Airline Passenger Rights, 99760-99782 [2024-28930]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
• Office of the Secretary

[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 238 (Wednesday, December 11, 2024)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 99760-99782]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-28930]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Office of the Secretary

14 CFR Chapter II

[Docket No. DOT-OST-2024-0062]
RIN 2105-AF20


Airline Passenger Rights

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

ACTION: Advanced notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM).

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

SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of Transportation (Department or DOT) 
seeks public comment on a rulemaking to ensure consumers experiencing 
significant flight disruptions are taken care of and protected from 
financial losses. Specifically, the Department is considering imposing 
requirements on airlines to provide affected passengers cash 
compensation, free rebooking, and amenities such as meals, lodging for 
overnight delays, and transportation to and from lodging. The 
Department also seeks comment on whether some protections should be 
provided during any type of disruption, how to determine whether a 
cancellation or delay is within an airline's control, and how to ensure 
that passengers receive the correct information from the airline in a 
timely manner. Additionally, the Department solicits comments on how to 
ensure that the process for passengers to receive compensation and 
amenities is clear, simple, straightforward, and prompt, and whether to 
require certain aspects of the process to be automatic. Further, the 
Department seeks comment on whether it should require airlines to offer 
free rebooking on the same or partner airline to a passenger with a 
disability and others in the same travel party when one or more 
accessibility feature needed by the person with disability is 
unavailable.

DATES: Comments should be filed by February 10, 2025. Late-filed 
comments will be considered to the extent practicable.

ADDRESSES: You may file comments identified by the docket number DOT-
OST-2024-0062 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, West Building Ground Floor, 
Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: West Building Ground Floor, Room 
W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE, Washington, DC, 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-2024-0062 or the Regulatory Identification Number (RIN 2105-
AF20) 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, business, labor union, etc.). For information on 
DOT's compliance with

[[Page 99761]]

the Privacy Act, please visit https://www.transportation.gov/privacy.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents and 
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: Heather Filemyr, John Wood, or Blane 
A. Workie, Office of Aviation Consumer Protection, U.S. Department of 
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE, Washington, DC 20590, 202-366-
9342, 202-366-7152 (fax), [email protected], [email protected], 
or [email protected] (email).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

A. Background and Overview of Existing Requirements

    The Department's regulation at 14 CFR 259.5 requires U.S. and 
foreign airlines to have and adhere to a customer service plan that 
identifies the services that an airline provides to mitigate passenger 
hardships resulting from flight cancellations and misconnections. Under 
this regulation, airlines are free to choose the services to provide 
passengers affected by flight disruptions. In 2022, after an 
unacceptable level of flight delays and cancellations, the Department 
carefully reviewed these plans to determine how U.S. airlines were 
caring for their passengers and found that the airlines' commitments in 
these plans did not guarantee adequate services even for flight delays 
and cancellations within the airline's control. However, after a two-
year DOT push to improve the passenger experience, today, almost all of 
the largest U.S. airlines voluntarily commit in their customer service 
plan to provide services such as meals, lodging, and free rebooking to 
passengers impacted by cancellations and lengthy delays when airlines 
are responsible.\1\ While the Department had also urged U.S. airlines 
to voluntarily commit to compensating passengers experiencing 
significant flight disruptions due to circumstances within the 
airline's control, no U.S. airline currently guarantees cash 
compensation, and only three airlines guarantee compensation in credits 
or frequent flyer miles for airline-caused delays and cancellations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ All ten of the largest U.S. airlines guarantee meals and 
rebooking without charge on the ticketed airline, and nine of the 10 
guarantee hotel accommodation and ground transportation to and from 
the hotel for passengers affected by controllable overnight delays 
and cancellations. Six of the 10 guarantee fee-free rebooking on a 
partner airline or another airline with which it has an agreement 
for controllable cancellations and five do so for lengthy, 
controllable delays. See https://www.transportation.gov/airconsumer/airline-customer-service-dashboard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The ability of airlines to choose the services that they provide to 
mitigate passenger inconveniences resulting from flight disruptions 
under current U.S. law contrasts with consumer protection regimes in 
other jurisdiction like the European Union (EU) and Canada, where 
airlines are required to provide compensation and assistance to 
consumers affected by flight disruptions. In the EU, airlines must 
provide compensation to consumers facing cancellations or lengthy 
delays unless the airline proves that the cancellation or delay is 
``caused by extraordinary circumstances which could not have been 
avoided even if all reasonable measures had been taken.'' \2\ Under 
that regime, airlines must also provide services, including meals, 
hotels, and ground transportation to and from the hotel (for overnight 
cancellations and delays) to passengers facing lengthy delays or 
cancellations and rebooking to passengers whose flights are cancelled, 
regardless of the cause of the delay or cancellation and whether it is 
unavoidable by the airline.\3\ United Kingdom regulations impose 
similar requirements and also use the ``extraordinary circumstances'' 
construct for compensation, with compensation amounts established in 
pounds.\4\ Current Canadian Air Passenger Protection Regulations 
(APPRs) require airlines to provide compensation for lengthy delays and 
cancellations that are controllable by the airline and not required for 
safety purposes and to provide services, including meals, overnight 
accommodations, and ground transportation to and from the hotel (for 
overnight cancellations and delays), to passengers for lengthy delays 
and cancellations that are controllable by the airline, regardless of 
whether the controllable delay or cancellation is required for 
safety.\5\ Brazilian regulations also contain similar protections for 
air passengers, including a right to compensation, meals, and hotel 
accommodations for cancellations and lengthy flight delays.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See EC No 261/2004, Article 5; see also Joined Cases C-402/
07 and C-432/07, Sturgeon v. Air France, 2009 E.C.R. I-10923, ] 69 
(applying EU compensation requirements to delays of three hours or 
more).
    \3\  See EC No 261/2004, Articles 5.1, 6.1, 8.1; see also 
European Commission Notice: Interpretative Guidelines on Regulation 
(EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council 
Establishing Common Rules on Compensation and Assistance to 
Passengers in the Event of Denied Boarding and of Cancellation or 
Long Delay of Flights and on Council Regulation (EC) No 2027/97 on 
Air Carrier Liability in the Event of Accidents as Amended by 
Regulation (EC) No 889/2002 of the European Parliament and of the 
Council (``EU Interpretive Guidelines'') (June 15, 2016) at C 214/13 
(``According to the Regulation, the air carrier is obliged to fulfil 
the obligation of care even when the cancellation of a flight is 
caused by extraordinary circumstances, that is to say circumstances 
which could not have been avoided even if all reasonable measures 
had been taken''), available at https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52016XC0615(01).
    \4\ See https://www.caa.co.uk/passengers/resolving-travel-problems/delays-and-cancellations/delays/ and https://www.caa.co.uk/passengers/resolving-travel-problems/delays-and-cancellations/cancellations/.
    \5\ APPRs, ]] 12, 19. Under the Canadian Regulations, airlines 
must also provide rebooking for cancellations and lengthy delays 
that are either within or outside the airline's control. See APPRs, 
]] 17, 18. As discussed later in this ANPRM, the Canadian 
Transportation Agency has initiated a consultation to revise the 
APPRs.
    \6\ See ANAC Resolution No. 400 (Dec. 13, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In developing this ANPRM, Department staff met with individuals 
from the Canadian Transportation Agency (CTA) on June 1, 2023, and the 
European Commission (EC) on June 12, 2023, to better understand the 
requirements under those existing regulatory regimes. On July 19, 2023, 
at the request of the International Air Transport Association (IATA) 
and Airlines for America (A4A), Department staff met with 
representatives of those groups to hear their perspective on 
compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of flight delays 
and cancellations. On May 10, 2024, at the request of AirHelp, 
Department staff met with representatives from that organization about 
its experience filing claims on behalf of passengers with airlines 
covered by compensation requirements in foreign jurisdictions, 
including the EU. On September 10, 2024, Department staff attended a 
panel discussion moderated by the National Consumers League, supported 
by a grant from AirHelp, and featuring speakers from the Travel 
Technology Association, U.S. Public Interest Research Group, the White 
House, and AirHelp, at which those groups discussed this contemplated 
rulemaking. Senator Edward Markey also gave remarks at that event. All 
documents submitted to the Department pertaining to these meetings and 
a summary of the panel discussion have been added to the rulemaking 
docket.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Docket available at https://www.regulations.gov/docket/DOT-OST-2024-0062/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Need for Rulemaking

(1) Data Indicates Controllable Cancellations and Lengthy Flight Delays 
Affect Millions of Passengers

    Cancellations and lengthy flight delays pose significant 
inconvenience,

[[Page 99762]]

stress, and financial cost to impacted passengers. Such delays and 
cancellations cause passengers to lose time, may disrupt other 
reservations (such as hotel reservations), and may cause passengers to 
miss important events.\8\ Flight cancellations, delays, and missed 
connections occurred in significant numbers as airlines adjusted their 
operations to meet the post-COVID pandemic air travel demand and have 
been the subject of a large number of the complaints about airlines 
that consumers have submitted to the Department since then.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See Airline Passenger Protections: Observations on Flight 
Delays and Cancellations, and DOT's Efforts to Address Them, GAO-23-
105524 (``2023 GAO Report''), at 22 (Apr. 2023), available at 
https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-23-105524.pdf.
    \9\ Of the 49,958 air travel service complaints that the 
Department received in calendar year 2021, 13 percent concerned 
flight problems. See https://www.transportation.gov/individuals/aviation-consumer-protection/february-2022-air-travel-consumer-report. Of the 77,656 air travel service complaints that the 
Department received in calendar year 2022, 32 percent concerned 
flight problems. See https://www.transportation.gov/resources/individuals/aviation-consumer-protection/february-2023-air-travel-consumer-report. While the Department does not have complaint data 
available for calendar year 2023 because of revisions in how it 
processes consumer complaints for efficiency, it estimates that it 
received 88,136 complaints based on receiving 96,853 submissions 
that year and complaints making up an average of 91 percent of 
submissions over the past three years. See https://www.transportation.gov/resources/individuals/aviation-consumer-protection/june-december-2023-and-2023-annual-consumer. The 
percentage of complaints that concern flight problems in calendar 
year 2023 is not known.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    According to flight performance data reported by the largest U.S. 
carriers to the Department's Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS), 
in calendar year 2022, the carriers combined cancelled 190,038 domestic 
scheduled passenger flights (approximately 2.7 percent of their total 
domestic scheduled passenger flights), and over 1.4 million of their 
domestic scheduled passenger flights (more than 20 percent of their 
total domestic scheduled passenger flights) were delayed in arriving by 
15 minutes or more.\10\ Of the more than1.4 million delayed flights, 
85,892 (approximately 6.1 percent) were delayed three hours or 
more.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Bureau of Transportation Statistics, On-Time Performance, 
Marketing Carrier Flight Delays and Cancellations 2022 and 2023, 
available at https://www.regulations.gov/docket/DOT-OST-2024-0062/.
    \11\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In calendar year 2023, these carriers combined cancelled 93,897 
domestic scheduled passenger flights (approximately 1.3 percent of 
their total domestic scheduled passenger flights).\12\ Further, more 
than 1.4 million of the carriers' domestic scheduled passenger flights 
(approximately 20 percent of their total domestic scheduled passenger 
flights) were delayed 15 minutes or more that year.\13\ Of the more 
than 1.4 million delayed flights, 95,024 of them were delayed three 
hours or more, which was approximately 6.8 percent of total flights 
delayed that year.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Id.
    \13\ Id.
    \14\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A significant percentage of the domestic cancellations that air 
carriers reported to BTS in 2022 and 2023 were reported as ``air 
carrier''-caused and most of the domestic delays of three hours or more 
that air carriers reported to BTS listed ``air carrier'' as a cause of 
the delay. Carriers reported to BTS that 38 percent of their domestic 
scheduled passenger flight cancellations were ``air carrier''-caused in 
calendar year 2022, and 28 percent of their domestic scheduled 
passenger flight cancellations were ``air carrier''-caused in calendar 
year 2023.\15\ For domestic scheduled passenger flight delays of three 
hours or more, the carriers reported to BTS that 65 percent of those 
delays included an ``air carrier'' cause of delay in 2022, and 62 
percent included an ``air carrier'' cause of delay in 2023.\16\ These 
delay percentages do not include additional delays that were reported 
by carriers as caused by ``late arriving aircraft.'' Such delays are 
not reported as ``air carrier''-caused even when the reason for the 
``late arriving aircraft'' was within the carrier's control.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Id.
    \16\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In April 2023, the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) 
published a report describing its examination of controllable 
cancellations and delays following the initial disruption to air 
transportation in 2020 due to the global COVID pandemic and documented 
concerns with the gap in consumer protections available to passengers 
facing cancellations and lengthy delays.\17\ GAO reviewed data from the 
Department's BTS and concluded that as airlines recovered in 2021 and 
2022 ``[s]ustained cancellation events, or a series of days where an 
airline cancelled a large percentage of daily flights, lasted longer 
and became more common as travel demand increased.'' \18\ GAO estimated 
that flight cancellations from July 2021 through April 2022 potentially 
affected over 15 million passengers, and flight delays during that time 
period potentially affected over 116 million passengers.\19\ The 2023 
GAO report also concluded that: ``[b]eyond DOT's requirement for 
airlines to provide cash refunds to passengers for cancelled or 
significantly changed flights, airline compensation to passengers is 
generally limited. Airlines are not required to provide accommodations 
for flight disruptions unless specified in an airline's contract of 
carriage or customer service plan, although airlines may provide 
additional accommodations in certain circumstances. As we have 
previously reported, airline assistance to affected passengers can vary 
significantly. Flight disruptions, particularly if they are long 
lasting, can significantly inconvenience passengers.'' \20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ 2023 GAO Report.
    \18\ See id. at 13 (``In the last half of 2021, there were 6.3 
percent more sustained cancellation events than during the same time 
period in 2018, and 12.2 percent more than in 2019, despite 14 
percent fewer scheduled flights compared to 2019. In the first 4 
months of 2022, the number of sustained cancellation events 
increased even more substantially, with 56.9 percent more events in 
this time period compared to the same 4-month time period in 2018, 
and 42.9 percent more than in the first 4 months of 2019. There were 
12.6 percent fewer scheduled flights during the relevant 2022 time 
period as compared to the same time period in 2019.'').
    \19\ Id. at 17.
    \20\ Id. at 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department's Office of Aviation Consumer Protection 
investigates large-scale and sustained disruptive events that impact 
large numbers of passengers to ensure compliance with aviation consumer 
protection requirements. At times, these investigations can also reveal 
gaps in protections for aviation consumers, such as the importance for 
consumers to know whether a cancellation or delay is considered 
controllable and would entitle them to promised services and amenities. 
For example, from late December 2022 through early January 2023, 
Southwest Airlines cancelled 16,900 flights and stranded over two 
million passengers, reporting most of the cancelled flights to BTS as 
due to circumstances within the carrier's control.\21\ In July 2024, 
following a global information technology (IT) systems issue, Delta Air 
Lines cancelled more than 5,550 flights over a five-day period.\22\ The

[[Page 99763]]

Department immediately notified U.S. carriers that it considers the 
flight disruptions resulting from the IT outage to be ``controllable'' 
since the issue is a computer outage of the carrier's equipment and 
informed carriers that DOT expected the carriers to make good on the 
commitments that they voluntarily made to customers affected by 
controllable cancellations and delays. Notably, the Department saw a 
significant uptick in consumer complaints following each of these 
events, reflecting significant consumer harm, including financial harm 
from these controllable cancellations and delays.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ In December 2023, the Department assessed a $140 million 
civil penalty against Southwest Airlines for numerous violations of 
consumer protection laws during and after its operational failures 
between December 2022 through January 2023. The penalty was 30 times 
larger than any previous DOT penalty for consumer protection 
violations. The majority of the penalty will go towards compensating 
future Southwest passengers affected by cancellations or significant 
delays caused by the airline. See Southwest Airlines Co., DOT Order 
No. 2023-12-11, Consent Order (Dec. 15, 2023).
    \22\ Bureau of Transportation Statistics, Arrival Performance by 
Carrier, July 19-24, 2024, available at https://www.regulations.gov/docket/DOT-OST-2024-0062/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(2) Inconsistency in How Airlines Determine Controllable Cancellations 
and Delays

    The Department is exploring in this ANPRM how to determine which 
delays and cancellations are controllable such that airlines are held 
responsible for free rebooking, compensation, and payment for services 
such as meals, lodging, or transportation to and from lodging. 
Currently, when a flight disruption involves more than one cause, 
airlines determine whether the event was or was not controllable in 
different ways. For example, one airline might look at the first cause, 
another the longest cause, and another may use yet a different method 
to deem a multi-factor event controllable or not controllable, 
potentially ignoring factors that were within their control that caused 
or exacerbated consumer harm.
    At the December 2021 meeting of the Department's Aviation Consumer 
Protection Advisory Committee (ACPAC), presentations by a 
representative of the Arizona Attorney General's Office (AAG) and 
representatives of A4A, among others, addressed the causes of 
cancellation and delay when weather is involved. The AAG representative 
explained that airlines have incentive to blame delays on weather 
because, when a delay is attributed to weather, the airline would not 
have to provide vouchers, meals, or hotels, and other amenities, if 
guaranteed in its customer service plan or contract of carriage for 
controllable events, and air travelers likely are more understanding 
about weather delays than delays due to mismanagement or short 
staffing. Also at that meeting, representatives of A4A explained that a 
weather event can affect multiple areas of airline planning in a scope 
and scale unique to each circumstance, including scheduling, flight 
planning, crew planning, aircraft routing, maintenance planning, gate 
sequencing, and aircraft and passenger support. One A4A representative 
stated that FAA data indicates that 70 percent of all air traffic 
delays are caused by weather, which in the representative's view 
explains why airlines often described weather as the root cause of a 
delay. The representative asserted that there is no clear demarcation 
of when a weather event stops being the original or primary factor for 
a delay associated with a flight or sequence of flights. An additional 
A4A representative added that some airlines' contracts of carriage, to 
the extent they provide for amenities for flight irregularities, 
exclude delays or cancellations where the cause is outside the 
airline's control, such as weather. He said that if weather is the 
original or primary factor, an airline's contractual obligation to 
provide amenities may not apply based on the wording of the contract of 
carriage.
    Section 512 of the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2024 (2024 FAA Act) 
requires the Department to direct certain air carriers ``to establish 
policies regarding reimbursement for lodging, transportation between 
such lodging and the airport, and meal costs incurred due to a flight 
cancellation or significant delay directly attributable to the air 
carrier.'' The statute does not further describe what ``directly 
attributable'' to the air carrier means, including when multiple causal 
factors are involved in a flight disruption. A regulation would be 
necessary to require air carriers to establish policies under section 
512. The regulation could also clarify which cancellations and delays 
are directly attributable to a carrier.

