers of flight status changes; 

(5) inflation adjustment for denied boarding compensation; (6) 

alternative transportation for passengers on canceled flights; (7) opt-

out provisions where certain optional services are pre-selected for 

consumers at an additional cost (e.g., travel insurance, seat 

selection); (8) contract of carriage venue designation provisions; (9) 

baggage fees disclosure; (10) full fare advertising; and (11) responses 

to complaints about charter service. This NPRM addresses most of those 

issues, as well as other matters that we believe are necessary to 

ensure fair treatment of passengers. We have described each proposal in 

this NPRM in detail below and invite all interested persons to comment.



[[Page 32320]]



Notice of Proposed Rulemaking



1. Tarmac Delay Contingency Plans



    The Department's final rule entitled ``Enhancing Airline Passenger 

Protections,'' which was published in the Federal Register on December 

30, 2009 (74 FR 68983), requires, among other things, that U.S. 

carriers adopt tarmac delay contingency plans that include, at a 

minimum, the following: (1) An assurance that, for domestic flights, 

the U.S. carrier will not permit an aircraft at a medium or large hub-

airport to remain on the tarmac for more than three hours unless the 

pilot-in-command determines there is a safety-related or security-

related impediment to deplaning passengers, or Air Traffic Control 

advises the pilot-in-command that returning to the gate or permitting 

passengers to disembark elsewhere would significantly disrupt airport 

operations; (2) for international flights that depart from or arrive at 

a U.S. airport, an assurance that the U.S. carrier will not permit an 

aircraft to remain on the tarmac for more than a set number of hours, 

as determined by the carrier in its plan, before allowing passengers to 

deplane, unless the pilot-in-command determines there is a safety-

related or security-related reason precluding the aircraft from doing 

so, or Air Traffic Control advises the pilot-in-command that returning 

to the gate or permitting passengers to disembark elsewhere would 

significantly disrupt airport operations; (3) for all flights, an 

assurance that the U.S. carrier will provide adequate food and potable 

water no later than two hours after the aircraft leaves the gate (in 

the case of a departure) or touches down (in the case of an arrival) if 

the aircraft remains on the tarmac, unless the pilot-in-command 

determines that safety or security requirements preclude such service; 

(4) for all flights, an assurance of operable lavatory facilities, as 

well as adequate medical attention if needed, while the aircraft 

remains on the tarmac; (5) an assurance of sufficient resources to 

implement the plan; and (6) an assurance that the plan has been 

coordinated with airport authorities at all medium and large hub 

airports that the U.S. carrier serves, including medium and large hub 

diversion airports. The final rule also requires U.S. carriers to 

retain for two years the following information on any tarmac delay that 

lasts at least three hours: the length of the delay, the specific cause 

of the delay, and the steps taken to minimize hardships for passengers 

(including providing food and water, maintaining lavatories, and 

providing medical assistance); whether the flight ultimately took off 

(in the case of a departure delay or diversion) or returned to the 

gate; and an explanation for any tarmac delay that exceeded three 

hours, including why the aircraft did not return to the gate by the 

three-hour mark.

    This NPRM proposes to strengthen the protections for consumers by 

making substantive changes in four areas: Requiring foreign air 

carriers to adopt tarmac delay contingency plans, increasing the number 

of airports at which carriers must adhere to their plans to include 

U.S. small and non-hub airports, requiring carriers to coordinate their 

tarmac delay contingency plans with all U.S. airports they serve, and 

requiring carriers to communicate with passengers during tarmac delays. 

More specifically, the NPRM proposes to require any foreign air carrier 

that operates scheduled passenger or public charter service to and from 

the U.S. using any aircraft originally designed to have a passenger 

capacity of 30 or more passenger seats to adopt a tarmac delay 

contingency plan that includes minimum assurances identical to those 

currently required of U.S. carriers for the latter's international 

flights. As proposed, it would apply to all of a foreign carrier's 

flights to and from the U.S., including those involving aircraft with 

fewer than 30 seats if a carrier operates any aircraft originally 

designed to have a passenger capacity of 30 or more seats to or from 

the U.S. The NPRM also proposes to require that U.S. and foreign air 

carriers coordinate their contingency plans with all airports they 

serve (small and non-hub airports as well as the medium and large hub 

airports covered by the existing rule) and with the Transportation 

Security Administration (TSA) and U.S. Customs and Border Protection 

(CBP) for any U.S. airport that the carrier regularly uses for its 

international flights, including diversion airports.

    Under the proposed rule, the tarmac delay contingency plans would 

cover operations at each U.S. large hub airport, medium hub airport, 

small hub airport and non-hub U.S. airport. Further, the NPRM proposes 

to require that U.S. and foreign air carriers update passengers every 

30 minutes during a tarmac delay regarding the status of their flight 

and the reasons for the tarmac delay. The regulation would specify that 

the Department would consider failure to comply with any of the 

assurances that are required by this rule to be contained in a 

carrier's tarmac delay contingency plan to be an unfair and deceptive 

practice within the meaning of 49 U.S.C. 41712 and subject to 

enforcement action.

