[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 77 (Tuesday, April 22, 1997)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 19473-19477]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-10147]



 ========================================================================
 Rules and Regulations
                                                 Federal Register
 ________________________________________________________________________
 
 This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains regulatory documents 
 having general applicability and legal effect, most of which are keyed 
 to and codified in the Code of Federal Regulations, which is published 
 under 50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.
 
 The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by the Superintendent of Documents. 
 Prices of new books are listed in the first FEDERAL REGISTER issue of each 
 week.
 
 ========================================================================
 

  Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 77 / Tuesday, April 22, 1997 / Rules 
and Regulations  

[[Page 19473]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Office of the Secretary

14 CFR Ch. II

[Docket No. OST-96-993]
RIN 2105-AC36


Ticketless Travel: Passenger Notices

AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, DOT.

ACTION: Statement of compliance policy.

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

SUMMARY: The Department is issuing a statement of compliance policy 
that states that the ticket notices required by various DOT rules must 
be given (or be made readily available) to ``ticketless'' airline 
passengers no later than the time that they check in at the airport for 
the first flight in their itinerary.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This statement of compliance policy takes effect May 
22, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tim Kelly, Aviation Consumer 
Protection Division, Office of Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings, 
Office of the General Counsel, Department of Transportation, 400 
Seventh Street SW., Room 4107, Washington, DC 20590, telephone (202) 
366-5952. An electronic version of this statement of compliance policy 
will be available at http://www.dot.gov/dotinfo/general/rules/
aviation.html shortly after publication in the Federal Register.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    Various DOT regulations require U.S. and foreign air carriers to 
provide consumer notices on or with passenger tickets. These notices 
provide information about protections afforded by federal regulations, 
limitations on carrier liability, and contract terms that passengers 
may not otherwise be aware of. These ticket notice requirements are 
listed below.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Subject                          Source  (14 CFR)      
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oversales................................  Sec.  250.11                 
Domestic baggage liability...............  Sec.  254.5                  
International baggage liability..........  Sec.  221.176                
Domestic contract of carriage terms......  Sec.  253.5                  
Terms of electronic tariff                 Sec.  221.177(b)             
 (international).                                                       
Refund penalties (domestic)..............  Sec.  253.7                  
Fare increases (international)...........  Sec.  221.174                
Death/injury liability limits              Sec.  221.175                
 (international).                                                       
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Over the past few years, a number of airlines have introduced 
``ticketless travel,'' also known as ``electronic ticketing.'' Under 
this concept a passenger calls the airline, makes a reservation and 
purchases the transportation during the call, typically by credit card. 
Electronic tickets can also be purchased from travel agencies in many 
cases. No ``ticket,'' as that document has traditionally been 
configured, is issued. Instead, the passenger is orally given a 
confirmation number and/or is sent a written itinerary. Upon checking 
in at the airport the passenger simply provides his or her name, 
furnishes identification, and is given a boarding pass or other 
document that is used to gain access to the aircraft.
    The Department of Transportation supports the development of 
ticketless travel. The process has the potential to reduce carrier and 
agent costs, and thereby costs to consumers, and to make air 
transportation easier to purchase. At the same time, the Department has 
been concerned that necessary information in the ticket notices 
described above be provided to passengers in a ticketless environment. 
Consequently, on January 19, 1996, we published in the Federal Register 
a Request for Comments on the issue of passenger notices for ticketless 
transactions (61 FR 1309).