(3) Challenges Remain for Passengers Seeking Rebooking, Compensation, 
Notifications, and Services Such as Meals, Lodging, and Transportation 
to and From Lodging

    As previously discussed, current Department regulations do not 
require an airline to provide compensation, services, notifications of 
services due, or reimbursements to passengers impacted by cancellations 
and lengthy delays that are within its control unless the airline 
voluntarily commits to do so. Many airlines, including foreign 
airlines, have not made voluntary guarantees in their customer service 
plans to provide needed services and compensation to their customers 
affected by controllable cancellations or delays. In addition, airlines 
that have made enforceable commitments to their customers for 
controllable flight cancellations and lengthy controllable delays, 
including those reflected on the Department's Airline Customer Service 
Dashboard,\23\ can remove these commitments from their customer service 
plan at any time. Further, the competition encouraged by the Dashboard 
has not resulted in any U.S. airline committing to provide cash 
compensation to passengers for controllable flight cancellations and 
lengthy controllable flight delays. Also, while many U.S. airlines have 
committed to providing free rebooking on partner airlines, meals, 
hotels for passengers affected by overnight cancellations or delays, 
and transportation to and from the hotel, not all U.S. airlines have, 
demonstrating a potential need for protections in this area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ See https://www.transportation.gov/airconsumer/airline-customer-service-dashboard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, on May 16, 2024, the President signed the 2024 FAA Act 
into law.\24\ Section 512 of the 2024 FAA Act requires the Department 
to ``direct all air carriers providing scheduled passenger interstate 
or intrastate air transportation to establish policies regarding 
reimbursement for lodging, transportation between such lodging and the 
airport, and meal costs incurred due to a flight cancellation or 
significant delay directly attributable to the air carrier.'' Before 
the 2024 FAA Act was passed by Congress, the Executive Office of the 
President released a Statement of Administration Policy explaining that 
the Act ``include[d] key consumer protection provisions on airline 
reimbursement for incurred costs due to controllable disruptions . . . 
that would set a floor that the Department of Transportation could 
build on as deemed appropriate by the Secretary of Transportation.'' 
\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ Public Law 118-63.
    \25\ See Statement of Administration Policy, Senate Substitute 
Amendment to H.R. 3935--FAA Reauthorization Act of 2024 (May 8, 
2024), available at https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/SAP-SSA-HR3935.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This ANPRM requests public comment to assist the Department in its 
consideration of what regulations may be needed to implement the 
requirements of section 512 of the 2024 FAA Act, ensure that airlines 
do not engage in unfair or deceptive practices or unfair methods of 
competition by establishing minimum requirements for when and how 
airlines must compensate passengers and make relevant reimbursements 
and services available to them, ensure that these protections are not 
subject to removal at an airline's discretion, and ensure passengers 
are protected from financial loss whether scheduled to be on a domestic 
or international flight that is cancelled or significantly delayed due 
to

[[Page 99764]]

circumstances within an airline's control.
    The Department is also issuing this ANPRM to assist its 
consideration of what regulations may be needed to ensure that 
passengers receive timely notifications of available compensation, 
rebooking, and services such as meals, lodging, and transportation to 
and from lodging. Some airlines currently condition service guarantees 
in their customer service plans on affirmative requests by consumers 
for those services.\26\ Many passengers may not know the intricacies of 
airlines' customer service plan guarantees, and, even when passengers 
are aware of an airline's commitments, they may not know that a 
particular cancellation or delay is within the airline's control and so 
a service is owed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ See, e.g., American Airlines Customer Service Plan (updated 
July 19, 2024), available at https://www.aa.com/i18n/customer-service/support/customer-service-plan.jsp, and Southwest Airlines 
Customer Service Plan (revised April 23, 2024), available at https://www.southwest.com/assets/pdfs/corporate-commitments/customer-service-plan.pdf?clk=7396032 (guaranteeing meals and hotel 
accommodations ``upon request'' by the passenger).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department's ACPAC recently considered the quality and quantity 
of information on the causes of air carrier delays and cancellations 
provided to passengers adversely affected by an airline cancellation or 
delay, focusing on whether it is an unfair or deceptive practice for an 
air carrier to inform a passenger that a flight is delayed or cancelled 
due to weather alone when other factors are involved. At the December 
2021 ACPAC meeting, a representative of the AAG and representatives of 
A4A, among others, presented to the ACPAC on the topic. The AAG stated 
that consumers need accurate information about the reasons for a delay 
so that they can exercise their rights and make an informed decision 
about their options at the time and whether to use that airline in the 
future. Also at that meeting, an A4A representative stated that he did 
not find withholding information on cause of delay meets the 
Department's test for unfair or deceptive practices in air 
transportation. The representative stated that the Department's 
regulation that requires airlines to provide passengers flight status 
notification in the event of a known delay, cancellation, or diversion, 
14 CFR 259.8, is sufficient to inform consumers of the material 
information. The representative noted that the current regulation does 
not require airlines to provide the cause of a flight disruption but 
addresses material information, such as information that would assist 
the passenger in deciding when to go to the airport or when to request 
a refund or rebooking on another flight. The representative added that 
some airlines' contracts of carriage, to the extent they provide for 
amenities for flight irregularities, exclude delays or cancellations 
where the cause is outside the airline's control, such as weather. He 
said that if weather is the original or primary factor, an airline's 
contractual obligation to provide amenities may not apply based on the 
wording of the contract of carriage. The representative raised concern 
should airlines be required to provide real-time detailed explanations 
of all subsidiary factors contributing to the delay that was 
fundamentally caused by weather, stating that airlines may be compelled 
to publish unsubstantiated information that the airlines lacked 
adequate time to confirm, which he believed would be a disservice to 
consumers.
    At the December 2022 ACPAC meeting, the ACPAC deliberated on the 
topic of information provided to consumers adversely affected by 
airline delays or cancellations. The ACPAC member representing 
consumers asked that the ACPAC consider recommending that airlines 
notify passengers when a service or amenity becomes available due to a 
controllable delay or controllable cancellation. This member stated 
that his proposal reflected concern that, without such notifications, 
passengers would be required to understand an airline's customer 
service plan or contract of carriage and affirmatively request 
amenities from the airline. The member representing airlines opposed 
the recommendation, noting that information about services and 
amenities is available through the Department's Airline Customer 
Service Dashboard, and expressed concern about whether an airline would 
have contact information for the passenger to provide a notification 
for tickets sold through ticket agents. The member representing 
consumers responded that the Dashboard is useful to consumers, but some 
may not know about the Dashboard and those who do would be unsure 
whether the commitments apply to them because they would not know the 
cause of the delay or cancellation. After discussion, the ACPAC adopted 
a recommendation that the Department issue a regulation requiring 
airlines to notify affected consumers of the availability of services 
and amenities for controllable delays and cancellations, with the 
member representing airlines voting against the recommendation.

(4) Harm to Consumers, Including Passengers With Disabilities, When 
Free Rebooking Is Not Provided

    In April 2024, the Department published a final rule, Refunds and 
Other Consumer Protections, codifying and clarifying its longstanding 
interpretation that, under 49 U.S.C. 41712, airlines must provide 
refunds to passengers for flights that are cancelled or significantly 
changed, regardless of whether the cancellation or change is within the 
airline's control.\27\ In August 2024, the Department issued a second 
final rule, Refunds and Other Consumer Protections (2024 FAA 
Reauthorization) to implement the refund-related provisions of the 2024 
FAA Act.\28\ These final rules (collectively ``Refund Rules'') provide, 
among other things, that passengers are entitled to an automatic refund 
if their flight is cancelled and they do not accept any alternatives 
offered. The Refund Rules also provide that passengers are entitled to 
an automatic refund if they decide not to travel on a changed itinerary 
when the change results in a flight departing from the origination 
airport three hours or more for domestic itineraries and six hours or 
more for international itineraries earlier or later than the original 
scheduled departure time, or results in the flight departing from a 
different origination airport or arriving at a different destination 
airport.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ 89 FR 32760.
    \28\ 89 FR 65534.
    \29\ 14 CFR 260.2 (see definition of significantly delayed or 
changed flight at paragraphs (1) and (2)), 260.6(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, under the Department's Refund Rules, an airline must 
provide an automatic refund to an individual with a disability (and 
others in that individual's reservation) upon notification that the 
individual decides not to travel on a changed itinerary because: (1) 
the individual with a disability is downgraded to a lower class of 
service that results in one or more accessibility features needed by 
the individual becoming unavailable, (2) the airline changes the 
aircraft to a substitute aircraft on which one or more accessibility 
features needed by the individual are unavailable, or (3) the airline 
changes the flight to schedule the passenger to travel through one or 
more connecting airports different from the original itinerary.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ 14 CFR 260.6(b)(1) through (3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department's recent Refund Rules provide important new refund 
protections for passengers who are negatively impacted by a change in 
an airline itinerary. Those rules, however, do not require airlines to 
accommodate

[[Page 99765]]

passengers by offering rebooking to meet the passenger's needs, 
including the accessibility needs of passengers with disabilities. In 
the rulemaking on Refunds and Other Consumer Protections, the Paralyzed 
Veterans of America submitted a comment requesting the Department 
require airlines to ``expeditiously locate and offer alternative 
transportation that meets the specific needs of the passenger with a 
disability,'' explaining that a ``refund is purposeless if the 
passenger is stranded.''
    The Department is using this ANPRM to assist in its assessment of 
whether it should require airlines to provide rebooking without charge 
to a passenger when the airline makes a significant change to the 
passenger's itinerary. This includes an assessment of whether an 
airline should be required to provide rebooking without charge to a 
passenger with a disability, and others in the same travel party, when 
the carrier makes changes that result in the unavailability of an 
accessibility feature needed by the passenger with a disability or when 
the carrier makes other significant changes to the itinerary of an 
individual with a disability, like a change in the origination or 
destination airport or cancels a flight.

C. Statutory Authority

    The Department's rulemaking would be based on several statutory 
authorities.

(1) Unfair and Deceptive Practices and Unfair Methods of Competition

    Section 41712 of title 49 of the U.S. Code authorizes the 
Department to prohibit unfair and deceptive practices and unfair 
methods of competition by air carriers, foreign air carriers, and 
ticket agents in air transportation and the sale of air transportation. 
The Department's rule at 14 CFR 399.79 outlines its policies related to 
unfair and deceptive practices and defines the terms ``unfair'' and 
``deceptive.'' A practice is ``unfair'' to consumers if it causes or is 
likely to cause substantial injury, which is not reasonably avoidable, 
and the harm is not outweighed by benefits to consumers or 
competition.\31\ A practice is ``deceptive'' to consumers if it is 
likely to mislead a consumer, acting reasonably under the 
circumstances, with respect to a material matter.\32\ A matter is 
material if it is likely to have affected the consumer's conduct or 
decision with respect to a product or service.\33\ Proof of intent is 
not necessary to establish unfairness or deception.\34\ The Department 
elaborated further on the elements of ``unfair'' and ``deceptive'' in a 
2022 guidance document.\35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ 14 CFR 399.79(b)(1).
    \32\ 14 CFR 399.79(b)(2).
    \33\ Id.
    \34\ 14 CFR 399.79(c).
    \35\ 87 FR 52677 (Aug. 28, 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department may address unfair and deceptive practices under 49 
U.S.C. 41712 and 49 U.S.C. 40113(a), which authorizes the Secretary to 
``take action the Secretary . . . considers necessary to carry out 
[part A of chapter 49 of the U.S. Code, which contains section 41712], 
including . . . prescribing regulations, standards, and procedures.''
    The Department is exploring through this ANPRM whether requirements 
for services such as rebooking, meals, lodging, and transportation to 
and from lodging or reimbursements for those services, or compensation 
are needed to prevent unfair and deceptive practices or unfair methods 
of competition in the event of cancellations and lengthy delays that 
are within the airline's control. The Department is also examining 
whether notifications by airlines to passengers of available services, 
reimbursements, and compensation when such services are due are 
necessary to address unfair and deceptive practices. Additionally, the 
Department is considering whether it may be an unfair or deceptive 
practice for an airline to fail to provide free rebooking for 
significant changes, including changes applicable to passengers with 
disabilities and others in the same travel party when a change in class 
of service or aircraft affects available accessibility features or a 
change in airport occurs. Finally, the Department is weighing whether 
any other unfair methods of competition should be addressed in this 
rulemaking. If the Department decides to propose regulations declaring 
a practice unfair or deceptive, then notice and an opportunity to 
petition the Department for a hearing will be provided in accordance 
with procedures found in 14 CFR 399.75.

(2) FAA Reauthorization Act of 2024

    As described previously, section 512 of the 2024 FAA Act requires 
the Department to ``direct all air carriers providing scheduled 
passenger interstate or intrastate air transportation to establish 
policies regarding reimbursement for lodging, transportation between 
such lodging and the airport, and meal costs incurred due to a flight 
cancellation or significant delay directly attributable to the air 
carrier.'' This ANPRM explores how the Department should implement this 
statutory requirement.
    In addition, section 505 of the 2024 FAA Act requires that certain 
air carriers must maintain, without charge and available at all times: 
(1) a customer service telephone line staffed by live agents, (2) a 
customer chat option that allows for customers to speak to a live agent 
within a reasonable time, to the greatest extent practicable, or (3) a 
monitored text messaging number that enables customers to communicate 
and speak with a live agent directly. Section 505 authorizes DOT to 
issue such rules as may be necessary to carry out the requirement and 
provides that airlines must comply with section 505's requirements 
``without regard to whether the Secretary has promulgated any rules to 
carry out'' section 505. This ANPRM explores whether the Department 
should propose provisions regarding the manner and timeliness of 
airline customer service during flight disruptions, whether 
controllable or not, under this statutory requirement.