    We are proposing these regulations because the Department believes 

that it is important to ensure that passengers on all international 

flights to and from the United States are afforded protection from 

unreasonably lengthy tarmac delays. As is the case under the existing 

rule for international flights of covered U.S. carriers, at this time, 

we intend to allow foreign carriers to develop and implement a 

contingency plan for lengthy tarmac delays that has more flexible 

requirements than those that apply to domestic flights with regard to 

the time limit to deplane passengers. Also, as in our initial 

rulemaking to enhance airline passenger protections, this limit will 

allow exceptions for considerations of safety, security and for 

instances in which Air Traffic Control advises the pilot-in-command 

that returning to the gate or permitting passengers to disembark 

elsewhere would significantly disrupt airport operations. It is worth 

noting that there are ongoing questions as to whether mandating a 

specific time frame for deplaning passengers on international flights 

is in the best interest of the public; a number of arguments have been 

presented for not imposing such a limit. Most international flights 

operate less frequently than most domestic flights, potentially 

resulting in much greater harm to consumers if carriers cancel these 

international flights (e.g., passengers are less likely to be 

accommodated on an alternate flight in a reasonable period of time). We 

ask interested persons to comment on whether any final rule that we may 

adopt should include a uniform standard for the time interval after 

which U.S. or foreign air carriers would be required to allow 

passengers on international flights to deplane. Commenters who support 

the adoption of a uniform standard should propose specific amounts of 

time and state why they believe these intervals to be appropriate.

    We also seek comment on the cost burdens and benefits should the 

requirement to have a contingency plan be narrowed or expanded. For 

example, while we are proposing here to include foreign carriers that 

operate aircraft originally designed to have a passenger capacity of 30 

or more seats to and from the U.S., we invite interested persons to 

comment on whether, in the event that we adopt a rule requiring foreign 

carriers to have contingency plans, we should limit its applicability 

to foreign air carriers that operate large aircraft to and from the 

U.S.--i.e., aircraft originally designed to have a maximum passenger 

capacity of more than 60



[[Page 32321]]



seats. We also seek comment on whether we should expand coverage of the 

requirement to adopt tarmac delay contingency plans so that the 

obligation to adopt such a plan and adhere to its terms is not only the 

responsibility of the operating carrier but also the carrier under 

whose code the service is marketed if different. In addition, should 

coverage be further expanded to require U.S. airports to adopt tarmac 

delay contingency plans? Proponents of these or other alternative 

proposals should provide arguments and evidence in support of their 

position, as should opponents.

    In the initial rulemaking to enhance airline passenger protections, 

we decided to implement a rule requiring certain U.S. carriers to 

coordinate their contingency plans with large-hub and medium-hub 

airports, as well as diversion airports that the carrier serves. Those 

airports are the only ones covered by the current rule. We are 

proposing to extend this requirement to small and non-hub airports and 

to require all covered carriers (U.S. and foreign) to coordinate their 

plans with each U.S. large hub airport, medium hub airport, small hub 

airport and non-hub U.S. airport that they serve as well as TSA and 

CBP. The Department believes that the same issues and discomfort to 

passengers during an extended tarmac delay are likely to occur 

regardless of airport size or layout. We also strongly believe that it 

is essential that airlines involve airports and appropriate Federal 

agencies in developing their plans to enable them to effectively meet 

the needs of passengers. As such, we are proposing to extend this rule 

to require covered carriers to coordinate their plans with each U.S. 

large hub airport, medium hub airport, small hub airport and non-hub 

U.S. airport to which they regularly operate scheduled passenger or 

public charter service.

    As recommended by the Tarmac Delay Task Force, we are also 

proposing to require carriers to include CBP and TSA in their 

coordination efforts for any U.S. diversion airport which they 

regularly use. We believe this proposal is necessary, as it has come to 

the Department's attention on more than one occasion passengers on 

international flights were held on diverted aircraft for extended 

periods of time because there was no means to process those passengers 

and allow them access to terminal facilities. The Department of 

Homeland Security has advised this Department that, subject to 

coordination with CBP regional directors, passengers on diverted 

international flights may be permitted into closed terminal areas 

without CBP screening. We invite interested persons to comment on this 

proposal. What costs and benefits would result from this requirement? 

Is it workable to include small and non-hub airports served by a 

carrier? Should the rule be expanded to include other commercial U.S. 

airports (i.e., those with less than 10,000 annual enplanements)? We 

are soliciting comments from airlines, airports and other industry 

entities on whether there are any special operational concerns 

affecting such airports.

    The Department has also given consideration to passengers' 

frustration with lack of communication by carrier personnel about the 

reasons a flight is experiencing a long tarmac delay. It does not seem 

unreasonable or unduly burdensome to require carriers to address this 

issue and verbally inform passengers as to the flight's operational 

status on a regular basis during a lengthy tarmac delay. As such, the 

Department is proposing a rule requiring carriers to announce to 

passengers on covered flights every 30 minutes the reasons for the 

delay, and/or the operational status of the flight. We do not 

anticipate that a carrier's flight crews will know every nuance of the 

reason for the delay, but we do expect them to inform passengers of the 

reasons of which they are aware and to make reasonable attempts to 

acquire information about the reason(s) for that delay. We also invite 

comment on whether carriers should be required to announce that 

passengers may deplane from an aircraft that is at the gate or other 

disembarkation area with the door open. The Department's Office of 

Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings has previously explained that a 

tarmac delay begins when passengers no longer have an option to get off 

of the aircraft, which usually occurs when the doors of the aircraft 

are closed, and encouraged carriers to announce to passengers on 

flights that remain at the gate with the doors open that the passengers 

are allowed off the aircraft if that is the case. However, such an 

announcement is not explicitly required in the existing rule. We seek 

comment on the benefit to consumers of mandating such announcements. 