Comments

    We received 28 comments in response to the Federal Register notice. 
Three were from industry associations: the Air Transport Association of 
America (ATA), the International Air Transport Association (IATA), and 
the American Society of Travel Agents (ASTA). Eleven comments were from 
air carriers: United Air Lines, American Airlines, Delta Air Lines, 
Trans World Airlines, Continental Airlines, Southwest Airlines, Alaska 
Airlines, ValuJet Airlines, Western Pacific Airlines, Vanguard 
Airlines, and KLM Royal Dutch Airlines. We also received comments from 
four travel agencies (Costa Azul Tours and Travel, Carlson Wagonlit 
Travel, Meston Travel Center, and Vista Travel Service), four other 
organizations (Best Fares magazine, Airclaims, Ltd., QuickTix, and 
Stone & Webster Management Consultants), five individuals (Mr. Philip 
Sheridan, Mr. Laurence Hecker, Mr. Andrew Pickens, Mr. Peter Lyck, and 
Mr. Benjamin Dornic), and from Mr. Jeremy Silverman and Mr. Gregory 
Gerdes on behalf of their law school class.
    In general the industry commenters did not object to providing the 
notices that are currently required to be provided on or with tickets. 
However, they urged the Department not to prescribe the manner in which 
those notices are to be provided, e.g. the method or the time that they 
are furnished to electronically ticketed passengers. The travel agent 
commenters said that notice should be the responsibility of the 
airlines, and that travel agencies should not be expected to bear the 
cost. Most of the individual commenters said that electronically 
ticketed passengers should receive written confirmation of their 
reservation and fare in case there is a subsequent computer error.
    ATA said that it anticipates that the consumer protection notices 
that the Department's regulations require today will continue to be 
provided. ATA, IATA, ASTA, most of the air carrier commenters, and 
Airclaims, Ltd. said that consumer notices of the type provided with 
tickets should continue to be provided, but they oppose regulation of 
the method or time by which carriers must communicate those notices to 
ticketless passengers. This will allow distribution systems to be more 
flexible and therefore more responsive to the needs of passengers, 
according to ATA. It will also generate significant efficiencies, which 
ATA said is important in the industry's continuing efforts to provide 
economical air transportation. Many of these commenters said that 
regulating how and when the notices are to be delivered would impose 
costs without commensurate benefits, and could impede emerging 
technology.
    IATA said that it strongly supports electronic ticketing, and that 
it was still

[[Page 19474]]