(3) Safe and Adequate Interstate Air Transportation

    This ANPRM also involves topics related to air carriers \36\ that 
may involve the Secretary's authority under 49 U.S.C. 41702, which 
states that ``[a]n air carrier shall provide safe and adequate 
interstate air transportation.'' \37\ The Civil Aeronautics Board 
(CAB), the predecessor to the Department, had the authority to ensure 
that air carriers provide ``safe and adequate service, equipment and 
facilities'' under section 404(a) of the Federal Aviation Act of 1958, 
which was later codified in 49 U.S.C. 41702.\38\ The CAB relied on 
section 404(a) to adopt a regulation that restricted smoking on flights 
by dividing aircraft cabins into smoking and nonsmoking sections. The 
CAB reasoned that its authority to require air carriers to provide 
``adequate service'' under section 41702 includes ensuring

[[Page 99766]]

that the service does not cause passenger discomfort.\39\ The CAB's 
regulation and interpretation of ``adequate service'' was later 
challenged by a passenger, but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth 
Circuit found that ``adequate service'' referred both to the number of 
flights provided by an air carrier and the quality of service provided 
to passengers.\40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 40102(a)(2), an ``air carrier'' means 
a citizen of the United States undertaking by any means, directly or 
indirectly, to provide air transportation.
    \37\ Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 40102(a)(25) ``interstate air 
transportation'' means the transportation of passengers or property 
by aircraft as a common carrier for compensation, or the 
transportation of mail by aircraft--(A) between a place in--(i) a 
State, territory, or possession of the United States and a place in 
the District of Columbia or another State, territory, or possession 
of the United States; (ii) Hawaii and another place in Hawaii 
through the airspace over a place outside Hawaii; (iii) the District 
of Columbia and another place in the District of Columbia; or (iv) a 
territory or possession of the United States and another place in 
the same territory or possession; and (B) when any part of the 
transportation is by aircraft.
    \38\ Codification was effectuated in Public Law 103-272 (enacted 
July 5, 1994).
    \39\ ``[T]he extent and depth of passenger discomfort and 
annoyance from unsegregated and unregulated smoking on aircraft 
compels the conclusion that service which does not provide for the 
effective separation of smokers constitutes neither adequate service 
nor reasonable practice and cannot be permitted under the act.'' 38 
FR 12209 (May 10, 1973).
    \40\ See Diefenthal v. Civil Aeronautics Bd., 681 F.2d 1039 (5th 
Cir. 1982) (adequate service can refer both to the number of flights 
scheduled as well as the quality of service provided).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    More recently, the Department relied on its authority to provide 
safe and adequate interstate transportation in section 41702 in its 
2016 final rule prohibiting the use of e-cigarettes on-board 
aircraft.\41\ In that final rule, the Department reasoned that it had 
the authority to rely on the ``adequate'' prong in section 41702 to ban 
the use of e-cigarettes. The Department argued that discomfort from e-
cigarettes was like the discomfort described by the CAB when it chose 
to restrict smoking on aircraft in 1973.\42\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ 81 FR 11415 (Mar. 4, 2016).
    \42\ Id. at 11421.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Through this ANPRM, the Department is exploring whether providing 
rebooking, meals, lodging, and transportation to and from lodging 
during flight disruptions is necessary to ensure that passengers are 
provided with adequate interstate transportation. In addition, the 
Department is exploring whether an airline is failing to provide 
adequate interstate air transportation when it doesn't offer and, if 
accepted, provide free rebooking to passengers when there is a 
significant change to the flight itinerary, including to passengers 
with disabilities and others in the same travel party when a change in 
airport, class of service, or aircraft affects available accessibility 
features.

(4) Air Carrier Access Act

    The Department's questions in this ANPRM about rebooking for 
passengers with disabilities, and individuals in the same travel party, 
relate to the Department's authority under the Air Carrier Access Act 
(ACAA), in addition to the other authorities previously discussed.\43\ 
The ACAA prohibits discrimination in airline service because of 
disability by U.S. and foreign air carriers. When it enacted the ACAA, 
Congress directed the Department ``to promulgate regulations to ensure 
non-discriminatory treatment of qualified handicapped individuals 
consistent with safe carriage of all passengers on air carriers.'' \44\ 
The Department responded by issuing a final rule that required carriers 
to provide nondiscriminatory service to individuals with 
disabilities.\45\ The Department is exploring in this ANPRM whether 
imposing rebooking requirements on airlines is necessary to ensure 
individuals with disabilities are not denied reasonable access to air 
transportation when a change in class of service or aircraft affects 
available accessibility features or when a change in airport occurs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ 49 U.S.C. 41705.
    \44\ Public Law 99-435, sec. 3, 100 Stat. 1080, 1080 (1986).
    \45\ 55 FR 8008 (Mar. 6, 1990).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(5) Reporting and Recordkeeping

    The Department is considering whether to impose any reporting 
requirements under 49 U.S.C. 41708 or recordkeeping requirements under 
49 U.S.C. 41709. Among other things, section 41708(b) authorizes the 
Secretary to require U.S. and foreign air carriers to file annual, 
monthly, periodical, and special reports in the form and way prescribed 
by the Secretary and to provide specific answers to questions on which 
the Secretary considers information to be necessary. Section 41709 
authorizes the Secretary to prescribe the form of records to be kept by 
an air carrier.

(6) Other Authorities

    In carrying out aviation economic programs, the Department is 
required to consider the factors identified in 49 U.S.C. 40101 as being 
in the public interest and consistent with public convenience and 
necessity. Among other things, under 49 U.S.C. 40101(a)(4), the 
Department is required to consider the availability of a variety of 
adequate, economic, efficient, and low-priced services without 
unreasonable discrimination or unfair or deceptive practices as being 
in the public interest. Under section 40101(a)(9), it is also in the 
public interest to prevent unfair, deceptive, predatory, or 
anticompetitive practices in air transportation. The Department is also 
required by section 40101(a)(12) to consider as being in the public 
interest encouraging, developing, and maintaining an air transportation 
system relying on actual and potential competition to provide 
efficiency, innovation, and low prices.

D. Request for Data, Analysis, Views, Recommendations, and Other 
Comments

(1) Scope

(a) Covered Entities
    Which carriers should be covered if DOT were to issue a rule 
requiring compensation, services such as meals or lodging, or 
reimbursements for such services when there are controllable 
cancellations and lengthy, controllable delays? As its primary option, 
the Department is considering covering certificated carriers, commuter 
carriers, and foreign air carriers operating to, from, or within the 
United States, conducting scheduled passenger service with at least one 
aircraft having a designed seating capacity of 30 or more seats. This 
would ensure the requirements would apply to substantially all 
scheduled passenger air traffic to, from, or within the United 
States.\46\ This coverage would be consistent with the carriers 
currently required to have a customer service plan under 14 CFR 259.5, 
which addresses the services airlines voluntarily commit to provide 
their passengers to mitigate passenger inconveniences resulting from 
flight cancellations or misconnections.\47\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \46\ The largest 15 U.S. air carriers accounted for more than 95 
percent of domestic scheduled passenger air transportation in 2023. 
Bureau of Transportation Statistics, Transtats, T-100 Market Data, 
available at https://www.regulations.gov/docket/DOT-OST-2024-0062/. 
Each of these airlines operate an aircraft of 30 or more seats. 
Bureau of Transportation Statistics, Part 241 Financial Data, Form 
B-43, available at https://www.regulations.gov/docket/DOT-OST-2024-0062/.
    \47\ See 14 CFR 259.5(b)(14).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Alternatively, should the Department exclude from coverage carriers 
that exclusively provide air transportation with aircraft of a designed 
seating capacity of 60 seats or less and who are considered small 
businesses for purposes of the Regulatory Flexibility Act? \48\ Or 
should any requirements cover all certificated air carriers, commuter 
air carriers, and foreign air carriers, regardless of size? Rather than 
excluding only the smallest carriers entirely, should the Department 
impose less stringent requirements on U.S. carriers who comprise less 
than 10 percent of the domestic scheduled passenger revenue \49\ or 
foreign air

[[Page 99767]]

carriers who have fewer than two million total enplanements to and from 
the United States? \50\ That approach would be like current Canadian 
regulations discussed further in the following sections, which impose 
requirements for flight cancellations and delays, and have modified 
rebooking and compensation requirements for small carriers based on the 
number of passengers transported.\51\ What, if any, other approaches 
should the Department consider when determining airline coverage 
requirements?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \48\ Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act carriers that 
exclusively provide air transportation with aircraft originally 
designed to have a maximum passenger capacity of 60 seats or less or 
a maximum payload capacity of 18,000 pounds or less are small 
entities. See 14 CFR 399.73.
    \49\ Four U.S. carriers, American Airlines, Delta Air Lines, 
United Airlines, and Southwest Airlines, comprised 10 percent or 
more of domestic scheduled passenger revenue in 2023, all with over 
15 percent. No other carrier comprised more than six percent of 
domestic scheduled passenger revenue. See docket at https://www.regulations.gov/docket/DOT-OST-2024-0062/.
    \50\ Eighteen foreign carriers exceeded two million total 
enplanements to and from the United States in 2023. See id.
    \51\ Air Passenger Protection Regulations, SOR/2019-150, ]] 17, 
19. Canadian regulations define small carrier to mean any carrier 
that has not transported a worldwide total of two million passengers 
or more during each of the two preceding calendar years. Id. ] 2. 
The CTA has initiated a consultation to amend its regulations, 
including improving the rebooking obligations for passengers of 
small airlines but proposed to continue to apply reduced 
compensation requirements and less stringent rebooking obligations 
to small carriers. See Consultation Paper: Proposed Changes to 
Clarify, Simplify and Strengthen the Air Passenger Protection 
Regulations at 10, available at https://otc-cta.gc.ca/sites/default/files/consultation_paper_-_july_2023.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department also seeks information about whether it may be 
necessary and appropriate to impose any requirements on ticket agents 
or indirect air carriers. For example, should the Department require 
ticket agents or indirect air carriers to notify consumers of available 
services, reimbursements, or compensation provided by airlines for 
controllable delays or cancellations or refund the fare to consumers if 
the ticket agent or indirect air carrier is the merchant of record and 
the passenger elects to return to his or her origination point after 
the passenger is delayed at a connecting airport?
(b) Covered Flights
    To which flights should any requirements apply? The Department is 
considering as its primary option applying any requirements to flight 
itineraries to, from, or within the United States, including 
itineraries with brief and incidental stopover(s) at a foreign point 
without a break in the journey.
    The Department is considering defining break in journey consistent 
with the Department's recently issued Refund Rules.\52\ Under those 
rules, a ``break in journey'' is any deliberate interruption by a 
passenger of a journey between a point in the United States and a point 
in a foreign country where there is a stopover at a foreign point that 
is scheduled to exceed 24 hours. If the stopover at a foreign point is 
24 hours or less, those rules specify that whether the stop is a break 
in journey would depend on various factors, such as whether the segment 
between two foreign points and the segment between a foreign point and 
the United States were purchased in a single transaction and as a 
single ticket/itinerary, whether the segment between two foreign points 
is operated or marketed by a carrier that has no codeshare or interline 
agreement with the carrier operating or marketing the segment to or 
from the United States, and whether the stopover at a foreign point 
involves the passenger picking up checked baggage, leaving the airport, 
and continuing the next segment after a substantial amount of time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \52\ See 89 FR 32833.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Should the Department impose requirements on airlines to provide 
services and compensation to consumers experiencing significant flight 
disruptions to, from, or within the United States? If so, should those 
requirements apply to itineraries with brief and incidental stopover(s) 
at a foreign point without a break in the journey like the Refund 
Rules? Under that approach, delays or cancellations to flight segments 
not initiated by the passenger, whether controllable by the airline or 
not, would not result in a break in journey as only deliberate 
interruptions by the passenger would constitute a break in journey. The 
Department solicits comment on whether there is any reason not to cover 
brief stopovers at a foreign point without a break in the journey. The 
Department also asks whether there are flight segments or itineraries 
involving a point in the United States that should be excluded from 
coverage for any areas being contemplated by this rulemaking. If so, 
why? Alternatively, should the Department consider establishing a 
bright line rule on coverage of flights with a break in journey of less 
than 24 hours rather than relying on a multi-factor test if airlines 
would be required to promptly offer to provide rebooking and 
reimbursements? If so, why?
(c) Multiple Entities Involved
    Which carrier should bear responsibility for providing compensation 
or services such as meals or hotels if required during a controllable 
cancellation or delay when one carrier ``sold'' the airline ticket 
(i.e., the merchant of record for the ticket transaction),\53\ but the 
flight is operated by a different carrier? What if the merchant of 
record is a ticket agent? Which option would be the easiest and 
clearest for the consumer? Based on comments provided by the American 
Society of Travel Advisors in the Department's Refund Rule, it is the 
Department's understanding that the ticket agent's name appears as the 
merchant of record in five to eight percent of all airline ticket 
transactions by credit cards facilitated by ticket agents, the majority 
of which involve group bookings, air-inclusive tour packages, or resale 
of consolidated fares.\54\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \53\ A merchant of record means the entity responsible for 
processing payments for the airfare, as shown in the consumer's 
financial charge statements such as debit or credit card charge 
statements.
    \54\ See comment at 4, available at https://www.regulations.gov/comment/DOT-OST-2022-0089-5192.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Should the Department consider requiring the merchants of record to 
be responsible for providing compensation for controllable delays and 
cancellations? How would the Department account for situations where 
the merchant of record is a ticket agent with no control on whether a 
flight is delayed or canceled? The Department requires merchants of 
record to be responsible for providing required refunds for airline 
ticket transactions because they have direct visibility of the 
passengers' payment instruments information and the total amounts paid 
for the itineraries. Does that rationale apply to compensation?
    One option under consideration is for the operating carrier to be 
responsible for compliance. Would holding the operating carrier 
responsible ensure that the carrier that is making the operational 
decisions that affect the flight's performance is accountable? Are 
there reasons the ``marketing carrier'' should be responsible? For 
example, do ``marketing carriers'' often make planning decisions such 
as which flights are cancelled? Should responsibility be tied to 
consumer perception of which carrier is in control? Do consumers 
associate branded codeshare partners and their marketing partners, for 
example SkyWest operating as United Express, or Jazz Aviation operating 
as Air Canada Express, as the same carrier? If the operating carrier 
were responsible, should the operating carrier be allowed to rely on 
their marketing codeshare partner to issue compensation to consumers or 
assist in providing services such as meals or hotels to consumers on 
their behalf? The

[[Page 99768]]

Department notes that the assignment of responsibility to the operating 
carrier would be consistent with carrier responsibility for providing 
compensation and services under the EU and Canadian regulations.\55\ 
Please provide any relevant information regarding the EU or Canadian 
regulations that the Department should consider.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \55\ See EC No 261/2004, Article 3.5; APPRs ] 2; see also 
Canadian Transportation Agency, Application of the Air Passenger 
Protection Regulations: A Guide at 7, available at https://otc-cta.gc.ca/sites/default/files/application_of_the_air_passenger_protection_regulations_a_guide.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Should the Department consider assigning responsibility 
differently, such as by assigning joint responsibility to carriers with 
certain arrangements? If so, under what carrier arrangements would 
joint responsibility be appropriate for domestic or foreign air 
carriers, and what would be the appropriate terminology to describe the 
relationship for which joint responsibility would apply (e.g., fee-for-
service arrangements, branded codeshare partnerships, or another 
terminology)? Should carrier responsibility vary depending on the 
service, reimbursement, or compensation owed? For example, should the 
operating carrier be responsible for providing any rebooking, while the 
marketing carrier bears responsibility for compensation and 
reimbursements, which the carrier could have more time to provide? 
Should the Department require joint and several liability in some or 
all circumstances? Should any special considerations apply to the 
assignment of responsibility for multi-carrier itineraries? Should the 
final airline in a multi-carrier itinerary be responsible for any 
compensation requirements, similar to how airlines have generally 
handled responsibility for mishandled baggage traveling on multi-
carrier itineraries?