Commenters, including carriers and carrier associations, should also 

address any costs and/or operational concerns related to implementing a 

rule requiring such announcements.



2. Tarmac Delay Data



    We are proposing to require all carriers that must comply with 14 

CFR 259.4, which requires carriers to adopt contingency plans for 

lengthy tarmac delays, file tarmac delay data with the Department to 

the extent they are not already required to file such data pursuant to 

14 CFR part 234. Incidents of lengthy tarmac delays have captured much 

public attention in recent years and have been the focus of 

considerable Department attention as well. On October 1, 2008, the 

Department's Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS) began collecting 

more detailed tarmac delay information from all U.S. carriers that file 

the ``On-Time Flight Performance Report'' (BTS Form 234) under 14 CFR 

part 234, ``reporting carriers''. The data do not, however, provide a 

complete picture of tarmac delays, as the reporting carriers only 

submit data concerning their scheduled domestic flights as a function 

of their being required to report on-time performance data. These 

reporting carriers currently constitute the 16 largest U.S. carriers by 

scheduled-service passenger revenue, plus two carriers that voluntarily 

file the report. In addition, smaller U.S. carriers which are subject 

to the Department's contingency plan rule that was effective April 29, 

2010, do not currently submit any tarmac delay data to the Department 

and foreign air carriers which we are proposing in this NPRM adopt 

tarmac delay contingency plans also do not submit tarmac delay data to 

the Department.

    While a single incident of tarmac delay may be attributed to one or 

more causes, such as air traffic congestion, weather related delays, 

mechanical problems, and/or flight dispatching logistic failures, we 

believe that an initial and essential step toward finding solutions for 

the tarmac delay problem, whether by government regulations and/or 

through voluntary actions by the airlines, and monitoring the effect on 

consumers of lengthy tarmac delays, is to obtain more complete data on 

these incidents. Therefore, we are tentatively of the opinion that we 

should expand the pool of carriers that must file information with the 

Department regarding tarmac delays to U.S. carriers and foreign 

carriers that operate any aircraft originally designed with a passenger 

capacity of 30 or more passenger seats with respect to their operations 

at U.S. airports. The more complete picture of lengthy tarmac delays 

afforded by these new data will help establish a vital platform for the 

Department's future rulemaking and policy decision-making, for FAA 

airport and air traffic control infrastructure and technology 

modification and improvement, and for system operating improvements and 

reform by the airline



[[Page 32322]]



industry. Furthermore, the result of such analysis will provide the 

Department, the industry, and the public more precise data with which 

to compare tarmac delay incidents by carrier, by airport, and by 

specific time frame.

    This rule as proposed would apply to all U.S. carriers that are 

covered by the Department's existing rule requiring tarmac delay 

contingency plans, as well as foreign carriers that we are proposing, 

in this NPRM, be required to adopt tarmac delay contingency plans (see 

proposed changes to 14 CFR 259.4). Thus, this proposal would cover 

tarmac delays at U.S. airports by all U.S. certificated and commuter 

carriers that operate any aircraft originally designed to have a 

passenger capacity of 30 or more seats. It also would cover tarmac 

delays at U.S. airports by all foreign carriers that operate passenger 

service to and from the U.S. using any aircraft originally designed to 

have a passenger capacity of 30 or more seats. We seek comment on 

whether we should limit the requirement to file tarmac delay data to 

U.S. and foreign air carriers that operate large aircraft to and from 

the U.S.--i.e., aircraft originally designed to have a maximum 

passenger capacity of more than 60 seats. Commenters should explain why 

they favor such a limitation and suggest alternate approaches to 

capturing tarmac delay data.

    We note that using just one qualifying aircraft (i.e., originally 

designed to have a passenger capacity of 30 or more passenger seats) 

will cause all of a U.S. carrier's flights to be covered by this rule. 

The same is true of a foreign carrier's flights that originate or 

terminate at a U.S. airport. For example, if a foreign carrier operates 

any aircraft to or from the U.S. that was originally designed to have a 

passenger capacity of 30 or more seats, all of its flight taking off or 

landing at a U.S. airport, regardless of size of aircraft and seating 

capacity, will be subject to the reporting requirements of the proposed 

rule.

    We are mindful of the costs associated with submitting data to the 

Department, especially in light of the relatively limited resources of 

smaller carriers and the relatively fewer flights to and from the U.S. 

by foreign carriers and we do not intend with this proposal to impose a 

comprehensive on-time reporting scheme, as exists for the largest U.S. 

carriers now covered by Part 234. With this concern in mind, using the 

Part 234 requirements as a model, we have narrowed the data fields we 

propose to be reported to those we believe are necessary for us to 

extract necessary tarmac delay information. In addition, we propose to 

require these tarmac delay data to be reported each month only with 

respect to tarmac delays of 3 hours or more.

    We recognize that carriers subject to our new contingency plan rule 

that went into effect April 29, 2010, are required to retain for two 

years certain information regarding tarmac delays of 3 hours or more. 

We note that the reporting requirement proposed in this notice is 

separate and distinct from that information retention requirement, with 

a different purpose. Where that rule is focused on carrier compliance 

with consumer protection-related requirements and requires only that 

carriers retain the information for a limited period of time, we 

propose here that carriers report monthly a set of data regarding 

tarmac delays that will provide the Department more complete 

information on lengthy tarmac delays throughout the air transportation 

system in the U.S. The Department plans to publish a summary of this 

information in its Air Travel Consumer Report, a monthly publication 

product of the Department of Transportation's Office of Aviation 

Enforcement and Proceedings that is designed to assist consumers with 

information on the quality of services provided by airlines. We welcome 

suggestions from the public and the industry on whether there are other 

means to further reduce the carriers' burden yet still effectively 

achieve the goal of this proposal.