developing standards for international and interline electronic 
ticketing. Although they opposed detailed rules, IATA and ASTA 
suggested that DOT should provide general guidelines for acceptable 
times and methods for providing consumer notices.
    Southwest said that 40% of its passengers are now ticketed 
electronically. The carrier said that it mails or faxes the consumer 
notices in question to its electronically ticketed passengers, but that 
it may want to modify this procedure in the future in response to 
consumer demand, new technology, or competition. Several of the 
carriers said that there are many ways to get adequate notices to 
passengers besides mailing them: for example, an annual mailing to 
frequent flyers, a receipt provided at the airport or travel agency, 
orally at the time of the reservation, on signs or handouts at the 
airport, a fax-back service that will fax notices to passengers who 
call a special number, or a notice screen for bookings that consumers 
make via the internet or other online services.
    ValuJet, a fully ticketless carrier, states that it currently 
provides effective, oral notice concerning the customer's itinerary at 
the time of the sale, as well as written notice when its customers 
board. It contends that having to provide written notices at the time 
of purchase would increase the cost of ticketless travel without 
commensurate benefit.
    Like ValuJet, Western Pacific and Vanguard are totally ticketless 
carriers. They both said that they have procedures for providing what 
they consider to be complete and timely notice to passengers. Like 
ValuJet, these two airlines provide oral notice at the time of purchase 
about important fare conditions, but do not provide any of the DOT 
notices at the time of purchase, orally or in writing, except to note 
that fares are non-refundable. All three carriers provide certain 
written notices upon check-in, although these do not necessarily 
include all of the DOT-mandated ticket notices or all of the required 
text from these notices. These three carriers also state that they will 
mail or fax written notices on request at any time.
    ASTA said that notice of the reservation and fare will be provided 
to clients ``when practical.'' ASTA suggests that general guidelines be 
issued for delivery of other consumer notices, but that details on when 
to provide the notices be left to the carrier or travel agency. If the 
Department identifies deficiencies, it can then impose a more detailed 
standard. For the moment, ASTA suggests that all of the consumer 
notices be posted at airports, where passengers are more likely to see 
them than in the fine print on tickets, which ASTA contends most 
passengers don't read.
    Several carriers and one travel agency chain advocated the concept 
of a voicemail or ``audio-text'' system in which passengers could be 
provided the choice of listening to recorded consumer notices at the 
end of a reservation call, or at any other time. ValuJet estimated that 
such a system could deliver a standard oral briefing by telephone for 
as little as 25 cents per call.
    Western Pacific described a menu-driven (``press 1 for baggage 
information, 2 for oversales information * * *'') voice system that it 
is studying to deliver all DOT standard notices, as well as other 
information. The carrier says this system would provide the notices in 
a timelier fashion than notices that arrive in the mail several days 
after a telephone purchase; Western Pacific said this would be 
particularly useful in the case of bookings made within a few days of 
departure. (Western Pacific said that 20% of its bookings are made 
within three days of departure; Vanguard said its figure is 10% to 
15%.)
    TWA said that carriers should not be required to provide notices to 
an electronically ticketed passenger who does not request a written 
confirmation, or who is offered the consumer notices but declines. TWA 
and Continental described ATM-like machines that issue boarding passes 
at airports, and can require passengers to choose whether or not to 
receive the terms and conditions of travel and other notices. They said 
that carriers should have the flexibility to deliver notices by means 
such as this.
    Generally, the individual travel agency commenters stated that 
notice should be the responsibility of the airlines and that it could 
be provided during check-in. Mr. Tom Parsons of Best Fares magazine, 
however, said that ``inspecting a contract at the airport gate is like 
reading the warranty on your new car after you buy it.'' Mr. Parsons 
said that the notices could be provided through the computer 
reservations systems; Airclaims, Ltd. suggested handouts at the point 
of sale. Neither of these proposals, however, indicate how the notices 
would be provided to persons who book by phone.
    Meston Travel said that it gives its ticketless clients a written 
confirmation of the reservation and fare and copies of consumer notices 
at the time of purchase. Vista Travel said that the cost savings of 
electronic ticketing have accrued to the airlines but not to travel 
agencies; Vista believes that the costs of any new notice requirements 
should be part of the cost of the transportation, and should not have 
to be borne separately by travel agencies. Vista did say that 
passengers should be provided documentation of their reservation and 
fare before they arrive at the airport, or they will be at the mercy of 
the carrier in the event of a computer error. Carlson Wagonlit pointed 
out that many carriers rely on advertising to defray the cost of ticket 
jackets, and that this could help support the cost of any notices that 
must be delivered to electronically ticketed passengers at the time of 
purchase.
    In the Request for Comments, the Department sought comment on air 
transportation purchases that take place via ``smart cards'' or online 
computer services. ATA said that these types of electronic tickets 
present no special issues. ATA asserts, as it does with regard to other 
forms of electronic ticketing, that the carrier should be free to 
determine the means of providing consumer notices. This could include 
providing notices when a passenger signs an initial smart card form, or 
electronic transmission of notices when transportation is purchased 
online. ASTA echoed this idea, and said the notices could be provided 
one time to regular clients similar to a ``signature on file'' 
agreement for credit card purchases.
    IATA supported the concept of allowing carriers to provide notices 
to users of smart cards at the time they enter into the agreement for 
the card, although IATA said that alternatively the notices could be 
generated each time the card is used. Delta said that it uses smart 
cards on its east coast Shuttle. The carrier said that it provides DOT-
required notices at the time a smart card is issued, and also makes 
them available at each smart card machine. IATA, several carriers and 
Airclaims, Ltd. suggested that members of frequent-flyer programs could 
be given the notices when they join the program, or annually. TWA 
asserted that 33% to 50% of all passengers (depending on the carrier) 
are members of a frequent-flyer program. United said that one-time or 
annual notices to frequent flyers combined with other programs to 
ensure reasonable notice to other customers would save costs without 
having an adverse impact on the traveling public.
    The Department requested comment on whether a passenger should be 
able to have an independent record of his or her reservation status. 
ATA said that electronic ticketing does not create any additional 
likelihood that a passenger's record will be unlocatable. Continental 
and Western Pacific said that the