(2) Definition of Controllable

    The Department is considering defining ``controllable'' 
cancellations or delays to be those due in whole or in part to any 
circumstance within the control of the airline. Under this approach, 
the requirements of any rule would apply if a delay or cancellation 
involves any factors or event within the control of the airline, 
including its operating partner, and their employees, subcontractors, 
or other persons working on their behalf. This approach is being 
considered to create a standard that can be applied consistently across 
carriers. It could also address concerns that were noted by a State AG 
office at the December 2021 ACPAC public meeting that airlines may 
choose to attribute a delay to weather when the delay is also directly 
attributable to an airline. This approach is also consistent with the 
requirements of section 512 of the 2024 FAA Act, which instructs the 
Department to direct air carriers to establish policies for 
reimbursements for costs of meals, lodging, and transportation to and 
from that lodging that are due to flight cancellations and significant 
delays directly attributable to the air carrier.
    The Department seeks comment on whether this approach for 
consideration is the most appropriate or whether it should adopt any 
alternatives. How should the Department treat cancellations or delays 
with multiple causes, including when some airline cause is involved? 
The Department's Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS), which 
requires U.S. carriers that account for at least 0.5 percent of the 
domestic scheduled-passenger revenues to report monthly on the causes 
of delayed and cancelled flights, allows multiple causes to be reported 
for delays but requires one cause to be reported for a 
cancellation.\56\ Generally, airlines report on the predominant cause 
of a cancellation when there are multiple causes for a cancellation. As 
such, instead of treating a delay or cancellation as controllable if 
any cause is within the airline's control, should the Department treat 
a delay or cancellation as controllable only if the predominant cause 
of the delay or cancellation is within the airline's control? If so, 
how should the Department define predominant cause? What effect, if 
any, would each of those approaches likely have on airline performance?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \56\ 14 CFR part 234.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Also, BTS requires airlines to report on the causes of delayed 
flights in five broad categories--air carrier, extreme weather, 
National Aviation System, security, and late arriving aircraft.\57\ 
Airlines may use the reporting category of ``late arriving aircraft'' 
even if the cause of the late arriving aircraft was due to a 
circumstance within control of the air carrier. How should the 
Department treat a delay caused by a late arriving aircraft for the 
purposes of determining which delays are controllable under any rule? 
Should the Department consider the root cause of any late arriving 
aircraft for the purposes of determining whether a delay resulting from 
an aircraft arriving late is controllable? Flight disruptions occurring 
early in the day can disrupt multiple flights using the same aircraft 
downline. If attributing the root cause of a late arriving aircraft is 
appropriate, should there be a cut-off point at which a root cause 
should not be considered for down-line delays? ``Late arriving 
aircraft'' is not available as a causal category to airlines when 
reporting causes for cancellations to BTS.\58\ U.S. carriers are 
required to report causes of cancellations to BTS in four broad 
categories--air carrier, extreme weather, National Aviation System, and 
security.\59\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \57\ 14 CFR 234.4(i).
    \58\ 14 CFR 234.4(h).
    \59\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department is of the tentative view that it would not be 
sufficient to define controllable cancellations or delays without 
providing examples of the delay and cancellation causes that it 
believes are within the control of the carrier. It is considering 
basing these examples on a non-exclusive list used by BTS as a guide 
for the type of occurrences that should be reported as ``air carrier 
delay or cancellation'' when U.S. carriers categorize delays and 
cancellations of domestic scheduled passenger flights and report these 
delays to BTS. This list is available in the latest comprehensive BTS 
reporting directive discussing causal reporting dated December 12, 
2018.\60\ The BTS reporting categories, which were first developed by 
the Department in 2002 through notice-and-comment rulemaking, are 
further explained in reporting directives issued by BTS.\61\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \60\ BTS has clarified that the Department's list of air carrier 
caused delays and cancellations developed under 14 CFR 234.4 
``should not be considered a complete list.'' BTS Technical 
Reporting Directive #31--On-Time Performance (Dec. 12, 2018) at 27, 
available at https://www.bts.gov/sites/bts.dot.gov/files/docs/explore-topics-and-geography/topics/airlines-and-airports/224571/technical-directive-no-31-time-2019_1.pdf.
    \61\ Reporting the Causes of Airline Delays and Cancellations, 
67 FR 70535 (Nov. 25, 2002); see, e.g., BTS Technical Reporting 
Directive #31--On-Time Performance (Dec. 12, 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under the December 2018 BTS directive, the following events are 
considered air carrier-caused, or in other words, due to circumstances 
within air carrier control: aircraft cleaning, aircraft damage (except 
bird strikes, lightening/hail damage), airport curfew, awaiting the 
arrival of connecting passengers or crew, awaiting alcohol test, 
awaiting gate space, baggage loading, cabin servicing, cargo loading, 
catering, computer outages involving carrier equipment, crew legality 
(pilot or attendant rest), damage by hazardous goods, engineering 
inspection, public health, flight paperwork, fueling, gate congestion, 
government forms not properly completed (INS, FAA, Agriculture),

[[Page 99769]]

ground equipment out of service, hot brakes restriction, last minute 
passenger, late mail from post office, late crew, lavatory servicing, 
maintenance, medical emergency, out of service aircraft, oversales, 
positive passenger baggage match, passenger services, potable water 
servicing, pre-flight check, ramp congestion (blocked by another 
aircraft under carrier's control), ramp service, removal of unruly 
passenger, revised weight sheet, shortage of ramp equipment, slow 
boarding or seating, snow removal (when it is a carrier ramp service 
function), stowing carry-on baggage, and weight and balance delays.\62\ 
While not currently listed in the BTS directive, the Department is also 
considering clarifying that delays and cancellations caused by labor 
strikes of airline personnel are controllable because the Department 
believes airlines are best capable of addressing or mitigating such 
delays and cancellations through effective labor management. The 
Department invites comment on this issue.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \62\ BTS Technical Reporting Directive #31--On-Time Performance 
(Dec. 12, 2018) at 27-28.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 511 of the 2024 FAA Act instructed BTS to revise its 
regulation covering the ``air carrier'' category for the purposes of 
airline reporting to BTS under 14 CFR 234.4. Section 511 further 
provides a list of causes of delay that shall not be included in the 
``air carrier'' reporting category in the revised BTS reporting 
regulation: (1) aircraft cleaning necessitated by the death of a 
passenger; (2) aircraft damage caused by extreme weather, foreign 
object debris, or sabotage; (3) a baggage or cargo loading delay caused 
by an outage of a bag system not controlled by a carrier or its 
contractor; (4) cybersecurity attacks (provided that the air carrier is 
in compliance with applicable cybersecurity regulations); (5) a 
shutdown or system failure of government systems that directly affects 
the ability of an air carrier to safely conduct flights and is 
unexpected; (6) overheated brakes due to a safety incident resulting in 
the use of emergency procedures; (7) unscheduled maintenance, including 
in response to an airworthiness directive, manifesting outside a 
scheduled maintenance program that cannot be deferred or must be 
addressed before flight; (8) an emergency that required medical 
attention through no fault of the carrier; (9) the removal of an unruly 
passenger; and (10) an airport closure due to the presence of volcanic 
ash, wind, or wind shear. The Department issued the rule addressing the 
reportable causes of delay and cancellation in 14 CFR 234.4 under 
different statutory authorities than those it relies upon in this 
rulemaking, and the 2024 FAA Act does not require the Department to 
incorporate those statutory exclusions from the ``air carrier'' 
reporting category described in section 511 in this rulemaking.\63\ 
Nevertheless, the Department welcomes comments on whether it should or 
shouldn't consider the aforementioned causes of delay as airline-caused 
for purposes of this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \63\ The Department issued 14 CFR part 234 under 49 U.S.C. 329, 
41708, and 41709.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department notes that the EU and Canada have requirements for 
services and compensation in similar circumstances to those addressed 
in this ANPRM. The EU currently requires compensation for cancellations 
and delays of three hours or more, unless the airline proves that the 
cancellation or delay is ``caused by extraordinary circumstances which 
could not have been avoided even if all reasonable measures had been 
taken.'' \64\ The term ``extraordinary circumstances'' has been 
interpreted and narrowly construed in a series of decisions by the 
Court of Justice of the European Union.\65\ In 2013, the European 
Commission proposed to revise its regulation, EC 261, to provide a list 
of causes that would be included and excluded from the definition of 
``extraordinary circumstances,'' but that proposal was not 
finalized.\66\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \64\ EC No 261/2004, Article 5.3; see also Joined Cases C-402/07 
and C-432/07, Sturgeon v. Air France, 2009 E.C.R. I-10923, ] 69 
(applying EU compensation requirements to delays of three hours or 
more).
    \65\ See EU Interpretive Guidelines at C 214/15-17 (summarizing 
cases).
    \66\ The 2013 EU proposal would have included the following non-
exhaustive list of extraordinary circumstances: natural disasters 
rendering impossible the safe operation of the flight; technical 
problems which are not inherent in the normal operation of the 
aircraft, including hidden manufacturing defects revealed by the 
manufacturer or a competent authority and which impinges on flight 
safety; security risks, acts of sabotage or terrorism rendering 
impossible the safe operation of the flight; life threatening health 
risks or medical emergencies necessitating the interruption or 
deviation of the flight concerned; air traffic management 
restrictions or closure of airspace or an airport; meteorological 
conditions incompatible with flight safety; and labor disputes at 
the operating carrier or at essential service providers. See 
Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the 
Council Amending Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 Establishing Common 
Rules on Compensation and Assistance to Passengers in the Event of 
Denied Boarding and of Cancellation or Long Delay of Flights and 
Regulation (EC) No 2027/97 on Air Carrier Liability in Respect of 
the Carriage of Passengers and Their Baggage by Air, COM(2013), 
available at eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/
?uri=CELEX:52013PC0130.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Canadian APPRs currently require airlines to provide 
compensation for cancellations and delays of three hours or more that 
are within the airline's control and not required for safety 
purposes.\67\ In 2023, the Canadian Transportation Agency (CTA) began a 
consultation to revise the APPRs. In its consultation paper, the CTA 
proposed to eliminate the categories in the existing APPRs and to move 
to a mode more similar to EC 261, requiring ``compensation for 
inconvenience for all flight disruptions unless there are exceptional 
circumstances.'' \68\ To fall within the proposed definition of 
exceptional circumstances, the CTA consultation paper would require 
that the event causing the disruption ``must have been outside the 
airline's control, and not inherent to the normal exercise of the 
activities of the airline,'' and that the ``event could not be avoided 
even if the airline took all reasonable measures to do so.'' \69\ The 
CTA consultation paper provided a proposed list of events that would 
and would not constitute exceptional circumstances.\70\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \67\ APPRs, ] 19.
    \68\ Canadian Transportation Agency, Consultation Paper: 
Proposed Changes to Clarify, Simplify and Strengthen the Air 
Passenger Protection Regulations at 6, available at https://otc-cta.gc.ca/sites/default/files/consultation_paper_-_july_2023.pdf.
    \69\ Id.
    \70\ Those circumstances considered exceptional would include: 
security risks such as war, political instability, illegal acts, 
sabotage, and terrorism; weather or other atmospheric conditions, or 
natural disasters, that make it impossible to safely operate the 
flight, airport operational issues for which the airline is not 
responsible; hidden manufacturing defects that come to light and 
affect flight safety; health risks or medical emergencies on route 
that require a flight diversion or discovered shortly before flight 
departure that make it impossible to safely operate the flight; air 
traffic management restrictions, airspace closures, and airport 
closures; an official NOTAM; orders or instructions from state, law 
enforcement agency, or airport security officials; and labor 
disruptions at the airline or by essential air service providers 
like airport managers, air navigation personnel, or ground handlers. 
Those circumstances not considered exceptional would include flight 
crew or cabin crew unavailability; staff shortages at the airline; 
technical problems that are an inherent part of normal airline 
operations; any situation the airline knew about, or should have 
known about, when it sold the ticket to the passenger; and any 
action, or failure to act, by the airline or others with which the 
airline has a contractual relationship. Id. at 7-8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department seeks comment on whether this approach under 
consideration, which is to rely largely on the list of ``air carrier'' 
causes from the 2018 BTS directive, is the most appropriate approach 
for the Department to use to determine whether a delay or cancellation 
is controllable and asks for feedback on potential alternatives. Are 
there benefits to using the currently applicable EU or Canadian

[[Page 99770]]

categories or any categories for assessing delays and cancellations 
that those jurisdictions have proposed but not enacted? In addition to 
the Department's requests for comment on specific EU and Canadian 
requirements throughout this ANPRM, the Department also requests 
comment on whether there are any additional elements of any current or 
proposed EU or Canadian regulations covering controllable cancellations 
and delays (including services and compensation available to passengers 
during such delays) that the Department should adopt in any rule.
    Should the Department consider any alternatives for defining 
controllable? Should the Department consider applying requirements for 
services when a delay or cancellation is not within the control of the 
airline? For example, the Department is considering requiring airlines 
to provide certain services, such as rebooking, meals, and hotels on 
domestic flights, regardless of the reason for the flight disruption, 
as failing to provide those services may not be ``adequate'' service 
under 49 U.S.C. 41702. If so, what provisions should apply and why?

(3) Rebooking

(a) General Rebooking Provisions
    Should the Department require airlines to offer rebooking, at no 
additional cost, to a passenger whose trip is disrupted because of a 
lengthy, controllable flight delay or cancellation and, if so, under 
what circumstances should rebooking be required? One option the 
Department is considering is requiring airlines to promptly offer 
rebooking without charge on the next available flight to any passenger: 
(1) whose flight is cancelled due to circumstances, in whole or in 
part, attributable to the carrier; (2) whose flight is delayed due to 
circumstances, in whole or in part, attributable to the carrier 
resulting in the passenger missing a connection on a single ticket; and 
(3) whose departure on a flight is significantly delayed (i.e., delayed 
three hours or more for domestic flight or delayed six hours or more 
for an international flight), in whole or in part, attributable to the 
carrier.
    This method is generally consistent with the commitments the 
largest U.S. airlines have already made in their customer service plans 
to provide rebooking at no additional cost in the event of a 
controllable cancellation or a significant controllable delay as 
reflected on the Department's Airline Customer Service Dashboard.\71\ 
However, unlike some customer service commitments that do not define 
when a delay is significant, the Department is considering requiring 
airlines to offer rebooking when the passenger's departure is delayed 
three hours or more for domestic flights and six hours or more for 
international flights due to a lengthy, controllable flight delay or 
cancellation. Additionally, regardless of the length of delay if a 
controllable delay results in a missed connection, the Department is 
considering requiring airlines to offer rebooking on the next available 
flight.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \71\ See https://www.transportation.gov/airconsumer/airline-customer-service-dashboard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under this approach, the rebooking offered to a passenger whose 
departure on a flight is significantly delayed would be prompt and 
without charge on the next available flight. The Department is 
considering defining significant delay to be a delay of three hours or 
more for domestic flight or a delay of six hours or more for an 
international flight, in whole or in part, attributable to the carrier. 
This is consistent with section 512 of the 2024 FAA Act, which requires 
the Department to direct certain air carriers to establish policies 
regarding reimbursements for the costs of meals, lodging, and 
transportation to and from that lodging incurred by passengers whose 
flights are cancelled or ``significantly delayed.'' Section 512 defines 
``significantly delayed'' to mean delayed three hours or more for a 
domestic flight and six hours or more for an international flight. 
These thresholds are also consistent with the definition of a 
significantly delayed flight in section 503 of the 2024 FAA Act and 
Department's recent Refund Rules.\72\ The Department is considering 
whether to apply the delay standards in section 512 of the 2024 FAA Act 
not only to rebooking requirements but also to compensation 
requirements and invites comment on whether it should do so. Would a 
consistent definition of significant delay that would entitle consumers 
to services or compensation promote awareness of passenger rights and 
reduce logistical burdens for airlines?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \72\ 89 FR 32833; 89 FR 65536-37.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department requests comment on the appropriateness of this 
approach under consideration. Should the Department adopt this approach 
or should it adopt a different approach? For example, EU and Canadian 
rules provide for rebooking when a scheduled flight is cancelled, 
regardless of the reason for the cancellation.\73\ Should the 
Department, like the EU and Canada, require airlines to provide 
rebooking regardless of the reason for the cancellation based on its 
authority to require safe and adequate interstate transportation in 49 
U.S.C. 41702? The Canadian rules require airlines to rebook passengers 
on another flight if their original flight is delayed for three hours 
or more whether that flight is domestic or international or if the 
original flight is cancelled.\74\ Should requirements to provide 
rebooking for controllable delays of international flights be based on 
three-hour delays instead of six-hour delays?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \73\ EC No 261/2004, Articles 5.1(a), 8; APPRs ]] 10(3), 17, 18.
    \74\ APPRs ]] 17, 18.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Are there any circumstances in which rebooking requirements for 
controllable flight disruptions should not apply? What rebooking 
requirements, if any, should apply when a passenger does not accept the 
initial rebooking offered by the airline after a controllable delay or 
cancellation? Under what circumstances do airlines typically offer free 
rebooking? Under what circumstances do airlines typically charge for 
rebooking?
(b) Rebooking on Other Airlines
    The Department is considering requiring an airline to offer an 
affected passenger the next available flight among flights operated by 
the airline and its branded codeshare partners. As discussed earlier in 
this ANPRM, a ``branded codeshare partner'' typically operates flights 
for the mainline carrier using the mainline carrier's name. The 
mainline carrier in this arrangement is generally responsible for 
selling the tickets for the flight, and consumers likely would consider 
the two carriers to be one entity when purchasing airline tickets.
    If no flight operated by that airline or its branded codeshare 
partner would depart within 24 hours of the passenger's original 
scheduled departure time, the Department is also considering requiring 
an airline to offer rebooking on the next available departing flight 
among those operated by that airline, its branded codeshare partner, 
and any carrier with which the airline has a commercial agreement, 
interline or codeshare, to transport the airline's passengers. An 
``interline agreement'' is a commercial agreement that enables the 
airlines to work together in providing services to passengers when the 
passengers travel on multiple airlines on a single itinerary. The 
agreement typically covers baggage handling, so passengers can check 
bags seamlessly to their final destination, and a ticketing agreement, 
to allow a passenger to obtain boarding