3. Customer Service Plans



    Under the final rule published on December 30, 2009, U.S. carriers 

are required to adopt customer service plans for their scheduled 

flights that address, at a minimum, the following service areas: (1) 

Offering the lowest fare available; (2) notifying consumers of known 

delays, cancellations, and diversions; (3) delivering baggage on time; 

(4) allowing reservations to be held or cancelled without penalty for a 

defined amount of time; (5) providing prompt ticket refunds; (6) 

properly accommodating disabled and special-needs passengers, including 

during tarmac delays; (7) meeting customers' essential needs during 

lengthy on-board delays; (8) handling ``bumped'' passengers in the case 

of oversales with fairness and consistency; (9) disclosing travel 

itinerary, cancellation policies, frequent flyer rules, and aircraft 

configuration; (10) ensuring good customer service from code-share 

partners; (11) ensuring responsiveness to customer complaints; and (12) 

identifying the services they provide to mitigate passenger 

inconveniences resulting from flight cancellations and misconnections. 

The rule also requires U.S. carriers to audit their plan annually and 

make the results of their audits available for the Department's review 

upon request.

    This NPRM proposes to increase the protections afforded consumers 

in that recent final rule by requiring foreign air carriers to adopt, 

follow, and audit customer service plans and establishing minimum 

standards for what must be included in the customer service plans of 

all covered carriers (U.S. and foreign). We are proposing to cover 

foreign air carriers operating scheduled passenger service to and from 

the U.S. using any aircraft originally designed to have a passenger 

capacity of 30 or more passenger seats. The rule would apply to all 

flights to and from the U.S. of those carriers, including flights 

involving aircraft with fewer than 30 seats if a carrier operates any 

aircraft with 30 or more passenger seats to and from the U.S. We ask 

interested persons to comment on whether the proposed requirement for 

foreign air carriers to adopt, follow and audit customer service plan 

should be narrowed in some fashion--e.g., should never apply to 

aircraft with fewer than 30 seats?

    Each foreign carrier's plan would have to address the same subjects 

currently required of U.S. carriers in the Department's rule to enhance 

airline passenger protections. We are also proposing to require that 

foreign air carriers make the results of their audits of their customer 

service plans available for the Department's review upon request for 

two years following the date any audit is completed. A carrier's 

failure to adopt a customer service plan for its scheduled service, 

adhere to its plan's terms, audit its own adherence to its plan 

annually or make the results of its audits available for the 

Department's review upon request would be considered an unfair and 

deceptive practice within the meaning of 49 U.S.C. 41712 and subject to 

enforcement action.

    A substantial number of air travelers fly to and from the United 

States on flights operated by foreign carriers, whether through a code-

share arrangement or by directly arranging for that transportation. By 

requiring foreign carriers to adopt plans, audit their own compliance, 

and make the results of their audits available for us to review, we 

intend to afford consumers better protection on nearly all flights to 

and from the United States, not just those of the U.S. carriers to 

which the rule is currently applicable. The Department is soliciting 

comment on the costs and benefits associated with this requirement. We 

would like foreign carriers to comment on whether similar



[[Page 32323]]



plans already exist, and if so, how they currently implement such 

plans.

    The Department also proposes to require covered carriers' customer 

service plans meet minimum standards to ensure that the carriers' (U.S. 

and foreign) plans are specific and enforceable. The Department is 

concerned that many carriers' customer service plans are not specific 

enough for a consumer to have realistic expectations of the types of 

services a carrier will provide under its plan, or that some carriers 

may not be living up to their customer service commitments. Based on a 

review of existing customer service plans, the Department found that 

some carriers' plans do contain specifics regarding the type of 

services a consumer can expect (e.g., returning baggage by a specified 

time after the flight or holding reservations without charge for a 

specific period of time), while others carriers' plans are vaguely 

written making it difficult for a consumer to know how a carrier will 

address those subjects or whether a carrier has fulfilled its promises. 

As such, the Department believes establishing minimum standards for the 

plans will result in consumers being better informed and protected. As 

always carriers are free to set higher standards than those mandated by 

the Department. We also note that all of the subjects for which we are 

proposing to require a standard are already required to be included in 

the customer service plans for U.S. carriers (e.g., oversales/denied 

boarding compensation, refunds), which should minimize the burden on 

these carriers to comply with the proposed new requirement to establish 

standards for those subjects. In addition, when determining what 

minimum standards to apply to these plans, the Department reviewed 

customer service plans as currently implemented by a number of 

carriers, and chose the services already provided by some carriers that 

appear to be ``best practices.''