[[Page 19475]]

confirmation number that is given to every electronically ticketed 
passenger is the passenger's evidence of his or her reservation. TWA 
said that the Department's concern over no-record passengers is 
understandable in a historical context, but that over the past decade 
there have been numerous improvements to CRS technology and that no-
record passengers are no longer a significant problem. The totally 
ticketless carriers that commented (ValuJet, Western Pacific and 
Vanguard) all said that they do not engage in deliberate overbooking 
and as a result have few oversales. IATA said that current scenarios 
contemplate some sort of confirmation being sent to passengers who book 
sufficiently in advance and that this is likely to contain confirmation 
of the reservation. However, IATA said, this should not be required by 
regulation.
    The Department requested comment on how carriers deal with fare 
disputes with passengers, particularly those who purchase tickets by 
phone. Both ATA and IATA simply asserted that this has not been a 
problem. The passenger's fare ``will be included on passenger 
receipts,'' ATA said. Western Pacific said that it experiences about 
the same rate of fare disputes as paper-ticket carriers. It believes 
most of these disputes arise from the customer's failure to listen 
carefully to the fare restrictions information or the reservation 
recap. Vanguard said that it has encountered virtually no fare 
disputes.
    However, a comment filed on behalf of a law school class by Jeremy 
Silverman and Gregory Gerdes said that several of the members of the 
class had had disputes over fares and reservations with ticketless 
carriers. They stated that carriers should provide written confirmation 
of the reservation and the fare to electronically ticketed passengers, 
and that this notice should be provided on a timely basis. They also 
noted the potential for problems in applying an unused electronic 
ticket to another flight (with payment of the appropriate penalty) 
after the departure date of the original flight; if the computer does 
not reflect the fact that the passenger did not use the transportation, 
the passenger does not have an unused flight coupon to prove this fact.
    Mr. Laurence Heckler also expressed concern over reservation, 
payment, and fare disputes and urged that carriers provide timely 
written confirmation of these matters. Stone & Webster Management 
Consultants stated that electronically ticketed passengers should 
receive a confirmation of the fare and reservation and the DOT consumer 
notices shortly after purchase. Costa Azul Travel said that it receives 
many complaints about ticketless travel, although it didn't describe 
them.
    On the other hand, Mr. Andrew Pickens asserted that the notices on 
paper tickets are unread and unnecessary. Mr. Philip Sheridan said that 
he has been using ticketless travel for six months on United and 
Southwest with no problems, and that the combination of the boarding 
pass and his monthly credit card statement are all the documentation he 
needs.
    The Department sought comment on the costs of various notice 
alternatives. Most of the comments on this point focused on the costs 
of providing written notice at (or shortly after) the time of purchase. 
According to ATA, the average current postage cost of mailing notices 
to electronically ticketed passengers is 40 cents per passenger, but 
this does not include other handling costs. Fifty million electronic 
ticket transactions per year would yield a mailing cost of $20 million, 
ATA said, while 150 million such transactions would cost $60 million.
    ASTA asserted that having to provide notices can be a significant 
cost factor (although it provided no figures). It highlighted the 
burden on agencies by citing the thin profit margins in the travel 
agency business resulting from changes in the commission structure and 
airline initiatives to sell directly to passengers.
    IATA provided no cost estimates, but said that distribution costs 
would be affected by the number and length of the notices. IATA said 
that the benefits of a DOT standard for consumer notices for 
electronically ticketed passengers would be legal certainty, 
consistency and uniformity, particularly in the international 
environment. Potential negatives would be extra costs, and any 
inconsistency between the required methods of distribution and the 
electronic ticketing process.
    ValuJet said that the cost of providing written notices at the time 
of purchase, particularly passenger-specific itinerary information, 
would be ``staggering'' in ValuJet's case. ValuJet and Western Pacific 
both said that major airlines have significant back-office ticketing 
systems that can be redirected at little incremental cost to print and 
distribute written itineraries and notices to ticketless passengers. 
ValuJet said that it would have to build such an infrastructure. It 
estimates that postage to mail its notices would be $88,000 per month, 
and additional distribution costs could be from $1 million to $2.33 
million per month, which would be 17% to 42% of the carrier's 1995 net 
income. Western Pacific estimated that mailing or faxing itineraries 
and DOT notices within three days of purchase would cost approximately 
$50,000 per month at present traffic levels. Vanguard estimated that 
providing hard-copy notices at the time of sale would add $1 to the 
cost of each of its transactions, or $2 million per year.