[[Page 99771]]

passes to their destination. Typically, interline agreements enable the 
airlines to rebook passengers on one another's flights at a pre-
negotiated below-market cost when there is an irregular operation.
    Several of the largest U.S. airlines have committed in their 
customer service plans to rebook passengers on a partner airline or 
another airline with which it has an agreement at no additional cost 
when there is a controllable cancellation or significant controllable 
delay.\75\ Some airlines condition their commitment to use partner 
carriers on their own flights not being available until the next day. 
This is consistent with the option under consideration of requiring an 
airline to offer rebooking on any carrier by with which the airline has 
a commercial agreement to transport the airline's passengers only if 
the airline cannot provide rebooking within 24 hours using its own 
branded network.\76\ Some airlines do not have interline or rebooking 
agreements with other carriers and have not made these commitments. 
Usually, ultra low-cost carriers (ULCCs) do not have these agreements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \75\ See https://www.transportation.gov/airconsumer/airline-customer-service-dashboard.
    \76\ See e.g., American Airlines Customer Service Plan updated 
July 19, 2024, available at https://www.aa.com/i18n/customer-service/support/customer-service-plan.jsp.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department requests comment on whether it should adopt the 
options described for rebooking or if it should adopt an alternate 
option and why. What effect, if any, would a requirement to provide 
rebooking on a carrier with which an airline has an interline or 
rebooking agreement have on competition among airlines, including those 
who do not have interline agreements? If the Department should require 
an airline to offer rebooking on a carrier with which it has an 
interline or rebooking agreement, should the Department require 
airlines to publish a list of their interline partners?
    At what point, if at all, should the Department require an airline 
to offer rebooking on another carrier that is not its partner airline? 
The Canadian APPRs require large airlines to use any carrier to rebook 
passengers if they cannot rebook passengers on their own or a partner's 
next available flight leaving that airport within nine hours for 
controllable cancellations and controllable delays of three hours or 
more. For cancellations and delays outside the carrier's control, the 
Canadian APPR requires large airlines to use a non-partner carrier if 
the airline cannot rebook passengers on their own or a partner's next 
available flight leaving that airport within 48 hours of the departure 
time on the passenger's ticket for cancellations and delays of three 
hours or more.\77\ Also, under the Canadian APPRs, if the airline 
cannot provide rebooking from the airport where the passenger is 
located that departs within 48 hours, large airlines must use any 
airline leaving from a nearby airport for rebooking and must get the 
passenger to the other airport free of charge.\78\ Should DOT impose 
similar requirements? What effect, if any, would a requirement to 
provide rebooking on any carrier, including non-partner carriers, have 
on competition among airlines?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \77\ See APPRs ]] 17 (1)(a), 18(1).
    \78\ See APPRs ]] 17(1)(a)(iii), 18(1.1)(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Canadian APPRs currently do not require small airlines to 
rebook passengers using a non-partner airline.\79\ In 2023, the CTA 
initiated a consultation to revise the APPRs. In its consultation 
paper, the CTA proposed to expand requirements to rebook using any 
airline to small airlines, if they cannot rebook on their flight or 
their partner's flight within 24 hours.\80\ In addition, the CTA 
proposed expanding the requirement to use nearby airports after 48 
hours to small carriers.\81\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \79\ See APPRs ]] 17(1)(b), 18(1.1)(b).
    \80\ Canadian Transportation Agency, Consultation Paper: 
Proposed Changes to Clarify, Simplify and Strengthen the Air 
Passenger Protection Regulations at 10, available at https://otc-cta.gc.ca/sites/default/files/consultation_paper_-_july_2023.pdf.
    \81\ Id. at 11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Public comments on the Canadian proposal highlight consumer 
organizations' general support for eliminating distinctions between 
large and small airlines to better protect passengers.\82\ Small 
airlines raised issues that rebooking on another airline and/or 
rebooking within 24 hours is not realistic if one airline operates from 
the airport or there is a low volume of flights.\83\ Some industry 
members proposed that rebooking obligations only apply when there are 
viable rebooking options.\84\ One airline suggested that rebooking on 
an unaffiliated airline should not be a requirement and that the 
passenger should be able to choose the rebooking options that best 
suits their needs, including being able to choose to rebook with the 
same airline versus a different one.\85\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \82\ Canadian Transportation Agency, Consultations on Proposed 
Changes to Strengthen the Air Passenger Protection Regulations: What 
We Heard at 11-12, available at https://otc-cta.gc.ca/sites/default/files/consultations_on_proposed_changes_to_strengthen_the_air_passenger_protection_regulations_what_we_heard.pdf.
    \83\ Id. at 12.
    \84\ Id.
    \85\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department's options under consideration currently apply the 
same rebooking requirements to smaller airlines as to larger airlines. 
However, the Department invites comment on whether it should adopt that 
approach or a different one. Should the Department not impose any 
requirements or have reduced requirements to rebook passengers on other 
airlines after controllable flight disruptions by small airlines given 
these airlines may not have interline agreements and may need to pay 
the ticket price to transport their passengers on another airline? Is 
it fair to passengers flying on small airlines not to be provided 
rebooking on other airlines for controllable flight disruptions, 
particularly when the network of a small airline may be more limited? 
How, if at all, can the Department incentivize large airlines to 
provide rebooking reciprocity to small airlines during cancellations 
and lengthy delays, or disincentivize large airline practices that 
prevent reciprocity, in order to improve the options for consumers and 
facilitate competition? What additional requirements might be necessary 
to ensure that small carriers are not disadvantaged by the size and 
scale of their networks or other competitive factors that impact their 
ability to rebook passengers at the same general rate and cost as 
larger carriers? If small airlines are not required to rebook on other 
airlines, how should the Department determine which airlines are 
small--based on size of aircraft, number of U.S. enplanements, revenue, 
number of employees, or other criteria? Also, what is the best way to 
ensure passengers are aware of a two-tiered approach? For example, what 
sorts of disclosures, if any, should passengers flying on small 
airlines be provided regarding rebooking should there be flight 
disruptions under any two-tiered approach?
    In the alternative, should the Department require rebooking on 
other airlines by small airlines but consider more stringent rebooking 
requirements for large U.S. and foreign airlines with flights to, 
within, and from the United States? For example, should the Department 
require large U.S. and foreign airlines to provide rebooking on any 
carrier if the airline cannot rebook passengers on their own or a 
partner's next available flight within nine hours instead of within 24 
hours? This would be similar to the current Canadian

[[Page 99772]]

APPRs, which apply that requirement to large airlines. If the 
Department were to adopt more stringent requirements for large 
airlines, how should the Department determine which airlines are 
large--based on size of aircraft, number of U.S. enplanements, revenue, 
or other criteria? If based on revenue, should the focus be on any U.S. 
carrier that accounts for at least 10 percent of the domestic scheduled 
passenger revenue in the most recently reported 12-month period? \86\ 
If based on enplanements, is the appropriate threshold for foreign air 
carriers at least two million total enplanements to or from the United 
States? \87\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \86\ Four U.S. carriers--American Airlines, Delta Air Lines, 
United Airlines, and Southwest Airlines--exceeded this threshold in 
2023, all with over 15 percent of domestic scheduled passenger 
revenue. No other carrier comprised more than six percent of 
domestic scheduled passenger revenue. See docket at https://www.regulations.gov/docket/DOT-OST-2024-0062/.
    \87\ Eighteen foreign carriers exceeded two million total 
enplanements to and from the United States in 2023. See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(c) Rebooking on Next Available Flight
    The option under consideration is to require airlines to offer to 
rebook affected passengers on their next available departing flight in 
the passenger's reserved class of service that would advance the 
passenger to the final stop of their itinerary. Does this option ensure 
passengers are reaccommodated as soon as possible on a reasonable and 
productive route, without adversely affecting passengers with confirmed 
seats or passengers that might need priority or blocked seats, such as 
passengers with disabilities? If the Department should require 
rebooking on the next available flight, how should the Department 
define available? How, if at all, should the Department address 
rebooking for multiple passengers traveling on the same reservation? 
How do airlines currently approach free rebooking during controllable 
disruptions? How long from the time of a cancellation or significant 
delay does it typically take for an airline to place a passenger on a 
replacement flight? How do the airlines decide which passengers to 
rebook when upcoming flights have limited capacity? Are there current 
industry rebooking practices that the Department should consider either 
incorporating into a regulation or prohibiting as part of this 
rulemaking? Would rebooking a passenger on the next available flight be 
feasible for airlines in practice? Is this option appropriate to best 
serve affected passengers? Should any rebooking requirement provide 
more flexibility for passengers? Even if the airline can rebook the 
passenger within 24 hours, should the Department require an airline to 
offer a passenger the option to select any comparable future rebooking 
on that airline in case the original itinerary no longer meets the 
passenger's travel needs? If so, how long should airlines be required 
to make that option available, and how far in the future should the 
passenger be permitted to rebook without charge? For example, should 
the passenger be required to rebook within 24 hours of the flight 
disruption, a week, or another time period? Should the future flight 
selected be limited to comparable flights departing within a month, a 
year, or another time period? How would the Department define 
comparable future rebooking? If rebooking is not comparable, should 
airlines explicitly be required in a rule to also provide a refund to 
account for any difference in cost or value? For example, should 
airlines explicitly be required in a rule to rebook and refund the 
difference in fare if the passenger is downgraded in fare class?
(d) Returning Consumers to the Point of Origin When Rebooking Is 
Declined
    The Department is considering requiring that, when a passenger 
misses a connection because of a controllable flight cancellation or 
flight delay and the rebooking offered by the airline would cause the 
passenger to be delayed in arriving at their final stop 24 hours or 
more, the airline must offer the passenger the option of the next 
available return flight to the passenger's original departure point of 
that portion of their itinerary (outbound, intermediate, return) at no 
additional cost and a refund of the cost of the entire portion of their 
itinerary with the missed connection (including used segments of that 
portion) and all subsequent portions of their itinerary. This would be 
similar to a provision of the Canadian APPRs, which require an airline 
to provide a refund and return to the point of origin if the 
passenger's travel no longer serves its purpose because of the 
cancellation or lengthy delay and the passenger is no longer at the 
point of origin (e.g., is delayed departing at a connecting point).\88\ 
Should the Department impose a requirement on airlines to return 
consumers to the point of origin when the passenger is delayed at a 
connecting point and no longer wishes to continue their journey? Why or 
why not? If the Department were to impose such a requirement, should it 
apply only for extended delays or, similar to the Canadian APPRs, be 
based on whether the passenger states that his or her travel no longer 
serves its purpose? Should delays at a connecting point of 24 hours or 
more be considered extended delays or is there a more appropriate 
threshold on what is an extended delay? Are there reasons the 
Department should not require a refund for portions of the itinerary 
already traveled?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \88\ APPRs ]] 17(2)(a), 18(1.2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(e) Rebooking Protections When the Airline Makes a Significant Change 
to a Passenger's Flight Itinerary, Including for Passengers With 
Disabilities
    What rebooking protections should apply when an airline makes 
significant changes to a passenger's itinerary, including a significant 
change that affects accessibility for a passenger with a disability? 
The Department is considering proposing to require airlines to promptly 
offer rebooking at no additional cost to a passenger who is an 
individual with a disability (and any individuals in the same travel 
party) upon notification that the individual decides not to travel on 
the flight due to any of the following changes: the individual with a 
disability (1) is downgraded to a lower class of service that results 
in one or more accessibility features needed by the individual becoming 
unavailable; (2) is scheduled to depart from, arrive to, or connect 
through one or more airports that are different from the original 
itinerary; or (3) is scheduled to travel on substitute aircraft on 
which one or more accessibility features available on the original 
aircraft needed by the individual are unavailable. The Department is 
considering proposing that the airline must offer rebooking on the next 
departing flight by that airline or its branded codeshare partner that 
advances the passenger to the final stop of their itinerary, 
accommodates the individual with a disability, and has open seats for 
the individual and for all other in the same travel party. The 
Department is considering proposing to apply this requirement 
regardless of whether the reason for the change was within the 
airline's control. In addition, if no flight operated by that airline 
or its branded codeshare partner would depart within 24 hours of the 
passenger's original scheduled departure time, the Department is also 
considering requiring an airline to offer rebooking on the next 
available departing flight among those operated by that airline, its 
branded codeshare partner, and any carrier with which the airline has a 
commercial agreement, interline or codeshare, to transport the 
airline's passengers.

[[Page 99773]]

    In the rulemaking, Refunds and Other Consumer Protections, two 
disability rights advocacy groups, Paralyzed Veterans of America and 
United Spinal Association, commented that, from the perspective of 
passengers with disabilities, any change to the origination, 
connection, and destination airport should be considered a 
``significant change of flight itinerary.'' \89\ These commenters 
stated that when booking flights, passengers with disabilities may rely 
on the specific accessibility features of an airport to select the 
flights and itinerary, and this may include selecting a particular 
connecting airport based on the accessibility features needed to 
accommodate their disabilities during the layover time. In addition, 
the Paralyzed Veterans of America noted that a ``refund'' is 
purposeless if the passenger is stranded and requested the Department 
require airlines to ``expeditiously locate and offer alternative 
transportation that meets the specific needs of the passenger with a 
disability.'' \90\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \89\ See Comment from Paralyzed Veterans of America at 2, 
available at https://www.regulations.gov/comment/DOT-OST-2022-0089-5262, comment from United Spinal Association, available at https://www.regulations.gov/comment/DOT-OST-2022-0089-5304.
    \90\ See Comment from Paralyzed Veterans of America at 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For example, when finding alternative transportation for 
individuals with disabilities who use wheelchairs, it is imperative 
that the alternative transportation selected is one where the 
passenger's wheelchair can be safely stowed. In February 2022, the 
Department's Air Carrier Access Act (ACAA) Advisory Committee issued a 
report that recognized the importance of logistical planning to ensure 
that wheelchairs are safely accommodated on aircraft. The Advisory 
Committee unanimously agreed on the benefit of passengers with 
disabilities completing airline forms describing their wheelchairs 
(e.g., device dimensions, battery type) and recommended that a group 
that includes disability organizations, airlines, airports, aircraft 
manufacturers, and wheelchair manufacturers work together to improve 
consistency within existing airline forms for handling wheelchairs. It 
is the Department's understanding that this working group, led by the 
International Air Transport Association (IATA), intends to complete its 
work by the end of 2024.\91\ To ensure that any rebooking requirements 
provide equitable access to air transportation to people with 
disabilities, there may be a need for consistent forms for wheelchairs. 
Should the Department require a consistent wheelchair handling form 
across airlines for air transportation to, from and within the United 
States? If so, what information should be included? Should the 
Department adopt the form developed by the working group led by IATA?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \91\ See Final Report, ACAA Advisory Committee Recommendations 
at 9-10 (Feb. 4, 2022), available at https://www.regulations.gov/document/DOT-OST-2018-0204-0040.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Should the Department propose the rebooking requirements for 
passengers with disabilities regardless of whether the reason for the 
cancellation or significant change was within the airline's control as 
stated earlier in this section? Should the Department only require 
airlines to provide rebooking without charge to passengers who are 
individuals with disabilities when lengthy delays and cancellations are 
within the airline's control or responsibility? Are there circumstances 
in which airlines should not be required to accommodate passengers by 
rebooking the passenger on another carrier with which the airline has a 
codeshare or interline agreement? Are there circumstances in which 
airlines should be required to accommodate passengers on a carrier with 
which the airline does not have a codeshare, interline, or any other 
agreement? If the Department proposes that airlines must provide free 
rebooking to members in the same travel party as a passenger with a 
disability, how should the Department define ``travel party,'' and how 
can airlines determine which passengers belong to the same ``travel 
party?'' Should the travel party be determined based on whether the 
passengers purchased their tickets in a single transaction, are on the 
same reservation or on linked Passenger Name Record (``PNR''), or based 
on other criteria?
    Should airlines be required to offer the option of free rebooking 
for any cancellation or significant delay or change of a domestic 
flight that qualifies for a refund under section 503 of the 2024 FAA 
Act or under the Department's Refund Rules?