    We seek comment on both the costs and benefits of requiring 

carriers to adopt these minimum standards. The minimum standards that 

we are proposing are as follows: (1) Offering the lowest fare available 

on the carrier's Web site, at the ticket counter, or when a customer 

calls the carrier's reservation center to inquire about a fare or to 

make a reservation; (2) notifying consumers in the boarding gate area, 

on board aircraft, and via a carrier's telephone reservation system and 

its Web site of known delays, cancellations, and diversions; (3) 

delivering baggage on time, including making every reasonable effort to 

return mishandled baggage within twenty-four hours and compensating 

passengers for reasonable expenses that result due to delay in 

delivery; (4) allowing reservations to be held at the quoted fare 

without payment, or cancelled without penalty, for at least twenty-four 

hours after the reservation is made; (5) where ticket refunds are due, 

providing prompt refunds for credit card purchases as required by 14 

CFR 374.3 and 12 CFR part 226, and for cash and check purchases within 

20 days after receiving a complete refund request; (6) properly 

accommodating passengers with disabilities as required by 14 CFR part 

382 and for other special-needs passengers as set forth in the 

carrier's policies and procedures, including during lengthy tarmac 

delays; (7) meeting customers' essential needs during lengthy tarmac 

delays as required by 14 CFR 259.4 and as provided for in each covered 

carrier's contingency plan; (8) handling ``bumped'' passengers with 

fairness and consistency in the case of oversales as required by 14 CFR 

part 250 and as described in each carrier's policies and procedures for 

determining boarding priority; (9) disclosing cancellation policies, 

frequent flyer rules, aircraft configuration, and lavatory availability 

on the selling carrier's Web site, and upon request, from the selling 

carrier's telephone reservations staff; (10) notifying consumers in a 

timely manner of changes in their travel itineraries; (11) ensuring 

good customer service from code-share partners operating a flight, 

including making reasonable efforts to ensure that its code-share 

partner(s) have comparable customer service plans or provide comparable 

customer service levels, or have adopted the identified carrier's 

customer service plan; (12) ensuring responsiveness to customer 

complaints as required by 14 CFR 259.7; and (13) identifying the 

services it provides to mitigate passenger inconveniences resulting 

from flight cancellations and misconnections.

    With regard to delivering baggage on time, we solicit comment on 

whether we should also include as standards (1) that carriers reimburse 

passengers the fee charged to transport a bag if that bag is lost or 

not timely delivered, as well as (2) the time when a bag should be 

considered not to have been timely delivered (e.g., delivered on same 

or earlier flight than the passenger, delivered within 2 hours of the 

passenger's arrival). With regard to providing prompt refunds, we seek 

comment on whether we should also include as a standard that carriers 

refund ticketed passengers, including those with non-refundable 

tickets, for flights that are canceled or significantly delayed if the 

passenger chooses not to travel as a result of the travel disruption. 

The Department's Aviation Enforcement Office has issued notices in the 

past advising airlines that it would be an unfair and deceptive 

practice in violation of 49 USC 41712 for a carrier to apply its non-

refundability provision in the event of a significant change in 

scheduled departure or arrival time, whether it be due to carrier 

action or a matter out of the carrier's control, including ``acts of 

god.'' We request comment on the methodology for defining a significant 

delay in the event such a standard is adopted. Should the Department 

establish a bright line rule that any delay of 3 hours or more is a 

significant delay? Should the determination of whether a flight has 

been significantly delayed be based on the duration of the flight 

(e.g., is 3 hours a significant delay on flights of two hours or less 

and 4 hours a significant delay on flights of more than two hours)?

    With respect to notifying passengers on board aircraft of delays, 

we seek comment on how often updates should be provided and whether we 

should require that passengers be advised when they may deplane from 

aircraft during lengthy tarmac delays. For example, we have received 

complaints from passengers that their aircraft has returned to the gate 

less than three hours after departure for emergency or mechanical 

reasons but they were not advised that they could deplane. Carriers may 

feel the 3-hour tarmac delay limit has been tolled by such a gate 

return, but passengers feel they were not truly afforded the 

opportunity to deplane within the meaning of this rule.

    As for the customer service commitment to provide prompt refunds 

where ticket refunds are due, we invite comment on whether it is 

necessary to include as a standard the requirement that when a flight 

is cancelled carriers must refund not only the ticket price but also 

any optional fees charged to a passenger for that flight (e.g., baggage 

fees, ``service charges'' for use of frequent flyer miles when the 

flight is canceled by the carrier). Irrespective of whether such a 

standard is included in a carrier's customer service commitment, the 

Department would view a carrier's failure to provide a prompt refund to 

a passenger of the ticket price and related optional fees when a flight 

is canceled to be an unfair and deceptive practice. We request comment 

as to whether it is workable to set minimum standards for any of the 

subjects contained in the customer



[[Page 32324]]



service plans and invite those that oppose the notion of the Department 

setting minimum standards for customer service plans as unduly 

burdensome to provide evidence of the costs that they anticipate. We 

further invite comment or suggestions on the type of standards that 

should be set.

    Although the subjects we are proposing that foreign air carriers 

address in their customer service plans are identical to those U.S. 

carriers already are required to include in their customer service 

plans, we request comment on whether any of these subjects would be 

inappropriate if applied to a foreign air carrier. Why or why not? 

Moreover, we seek comment on whether the Department should require that 

all airlines address any other subject in their customer service plans. 

For example, should mandatory disclosure to passengers and other 

interested parties of past delays or cancellations of particular 

flights before ticket purchase be a new subject area covered in 

customer service plans? If so, what should be the minimum timeliness/

cancellation standard? In this regard, there is already a requirement 

for reporting carriers (i.e., the largest U.S. carriers) to post flight 

delay data on their Web sites and for their reservation agents to 

disclose to customers, upon request, the on-time performance code of a 

flight. Should more direct and mandatory disclosure be required, e.g., 

a required warning before the final purchase decision is made regarding 

chronically late or routinely canceled flights? We also seek comment on 

the appropriate minimum timeliness/cancellation standard for U.S. 

carriers and foreign air carriers that do not report on time 

performance data to DOT if we were to adopt a requirement that airlines 

address notification to consumers of past delays or cancellation in 

their customer service plans.



