[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 153 (Wednesday, August 10, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-19441]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: August 10, 1994]
========================================================================
Proposed Rules
Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of
the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these
notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in
the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.
========================================================================
VOL. 59, NO. 153
Wednesday, August 10, 1994
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Office of the Secretary
14 CFR Parts 257 and 399
[Docket Nos. 49702 and 48710; Notice 94-11]
RIN 2105-AC10
Disclosure of Code-Sharing Arrangements and Long-Term Wet Leases
AGENCY: Department of Transportation; Office of the Secretary.
ACTION: Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM); Denial of petition for
rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Department proposes to strengthen its current rules
requiring airlines to notify consumers of the existence of a code-
sharing arrangement or long-term wet lease whereby the operator of a
flight differs from the airline in whose name the transportation was
sold. This action is being taken to ensure that consumers have
pertinent information about airline code-sharing arrangements and long-
term wet leases on domestic and international flights. The Department
is proposing: (1) to require ticket agents (including travel agents)
doing business in the United States and foreign air carriers, as well
as U.S. air carriers, to give consumers reasonable and timely notice
that the travel they are considering purchasing will be provided by an
airline different from the airline holding out the transportation, and
to disclose the identity of the airline that will actually operate the
aircraft; and (2) for tickets issued in the United States, to require
U.S. and foreign air carriers and ticket agents (including travel
agents) to provide written notice of the transporting carrier's
identity at the time of sale of transportation involving a code-sharing
or long-term wet-lease arrangement. The Department also wants to
consider seriously a requirement to print the transporting carrier's
identity on the flight coupon for services involving a code-sharing or
long-term wet-lease arrangement. The Department is making this proposal
on its own initiative. In addition, the Department is denying a
petition filed in Docket 48710 by Donald Pevsner that requested a
complete ban on code-sharing arrangements.
DATES: The Department requests comments by October 11, 1994. Reply
comments should be filed by November 8, 1994. The Department will
consider late-filed comments only to the extent practicable.
ADDRESSES: Comments should be sent to the Docket Clerk, Docket No.
49702, Department of Transportation, 400 7th Street S.W., Room 4107,
Washington, DC 20590. To facilitate consideration of the comments, we
ask commenters to file twelve copies of each comment. We encourage
commenters who wish to do so also to submit comments to the Department
through the Internet; our Internet address is dockets@postmaster.dot.gov.\1\ Note, however, that at this time the
Department considers only the paper copies filed with the Docket Clerk
to be the official comments. Comments will be available for inspection
at this address from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday.
Commenters who wish the Department to acknowledge the receipt of their
comments should include a stamped, self-addressed postcard with their
comments. The Docket Clerk will date-stamp the postcard and mail it
back to the commenter.
\1\Our X.400 e-mail address is G=DOT/S=dockets/OU1=qmail/O=hq/
p=gov+dot/a=attmail/c=us.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Patricia N. Snyder, Office of
International Law, Office of the General Counsel, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 400 7th Street SW, Room 10105, Washington, DC 20590.
(202) 366-9179. The Department of Transportation studies noted in this
NPRM may be reviewed in the Department's technical library, 400 7th
Street SW, Room 2200, Washington, DC 20590, between 9:00 a.m. and 4:00
p.m., Monday through Friday; phone (202) 366-0746.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Several sources of information on airline services widely used in
the United States--most notably the Official Airline Guide and computer
reservations systems `` use a two-character airline designator code to
identify the carrier operating a flight. Code-sharing is the term given
to a common airline industry marketing practice where, by mutual
agreement between cooperating carriers, at least one of the airline
designator codes used on a flight is different from that of the airline
operating the aircraft. In one version, two or more airlines each use
their own designator codes on the same aircraft operation. Although
only one airline operates the flight, each airline in a code-sharing
arrangement may hold out, market and sell the flight as its own in
published schedules.