(4) Compensation

(a) Compensation Amounts
    The Department is considering requiring airlines to pay cash 
compensation to passengers whose trip is disrupted because of a 
cancellation or delay due, in whole or in part, to any circumstance 
within the control of the airline. The Department seeks comment on the 
effect that requiring compensation for lengthy, controllable delays and 
cancellations may have on airline performance and profitability as well 
as the effect that such requirements would have on consumers. A working 
paper by the European University Institute supports that European 
compensation and service requirements (discussed later in this ANPRM) 
have reduced the likelihood and duration of flight delays under that 
regime, finding ``an economically important and statistically 
significant effect of EC261 regulation [covering compensation and 
services] on both departure and arrival delay, as well as on-time 
performance.'' \92\ In reaching that conclusion, the working paper 
compared flights operating on the same route around the same time that 
were covered by EC 261 with those that were not.\93\ A separate study 
contracted by the European Commission documented an overall increase in 
the number of cancellations and lengthy delays of flights covered by 
the EU regulation between 2011 and 2018.\94\ That study also documented 
reduced delays on flights covered by the EU regulation compared with 
those that were not, concluding that it was ``possible'' that the EU 
regulation ``has a marginal impact on the proportion of flights 
delayed'' but stating that the impact ``does not appear to be 
significant compared to other factors.'' \95\ In addition, the 
Department requests comment on how requiring cash compensation may 
impact consumer behavior. For example, would requiring cash 
compensation make consumers impacted by cancellations and lengthy 
flight delays more likely to continue to travel by air in the future?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \92\ See Hinnerk Gnutzmann and Piotr [Sacute]piewanowki, Can 
Regulation Improve Service Quality? Evidence from European Air 
Passenger Rights, European University Institute Working Paper, RSCAS 
2018/44 (2018) at 8, available at https://cadmus.eui.eu/bitstream/handle/1814/58304/RSCAS_2018_44.docx.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y.
    \93\ Flights arriving to the EU from locations outside the EU 
are covered by EC 261 only if the carrier is an EU carrier. See id. 
at 1 (explaining that differences in EC 261 coverage based on the 
nationality of the carrier ``makes it possible to identify the 
impact of the regulation while allowing for carrier fixed effects 
and controlling for route-time effects (e.g., caused by airspace 
congestion)'').
    \94\ See Study on the Current Level of Protection of Air 
Passenger Rights in the EU, No. MOVE/B5/2018-541 (2020), available 
at https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/f03df002-335c-11ea-ba6e-01aa75ed71a1.
    \95\ Id. at 20.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department is contemplating proposing that cash compensation 
would be due to a passenger whose arrival at the final stop of the 
itinerary is delayed by three hours or more for a domestic flight and 
six hours or more for an international flight because of a

[[Page 99774]]

controllable flight cancellation or delay. This structure is similar to 
that used in the Canadian APPRs.\96\ In addition, using a three-hour 
delay threshold for domestic flights and six-hour thresholds for 
international flights to determine whether compensation is owed is 
consistent both with the definition of significantly delayed in section 
512 of the 2024 FAA Act and with the definition of significantly 
delayed flight in the Department's recent Refund Rules.\97\ The 
Department invites comment on these time thresholds for compensation, 
including whether any compensation should be required for delays of 
less than three hours.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \96\ See APPRs, ] 19(1).
    \97\ 89 FR 32833.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To determine the compensation amounts that should be paid to 
consumers, the Department is considering two options. The first option 
is using amounts comparable to Canadian amounts of compensation 
applicable to large airlines. The second option is to base the cash 
compensation amounts on the value of passenger time and the weighted 
average flight delay. The Department seeks public comment on these 
options and will also consider additional options recommended by 
commenters.
    For the first option, the Department is considering using the same 
compensation amounts required for large airlines under the Canadian 
APPRs, converted from Canadian to U.S. dollars. Canada currently 
applies the following tiers of cash compensation requirements to 
cancellations and flight delays that are within the airline's control 
and not required for safety: \98\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \98\ APPRs ] 19(1).
    \99\ Conversions from CAD to USD estimated based on the average 
conversion rate on the Bank of Canada website for the week of 
September 3-September 10, 2024.

                 Canadian Compensation Requirements \99\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    Large carriers      Small carriers
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Delayed Arrival of 3-5:59 hours.  $400 Canadian       $125 (CAD),
                                   Dollars (CAD),      Approximately $92
                                   Approximately       USD.
                                   $295 U.S. Dollars
                                   (USD).
Delayed Arrival of 6-8:59 hours.  $700 (CAD),         $250 (CAD),
                                   Approximately       Approximately
                                   $517 USD.           $185 USD.
Delayed Arrival of 9+ hours.....  $1,000 (CAD),       $500 (CAD),
                                   Approximately       Approximately
                                   $738 USD.           $369 USD.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department is considering whether to use amounts similar to 
Canada to ensure U.S. passenger compensation requirements are in line 
with other similar international requirements.
    Under this first option, the Department is considering requiring an 
airline to pay compensation of $300 USD to a passenger whose arrival at 
the final stop of a domestic flight is delayed at least three hours but 
less than six hours; $525 USD to a passenger whose arrival at the final 
stop of a domestic flight is delayed at least six hours but less than 
nine hours; and $750 USD to a passenger whose arrival at the final stop 
of a domestic flight is delayed at least nine hours.\100\ The 
Department is considering requiring an airline to pay $525 USD to a 
passenger whose arrival at the final stop of an international flight is 
delayed at least six hours but less than nine hours; and $750 USD to a 
passenger whose arrival at the final stop of an international flight is 
delayed at least nine hours. If the Department proposes this option, 
should it also include reduced compensation amounts for small airlines 
like the Canadian APPRs? Why or why not?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \100\ The Department rounded the converted values of Canadian 
compensation to the nearest $25 for purposes of providing 
compensation amounts for comment in this ANPRM. Conversion rates 
from Canadian to U.S. Dollars are provided in the docket at https://www.regulations.gov/docket/DOT-OST-2024-0062/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The second option the Department is considering is to require 
airlines to pay compensation based on the Department's hourly value of 
travel time savings for air travel from DOT's Benefit-Cost Analysis 
Guidance for Discretionary Grant Programs \101\ and the weighted 
average flight segment delay of flights delayed at least three but less 
than six hours, at least six hours but less than nine hours, and nine 
hours or more on flight segments within the United States using 2022 
and 2023 full-year domestic flight performance data collected by 
BTS.\102\ Under this second option the Department would require an 
airline to pay compensation of $200 to a passenger whose arrival at the 
final stop of a domestic flight is delayed at least three hours but 
less than six hours; $375 to a passenger whose arrival at the final 
stop of a domestic flight is delayed at least six hours but less than 
nine hours; and $775 to a passenger whose arrival at the final stop of 
a domestic flight is delayed at least nine hours. The Department is 
considering requiring an airline to pay $375 to a passenger whose 
arrival at the final stop of an international flight is delayed at 
least six hours but less than nine hours; and $775 to a passenger whose 
arrival at the final stop of an international flight is delayed at 
least nine hours.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \101\ The value was weighted by the proportion of travel that is 
business and personal. See U.S. Department of Transportation, 
Benefit-Cost Analysis Guidance for Discretionary Grant Programs, 
2024 Update (Dec. 5, 2023), Table A-2, p. 40, n. 2 and 3, available 
at https://www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/2023-12/Benefit%20Cost%20Analysis%20Guidance%202024%20Update.pdf. The value 
of travel time in air transportation is $47.70 per hour for personal 
travel and $80.20 for business travel, with a ratio of 88.2 percent 
personal travel and 11.8 percent business travel.
    \102\ The largest U.S. airlines report certified flight 
performance data for their domestic scheduled operations to BTS on a 
monthly basis. Based on 2023 BTS T-100 domestic market-based traffic 
data, these airlines account for more than 95 percent of domestic 
passenger air traffic. Bureau of Transportation Statistics, T-100 
Market Data, available at https://www.regulations.gov/docket/DOT-OST-2024-0062/. Additional information on the Department's 
calculations is available in the docket at https://www.regulations.gov/docket/DOT-OST-2024-0062/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In calculating the compensation amounts for the second option, the 
Department relies on the BTS data because that data is reported and 
certified correct by U.S. airlines to the Department. The Department 
recognizes that BTS data have some limitations as applied to this 
rulemaking. Notably, BTS only collects flight performance data from 
U.S. airlines for domestic flight segments, and the data does not 
reflect passenger trip delay. Accordingly, the data used to establish 
any compensation amounts from BTS data would necessarily be limited to 
domestic segment-based delays, not overall delays for passengers 
arriving at their destinations. The Department invites comment on 
whether it should use BTS data to establish any compensation amounts or 
whether an alternate data source would provide information more 
appropriate to establishing compensation amounts.
    To arrive at the dollar value for compensation for purposes of 
soliciting comment on option two in this ANPRM, the Department 
multiplied its estimated

[[Page 99775]]

weighted average arrival delay for each compensation tier (3-5:59 
hours; 6-8:59 hours; 9+ hours) \103\ by the Department's hourly value 
of travel time savings for air travel from DOT's Benefit-Cost Analysis 
Guidance for Discretionary Grant Programs. This hourly value of travel 
time savings for air transportation is $51.54.\104\ The Department 
developed its value of travel time savings ``to be used in all DOT 
benefit-cost or cost-effectiveness analyses.'' \105\ Although the value 
of travel time savings was not specifically developed for the purpose 
of assessing the value of time lost due to air travel delays, the 
Department views the factors used to establish the value of travel time 
savings--trip purpose, passenger characteristics, passenger income, 
mode and distance of transportation, and passenger comfort--are also 
potentially relevant to time lost due to air travel delays.\106\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \103\ Additional information about these calculations is 
provided in the docket for this rulemaking, available at https://www.regulations.gov/docket/DOT-OST-2024-0062/.
    \104\ See U.S. Department of Transportation, Benefit-Cost 
Analysis Guidance for Discretionary Grant Programs, 2024 Update 
(Dec. 5, 2023), Table A-2, p. 40, n. 2 and 3.
    \105\ U.S. Department of Transportation, Revised Departmental 
Guidance on Valuation of Travel Time in Economic Analysis (Sept. 27, 
2016) at 1, https://www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/docs/2016%20Revised%20Value%20of%20Travel%20Time%20Guidance.pdf.
    \106\ Id. at 4-7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department also closely reviewed the EU compensation regime 
when developing this ANPRM. The EU, like Canada, uses a three-tiered 
compensation system, but those compensation regimes have different 
criteria. Canadian compensation requirements are based on the length of 
a passenger's delayed arrival and whether the carrier is a large or 
small carrier.\107\ The EU compensation amounts are based on the 
distance and location of the flight (i.e., whether the flight is 
entirely within the EU), with a reduction of 50 percent if passengers 
arrive with delays of less than two, three, or four hours depending 
upon the distance and location of the flight.\108\ The EU applies the 
following requirements for compensation in the form of cash, electronic 
bank transfer, bank order or bank check for cancellations and delays of 
three hours or more unless the airline proves that the cancellation or 
delay is ``caused by extraordinary circumstances which could not have 
been avoided even if all reasonable measures had been taken.'' \109\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \107\ Canadian regulations define a large carrier as one that 
has transported a worldwide total of two million passengers or more 
during each of the two preceding calendar years. APPRs ] 1.
    \108\ EC No 261/2004, Articles 5, 7.
    \109\ Id. By court decision, the EU's compensation requirements 
also apply to delays of three hours or more. Joined Cases C-402/07 
and C-432/07, Sturgeon v. Air France, 2009 E.C.R. I-10923, ] 69.

                   EU Compensation Requirements \110\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Reduced
                                                        compensation if
                                     Compensation        rerouting is
                                                           provided
------------------------------------------------------------------------
All flights 1500km or less......  250 Euros,          Reduced to 125
                                   Approximately       Euros
                                   $278 USD.           (approximately
                                                       $139 USD) if
                                                       passenger arrives
                                                       less than 2 hours
                                                       later than
                                                       scheduled.
All flights entirely within the   400 Euros,          Reduced to 200
 EU and all flights between the    Approximately       Euros
 EU and a location outside the     $445 USD.           (approximately
 EU between 1500 and 3500 km.                          $223 USD) if
                                                       passenger arrives
                                                       less than 3 hours
                                                       later than
                                                       scheduled.
All other flights...............  600 Euros,          Reduced to 300
                                   Approximately       Euros
                                   $668 USD.           (approximately
                                                       $334 USD) if
                                                       passenger arrives
                                                       less than 4 hours
                                                       later than
                                                       scheduled.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Should the Department use a tiered model if it imposes compensation 
requirements or should the Department require a single level of 
compensation for all lengthy, controllable delays and controllable 
cancellations? A tiered approach based on the length of delay as under 
options one and two would be similar to Canadian regulatory 
requirements. It would also reflect that passengers lose more time and 
are likely to experience greater inconvenience and discomfort during 
longer delays and may provide added incentive for airlines to rebook 
delayed and cancelled passengers on replacement flights arriving close 
to the passengers' originally scheduled arrival times. Instead of a 
tiered approach based on length of delay, should the Department adopt a 
different compensation model, such as a model more similar to the EU, 
with different compensation amounts applicable to domestic and 
international flights?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \110\ Conversions from Euros to USD estimated based on the 
conversion rate on the Forbes Advisory website on September 16, 
2024.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    If the Department requires airlines to pay compensation, what 
methodology should the Department use to establish compensation 
amounts? Should the Department establish compensation amounts using a 
methodology that provides compensation based on the value of a 
passenger's lost time, such as the methodology in option two discussed 
above that would calculate compensation amounts using the Department's 
hourly value of travel time savings for air travel from DOT's Benefit-
Cost Analysis Guidance for Discretionary Grant Programs and BTS data on 
flight segment delays? \111\ Or, instead of determining any 
compensation amounts based on the value of a passenger's time, should 
the Department establish any compensation amounts with reference to the 
rates used in other jurisdictions as under option one? Are there 
additional or alternate data sources that the Department should examine 
in order to establish any compensation amounts? Should the Department 
consider a compensation requirement that includes periodic updates to 
compensation amounts, such as for inflation using the consumer price 
index or based on another method?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \111\ The value was weighted by the proportion of travel that is 
business and personal. See U.S. Department of Transportation, 
Benefit-Cost Analysis Guidance for Discretionary Grant Programs, 
2024 Update (Dec. 5, 2023), Table A-2, p. 40, n. 2 and 3, available 
at https://www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/2023-12/Benefit%20Cost%20Analysis%20Guidance%202024%20Update.pdf. The value 
of travel time in air transportation is $47.70 per hour for personal 
travel and $80.20 for business travel, with a ratio of 88.2 percent 
personal travel and 11.8 percent business travel.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Should any compensation methodology impose lower compensation 
requirements on some airlines, similar to the current Canadian 
regulatory requirements which apply lower compensation requirements to 
small airlines, or exclude some airlines entirely? \112\ For example, 
should the Department impose lower compensation requirements on 
airlines that meet the definition of a small entity for purposes of the 
Regulatory Flexibility Act or

[[Page 99776]]

airlines that are small based on other criteria? \113\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \112\ See APPRs ] 19(1).
    \113\ Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act carriers that 
exclusively provide air transportation with aircraft originally 
designed to have a maximum passenger capacity of 60 seats or less or 
a maximum payload capacity of 18,000 pounds or less are small 
businesses. See 14 CFR 399.73.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Should the Department apply higher compensation requirements to 
those carriers that comprise a large percentage of domestic scheduled-
service passenger revenues (e.g., 10 percent or greater) \114\ or 
comprise a large number of total enplanements to and from the United 
States (e.g., have two million or more total enplanements to and from 
the United States)? \115\ Would higher compensation requirements 
further incentivize the largest carriers to make operational changes to 
reduce the prevalence of controllable cancellations and delays?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \114\ Four U.S. carriers, American Airlines, Delta Air Lines, 
United Airlines, and Southwest Airlines, comprised 10 percent or 
more of domestic scheduled passenger revenue in 2023, all with over 
15 percent. No other carrier comprised more than six percent of 
domestic scheduled passenger revenue. See docket at https://www.regulations.gov/docket/DOT-OST-2024-0062/.
    \115\ Eighteen foreign carriers exceeded two million total 
enplanements to or from the United States in 2023. See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Are there circumstances in which compensation requirements should 
not apply? For example, should compensation requirements not apply if 
the airline provides sufficient advance notice of the cancellation or 
delay? Among other options, the Department is considering not requiring 
compensation if the airline notifies the passenger of the flight 
cancellation or arrival delay at least eight days before the first 
scheduled departure for that part of the trip (e.g., before the 
scheduled departure for the first flight segment of an inbound or 
outbound portion of the itinerary). An eight-day time period is 
consistent with the BTS reporting rule which defines a cancelled flight 
as a flight not operated, but that was listed in the carrier's computer 
reservation system within seven calendar days of the scheduled 
departure.\116\ Under those rules, a flight removed for the carrier's 
reservation system more than seven days out are not reportable to the 
Department. Should the Department instead adopt a longer or shorter 
period during which any exclusion would apply, such as 14 days before 
the first scheduled departure? If commenters recommend a period longer 
than eight days, please provide a rationale for the recommended 
approach along any available data source that the Department can 
consult to estimate the number of flights that are cancelled more than 
eight days in advance of the flight. Should higher compensation 
requirements apply to cancellations and delays that occur closer in 
time to the scheduled flight to reflect the likelihood of greater 
inconvenience and costs to passengers from last-minute cancellations 
and delays? If so, at what point in time should higher compensation 
requirements apply?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \116\ 14 CFR 234.2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    What compensation, if any, should be required if a passenger does 
not accept any flight offered by the airline and instead elects to 
receive a refund? In that circumstance, should the Department require 
compensation in the full amount that would otherwise be required based 
on the earliest arriving rebooking offered by the airline? Is there any 
reason for compensation not to be required when a passenger decides not 
to continue travel because of a controllable delay or cancellation and 
receives a refund? Canadian regulations require the airline to pay the 
lowest level of its tiered compensation structure if the passenger 
elects to accept a refund rather than rebooking.\117\ Should the 
Department similarly require reduced compensation in those 
circumstances? If the passenger elects to receive a refund, should the 
Department require different compensation if the airline is unable to 
offer prompt rebooking (for example, because alternate flights are 
unavailable) than if the airline offers prompt rebooking?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \117\ APPRs ] 19(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    What compensation, if any, should be required if a passenger 
accepts rebooking, but does not accept the earliest flight offered by 
the airline? Should the compensation amount be calculated based on the 
earliest scheduled arrival of the itinerary offered by the carrier? The 
Department requests comment on whether there are other options that the 
Department should consider.
    Do certain groups of passengers, such as passengers with 
disabilities, encounter unique costs associated with significant 
cancellations and delays? If so, should a compensation requirement 
address the potential for increased costs for certain groups of 
passengers, and how should it address these costs?
(b) Form of Compensation
    The Department is contemplating requiring airlines to pay 
compensation in the form of cash or a cash equivalent for controllable 
flight disruptions rather than in alternative formats such as travel 
credits or vouchers or airline miles. In the Department's recent Refund 
Rules, the Department defined ``cash equivalent'' as a form of payment 
that can be used like cash, including but not limited to a check, a 
prepaid card, funds transferred to the passenger's bank account, funds 
provided through digital payment methods (e.g., PayPal, Venmo), or a 
gift card that is widely accepted in commerce.\118\ The Department does 
not consider a form of payment to be ``cash equivalent'' if consumers 
bear the burden for transaction, maintenance, or usage fees related to 
the payment. The Department notes that cash or a cash equivalent would 
provide the highest degree of flexibility to a consumer inconvenienced 
by a controllable cancellation or delay in how and when to spend the 
required compensation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \118\ See 89 FR 32833.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Should the Department propose to allow airlines to provide 
compensation in a form other than cash or cash equivalent, and if so, 
under what circumstances would a non-cash option provide more benefit 
to consumers? Given that cash or a cash equivalent has no restriction 
on how and where it can be spent, under what conditions, if any, might 
non-cash compensation with limited use represent a better option? If 
non-cash or non-cash equivalent compensation is an acceptable 
compensation option, are additional consumer protections needed to 
ensure consumers are treated fairly and to ensure fair competition? How 
would the Department determine whether consumers have received the 
required compensation value with non-cash alternative compensation 
options? For example, if airlines were to offer miles or rewards 
points, how would the Department determine whether the miles or points 
represent a dollar value equivalent to or greater than the compensation 
amount required, particularly for miles or points that expire, cannot 
be converted into cash or a cash equivalent, and/or have a dynamic 
dollar value that changes at the discretion of the airline? How would 
the Department ensure that any vouchers or airline miles provided as an 
alternative to cash or cash equivalent compensation provide a benefit 
and maintain a value equal to or greater than cash or a cash 
equivalent? What misleading or unfair practices, if any, may occur when 
airline miles, travel credits or vouchers, or other similar types of 
compensation are offered in lieu of cash or cash equivalent 
compensation?
(c) Automatic Compensation Payments
    Should the Department require airlines to make automatic cash or 
cash equivalent compensation payments to