4. Contracts of Carriage



    The Department is proposing to adopt a rule requiring carriers 

(U.S. and foreign) to include their contingency plans and customer 

service plans in their contracts of carriage. We first proposed this 

requirement in the notice of proposed rulemaking on enhancing airline 

passenger protections which was published in the Federal Register on 

December 8, 2008. Ultimately, the Department decided not to require 

such incorporation at that time and instead strongly encouraged 

carriers to voluntarily incorporate the terms of their tarmac delay 

contingency plans in their contracts of carriage, as most major 

carriers had already done with respect to their customer service plans. 

The Department did require that each U.S. carrier with a Web site post 

its entire contract of carriage on its Web site in easily accessible 

form, including all updates to its contract of carriage. The Department 

also indicated that it would address this issue in a future rulemaking 

and take into account, among other things, whether the voluntary 

incorporation of contingency plan terms had resulted in sufficient 

protections for air travelers.

    The Department continues to believe that the airlines' 

incorporation of their contingency plans into their contracts of 

carriage is an important means of providing notice to consumers of 

their rights, since that information will then be contained in a 

readily available source. Carriers' contracts of carriage are generally 

posted online and must, by Department rule, be available at airports. 

Better informed consumers will further improve the Department's 

enforcement program as consumers are more likely to know of and report 

incidents where airlines do not adhere to their plans. Better consumer 

information will also create added incentive for carriers to adhere to 

their plans. Further, by placing the contingency plan terms in the U.S. 

selling carrier's contract of carriage both that carrier and its 

foreign code share partner carrier are responsible in an enforcement 

context for compliance, which we view as a beneficial aspect of this 

proposal. We also continue to be confident that we have the authority 

to require such incorporation based on our broad authority under 49 

U.S.C. 41712 to prohibit unfair and deceptive practices, and under 49 

U.S.C. 41702 to ensure safe and adequate transportation, which clearly 

encompasses the regulation of contingency plans.

    In the December 30, 2009, final rule to enhance airline passenger 

protections, we stated that we intended to closely monitor carriers' 

responses to our efforts in this regard and that we would not hesitate 

to revisit our decision in another rulemaking. As it appears that many 

carriers are choosing not to place their contingency plans and/or 

customer service plans in their contracts of carriage, or have little 

incentive to do so, and because we believe the incorporation of airline 

contingency plans in contracts of carriage to be in the public 

interest, we are again proposing the implementation of this 

requirement.

    As stated previously, the Department recognizes that many 

passengers travel to and from the U.S. on flights operated by foreign 

carriers, and they should have adequate passenger protections on those 

flights. As such, we propose to include foreign carriers in the 

requirement for airlines to place their contingency plans and customer 

service plans in their contracts of carriage. The Department is seeking 

comment on whether the incorporation of the contingency plans and 

customer service plans in the contract of carriage gives consumers 

adequate notice of what might happen in the event of a long delay on 

the tarmac and/or of passengers' rights under carriers' customer 

service plans. As in the past, commenters should also address whether 

and to what extent requiring the incorporation of contingency plans in 

carriers' contracts of carriage might weaken existing plans: That is, 

would the requirement encourage carriers to exclude certain key terms 

from their plans in order to avoid compromising their flexibility to 

deal with circumstances that can be both complex and unpredictable? We 

are also soliciting comment on the proposal to extend this provision to 

foreign carriers.



5. Response to Consumer Problems



    The recently issued final rule on enhancing airline passenger 

protections requires U.S. carriers that operate scheduled passenger 

service using any aircraft originally designed to have a passenger 

capacity of 30 or more seats to designate an employee to monitor the 

effects on passengers of flight delays, flight cancellations, and 

lengthy tarmac delays and to have input into decisions such as which 

flights are cancelled and which are subject to the longest delays. It 

also requires U.S. carriers to make available the mailing address and 

e-mail or Web address of the designated department in the airline with 

which to file a complaint about its scheduled service and to 

acknowledge receipt of each complaint regarding its scheduled service 

to the complainant within 30 days of receiving it and to send a 

substantive response to each complainant within 60 days of receiving 

it. A complaint is defined as a specific written expression of 

dissatisfaction concerning a difficulty or problem which the person 

experienced when using or attempting to use an airline's service.

    This proposal would require a foreign air carrier that operates 

scheduled passenger service to and from the United States using any 

aircraft originally designed to have a passenger capacity of 30 or more 

seats to do the same for its flights to and from the U.S. We are 

proposing to extend these provisions to foreign carriers as the 

Department believes passengers should also be afforded adequate 

consumer protection when issues arise with delays



[[Page 32325]]



or cancellations on flights to and from the U.S. operated by a foreign 

carrier, and should also have an avenue to file a complaint with a 

foreign carrier and to expect a timely and substantive response to that 

complaint. We invite interested persons to comment on this proposal. 

What costs and/or operational concerns would it impose on foreign 

carriers and what are the benefits to consumers? In particular, we are 

soliciting comments on any operational difficulties U.S. and foreign 

airlines may face in responding to consumer complaints received through 

social networking mediums such as Facebook or Twitter. Do airlines 

currently communicate to customers and prospective customers through 

social networking mediums?



