Voglio sapere a riguardo di…

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 137 / Wednesday, July 21, 2021 / Proposed Rules
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS

seeks comment on whether this analysis accurately captures carriers incentives to work with passengers and provide baggage delivery or if there are other factors that were not considered that could cause carriers to engage in different behaviors in response to the proposed options. In addition, the Department seeks comment on whether allowing carriers to choose among these three options is reasonable and effective to achieve the goal of providing carriers and passengers the maximum level of flexibility, promoting efficiency in delayed baggage recovery, and ensuring passengers are treated fairly when their bags are delayed in air transportation.
In addition to comments requested on the previously discussed elements of the proposal, the Department seeks comment on the following issues:
a. Form and Evidence of Notification to Passengers For carriers that choose to have the clock stopped when a delayed bag has arrived at the intended airport and the carrier has notified the passenger that the bag may be picked up or, if the carrier offers and passenger accepts, that the bag may be delivered, what should constitute a sufficient form of notification to ensure that passengers receive adequate and timely information about the whereabouts of their bags before carriers are relieved from the obligation of refunding baggage fee?
Currently, most airlines provide ticket confirmations and other air travel information to passengers via email.
Many carriers also use mobile applications to provide various notifications and alerts to passengers, including reminders of check-in time, boarding time, gate information, and changes to flight status and baggage status. Some of these carriers allow passengers to opt-in to receiving notifications through email or text messages. Would push notices through mobile applications, email, and text message be sufficient constructive notice for the purpose of stopping the delayed baggage clock? Would contact via a voice call or message be sufficient?
If a voice call or message is a permissible form of notification, what evidence should a carrier be required to provide when there is a dispute between a carrier and a passenger about whether such a notification was provided? The proposed rule text does not specify what types of notification method are considered adequate. In that regard, should the Department adopt a notification standard that is performance based instead of specifying a particular notification method to be necessary for the purpose of stopping
VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:23 Jul 20, 2021

Jkt 253001

the delayed baggage clock? If any of these methods are acceptable, should the Departments focus be on the timeliness of the notification rather than the methods of notification?
In addition, carriers may not have contact information for some passengers, particularly passengers who purchased their tickets through ticket agents. The Department seeks comment on how carriers may notify passengers when they do not have valid contact information for a passenger. Could this problem be resolved by carriers obtaining contact information for all passengers when they file a mishandled baggage report for a delayed bag?
b. Timing of Notification to Passengers For carriers choosing option 2, which would have the clock stopped when the delayed bag has arrived at the intended airport and notification that the bag is available for pick-up was provided to the passenger, the Department proposes to add a third element to stop the clock, i.e., the bag is actually available for pickup. For example, assuming that a carriers baggage office at the intended airport closes at 10 p.m. and opens at 6
a.m.; when a delayed bag arrives at the intended airport at 1 a.m., and a notification was sent to the passenger at the same time through an automated push alert on the mobile application, the clock would stop at 6 a.m. the next morning when the bag becomes available for pickup, instead of at 1 a.m.
The Department is also proposing that the clock would still stop at 1 a.m. in circumstances when the passenger is contacted and expresses a preference that the bag be delivered and the carrier agrees to do so option 3 as that is the time that the bag arrived at the destination airport. The Department seeks comment on this additional element for option 2 for determining when a bag has been delivered.
4. Multiple Carrier/Ticket Agent Involvement and Responsibility The ANPRM
In the ANPRM, the Department sought comment regarding who should be responsible for issuing refunds when there are multiple parties involved in the collection of baggage fees and/or the transportation of the bags. These situations arise, for example, when there is a codeshare or interline itinerary in which the carrier collecting the bag fee usually the first carrier and the carrier responsible for bag delivery and receiving the delayed bag report usually the last carrier are different carriers, or when an itinerary is marketed by a third party such as a
PO 00000

Frm 00007

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

38425

ticket agent, and the third party collected not only the airfare but also the baggage fees.
Comments Received Airlines point out the difficulty they face in situations when the entity collecting the fee does not have information that the bag was delayed beyond the applicable timeframe and that a refund is due, while the carrier with the information about the delay may not have the payment information necessary for issuing the refund. With regard to ticket agents collecting baggage fees, most commenters, including airlines, consumer representatives, and ticket agent representatives, agree that when a ticket agent was authorized by a carrier to collect the baggage fee on the carriers behalf, the carrier should be responsible for issuing the refund.
ASTA further suggests that these agents may facilitate the refund by using the Electronic Miscellaneous Document EMD process, an IATA process that facilitates transactions involving nonflight ancillary services.
With respect to multiple-carrier itineraries, some commenters have suggested an approach that requires the carrier at fault for the delay of the bag to issue the refund; some commenters want the carrier that collected the fee to make the refund regardless of fault;
and others prefer that the refund amount be shared among the carriers on a prorated basis. Consumers Union commented that consumers should not be burdened with tracking down which airlines caused the delay.
DOT Response The Department agrees with the commenters that when a ticket agents role is to act as the agent of a carrier, collecting the baggage fee on the carriers behalf and passing on the fee to the carrier, the carrier should be responsible for issuing the refund when it is due. It should be noted that the functionality of EMD is controlled by individual airlines and that not all airlines use the EMD process. While the Department does not endorse EMD or any other products available to settle baggage fee transactions among carriers and ticket agents, the EMD process is an example of a system that could facilitate the smooth handling of baggage fee transactions and refunds. The Department expects carriers to work with ticket agents collecting baggage fees on the carriers behalf to ensure that refunds are issued in a timely manner.
In instances in which a ticket agent collected the baggage fee, the Department will hold the carriers responsible if passengers entitled to
E:FRFM21JYP1.SGM

21JYP1