The term ``code-sharing'' also refers to other arrangements where
the code on a passenger's ticket is not that of the operator of the
flight, but where the operator does not also hold out the service in
its own name. Such code-sharing arrangements are common between
commuter air carriers and their larger affiliates. Arrangements falling
into this category are similar to leases of aircraft and crew (wet
leases).
The Department regulates all international code-sharing
arrangements as wet leases under 14 CFR Parts 207, 208, 212 and 218.
Although code-sharing and wet-lease arrangements can offer
significant consumer benefits, they can also be misleading unless
consumers know that the transportation they are buying will not be
provided by the airline whose designator code is shown on the ticket
and unless they know the identity of the airline on which they will be
flying. The recent growth in use of code-sharing, wet-leasing and
similar marketing tools, particularly in international air
transportation, has given the Department concern about whether the
current disclosure rules (described below) protect the public interest
adequately. This notice proposes to strengthen the rules and requests
public comment.
Benefits of Code-Sharing Services
In its examination of domestic airline interline practices, the
Department noted that only 10% of passengers on certificated air
carriers used interline services, indicating the strong preference of
passengers on connecting flights for on-line service. Interline
Practices in the Airline Industry at 24 (January 1986). There may be
even fewer today. Data for the quarter ended September 30, 1993, show
that interline passengers account for approximately 2.3% of total
passengers based on the Department's Passenger Origin and Destination
Survey. Code-sharing arrangements, which enable airlines to hold out
multi-carrier connections as on-line service, are, in part, a market
response to this demand for on-line service. Often, code-sharing
partners offer services similar to those available for on-line
connections with the goal of offering ``seamless'' service (i.e.,
service where the transfers from flight to flight or airline to airline
are facilitated). They may, for example, locate gates near each other
to make connections more convenient, or coordinate baggage handling to
give greater assurance that baggage will be properly handled.
In addition, airlines claim that code-sharing can help them operate
more efficiently, because they can spread costs by providing a joint
service with one aircraft rather than operating separate services with
two aircraft. Particularly in thin markets, this efficiency can
increase consumers' price and service options or enable the use of
equipment sized appropriately for the market. Thus, overall, the
Department believes that code-sharing can offer significant economic
benefits.
Code-sharing services have expanded significantly since USAir (then
Allegheny Airlines) set up the first code-sharing arrangements in the
1960s. A 1986 DOT study of the regional airline industry found that
code-sharing agreements were a prominent feature of the nationwide air
service network. A Study of the Regional Airline Industry at 80 (May
1986). The study also found that 16 of the 20 largest regional airlines
operating in the continental U.S. participated in a code-sharing
agreement with a major airline. Id. at 27. The Regional Airline
Association's 1993 Annual Report reported that by 1992, the largest 29
regional carriers were code-sharing, 36 of the largest 50 regional
airlines had code-sharing agreements, and 96% of regional airline
passengers flew on code-sharing carriers.
Similarly, international code-shares, which have existed at least
since the early 1980s, have expanded recently. Early international
code-shares tended to involve individual routes; the more recent trend
has been towards code-sharing agreements that involve total route
systems, such as the one between Northwest and KLM. Today, most major
U.S. airlines have code-sharing agreements with foreign airlines.
Benefits of Wet Leases
Some airlines perform some or all of their scheduled passenger air
transportation services by contracting for the equipment and crew of
another carrier (wet lease). Operating by wet lease can permit such
carriers to offer services that might otherwise be unavailable. The
flexibility to contract with other airlines for equipment and crew to
fill operational needs benefits the public by avoiding disruptions and
creating service alternatives that could not otherwise be provided.
DOT Regulatory Policy and Statutory Bases
Section 41712 of Title 49 of the U.S. Code (formerly Sec. 411 of
the Federal Aviation Act) authorizes the Department to decide if a U.S.
or foreign air carrier or ticket agent (including travel agents) has
engaged in unfair or deceptive practices and to ban such practices.
Under that section, the Department has adopted various regulations and
policies to prevent unfair or deceptive practices, such as the rules
governing computer reservations systems (14 CFR Part 255) and the
policy on fare advertising (14 CFR Sec. 399.84).