6. Oversales



    Part 250 establishes the minimum standards for the treatment of 

airline passengers holding confirmed reservations on certain U.S. and 

foreign carriers who are involuntarily denied boarding (``bumped'') 

from flights that are oversold. In adopting the original oversales rule 

in the 1960s, the Civil Aeronautics Board (CAB), the Department's 

predecessor in aviation consumer matters, recognized the inherent 

unfairness to passengers if carriers were allowed to sell more 

confirmed seats than were available. To balance the inconvenience and 

financial loss to passengers against the potential benefits brought 

about by a controlled overbooking system, i.e., achieving higher load 

factors, avoiding the losses caused by last-minute cancellations and 

no-shows, enabling more passengers to obtain a reservation on the 

flight of their choice, and ultimately reducing fares, the CAB 

prescribed a two-part oversales system: Soliciting volunteers first, 

then involuntarily ``bumping'' passengers if there are not enough 

volunteers, with a minimum standard for denied boarding compensation 

(DBC). This system has been in effect for almost half a century and we 

believe that its basic structure remains sound.

    In this NPRM, we propose to expand the rule's applicability and 

add, modify and clarify certain elements of the rule as part of our 

continuing efforts to improve and perfect the system. Specifically, we 

are proposing to make five changes to Part 250: (1) Increase the 

minimum DBC limits to take account of the increase in the Consumer 

Price Index (CPI) since 1978; (2) implement an automatic inflation 

adjuster for minimum DBC limits; (3) clarify that DBC must be offered 

to ``zero fare ticket'' holders who are involuntarily bumped; (4) 

require that a carrier verbally offer cash/check DBC if the carrier 

verbally offers a travel voucher as DBC to passengers who are 

involuntarily bumped; and (5) require that a carrier inform passengers 

solicited to volunteer for denied boarding about its principal boarding 

priority rules applicable to the specific flight and all material 

restrictions on the use of that transportation.

    The last time the Department revised the minimum DBC amounts was in 

a proceeding that began in 2007 and concluded in 2008. Prior to that 

date, the DBC limits had not been revised since 1978. In that latest 

proceeding, because inflation had eroded the value of the $200 and $400 

limits that were established in 1978, we considered various methods for 

calculating an increase in the minimum DBC limits (i.e., increasing the 

limits on denied boarding compensation based on the consumer price 

index (CPI) or on the increase in fare yields, doubling the current 

limits, eliminating the limits so there would be no cap on denied 

boarding compensation payments). We settled on a rule under which an 

eligible passenger who encounters a delay of over one hour due to the 

involuntary denied boarding is entitled to compensation equal to either 

100% of the passenger's one-way fare up to $400, or 200% of the fare up 

to $800, depending on the length of the delay caused by the involuntary 

denied boarding. Since May 2008 when the new rule was issued, despite 

these higher DBC amounts, we have seen an increase in involuntary 

denied boardings. Load factors are also increasing, making it less 

likely that ``bumped'' passengers are being conveniently accommodated 

on other flights. We are therefore concerned about whether the current 

rule adequately encourages carriers to seek volunteers to give up their 

seats and whether the minimum DBC amount adequately compensates those 

passengers that are involuntarily ``bumped'' from their flights.

    Accordingly, we are proposing to revise the minimum DBC amounts to 

more accurately reflect inflation's effect on those amounts since 1978, 

the last year those amounts were raised before the most recent rule. We 

propose to do so by using the Consumer Price Index for All Urban 

Consumers (CPI-U), rounded to the nearest $25, with the base of $200/

$400 for the maximum DBC amounts in the year 1978. This would bring the 

maximum DBC amounts for involuntarily oversold passengers to $650/

$1,300 as of January 1, 2010. In addition, we propose to add a 

provision to Part 250 that would provide for periodic adjustments to 

the minimum DBC limits using the CPI-U, similar to that applied to 

minimum baggage liability limits pursuant to 14 CFR part 254. We 

believe these amendments will set up the most efficient method to 

ensure that the DBC minimum limits, and the monetary incentive for 

carriers to reduce involuntary denied boardings, remain current. Since 

the periodic adjustments would be the product of a published 

mathematical formula, there would be no need to engage in a notice and 

comment rulemaking proceeding for each future adjustment.

    We seek comments on whether the proposed increase in DBC minimum 

limits is called for and whether any such increase based on the CPI-U 

calculation is a reasonable basis for updating those limits or whether 

some other amounts would be more appropriate to adequately compensate 

passengers for the inconvenience and financial loss brought about by 

involuntary denied boarding. If not, by how much should the amounts be 

increased, if at all? We also ask for comment on whether we should 

completely eliminate minimum compensation limits and simply require 

that carriers base DBC to be paid to involuntarily bumped passengers on 

100% or 200% of a passenger's fare, without limit, and/or whether the 

100% and 200% rates need to be increased in line with the proposed 

increase in the $400/$800 compensation limits proposed above, perhaps 

to 200% and 400% of the passenger's fare, or higher. This would account 

for the fact that the actual cost for flying is likely to have 

increased while what is commonly referred to as the ``fare'' may not 

have increased as a result of the carriers' current practice of 

unbundling fares, i.e., charging extra for once-free amenities, e.g., 

checked baggage, food, preferred seats, etc.