Discussion

    We have decided as a matter of compliance policy not to pursue 
remedial or punitive action if air carriers give, or make readily 
available, to electronically ticketed passengers the written notices 
required by the existing DOT ticket-notice rules no later than the time 
that the passengers appear at the airport for the first flight in their 
itinerary. We believe that this approach strikes the most reasonable 
balance at this time between ensuring that important information 
reaches consumers before they travel without inhibiting the development 
of electronic ticketing and imposing additional costs that might stifle 
industry innovations and result in higher prices for consumers. It also 
puts all carriers on the same footing with respect to ticketless 
notices; as a result of past DOT requests, many airlines currently mail 
or fax consumer notices to ticketless customers at the time of 
purchase, but some carriers do not.
    Most of the industry commenters in this proceeding objected to the 
prospect of specifically being required to provide notices at the time 
of the purchase. The policy that we are implementing will not do so, 
and thus will avoid imposing the costs of having to mail or otherwise 
deliver written notices to ticketless passengers before the date of the 
flight. We are particularly concerned about avoiding unnecessary costs 
for totally-ticketless carriers, many of which are low-fare, new-
entrant airlines. As noted by ValuJet, the burden of a requirement to 
provide written notices in advance of the flight would fall 
disproportionately on totally-ticketless carriers since they do not 
have the paper-ticket/mailing infrastructure of most larger airlines. 
As a result, we could envision higher prices for consumers without 
commensurate consumer benefits. The approach that we are taking will 
also address the concerns expressed by travel agents; no travel agency 
will be required to provide the current notices required with tickets 
to ticketless passengers.
    Ticketless travel is a dynamic and evolving element in the 
marketing of air transportation. The Department will continue to 
monitor developments in this field, and should consumer

[[Page 19476]]