Although code-sharing and wet-leasing can afford public benefits,
they can also confuse and mislead the public unless prospective
travelers are aware of the arrangements before they select a flight.
Current DOT policy has dealt only with code-sharing, and has been to
consider the practice to be unfair and deceptive and in violation of 49
U.S.C. Sec. 41712 unless consumers are given reasonable and timely
notice of the existence of the code-sharing arrangement. 14 C.F.R.
399.88 (Docket No. 42199, 50 FR 38508, September 23, 1985). The policy
statement expressly applies only to U.S. air carriers, however. It
states that the obligation to give ``reasonable notice'' requires air
carriers, at a minimum to:
(1) Identify, with an asterisk or other means, each flight in
which the airline code is different from the code of the airline
actually providing the service, in written or electronic schedule
information;
(2) Provide information in any direct oral communication with a
consumer concerning a code-sharing flight sufficient to alert the
consumer that the flight will occur on an airline different from the
airline whose code is shown on the ticket and identify the
airline(s) actually providing the service; and
(3) provide frequent, periodic notice in advertising media of
the existence of a code-sharing relationship and the identities of
the airline(s) actually providing the service.
Thus, the current policy recognizes that, to be timely, notice must
be given during all discussions about a code-shared flight. Consumers
must be given clear notice before they make reservations or buy
transportation both that the service they are considering is on a code-
shared flight and of the actual operator's identity, so that they can
consider these facts in making travel purchase decisions.
When adopted, the policy statement on code-sharing disclosure was
not applied directly to ticket agents, since it was believed that
ticket agents would communicate important information to travelers to
retain them as clients. 49 FR 43709; October 31, 1984. Furthermore,
section 41712 of title 49 of the U.S. Code prohibits unfair and
deceptive practices by ticket agents, and Department rules also
prohibit ticket agents from misrepresenting the kind or quality of
service being sold. 14 CFR 399.80(c). In practice, the Department has
not expressly required ticket agents to disclose code-sharing
arrangements, although it would consider enforcement action against
ticket agents who misrepresent code-sharing services as single-carrier
services in response to specific inquiries.
Moreover, since there were few code-sharing arrangements between
U.S. and foreign air carriers at the time of its adoption, the policy
did not explicitly cover foreign air carriers. 14 CFR 399.88. To some
extent, the Department has since moved to address this matter.
Specifically, when the Department approves a code-sharing arrangement
involving a foreign air carrier, it now explicitly requires the foreign
air carrier to adhere to the requirements of 14 CFR 399.88 as a
condition of its approval. See, e.g., Order 94-5-35 (May 24, 1994).
Finally, although the earlier notification rule did not cover wet
leases other than code-sharing arrangements as then defined, other wet
leases appear to present similar opportunities to mislead consumers
into thinking that they are buying transportation from one carrier,
when in fact the transporting carrier will be different.
The Department continues to believe that the public interest is
best served by permitting carriers to engage in code-sharing and wet-
lease arrangements, so long as the public is given reasonable
notice.\2\ These arrangements can expand the price and service options
available to consumers. Moreover, several of our international
agreements specifically authorize code-sharing arrangements. We have
determined, therefore, to limit this rulemaking to whether more notice
is necessary to assure adequate public disclosure. We will not expand
it to entertain comments on other issues, such as whether code-sharing
should be banned.
\2\For this reason, we deny the petition for rulemaking filed by
Donald Pevsner in Docket 48710 to ban code-sharing entirely.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inadequacy of the Current Rule
Experience with the increasing number of code-sharing arrangements
in recent years, combined with consumers' receiving only haphazard
disclosure, has tentatively persuaded us to modify our rules. A recent
DOT enforcement investigation found that airlines and travel agents
failed to disclose code-sharing arrangements 30% of the time. In the
case of two particular airlines, failure to disclose was the norm. The
Department has taken enforcement action against those companies,
including the issuance of cease-and-desist orders, the assessment of
civil penalties and the issuance of warning letters. However,
enforcement action alone will not solve the overall problem.