    We are also proposing to clarify that Part 250 applies to 

passengers who hold ``zero fare tickets,'' e.g., passengers who 

``purchased'' air transportation with frequent flyer mileage or airline 

travel vouchers, passengers who travel on so-called ``free'' companion 

tickets, or passengers who hold a ``consolidator'' ticket that does not 

display a monetary price. For the most part, these ticket holders have 

``paid'' only government taxes and fees and, perhaps, carrier-imposed 

administrative fees for ticketing. In this regard, we propose to amend 

the definition of ``confirmed reserved space'' to specify that zero 

fare ticket holders have the same rights and eligibility for DBC as any 

other passenger who used cash, check or



[[Page 32326]]



credit card to purchase his or her airfare. Passengers with zero-fare 

tickets earned those tickets in some fashion, e.g. by exceeding a 

particular frequent-flyer threshold, agreeing to accept a travel 

voucher as settlement of a consumer claim or complaint, etc.

    When these passengers are involuntarily denied boarding, they, like 

passengers who paid fully in money for the tickets, suffer 

inconvenience and/or financial losses. We propose that the basis for 

determining the amount of DBC due a passenger holding a zero fare 

ticket who is involuntarily bumped, i.e., the ``passenger's fare,'' be 

the fare of the lowest priced ticket available (paid by cash, check, or 

credit card) for a comparable class of ticket on the same flight. For 

example, if an involuntarily bumped passenger used frequent flyer miles 

to obtain a confirmed, non-refundable roundtrip coach ticket having no 

restrictions, the basis for calculating the DBC amount due to that 

passenger would be the lowest fare that was available for a confirmed, 

roundtrip coach ticket on the same flight. Under this proposal, a 

carrier would be required to provide the same form of DBC to zero-fare 

passengers as to other passengers denied boarding involuntarily, i.e. 

cash or check, or a travel voucher of the passenger's choice under the 

conditions described in existing section 250.5(b) if the passenger 

agrees. We seek comment not only on whether zero fare ticket holders 

should receive DBC under part 250, but also on whether the cash method 

described above for calculating DBC to be paid such zero fare ticket 

holders is reasonable and would truly capture these passengers' losses 

due to being bumped involuntarily to the same extent as for cash/check/

credit ticket holders. This proposal is consistent with guidance DOT 

has given to carriers in the past.

    A possible alternative to the above proposed method of compensation 

would be to allow carriers to compensate zero fare ticket holders using 

the same ``currency'' in which the tickets were obtained. For instance, 

under this alternative an involuntarily bumped passenger who used 

frequent flyer miles to purchase a ticket would be eligible to be 

compensated with mileage, the currency used to obtain that flight. 

Under the current rule, this would amount to 100% or 200% of the amount 

of mileage that was used to purchase the ticket, plus a cash amount if 

appropriate to account for any taxes, fees and administrative costs 

paid to obtain the ticket. Similarly, involuntarily bumped passengers 

who used a voucher to purchase a ticket, in whole or in part, would be 

eligible to be compensated with a voucher worth 100% or 200% of the 

value of their original voucher, and an appropriate cash payment if a 

portion of the ticket was paid for in that manner. We also seek comment 

on any other alternative method of calculating DBC for zero fare ticket 

holders that would best quantify the financial loss and inconvenience 

to those passengers. How should the rule quantify the value of the 

remaining travel portion (either to the next stopover, or if none, to 

the final destination) if the DBC were to be paid with frequent flyer 

miles?

    Another area that we believe needs further improvement is the 

disclosure provisions in our current oversales rule. These provisions 

were established because passengers deserve to know about the 

possibility, however remote, of an oversale occurring and because only 

a well-informed passenger can make a proper choice when faced with the 

option of volunteering to be bumped from a flight. We propose in this 

proceeding to reinforce required disclosures to ensure that passengers 

will be aware of their rights when making decisions regarding whether 

to volunteer for denied boarding and/or whether to accept a travel 

voucher in lieu of cash or a check as DBC if they are bumped 

involuntarily.

    The existing required disclosures can be found in sections 250.2b 

250.9 and 250.11. Section 250.2b(b) sets forth conditions and 

requirements that carriers must comply with when soliciting volunteers 

on an oversold flight. Specifically, it requires that carriers inform 

each passenger who is solicited to volunteer to be bumped whether he or 

she is in danger of being involuntarily denied boarding and the 

compensation to which they would be entitled in that event. In 

addition, section 250.9 specifies the written explanation of DBC and 

boarding priorities that must be provided to passengers involuntarily 

oversold, which statement also must be provided to any person who 

requests it at any location a carrier sells tickets and at its boarding 

gates. Section 250.11 requires that carriers provide at each station 

they or their agents sell tickets a prescribed notice advising persons 

of their basic rights in an oversale situation and that they are 

entitled to detailed information upon request.

    Despite these required disclosures, we are concerned that 

passengers may not be aware of their rights when making decisions 

regarding whether to volunteer for denied boarding and/or accept a 

travel voucher because of the manner in which carriers offer free or 

reduced air transportation. Agents often verbally advise passengers of 

the offer of a travel voucher and its amount. Although in the case of 

involuntarily bumped passengers, this offer must be accompanied by the 

written notice of the passenger's right to insist on DBC by cash or 

check, there currently is no express requirement that this notice be 

given verbally. We are concerned that these passengers who are verbally 

offered a travel voucher may not have time to read the written notice 

and are not in fact verbally told by an agent that they are entitled to 

compensation by cash or check. Likewise, they may not be adequately 

informed of any conditions or limitations placed on the vouchers they 

are receiving. Accordingly, we are proposing that