problems related to inadequate passenger notice arise, we may propose 
additional requirements in the future. We strongly encourage airlines 
and travel agencies to work to avoid such problems, not only by making 
the DOT ticket notices available to ticketless passengers at the 
airport as required here but also by distributing them in other ways, 
including those suggested in the comments in this proceeding. For 
example, these notices could be included with newsletters or booklets 
of terms and conditions mailed to members of a carrier's frequent-flyer 
program or holders of the airline's affinity credit card or smart card, 
posted in online booking services and on the carrier's World Wide Web 
site, included in the carrier's printed timetables, or handed to 
passengers who purchase electronic tickets in person (e.g., at an 
airline's airport or city ticket office or at a travel agency). 
Airlines may also wish to consider making the notices available in 
recorded form on their reservations telephone lines (e.g., ``press 3 to 
hear important consumer information'') or establishing a fax-back 
service, where a consumer could call a certain phone number and have 
the notices faxed to him or her. We also encourage travel agencies to 
provide the notices during face-to-face transactions, or when the 
agency would be mailing other documents in any event. These various 
distribution methods would allow a passenger to be provided the notices 
as far in advance as possible before the date of the flight, and in 
many cases before purchasing the transportation. However, none of them 
entails the cost of an individual mailing to each purchaser.
    ASTA stated in its comments that the current notices in use by the 
airlines on regular ticketed transactions do not conveniently fit on a 
single sheet of paper while leaving room for other important 
information that consumers routinely want to have in writing. We would 
point out that much of the contractual language in notices on some 
carriers' conventional tickets is not required by DOT, but is placed 
there by the carrier for its own purposes. As we noted in our Request 
for Comments, all of the DOT notices would fit on back of an 8\1/2\ x 
11 sheet of paper, and if the international notices are not provided to 
domestic passengers the domestic notices would fit on one side of such 
a sheet. A sample of a domestic notice may be found at http://
www.dot.gov/general/rules/aviation.html.
    ASTA and other commenters also suggested that airport signs may be 
a superior method for providing notice to ticketless passengers. While 
we are reluctant to rely solely on airport signs as a means of 
passenger notice, we have decided to hold in abeyance a proposal that 
we published in the Federal Register on June 3, 1996 (61 FR 27818) to 
eliminate the required sign concerning oversales. We will publish a 
separate document in the Federal Register to accomplish this. The 
oversales sign will continue to be required until we have more 
experience with any potential oversale problems involving ticketless 
passengers.
    As a result of the policy described here, the notices that are 
currently required by DOT rules to accompany tickets will have to be 
given or made readily available to ticketless passengers in writing no 
later than when they appear at the airport for the first flight on 
their itinerary. We can envision several ways of accomplishing this:
    (1) Carriers could have a box or stack of the notice sheets on the 
countertop at each staffed position at the ticket counter and at each 
gate (since some passengers check in only at the ticket counter and 
others only at the gate), with the box or stack prominently labeled 
``Consumer Notices.''
    (2) Carriers could keep a supply of the notices at a central 
location within sight of all passengers near the ticket counter and 
also near the carrier's gates.
    (3) The carrier's agents could simply hand one of the notice sheets 
to each passenger as they check in at the ticket counter and at the 
gate, or hand it to every passenger at the ticket counter and at the 
gates have a supply of the notices in sight in one of the ways 
described above. The notice sheet would only have to be handed to a 
passenger checking in for the first flight on his or her itinerary, but 
carriers might choose to simply give it to all passengers in order to 
cut down on procedure and labor time.
    (4) Carriers could post a sign visible from each position at the 
ticket counter and at each gate briefly describing the nature of the 
notice (e.g., ``important consumer information'') and stating that a 
copy is available from any counter or gate agent upon request. (It 
would not be sufficient for a carrier to simply provide a copy of the 
notice sheet to passengers who request it, without posting a sign, 
since most passengers would not know that the notice exists.) If the 
notice sheet is to be provided only upon request, manuals and training 
would probably have to be updated to ensure that carrier agents are 
aware of the distinction between this notice and other written material 
that passengers are entitled to see upon request, e.g. the detailed 
notice about boarding priorities and denied boarding compensation (14 
CFR 250.9), the complete contract of carriage (14 CFR 253.4(b)), and a 
copy of the DOT rule on the rights of airline passengers with 
disabilities (14 CFR 382.45(d)).
    If a carrier chooses to provide the notices in question to 
ticketless passengers in advance of the flight date (as many airlines 
do now), the policy described here will not require the notices to be 
furnished to those passengers a second time when they check in at the 
airport.
    As indicated earlier, the Department sought comment on whether a 
passenger should be able to have an independent record of his or her 
reservation status in case a computer reservation record is lost. Based 
on the information currently available to us, we agree with ATA that 
electronic ticketing does not necessarily create any additional 
likelihood that a passenger's record will be unlocatable. However, 
there nonetheless appears to be the same likelihood of ``no record'' 
passengers as exists for passengers with paper tickets, and yet 
ticketless passengers will not necessarily have written evidence of 
their reservation. Continental and Western Pacific commented that a 
ticketless passenger's confirmation number is the evidence of his or 
her reservation; however, if a carrier cannot locate a passenger's 
reservation record in the computer, a confirmation number does not 
necessarily prove that the passenger had a reservation on that 
particular flight. It is questionable whether carriers would board a 
passenger based on a confirmation number alone. On the other hand, we 
note TWA's assertion that the Department's concern over no-record 
passengers is understandable in a historical context but that over the 
past decade there have been numerous improvements to CRS technology and 
that no-record passengers are no longer a significant problem. Our 
complaint data appear to support this: in 1996 we received only four 
consumer complaints against U.S. carriers about denied boardings caused 
by ``no record'' reservation problems. None of those complaints was 
about a totally-ticketless carrier.
    The Request for Comments also noted that a conventional paper 
ticket contains a record of the passenger's fare, whereas a ticketless 
passenger might not have proof of the fare that had been agreed to in 
the event a higher charge is posted to his or her credit card. Once 
again, however, consumer complaints filed with DOT show no clear 
indication of a problem in this area. In 1996 we received 52 complaints 
against U.S. carriers concerning alleged overcharges, but only one of 
them involved a totally-