Failure to disclose the relationship and the identity of the actual
flight operator is deceptive and can result in confusion, hardship and
inconvenience to consumers. It can also increase the costs of travel
unexpectedly. For example, the Department receives complaints from
consumers who mistakenly assumed that their carrier would use jet
aircraft, rather than propeller-driven aircraft. Consumers enrolled in
the frequent-flyer program of the airline whose code was on the ticket
have found that they got no or fewer miles when they flew on the code-
sharing partner's flights or that miles could be earned but not used on
such flights or vice versa. Consumers have reported not knowing where
to check in, a problem that can result in missed connections. Elderly
or physically challenged passengers needing particular equipment have
complained that the failure to disclose the code-sharing arrangement
and the actual operator's identity has inconvenienced them. Travelers
have only discovered at the airport that their flight was being
operated by an airline they preferred not to use, a situation that can
occur whenever a wet-lease arrangement is involved. Finally, consumers
have complained that a service held out as on-line was in fact
interline and there was no integration between the two airlines. These
problems can also occur with certain wet leases. The Department
believes that consumers can make travel decisions to avoid such
problems if carriers and ticket agents notify them adequately.
Proposed Changes
First, the Department has tentatively concluded that no basis
exists for differentiating among U.S. air carriers, ticket agents doing
business in the United States, and foreign air carriers in the
requirement to give full disclosure. Thus, we propose to expand the
rule to cover the latter two classes explicitly. Ticket agents
(including travel agents) sell about 80% of all airline tickets issued
in the United States. Secretary's Task Force on Competition in the U.S.
Domestic Airline Industry, Airline Marketing Practices: Travel
Agencies, Frequent Flyer Programs, and Computer Reservations Systems at
7 (1990). A requirement that applies to only 20% of ticket sales
affords the public too little protection. We therefore propose to
require ticket agents doing business in the United States and foreign
air carriers, when giving information about air transportation
involving code-sharing arrangements, to disclose these arrangements and
the identity of the transporting carrier, just as U.S. airlines are
currently required to do. This should not be a burden to ticket agents
since, to avoid misrepresentations, they are already required to tell
consumers when asked that the carrier holding out the service is not
the same as the one operating the flight. Ticket agents should also be
able to identify code-shared flights easily, since computer
reservations systems already identify them and airlines can update
those systems to reflect changes very quickly. As noted above,
extending the notice requirement to foreign air carriers merely
conforms our rules to agency practice when we approve code-share
applications. In this way, we hope to assure that all U.S. consumers
have a complete understanding of the transportation they are buying at
the time when they make a travel purchase decision.
Some domestic code-sharing arrangements consist of several commuter
carriers that operate under a ``network'' name, e.g., Northwest
Airlink, Delta Connection. In disclosing the transporting carrier for
purposes of this rule, it is permissible to use such a network name if
that is the name in which the service is generally held out to the
public. Since the purpose of this rule is to prevent confusion, we do
not wish to require disclosure of a corporate name that is not the name
used by the carrier to identify itself in airports or in advertisements
and will thus mean nothing to consumers. However, we remind airlines
and ticket agents that the proposed rule requires disclosure not only
of the name of the transporting carrier or network, but also of the
fact that this entity is not the one shown on the ticket. Since many
network names may connote a special type of service rather than a
different carrier, the transporting airline should be identified with a
statement such as ``our affiliate, Northwest Airlink'' or ``our partner
in travel, Delta Connection.''
Second, we also propose to require U.S. and foreign air carriers
and ticket agents (including travel agents) to provide written notice
of the transporting carrier's identity in conjunction with the sale of
any air transportation sold in the United States that involves a code-
sharing arrangement or long-term wet lease. The proposed rule would
therefore require that, if a separate itinerary is issued with the
ticket, the itinerary contain a legend that states ``Operated by''
followed by the name of the transporting carrier in conjunction with
the listing of any flight segment on which the designator code is not
that of the transporting carrier. In the case of single-flight number
service where a segment will be operated by a carrier other than the
carrier in whose name the transportation was sold, the rule would
require the carrier identity for that segment to be disclosed, e.g.,
``Service between XYZ City and ABC City will be operated by Jane Doe
Airlines.''