[[Page 99777]]

consumers who are entitled to receive compensation? Under what 
circumstances, if any, should the Department require airlines to pay 
cash or cash equivalent compensation automatically, without requiring 
the submission of information by the consumer? What should a regulatory 
framework establishing automatic cash or cash equivalent compensation 
payment process look like to ensure automatic payments are provided 
effectively and efficiently to affected passengers? What information 
would airlines need to process automatic cash and cash equivalent 
compensation payments? Would cash-equivalent compensation (e.g., a Visa 
gift card) enable airlines to provide compensation without having to 
obtain passenger information, such as bank account information? If 
automatic compensation is required, how should the regulatory framework 
address disagreements between an airline and passenger about the 
compensation amounts or whether a given cancellation or delay was 
outside of the airline's control? Further, in cases where compensation 
is owed under the laws of multiple jurisdictions, how could a 
regulatory framework for automatic compensation enable passenger choice 
to receive compensation under the passenger's preferred regime?
    Instead of requiring automatic compensation, should the Department 
allow airlines to require passengers to submit requests for 
compensation? What would be the necessary elements of such claims 
process, if needed? Should airlines be required to accept compensation 
requests through airline websites, by email, or by phone? If the 
Department were to allow airlines to require passengers to request 
compensation, are there ways to ensure that all passengers get the 
compensation they are entitled to receive? For example, if one 
passenger submits a compensation request, should that be sufficient to 
trigger a requirement that all passengers on the flight receive 
compensation if owed? Should airlines be required to proactively 
provide a way to request compensation as part of a notification 
process? What other requirements might be necessary to ensure that a 
request process results in all passengers getting the compensation they 
are entitled to, ensure that the request process is easy to navigate, 
and ensure that compensation disbursement is prompt?
    In circumstances in which a third party, such as a private- or 
public-sector employer, has paid for a passenger's ticket, should any 
compensation be paid to the passenger or should it be paid to the 
third-party payor? Are there challenges to either approach?

(5) Meals, Lodging, and Transportation to and From Lodging

    As reflected on the Department's Airline Customer Service 
Dashboard, the largest U.S. airlines all currently guarantee in their 
customer service plans that they will cover a meal for passengers 
affected by a cancellation or delay within the airline's control that 
results in a passenger waiting three hours or more, and all but one of 
the largest U.S. carriers currently commit to providing hotel 
accommodations and travel to and from the hotel when there are 
controllable overnight delays and cancellations.\119\ Some of those 
airline policies contain limitations, for example, limiting their hotel 
guarantees to non-local passengers and limiting any reimbursements for 
hotels to reasonable costs.\120\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \119\ See https://www.transportation.gov/airconsumer/airline-customer-service-dashboard.
    \120\ See, e.g., Alaska Airlines Customer Service Plan, 
available at https://www.alaskaair.com/content/about-us/customer-commitment/customer-commitment-delay-care (guaranteeing a hotel only 
if the passenger is delayed overnight at ``an airport located 100 or 
more miles away from [the passenger's] home''), American Airlines 
Customer Service Plan (updated July 19, 2024), available at https://www.aa.com/i18n/customer-service/support/customer-service-plan.jsp 
(guaranteeing a hotel if the passenger is delayed overnight ``away 
from [their] city of residence'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 512 of the 2024 FAA Act requires the Department to ``direct 
all air carriers providing scheduled passenger interstate or intrastate 
air transportation to establish policies regarding reimbursement for 
lodging, transportation between such lodging and the airport, and meal 
costs incurred due to a flight cancellation or significant delay 
directly attributable to the air carrier.'' For the purposes of section 
512, ``significantly delayed'' means, ``the departure or arrival at the 
originally ticketed destination associated with such transportation has 
changed--(1) in the case of a domestic flight, three or more hours 
after the original scheduled arrival time; and (2) in the case of an 
international flight, six or more hours after the original scheduled 
arrival time.'' As explained earlier in this ANPRM, the Administration 
views the 2024 FAA Act to ``set a floor that the Department of 
Transportation could build on as deemed appropriate by the Secretary of 
Transportation.'' \121\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \121\ See Statement of Administration Policy, Senate Substitute 
Amendment to H.R. 3935--FAA Reauthorization Act of 2024 (May 8, 
2024), available at https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/SAP-SSA-HR3935.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(a) Service Standards
    Consistent with the Administration's position that the 2024 FAA Act 
is a floor, the Department is considering requiring airlines to 
guarantee in their customer service plans that they will cover the cost 
of meals when a controllable cancellation results in passengers waiting 
for three hours or more for a new flight or when a flight delay results 
in passengers waiting for three hours or more. This is consistent with 
the commitments that the large U.S. airlines have made at the urging of 
DOT. Should the Department use the three-hour delay threshold from the 
Dashboard for any meal requirements for both domestic and international 
delays? Or should it apply different thresholds, such as requiring 
airlines to cover the cost of meals for domestic delays of three hours 
or more and international delays of six hours or more?
    Canadian, EU, and United Kingdom regulatory meal requirements 
consider waiting time.\122\ Should the Department similarly require 
airlines to cover more than one meal for longer delays based on actual 
or expected length of delay, based on a daily per diem allotment per 
passenger, or based on another metric? Should the Department consider 
requirements ensuring airlines cover a meal with certain qualities, for 
example that the meal includes a non-alcoholic beverage and an 
entr[eacute]e or that the meal meets the dietary restrictions of the 
affected passenger?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \122\ The Canadian regulation currently requires airlines to 
provide ``food and drink in reasonable quantities, taking into 
account the length of the wait, the time of day and the location of 
the passenger.'' See APPRs section 14(1)(a). Similarly, EC 261 
requires ``meals and refreshments in a reasonable relation to the 
waiting time.'' Article 9(1)(a). The EU has further explained that 
this means that ``operating air carriers should provide passengers 
with appropriate care corresponding to the expected length of the 
delay and the time of day (or night) at which it occurs, including 
at the transfer airport in the case of connecting flights, in order 
to reduce the inconvenience suffered by the passengers as much as 
possible, while bearing in mind the principle of proportionality.'' 
EU Interpretative Guidelines. The United Kingdom's Civil Aviation 
Authority explains on its website that, in the case of a covered 
delay or cancellation, the airline must provide passengers with 
meals and hotel ``until it is able to fly you to your destination, 
no matter how long the delay lasts or what has caused it.'' See 
https://www.caa.co.uk/passengers/resolving-travel-problems/delays-and-cancellations/cancellations/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department is also considering requiring airlines to guarantee 
in their customer service plans that they will cover lodging for 
passengers affected by an overnight delay or cancellation or reimburse 
passengers for expenses incurred for lodging. If the Department 
proposes this approach, how should

[[Page 99778]]

``overnight delay or cancellation'' be defined? The Department notes 
that neither the EU nor Canadian regulations define when a delay is 
overnight for purposes of their requirements for overnight 
accommodations. How do those requirements apply in practice in those 
jurisdictions? Should the Department consider passengers delayed past 
10 p.m. or 11 p.m. to be affected by an overnight delay or cancellation 
and thus entitled to receive lodging, or is there another measure that 
the Department should consider? Should the original scheduled time of 
the flight and length of delay be considered in making this 
determination (e.g., a flight was originally scheduled for 9 p.m. and 
is delayed for two hours to 11 p.m.)? Should the Department use the 
three hours for domestic delays and six hours for international delays 
from the 2024 FAA Act to establish a minimum waiting time that must 
occur before a passenger would be entitled to receive overnight 
accommodation? How should the length of the delay impact lodging 
requirements when a consumer experiences excessive delay (e.g., 12 
hours) but the delay is not overnight? Should any requirement to cover 
lodging be based on the duration of the delay because the passenger may 
need to obtain lodging for multiple nights during an extended 
cancellation or delay?
    How should the Department define lodging? Should the Department 
define lodging to include types of accommodation beyond traditional 
hotels and motels, and if so, what types of accommodation should be 
included? Are there circumstances when an airline should be required to 
cover lodging with more than one bedroom for a traveling party, and if 
so, in what circumstances? How should a traveling party be defined?
    In addition, the Department is considering requiring any lodging 
provided by the airline must be reasonable in quality (i.e., a safe and 
healthy environment that is accessible to a passenger who self 
identifies as a person with a disability) and be nearby to the airport, 
when available. The Department seeks comment on any options that would 
ensure lodging requirements appropriately address passenger needs, 
including any standards to determine what is reasonable and nearby for 
the purposes of lodging, as well as any additional or different 
requirements that the Department should apply. The Department also 
requests comment on whether airlines should be required to cover 
ancillary lodging costs such as extra bedding, a baby crib, or parking 
at the lodging, and if so, which ancillary costs should be required to 
be covered.
    The Department is considering allowing airlines to limit lodging to 
non-local travelers as provided in some current airline policies. If 
the Department allows airlines to limit lodging to non-local travelers, 
how should the Department define which travelers are ``local''? If the 
Department does not require airlines to cover the cost of lodging for 
local travelers, should the Department require airlines to cover travel 
to and from the passenger's residence or airport parking costs 
associated with a controllable cancellation or lengthy, controllable 
delay for those travelers?
    The Department is also considering requiring airlines to guarantee 
in their customer service plans that they cover transportation to and 
from lodging to affected passengers, including transportation that is 
accessible to a passenger who self identifies as a person with a 
disability. What costs to and from lodging should airlines be required 
to cover? For example, should airlines be required to cover the cost of 
shuttle service, driver service such as taxi or ride share, rental car, 
or gas mileage for the passenger's vehicle or for friend's vehicle if 
picking up the passenger? Should the Department require airlines to 
cover the cost of a driver service such as a taxi or ride share to and 
from the lodging in all circumstances, or some circumstances, and if 
so, which circumstances should not be covered and why? The Department 
is considering allowing airlines to provide in their policies that they 
will not cover services if the passenger is provided sufficient advance 
notice of a cancellation or delay. If the Department proposes this 
approach, what time period should constitute sufficient advance notice? 
For example, should the Department allow airlines not to cover meals if 
the passenger is notified of the delay or cancellation at least 12 
hours in advance of the scheduled departure because the passenger is 
less likely to need to purchase a meal at the airport in that 
circumstance? Should any differing time periods apply to any 
requirements for meals and lodging and transportation to and from 
lodging? If so, why?
    What requirements for meals, lodging, and transportation to and 
from lodging, if any, should apply if a passenger accepts a refund, 
rather than rebooking, in the event of a controllable cancellation or a 
lengthy, controllable flight delay?
    Should the Department, under its authority to ensure ``adequate'' 
transportation in 49 U.S.C. 41702, extend any requirement that airlines 
cover the costs of meals, and lodging for overnight delays, and 
transportation to and from lodging to all cancellations and lengthy 
flight delays when the passengers are flying domestically, regardless 
of whether the cancellation or delay is controllable? Why or why not? 
Are there additional circumstances in which the Department should 
consider requiring these services?
(b) Upfront Services
    The Department is seeking comment on the best way to ensure that 
passengers receive the services they are entitled to, with minimal 
expense and hassle. The Department is considering proposing a multi-
tiered approach for airlines to provide meals, lodging, and 
transportation to and from lodging to passengers. Under this approach, 
an airline would be required to dispense all upfront vouchers or 
credits for these services as soon as the airline becomes aware of the 
flight disruption that triggers a passenger's entitlement to services, 
and, if the airline does not offer and provide those services upfront, 
then the airline would be required to reimburse passengers for the cost 
of those services.
    The Department is of the tentative view that passengers are best 
served when airlines cover the upfront costs of meals, lodging, and 
travel to and from lodging during flight disruptions so that passengers 
do not have to pay out of pocket for those services. Passengers may not 
have the means to pay for these unexpected costs, and some passengers 
may not be able to navigate the process of procuring some or all these 
services on their own. Under this option, the required services would 
be provided by airlines directly through physical or electronic 
vouchers, e-credits, or other mechanisms that ensure passengers receive 
the services upfront. The Department is concerned that airlines' 
current policies and procedures for distributing services upfront may 
be inadequate for meeting passengers' needs and may not be consistently 
or evenly provided, particularly during widespread flight disruptions. 
Airlines have disparate policies and processes for distribution and may 
not plan appropriately to have enough vouchers or credits to provide 
them to all affected passengers who are entitled to them. Moreover, 
frontline staff may lack training or instruction regarding when 
passengers are entitled to each of these services, what services are 
available upfront, who to prioritize when vouchers or credits are 
limited, and what costs will be reimbursed when