[[Page 19477]]

ticketless carrier. The statistics do not indicate how many of the 
remaining complaints may have involved ticketless transactions, but of 
the 36 overcharge complaints against Major U.S. carriers (i.e., 
airlines with revenues over $1 billion per year), only three were 
against Southwest Airlines or United Airlines, two Major carriers with 
the earliest electronic ticketing programs.
    We have no rules that require reservation or fare information to 
appear on conventional tickets, and we will not require this 
information to be furnished in writing to ticketless passengers at this 
time. As far as we are aware, all airlines that offer electronic 
ticketing provide a paper itinerary showing the fare and reservation 
status either automatically or upon request. With most carriers, 
passengers also have the option of a conventional paper ticket if they 
prefer. A large percentage of ticketless transactions are paid for by 
credit card, and those passengers have the dispute-resolution 
procedures of the Fair Credit Billing Act available to them in the 
event of a problem. Nonetheless, we will continue to monitor complaints 
in these areas and will not hesitate to take further action in the 
future if it is warranted.
    Likewise, the Department will continue to monitor the evolution of 
ticketless travel and any consumer problems that may arise from the 
practice. The compliance policy stated herein will be reconsidered if 
circumstances so justify. However, before making any substantive change 
in the policy, we will provide public notice of our planned actions.
    We note that under present rules, certificated carriers must 
maintain consumer complaint records for a period of three years, flight 
coupons from tickets for a period of one year, and other records 
related to errors, oversales, irregularities, and delays in handling of 
passengers for a period of one year. (14 CFR 249.20.) While we see no 
need at this time to impose additional recordkeeping requirements on 
carriers using electronic ticketing systems, we encourage all carriers 
to maintain records sufficient and in such a fashion as to help the 
Department make informed decisions in the future in this important and 
evolving area of air transportation.
    The compliance policy set forth above is an attempt to provide 
carriers the maximum flexibility to develop their ticketless travel 
systems while at the same time providing a measure of protection to 
consumers from unfair or deceptive practices prohibited by 49 U.S.C. 
41712. At the same time, however, carriers may find it advantageous to 
continue to provide the written DOT ticket notices to ticketless 
passengers in advance or to consider implementing the innovative 
notification systems discussed in the comments submitted in this docket 
(some of which are summarized above). In this regard, carriers may 
ultimately decide that it is in their overall best financial interest 
to do so considering that the preemption protections of 49 U.S.C. 41713 
and 14 CFR 253.1 may not apply unless notice of contract of carriage 
terms is provided to ticketless passengers at the time of sale either 
orally or by contemporaneously mailed (or faxed, emailed, etc.) written 
notice.
    The policy described here does not affect the existing notice 
requirements for conventional paper tickets. Those tickets must 
continue to be accompanied by the written notices described in DOT 
regulations.
    Accordingly, it shall be the compliance policy of the Department 
that ticket notices required by Department regulations shall be given 
or made readily available to electronically ticketed passengers in 
writing in a manner such as described above no later than the time that 
they check in for the first flight in their itinerary.

    Issued this 8th day of April, 1997 at Washington, D.C.
Charles A. Hunnicutt,
Assistant Secretary for Aviation and International Affairs.
[FR Doc. 97-10147 Filed 4-21-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-62-P