If no itinerary is issued, the proposal would require the selling
carrier or ticket agent to provide a separate written notice that
clearly identifies the transporting carrier for any flight segment on
which the designator code is not that of the transporting carrier. The
following notice would satisfy this requirement:
``IMPORTANT NOTICE: Service between XYZ City and ABC City will
be operated by Jane Doe Airlines.''
Many ticket agents and airlines already provide written information
that specifies the carrier that will operate the service on behalf of
the airline shown on the ticket. Thus, addition of this notice should
not be unduly burdensome.
The Department intends that this written notice be given to any
consumer buying, in the United States, air transportation involving any
arrangement whereby one carrier uses the code of another except for
short-term wet leases, as discussed below. The separate written notice
requirement would apply whether or not the consumer is given an actual
ticket to evidence the transportation, and it must be given or sent
when he or she buys the transportation. Further, the Department
tentatively concludes that it would not be acceptable to make this
written notice a standard part of tickets given to every consumer,
because consumers would not be able to tell from a universal notice
whether their particular flight was a code-shared operation.
However, the Department remains concerned that the appearance of
one carrier's designator code on the face of the ticket, or flight
coupon, when the service is in fact being provided by a different
carrier may mislead some passengers. In particular, we are concerned
that some passengers may rely on their flight coupons for information,
notwithstanding the presence of an itinerary. We are seriously
considering a requirement that, where the designator code on the ticket
is not that of the transporting carrier on any flight segment, there
must be printed on the flight coupon covering that segment (1) the
asterisk that already identifies flights listed in the CRS under an
airline code different from that of the transporting carrier; and (2) a
legend elsewhere on the coupon that states the transporting carrier's
identity preceded by the words ``operated by.'' This information is
already available in the CRSs, and the Department invites specific
technical comments on the feasibility and costs of implementation or on
alternative ways of providing the information on the ticket. Comments
should be supported by concrete data and economic analysis and should
contain sufficient detail to allow the Department to evaluate the
position advocated. If the Department were to adopt such a requirement,
it would be in addition to the separate written notice requirement.
The above oral and written notification requirements would apply to
most situations in which the operating airline is different from the
one in whose name the service is being held out, including code-sharing
arrangements and long-term wet leases. The Department believes that, as
a general rule, consumers are entitled to know both the identity of the
company that will be transporting them and the one holding out the
transportation.
However, the Department recognizes that periodically situations
arisewhere full disclosure is impractical or would be extremely
disruptive. For example, advance notification is impossible where an
aircraft is rendered unusable and temporary substitute transportation
is arranged at the last minute. For this reason, the Department
proposes to apply the rule only to long-term wet leases. The proposed
rule would use the same definition of long-term wet lease that appears
in other parts of the Department's regulations, i.e., a lease of
aircraft and crew that either lasts more than 60 days or is part of a
series of such leases that amounts to a continuing arrangement lasting
more than 60 days. The Department would nonetheless expect that, in the
interest of maintaining good customer relations, an airline or ticket
agent would make every effort to notify consumers of changes in the
operator of a flight that take place after they have purchased their
transportation.
Finally, the Department proposes to clarify the current obligation
of code-sharing partners to include clear notice about the code-sharing
arrangement in public advertisements. As written, the current policy
statement merely directs the partners to advertise the fact of the
arrangement and the identity of the actual operator periodically. To
comply, carriers have routinely included general and often
uninformative language in advertisements, whether or not they are
advertising code-shared services. We tentatively conclude that this
does not suffice. We consider that it would be more useful to the
public if the partners were required to include both the nature of the
operational arrangement and the identity of the transporting carrier
only when they are advertising services in a city-pair market where the
service is provided under a code-sharing arrangement or by long-term
wet lease.