[[Page 99779]]

vouchers or credits run out or are not provided. Additionally, long 
waits to receive vouchers or credits for services may result in 
passengers giving up and paying for these services directly themselves.
    How should the Department define ``upfront'' in terms of process 
and timing? What, if any, requirements might be necessary to ensure 
that the manner and timeliness of distribution is adequately meeting 
passengers' needs? Does this option best address the Department's 
concerns, or would an alternate approach better ensure that passengers 
receive needed services with minimal expense and hassle?
(c) Reimbursements for Services
    The Department is contemplating proposing to require airlines to 
reimburse passengers for costs incurred for meals, lodging, and 
transportation to and from lodging when the airline fails to offer 
those services or those services are not offered and provided in a 
timely manner. In lieu of providing vouchers or credits, some airlines 
currently reimburse passengers for the costs of the services during 
wide-spread controllable disruptions. However, airlines do not 
consistently disclose when passengers are eligible for reimbursements 
for services and what costs the airlines will reimburse for and how 
much they will cover. Moreover, because the process for requesting 
reimbursement is different for each airline, it can be difficult for 
passengers to navigate, and the timing of the reimbursement payment is 
discretional and often lengthy.
    The Department believes frustrated and inconvenienced passengers 
may purchase a service that the airline should be providing if the 
passenger is unaware of when and where a service or voucher is 
available. How should any proposed requirements ensure that passengers 
are aware of the airlines' obligations to provide a service, so that 
the consumer would not purchase the service out-of-pocket expecting 
reimbursement? How should any requirements for airlines to provide 
reimbursements apply, if at all, if the passenger purchased the service 
themselves before the airline notifies the passenger that the airline 
will provide the service? Should the Department require airlines to 
offer passengers the option of choosing reimbursements even if the 
airline also offers to provide a service or a voucher for the service? 
Should airlines be required to provide documentation that the passenger 
received the service upfront in lieu of reimbursement, if so, what kind 
of documentation should be required?
(i) Automatic Reimbursements for Services
    The Department is considering how reimbursements for services 
should be provided, including whether reimbursements should be 
automatic or requested by the passenger. Due to concerns that the 
process for requesting reimbursements can be cumbersome for passengers, 
one option would be to require automatic reimbursements in some 
circumstances without submission of information by the passenger. The 
Department is considering requiring automatic reimbursement for a 
minimum amount after an established time period if an affected 
passenger does not submit receipts of their costs for meals, lodging, 
or transportation to and from lodging, and the airline has no 
documentation of the passenger receiving the service upfront. On the 
other hand, if the passenger submits receipts during that time period, 
the Department is considering proposing that the airline must reimburse 
the passenger for those expenses up to a pre-established maximum 
threshold for each service. The Department invites comment on what time 
period should apply to the submission of receipts and the minimum and 
maximum amounts for reimbursement if the Department proposes this 
approach. In addition, in both scenarios, the Department would consider 
requiring the airline to provide the reimbursement within a defined 
period and solicits comment on what that time period should be.
    The Department is seeking comment on this approach and what 
requirements would be necessary to ensure that it produces the expected 
outcomes for passengers. Under what circumstances, if any, should the 
Department require airlines to pay reimbursements automatically, 
without requiring the submission of information by the consumer? How 
would the automatic payment process work? Would an airline need to 
obtain a passenger's bank account information to process a 
reimbursement? Would cash-equivalent compensation (e.g., a Visa gift 
card) enable airlines to provide reimbursements without having to 
obtain passenger information, such as bank account information?
    Would establishing minimums and maximums make obtaining meals, 
lodging, and transportation to and from lodging more predictable for 
consumers during a cancellation or lengthy delay compared with current 
airline practices? If it proposes this approach, how should the 
Department determine the minimum and maximum amounts that airlines must 
reimburse consumers for these services? Should these values be 
nationwide or regional? Should the Department adjust these minimum and 
maximum values periodically to account for market pricing? Should the 
values for lodging be adjusted seasonally? Should any minimum payments 
for meals, lodging, and transportation to and from lodging, apply 
regardless of whether the consumer submits receipts? If the Department 
establishes minimum reimbursement amounts, should the Department 
require that if the airline offers a meal, lodging, or transportation 
to and from the lodging instead of providing reimbursement for that 
service, the airline must provide a service with equal value to the 
minimum reimbursement amount? How should that value be determined? 
Should the airline be required to provide reimbursement unless they 
present the passenger with documentation that the passenger received 
the service upfront?
    Instead of requiring reimbursements based on minimum and maximum 
cost thresholds, should the Department require airlines to provide 
reimbursements for ``reasonable'' costs? If so, how should the 
Department establish the amount of reasonable reimbursements in any 
proposal? For example, should the Department establish reasonable 
reimbursement amounts for lodging or meals based on what airlines 
provide their own crews, based on per diem rates established by the 
U.S. General Services Administration, or using another methodology? 
\123\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \123\ See https://www.gsa.gov/travel/plan-book/per-diem-rates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(ii) Claims for Reimbursement
    For passenger claims for reimbursements supported by receipts, the 
Department is considering whether it is appropriate to require airlines 
to approve and pay a complete claim or deny a complete claim, with a 
written explanation of the airline's reason for denying the claim if it 
does so, no later than a set timeframe after the complete claim is 
received. The Department invites comment on what timeframe should apply 
if the Department proposes this approach. If the Department does not 
propose automatic reimbursements for services during a set time period, 
should it establish a set time period during which passengers must 
submit claims for reimbursement, and, if so, what should that time 
period be?
    Should the Department place any limits on information that airlines 
may

[[Page 99780]]

request from passengers to process their claims or establish a minimum 
basis for what qualifies as a ``claim'' the airline must accept? What 
other requirements, if any, should the Department establish for any 
process for consumer-provided information? For example, should the 
Department require airlines to establish their own policies and 
procedures for which reimbursements will be approved and not approved, 
provide opportunity for passengers to resubmit claims if corrections 
are needed and establish an internal appeals process? Should the 
Department require that airlines make any claims process streamlined, 
easy to access, available at any time, and with clear and conspicuous 
instructions and disclosures of airline policies for compensation or 
reimbursements? Are there circumstances in which the Department should 
permit airlines to reject, rather than respond to, submissions that do 
not provide sufficient information to process the claim? If an airline 
rejects a claim for reimbursement because they provided the service 
upfront, should the airline be required to present documentation of the 
passenger having received the service?

(6) Cancellations and Delays Covered by Foreign Legal Requirements

    As previously discussed, EU and Canadian regulations require 
services and compensation similar to those on which the Department 
solicits comment in this ANPRM. How can the Department best avoid 
duplicative burdens on airlines? Are there provisions that are needed 
to ensure passengers receive favorable outcomes when more than one law 
applies to a controllable cancellation or lengthy controllable delay?
    Both the EU and Canadian regulations limit entitlement to 
compensation if the passenger has already received compensation for the 
same delay or cancellation in another jurisdiction.\124\ The EU 
regulation also limits entitlement to other services if the passenger 
has already received that service for the same delay or cancellation 
under another regime.\125\ The European Commission has further 
clarified that if a passenger accepts only compensation or a service 
(but not both) under a different regime, the passenger's entitlement to 
receive the compensation or service not accepted is unaffected under EU 
law.\126\ Should the Department adopt similar limits to those under EU 
and Canadian regulations? How do these limits operate in practice? Can 
airlines efficiently provide a consumer their choice of benefits when 
more than one jurisdiction's regulation applies to an event?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \124\ See CTA, Air Passenger Protection Regulations--Regulatory 
Impact Analysis Statement, available at https://otc-cta.gc.ca/eng/air-passenger-protection-regulations-regulatory-impact-analysis-statement (noting that ``passengers would only be able to receive 
compensation . . . if they have not already received compensation 
for the same event under a different regime''), see also EC No 261/
2004, Article 3.1(b). Canadian regulations clarify that mere 
eligibility for compensation under another jurisdiction's law is not 
a permissible basis for refusing compensation. See APPRs, ] 3(3).
    \125\ EC No 261/2004, Article 3.1(b); see also EU Interpretive 
Guidelines at C 214/7.
    \126\ EU Interpretive Guidelines at C 214/7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department is considering whether to require the airline to 
notify passengers of any differences in value of reimbursements, 
services, and compensation owed under any DOT requirements and the law 
of a foreign jurisdiction, if applicable, so that passengers would have 
the ability to accept a reimbursement, service, or compensation on an 
informed basis when the laws of multiple jurisdictions apply. The 
Department seeks comment on whether these options are appropriate, 
feasible for airlines, and benefit consumers, particularly if the 
Department were to decide to require automatic compensation and 
reimbursements. Would the value of services, such as lodging or a meal, 
likely be the same under any DOT-imposed requirement and the law of a 
foreign jurisdiction?

(7) Information Provided to Passengers

    The Department is concerned that airlines do not sufficiently 
inform passengers about their rights when there are controllable 
cancellations and lengthy delays that entitle passengers to services 
such as meals, lodging, and rebooking. To address harm to consumers, 
the Department solicits comment on whether to require airlines to: (1) 
notify passengers of the required or promised services, (2) disclose 
proactively whether the cancellation or delay is controllable and would 
entitle passengers to services, (3) respond to passengers' questions 
about reasons for disruptions and whether they qualify for services, 
(4) make information about services and reimbursements clear, easy to 
find, and accurate, and (5) explain the differences, if there are any, 
in the policies between codeshare partners for services and 
reimbursements.
    If the Department requires airlines to provide compensation or 
rebooking without charge or to cover the costs of meals, lodging, and 
transportation to and from lodging, should the Department require 
notifications of available compensation, rebooking, or costs of meals, 
lodging, and transportation to and from lodging? As discussed earlier 
in this ANPRM, at the December 2022 ACPAC meeting, the ACPAC 
recommended that the Department issue a regulation requiring airlines 
to notify affected consumers of the availability of services and 
amenities for controllable delays and cancellations, with three of the 
four members voting in favor of the recommendation.\127\ The Department 
is considering requiring airlines to promptly notify consumers when a 
required service, reimbursement, or compensation is owed. The 
Department is considering requiring airlines to provide such 
notification when the airline expects that an entire flight segment 
will be subject to a controllable cancellation or delay that would 
entitle the passengers to services, reimbursements, and compensation. 
As an alternative, the Department is also considering instead requiring 
individualized notifications when only some passengers on a flight 
would be owed compensation, rebooking, or a service (e.g., when some 
passengers on a flight miss a connecting flight due to a controllable 
cancellation or delay) and seeks comment on whether it is feasible for 
airlines to do so. Are there challenges to providing individualized 
notifications or to providing these notifications to passengers who 
purchase air transportation from ticket agents, and if so, how should 
the Department address such challenges? What would be the costs for 
airlines to provide individualized notifications?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \127\ See ACPAC December 8 and 9, 2022 Meeting Minutes at 26, 
available at https://www.regulations.gov/document/DOT-OST-2018-0190-0110.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Where and by what means should any required notifications be 
provided? The Department is considering requiring that airlines provide 
notifications on the carrier's primary website, to passengers who 
contact the airline's customer service representative, at the boarding 
gate area, and/or through a method that the passenger has elected to 
receive flight status notifications. Should these or different 
notification methods apply? Should the Department require airlines to 
establish reasonable policies, procedures, and/or training for airline 
customer service staff to ensure that staff provide passengers proper 
notification of available reimbursements, compensation, and services 
and provide services promptly where applicable? If airlines are 
permitted to require passengers to affirmatively request compensation 
or services, should airlines be required to

[[Page 99781]]

proactively provide information on how to make that request or provide 
a link or other avenue for submitting the request in any notification 
regarding the cancellation or delay? The Department also requests 
comment on what requirements are needed to ensure passengers who 
identify to airlines as persons with disabilities receive effective 
notification.
    What timing requirements, if any, should apply to any 
notifications? The Department is considering a proposal that 
notifications for reimbursements, services, and compensations must be 
promptly provided to consumers. If the Department should require prompt 
notifications, is additional clarification needed regarding when a 
notification is ``prompt?'' Should the Department establish a set 
timeframe following the occurrence of a cancellation or delay during 
which an airline must provide any required notifications? The 
Department would expect airlines to begin to provide notifications soon 
after the delay or cancellation rather than hours after it. Should 
different timeframes apply to any notifications about compensation and 
to any notifications about rebooking or services that are likely needed 
during or soon after the delay or cancellation?
    Should the Department require airlines to notify passengers in real 
time of the specific cause of a lengthy delay or cancellation? If so, 
how can the Department ensure that information provided by the airline 
is accurate?

(8) Timely Customer Service

    Section 505 of the 2024 FAA Act requires that air carriers selling 
tickets for scheduled passenger air transportation on an aircraft that, 
as originally designed, has a passenger capacity of 30 or more seats 
must maintain, without charge and available at all times: (1) a 
customer service telephone line staffed by live agents, (2) a customer 
chat option that allows for customers to speak to a live agent within a 
reasonable time, to the greatest extent practicable, or (3) a monitored 
text messaging number that enables customers to communicate and speak 
with a live agent directly. Section 505 authorizes DOT to issue such 
rules as may be necessary to carry out the requirement and provides 
that airlines must comply with section 505's requirements ``without 
regard to whether the Secretary has promulgated any rules to carry 
out'' section 505.
    In enforcement matters, the Department has taken the position that 
the practice of not providing adequate customer service assistance when 
a carrier cancels or significantly changes a passenger's flight is an 
unfair practice and also that the practice is deceptive when a carrier 
advertises a particular service to consumers as an available means of 
obtaining customer service assistance and fails to provide that service 
or fails to provide the service within a reasonable time period.\128\ 
However, the Department's regulations do not currently set forth 
specific requirements for timely customer service assistance or contain 
provisions addressing section 505 of the 2024 FAA Act. The Department 
is considering whether to propose minimum timely customer service 
requirements, particularly for passengers affected by cancellations and 
delays. Should the Department establish specific minimum wait times for 
customer service during or after a cancellation or lengthy delay, and 
what should the minimum wait times be or what should minimum wait times 
be based on? Should any minimum customer service wait time be based on 
the type of customer service the passenger seeks, for example, customer 
service about rebooking, refunds, compensation, etc.? Should the 
Department consider requiring airlines to make call center service 
available at all times during a disruption, regardless of whether the 
other means of assistance are available as well? Should the Department 
consider as an option letting airlines determine a minimum standard of 
customer service and requiring the airline to put it in their customer 
service plan? The Department invites comments on these options for 
improving the timeliness of customer service.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \128\ See Southwest Airlines Co., DOT Order No. 2023-12-11, 
Consent Order (Dec. 15, 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(9) Reporting and Recordkeeping

    What recordkeeping and reporting requirements should apply to the 
areas covered by this ANPRM, if any? The Department is considering 
proposing that airlines must submit periodic reports regarding 
compliance with any requirements adopted. The intent of this option 
would be to enable the Department to monitor airline implementation of 
and compliance with any requirements effectively and efficiently and to 
facilitate enforcement of noncompliance, when appropriate. Such reports 
may include, for example, information about cancellations and lengthy 
flight delays that the airline determined were controllable and not 
controllable and the specific bases for the carrier's determinations; 
information about notifications, services, reimbursements, and 
compensation provided; and information about requests for services and 
claims for reimbursements and/or compensation, including the airline's 
responses. Should the Department require reports and, if so, should the 
Department require airlines to report on a fixed interval? Should 
different reporting requirements, if any, apply to foreign carriers, 
and, if so, why?

Regulatory Notices

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

    The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has determined that this 
ANPRM is a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866. 
Executive Order 12866 requires agencies to provide a meaningful 
opportunity for public participation. Accordingly, we have asked 
commenters to answer a variety of questions to elicit practical 
information about alternative approaches and relevant data. These 
comments will help the Department evaluate whether a NPRM is needed and 
if so, the content of the NPRM. If the Department issues a NPRM after 
the completion of the comment period on this ANPRM, it will prepare a 
regulatory impact analysis for the proposed rule, assessing the 
potential benefits, costs, and transfers. The Department seeks any 
information, data, and analysis that would help the Department 
understand the economic impacts of the potential regulatory options 
discussed within this ANPRM.

B. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)

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

C. Executive Order 13175

    This ANPRM has been analyzed in accordance with the principles and 
criteria contained in Executive Order 13175 (``Consultation and 
Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments''). Because none of the 
options on which we are seeking comment would

[[Page 99782]]

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 13175 do not 
apply.

D. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    When a Federal agency is required to publish a notice of proposed 
rulemaking (5 U.S.C. 553), the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (5 
U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires the agency to conduct an initial 
regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA). An IRFA describes the impact of 
the rule on small entities (5 U.S.C. 603). An IRFA is not required if 
the agency head certifies that a rule will not have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities (5 U.S.C. 
605). Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, carriers that exclusively 
provide air transportation with aircraft originally designed to have a 
maximum passenger capacity of 60 seats or less or a maximum payload 
capacity of 18,000 pounds or less are small businesses.\129\ If the 
Department proposes to adopt the consumer protections discussed in this 
ANPRM, it is possible that it may have some impact on small entities. 
We invite comment to facilitate DOT's assessment of the potential 
impact of adopting the possible regulatory requirements discussed in 
this ANPRM on small entities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \129\ See 14 CFR 399.73.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

E. Paperwork Reduction Act

    Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), no 
person is required to respond to a collection of information unless it 
displays a valid OMB control number. This ANPRM is not covered by the 
Paperwork Reduction Act because it does not propose any new information 
collection burdens. If the Department proposes to adopt information 
collections in a NPRM, the burdens associated with such a collection 
will be analyzed at that time.

F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

G. National Environmental Policy Act

    The Department has analyzed the environmental impacts of this ANPRM 
pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 
U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and has determined that it is categorically 
excluded pursuant to DOT Order 5610.1C, Procedures for Considering 
Environmental Impacts (44 FR 56420, Oct. 1, 1979). Categorical 
exclusions are actions identified in an agency's NEPA implementing 
procedures that do not normally have a significant impact on the 
environment and therefore do not require either an environmental 
assessment (EA) or environmental impact statement (EIS).\130\ In 
analyzing the applicability of a categorical exclusion, the agency must 
also consider whether extraordinary circumstances are present that 
would warrant the preparation of an EA or EIS.\131\ Paragraph 
4(c)(6)(i) of DOT Order 5610.1C provides that ``actions relating to 
consumer protection, including regulations'' are categorically 
excluded. The Department does not anticipate any environmental impacts, 
and there are no extraordinary circumstances present in connection with 
this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \130\ See 40 CFR 1508.4.
    \131\ Id.

    Signed this 3rd day of December, 2024, in Washington, DC.
Peter Paul Montgomery Buttigieg,
Secretary of Transportation.
[FR Doc. 2024-28930 Filed 12-10-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-9X-P