Because the Department believes that the rule conforms in many ways
to prevailing practice, it believes that airlines and ticket agents can
implement the proposed changes at little, if any, cost. We invite
specific cost data to help us evaluate the cost to the industry of
complying with the proposed requirements if any commenter believes the
cost to be burdensome. In particular, the Department is interested in
comments regarding its proposal to cover all types of long-term wet
leases. Opponents of this aspect of the proposal should support their
comments with economic or other data that would assist the Department
in distinguishing among types of wet lease for the purpose of
protecting consumers from unfair and deceptive practices.
As discussed above, the Department also requests that commenters
address its concern that, despite the separate written notice that is
being proposed, the current approach to printing flight coupons may
mislead the consumer.
The Department recognizes that the airlines and ticket agents will
require time to implement the proposed separate written notice
requirement. The Department is proposing that the final rule be
effective 60 days after publication, but it requests comments on other
possible effective dates. In addition, we invite information about the
time necessary to implement inclusion of the transporting carrier's
identity on flight coupons if we should adopt a rule requiring this.
The Department also proposes to remove 14 CFR 399.88 of the Policy
Statements, since the proposed rule would replace it.
Regulatory Analyses and Notices
The Department has determined that this action is not a significant
regulatory action under Executive Order 12866 or under the Department's
Regulatory Policies and Procedures. The Department has placed a
regulatory evaluation that examines the estimated costs and impacts of
the proposal in the docket.
The Department certifies that this rule, if adopted, would not have
a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. Although many ticket agents and some air carriers are small
entities, the Department believes that the costs of notification will
be minimal. The Department seeks comment on whether there are small
entity impacts that should be considered. If comments provide
information that there are significant small entity impacts, the
Department will prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis at the final
rule stage.
The Department does not believe that there would be sufficient
federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a federalism
assessment.
Paperwork Reduction Act
The proposed rule does not contain information collection
requirements that require approval by the Office of Management and
Budget under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 2507 et seq.).
List of Subjects
14 CFR Part 257
Air carriers, Foreign air carriers, and Consumer protection.
14 CFR Part 399
Administrative practice and procedure, Air carriers, Air rates and
fares, Air taxis, Consumer protection, and Small business.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Department of
Transportation denies the petition for rulemaking in Docket 48710 and
proposes to add part 257 and to amend part 399 as follows:
1. Part 257 is added to read as follows:
PART 257--DISCLOSURE OF CODE-SHARING ARRANGEMENTS AND LONG-TERM WET
LEASES
Sec.
257.1 Purpose.
257.2 Applicability.
257.3 Definitions.
257.4 Unfair and Deceptive Practice.
257.5 Notice Requirement.
Authority: Sections 204 and 411, Pub. L. 85-726, as amended, 72
Stat. 743 and 769; 49 U.S.C. Secs. 40113(a) and 41712.
Sec. 257.1 Purpose.
The purpose of this part is to ensure that ticket agents doing
business in the United States, air carriers, and foreign air carriers
tell consumers clearly when the air transportation they are buying or
considering buying involves a code-sharing arrangement or a long-term
wet lease, and that they disclose to consumers the transporting
carrier's identity.
Sec. 257.2 Applicability.
This rule applies to:
(a) Direct air carriers and foreign air carriers that participate
in code-sharing arrangements or long-term wet leases involving
scheduled passenger air transportation; and
(b) Ticket agents doing business in the United States that sell
scheduled passenger air transportation services involving code-sharing
arrangements or long-term wet leases.
Sec. 257.3 Definitions
As used in this part:
(a) Carrier means any air carrier or foreign air carrier as defined
in 49 U.S.C. Sec. 40102(2) or 49 U.S.C. Sec. 40102(21), respectively,
that is engaged directly in scheduled passenger air transportation,
including by wet lease.
(b) Code-sharing arrangement means an arrangement whereby a
carrier's designator code is placed on a flight operated by another
carrier.
(c) Designator code means the airline designations originally
allotted and administered pursuant to Agreements CAB 24606 and 26056.
(d) Ticket agent has the meaning ascribed to it in 49 U.S.C.
Sec. 40102(40).
(e) Transporting carrier means the carrier that is operating the
aircraft in a code-sharing arrangement or long-term wet lease.
(f) Long-term wet lease means a lease by which the lessor provides
both an aircraft and crew, which either (a) lasts more than 60 days, or
(b) is part of a series of such leases that amounts to a continuing
arrangement lasting more than 60 days.
Sec. 257.4 Unfair and deceptive practice.
The holding out and sale of scheduled passenger air transportation
involving a code-sharing arrangement or long-term wet lease is
prohibited as unfair and deceptive in violation of 49 U.S.C. Sec. 41712
unless, in conjunction with such holding out or sale, carriers and
ticket agents follow the requirements of this part.
Sec. 257.5 Notice requirement.
(a) Notice in schedules. In written or electronic schedule
information provided by carriers to the public, the Official Airline
Guide and comparable publications, and, where applicable, computer
reservations systems, carriers involved in code-sharing arrangements or
long-term wet leases shall ensure that an asterisk or other easily
recognizable mark identifies each flight in scheduled passenger air
transportation on which the designator code is not that of the
transporting carrier.
(b) Oral notice to prospective consumers. In any direct oral
communication with a prospective consumer concerning a flight that is
part of a code-sharing arrangement or long-term wet lease, a ticket
agent doing business in the United States or a carrier shall tell the
consumer, before booking transportation, that the transporting carrier
is not the carrier whose designator code will appear on the ticket and
shall identify the transporting carrier.
(c) Written notice. At the time of sale, each selling carrier or
ticket agent shall provide each consumer of scheduled passenger air
transportation sold in the United States that involves a code-sharing
arrangement or long-term wet lease with the following notice:
(1) If an itinerary is issued, there shall appear in conjunction
with the listing of any flight segment on which the designator code is
not that of the transporting carrier a legend that states ``Operated
by'' followed by the name of the transporting carrier. In the case of
single-flight number service involving a segment or segments on which
the designator code is not that of the transporting carrier, the notice
shall clearly identify the segment or segments and the transporting
carrier. The following form of statement will satisfy the requirement
of the preceding sentence:
IMPORTANT NOTICE: Service between XYZ City and ABC City will be
operated by Jane Doe Airlines; or
(2) If no itinerary is issued, the selling carrier or ticket agent
shall provide a separate written notice that identifies clearly the
transporting carrier for any flight segment on which the designator
code is not that of the transporting carrier. The following form of
notice will satisfy the requirement of this subparagraph:
IMPORTANT NOTICE: Service between XYZ City and ABC City will be
operated by Jane Doe Airlines.
(d) Advertising. In any advertisement for service in a city-pair
market that is provided under a code-sharing arrangement or by long-
term wet lease, the advertising carrier or ticket agent shall clearly
indicate the nature of the service and shall identify the transporting
carrier[s].
2. The authority citation for part 399 is revised to read as
follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 40101, 40102, 40105, 40109, 40113, 40114,
40115, 41010, 41011, 41012, 41101, 41102, 41104, 41105, 41106,
41107, 41108, 41109, 41110, 41111, 41112, 41301, 41302, 41303,
41304, 31305, 41306, 41307, 41308, 41309, 41310, 41501, 41503,
41504, 41506, 41507, 41508, 41509, 41510, 41511, 41701, 41702,
41705, 41706, 41707, 41708, 41709, 41711, 41713, 41712, 41901,
41902, 41903, 41904, 41905, 41906, 41907, 41908, 41909, 42111,
42112, 44909, 46101, and 46102, unless otherwise noted.
Sec. 399.88 [Removed]
3. Section 399.88 is removed.
Issued under authority delegated in 49 C.F.R. Sec. 1.56a(h)(2)
in Washington, D.C. on August 4, 1994.
Patrick V. Murphy,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Aviation and International Affairs.
[FR Doc. 94-19441 Filed 8-5-94; 1:40 pm]
BILLING CODE 4910-62-P
